Mr. Speaker, it gives me no great pleasure to be here today speaking to this motion. I have been in the House since 1993. Prior to that I spent five years in the Manitoba legislature in opposition, so I have some sympathy for some of the concerns raised by the opposition.
When the member for Winnipeg—Transcona representing the New Democratic Party raises concerns about the use of time allocation to get the bill into committee, the use of restricting debate in an attempt to get the bill dealt with by the government, I have some sympathy with that. I have a fear at times that we move in ways that make it difficult for the House to give bills the consideration they deserve.
When I listen to what I hear coming from the New Democratic Party, the member in discussion with the minister last night raised some very legitimate concerns which I think the minister will think about. He raised some questions which I think we have to answer. That is what this process is for. That is why we have this kind of examination. It is to hear testimony, to listen to expert opinion, and to challenge each other about what we are trying to create so that we create a better piece of legislation.
I hear the Reform talk about it and the critic for the Reform raise concern about a majority of 50% plus one. It is a very important question. I appreciate his constant pressuring us to think about it. If we are not clear on how we feel about important issues as we approach this very important topic, we will simply do a disservice to everybody that we represent, no matter who we are in the House.
When I hear from the Progressive Conservative Party I feel a little saddened to see that once great national party take the kind of positions that it does and play the kind of divisive game it has chosen to play on this piece of legislation. Frankly, I have tried hard to understand the position of its leader, and I do not. I have considered the arguments very carefully. I know he will come before committee and I will undertake to listen to what he has to say.
When Bloc members stand in the House and talk about democracy, and when they talk about this being an affront to the people of Quebec because we are not being democratic in the way that we approach this bill, I reject that absolutely. I think the Bloc is exactly the wrong party in the House to lecture anybody in Canada about democracy.
What we are trying to do with this bill—and I thought it was talked about very eloquently today by the witnesses who came before the committee—is create a structure around the most important set of discussions our country could have. We are trying to put in place not the decision, not the end point, but the structure within which we have the discussion, something that is extremely difficult to do, to talk about the breakup of our country. Do we not owe it to all the people we represent, no matter where they live in Canada, to put in place a mechanism for having that discussion that allows us to do it in a peaceful and sane manner? We should not simply build upon the little nuances of the argument or inflame the debate for the sake of running up a motion so maybe we can get a decision. Does it not make sense, if we are going to approach such a discussion, that we do it in a way that will not cause more harm to those people to whom we are responsible? That is what the bill is about.
The bill has three clauses. The only thing one of the clauses says is “let us be clear”. If we want to talk about breaking up the country then let us ask the people if they want to break up the country, yes or no. Let us not play with it. Let us not run up motions.
For all the talk about democracy over here, it was the leader of that party who said “Why do we talk about partnership? Because we know that partnership represents seven to eight percentage points more support than the population. Therefore, we must think twice about clarifying the option. So what we will do is keep the options muddy. We will make sure people do not quite understand what they are getting in the vain hopes that they will vote for it”. Is that the way to go into this kind of decision? Does that produce the kind of environment that allows us to actually have this discussion? Does that represent honesty? Does that represent democracy?
I heard a statement which said that the minister was insulting Quebecers because he thought that the result was not clear and that was why we needed some clarity in this. The current premier of Quebec said that they had deliberately made it unclear in order to gain more support. Those are not my words, those are the words of the current premier of Quebec, the former leader of this party. I just do not think that the Bloc has the right to come in here and lecture anybody else in the House about democracy.
On the question of the percentage, I am thinking specifically of some of the questions that the member from the Reform Party raised. We all have this kind of instinctive sense that 50 plus one makes sense. It gives us one of those comfortable kinds of feelings. However, when we think about this, when we get away from the theatre of this place and away from the charged up atmosphere we get in here under the cameras and all the fighting and debating, which is all very exciting, we must come down to the point where we actually sit down and talk about taking apart the country. Do we not want to be certain that is the will of the people and not a momentary passion?
I think Professor Lebel was very helpful today. He certainly was very helpful to me as he walked through some of that trying to clarify it and trying to make debate real, not in terms of the debate that happens here but the debate that would happen if we were to ever reach that point around a series of tables with the entire population looking on. He said that before we go there, do we not want to be absolutely certain that is where we want to be. We have to be clear but we also have to be sure, and 50% plus one is just too narrow.
My friend, the parliamentary secretary to House leader, asked the obvious question. At the time that the supreme court released its decision, I was here and I went through it very carefully. I heard the Bloc saying that it was great and that it was a good decision by the supreme court. The supreme court said that there has to be a clear majority. If 50% plus one is not a clear majority, my friend asked, then what is an unclear majority? The supreme court clearly differentiated between one kind of a majority and another kind of majority. There is not a lot of room between 50% plus one and 50%.
There is another thing that causes me great conflict. I am from the west and I have not lived this issue the way some have. As a Canadian I have, because it has been a recurring theme throughout my adult life, but I have not lived it, in fairness to the members from Quebec, the way a Quebecer has.
When I came here in 1993, one of the first things I did was to meet up with the hon. member for Québec East in the gym. He taught at the University of Manitoba. He is a member of the Bloc and was the agriculture critic. I had been here for about a week when I met him and I said to him “Help me to understand this. Tell me what is going on”. He recommended a book, which I read. The hon. member for Mercier actually wrote a book and I got her book because I wanted to understand why, when Canada is such an incredible country, that someone would want to smash it apart.
I travel every summer and every chance I get I am in Quebec. I work with members of the Bloc on policy committees, on human resources and on foreign affairs and it is terrific. Those members make valuable contributions. When we talk about virtually every policy that we deal with, I find I often feel a lot more simpatico with members of the Bloc than, dare I say, with some of my companions from the west in the Reform Party, until we come to this question of breaking up the country. I do not see what we would gain or what the people we represent would gain by doing that. I certainly do not see what any of us would gain if we do it in an atmosphere of confusion.
