[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, October 8, 1996
.1108 
[English]
The Chairman: We'll call this meeting to order.
We'll proceed directly to the first order of business, which is a bit of house cleaning. We had a meeting of the subcommittee on the agenda. Although we explained it to everybody and asked if everybody agreed, we didn't have an official motion to adopt the report from the agenda committee. So I will need someone to move the adoption of the fourth report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, which you have in front of you, which was held last week and which you have approved here anyway. Do I have that motion?
Mr. Duncan (North Island - Powell River): I so move.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: Thank you.
Are there any brief comments from anyone before we return to clause 6 of Bill C-39, and then Bill C-40?
We have a legal opinion that we requested. It seems that we will be presented today with an amendment to clause 6, which everyone agrees with, as I'm led to believe. I'm always open for surprises.
Mr. Patry (Pierrefonds - Dollard): Regarding clause 6 of Bill C-39, I just want to make a little modification on the preamble.
On the first line of the preamble, it is written right now that Bill C-39 in clause 6 should be amended by replacing ``lines 28 to 40 on page 2''. We need to change line 28. It's going to now read ``lines 31 to 40 on page 2''. We're changing line 28 to line 31, and adding ``and lines 1 to 3 on page 3''.
The Chairman: I understand you have agreement from -
Mr. Patry: Yes. And on the French version, there's one word that....
.1110
[Translation]
Clause 6 reads as follows:
6. Les personnes et les organes ci-après peuvent présenter...
Instead of ``peuvent présenter'', we would propose ``présentent''. The word ``peuvent'' would be removed, and the word ``présenter'' would be replaced by ``présentent''. I can give you the text on the proposed amendments.
The Chairman: Have you indicated the amendments on your document?
Mr. Patry: The amendments are written on the copy which I just gave to the clerk,Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chairman: As we peruse the document, I will ask every member if they are clear on what has been suggested.
Mr. Charles Bellemare (Procedural Clerk): Mr. Chairman, I was just wondering if he could clarify his intentions with regard to the first part of clause 7. As it is now, he is replacing this with the text that's here.
The Chairman: Clause 7 has been dealt with.
Mr. Bellemare: You're referring to lines 1 to 3 on page 3.
Mr. Patry: In the English version.
Mr. Bellemare: Yes, in the English version.
The Chairman: To bring us back to the last meeting, we have dealt with every clause. It has been voted and passed. We are only dealing with clause 6 today, unless this committee decides on a reopening.
Mr. Patry: Yes, Mr. Chair, I'm sorry about this. We were working yesterday not on the last version, but on the bill that's in front of the House of Commons. That means that the modifications on the English version do not apply. We remain with what was drafted in front of us this morning. There is no amendment for the English version. We'll remain with ``lines 28 to 40 on page 2'', because there's nothing on page 3.
The Chairman: Do I understand that we're dealing with the draft as printed without adjustment to the English version?
Mr. Patry: Yes. But on the French version, we're changing
[Translation]
the words ``peuvent présenter'' by the word ``présentent''.
.1115
[English]
The Chairman: The reason we're changing the French version is for it to be compatible with the English version. The legal counsel for the witnesses have been made aware of this study, and they agree.
Mr. Patry: Yes, they agree with this. I got a letter from them.
The Chairman: I suspect we all agree. Does anyone disagree?
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand, you need... Is that alright?
Mr. Bachand (Saint-Jean): Yes, but I have another small amendment I would like to propose later. First, we have to dispose of this one, don't we?
The Chairman: Yes.
[English]
First of all, I need someone to present the amendment. That hasn't been done yet.
Mr. Murphy (Annapolis Valley - Hants): I so move.
The Chairman: Are you moving it the way it was done or as suggested by Dr. Patry?
Mr. Murphy: The way it's suggested here.
The Chairman: Therefore, we are dealing with the main motion. We're not dealing with an amendment. But the main motion includes the comments of Dr. Patry. Does everyone understand where we are?
Okay. Any further discussion on the amendment to clause 6 of Bill C-39?
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand: I stated that I had another small amendment. Now is the right time to move it, isn't it?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Bachand: It may perhaps be a mistake in translation, but the French version speaks of ``personnes'' and ``organes''. It seems to me that the word ``organismes'' would be more appropriate.
[English]
Mr. Murphy: Good, Claude. I'm glad you brought that up.
Mr. Duncan: Have a heart, Claude.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Chairman: We're drawing attention to the French version. We're referring to
[Translation]
``les personnes et les organes''. The recommendation is to replace those terms by the word ``organismes''. Would you agree with including your recommendation in the motion, or would you prefer to propose an amendment?
Mr. Bachand: It can be included.
[English]
The Chairman: There's no necessity for an amendment. That comment and the result of it will be incorporated into the motion.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 6 as amended agreed to
The Chairman: Shall clause 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the bill carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the committee order a reprint for use at report stage? No need for that.
Shall I report the bill to the House as amended?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
We shall go through the same motions for Bill C-40.
On clause 6 - Claims
[Translation]
Mr. Patry: I have an amendment I'd like to propose. The amendment on Bill C-39 also applies to the French version of Bill C-40. The word ``organes'' should be replaced by the term ``organismes'', as proposed by our colleague. Is it included? Very well.
The Chairman: We agreed that it should all be included in the main motion, as amended.
Mr. Patry: I see. Very well.
[English]
The Chairman: Therefore, the same effects of Bill C-39 will be maintained for Bill C-40.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 6 as amended agreed to
The Chairman: Shall clause 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the bill carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall I report the bill to the House as amended?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. We've dealt with bills C-39 and C-40.
The next order of business, pursuant to its mandate under Standing Order 108(2), is consideration of the following motion:
- That this Committee urge the government to guarantee the rights of Canada's native people by
protecting their Canadian citizenship and their right to remain part of Canada, if they so desire,
in the event of a unilateral declaration of independence by the Parti Québécois Government.
Very briefly, I'll go over the motion. This was a motion that was presented by the Reform Party. It was received but not accepted by the committee, at which time we did some research. A decision was made to accept it. The steering committee decided it would be dealt with today. That's the order of business at present.
I offer the floor to Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I consider this motion to be a very important motion. The total territory we're talking about as being in question is estimated for the Cree to be about 240,000 square kilometres and for the Inuit about 560,000 square kilometres, all contained within the current provincial boundaries of the province of Quebec.
In October 1995 the Cree posed a referendum question, which, translated from the native into English, read:
- Do you consent, in the event of a Yes vote in the Quebec referendum, that the Quebec
government take the James Bay Cree and Cree traditional territories out of Canada?
In the same month the Inuit in the province of Quebec posed a referendum question, which, translated into English, reads: ``Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign?'' This vote occurred on October 26, 1995. The total Inuit population in Quebec is estimated to be about 8,000, of which 2,944 voted - this was a 75% turnout - and 95% voted not to be part of a sovereign Quebec.
On October 27 The Montreal Gazette reported that:
- ...if Quebec claims a right to secede from Canada, the Crees have the right to secede from
Quebec. That is the logic that constitutional expert and Bloc Québécois adviser Daniel Turp has
recognized.
- The Cree argue that if Quebeckers want to exercise their right to self-determination, they can
hardly deny the same right to the aboriginal population.
The federal minister of aboriginal affairs has been quoted many times on this issue. I'll forward three specific quotes at this time:
- The federal government will protect Quebec aboriginal peoples and their territories if the
province votes to separate.
- The aboriginal peoples are not cattle, to be transferred from one country to another.
- Separation and forcing certain regions of Quebec to leave Canada will lead to bloodshed.
I recognize that both Lucien Bouchard and Jacques Parizeau have dismissed claims that natives have the same right to self-determination as Quebeckers. They say the province's borders are untouchable, and that once Quebec is recognized as an independent state, the natives will simply be transferred to their jurisdiction.
When André Ouellet was in cabinet, he also backed up Ron Irwin's position in saying if Canada is divisible, then Quebec is divisible. A poll was taken in December 1995 by Southam News and the Angus Reid organization showing that 81% of those polled outside of Quebec agree that the federal government should stand by the aboriginals in Quebec.
The Quebec Cree commissioned a poll in December 1995 that found 63% of Quebeckers feel aboriginal peoples in their province have the right to remain part of Canada, and nationally 90% feel that way. This poll commissioned by the Cree also shows that clear action by the Chrétien government to keep the Crees and their resource-rich lands in Canada would influence almost a quarter of the former yes votes to vote no or become undecided in a future referendum in Quebec.
Stéphane Dion, also of the federal cabinet, is quoted as saying:
- Federalists and aboriginals have the right to secede from Quebec if the province separates from
Canada.
- Ottawa has various constitutionally enshrined obligations to aboriginals that cannot just be
transferred automatically to Quebec.
- The Government of Canada would insist upon the right of citizens within a seceding province to
remain part of Canada and to petition Parliament for that purpose. Changes to the boundaries of
both Canada and Quebec are therefore likely, with local referendums being used to determine
local preferences.
- The principle of local boundary determination applies particularly to the case of aboriginal
people who might choose to remain part of Canada.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand.
Mr. Bachand: We will discuss and decide today whether the proposal of my colleague is to be retained for the purposes of debate. He refused a number of arguments in support of his position. However, I must say that his arguments are unfortunately somewhat in contradiction with mine. I'd like to take a few minutes to refute them one by one.
First, I don't think anyone here will be surprised to learn that Quebec's position with respect to its territorial integrity and its future is that it is the people of Quebec who will decide on these issues. Allan Rock, Ron Irwin and Stéphane Dion can present as many arguments as they wish, but our position is that it is the Quebec people who will decide its future and its territorial integrity. I mention this because the issue is raised in our colleague's motion.
.1130
On that point, our positions are clear. I find that the position of Quebec is on solid ground, both legally and politically.
Therefore, I don't see how we can agree to an in-depth discussion of this question in committee when we can't even agree that a minister should be allowed to refer the matter to the Supreme Court.
I believe that the committee has an exaggerated notion of its powers itself and is really going beyond its mandate. That is my first point.
As regards the contents and substance of my colleague's motion, although I am not a great specialist in citizenship issues, I do nevertheless think it's important to remind everyone that the sovereignty option submitted in the last referendum did not prohibit anyone who became a citizen of Quebec from retaining their Canadian citizenship.
Similarly, it would be difficult to see how Canada would not agree to recognize Quebec citizenship if Quebec would become sovereign, while it allows people from around the world to retain their original citizenship if they wish to do so. However, as I said, I am not a specialist in citizenship issues.
As regards territorial integrity, I think it is important to present once again the traditional position of Quebec. This issue has two components, one concerning constitutional law, and the other international law. There is no line separating the two.
In a confederation or a federation, which is our situation today, constitutional law applies. On that point, the Constitution of Canada is clear. Section 43 stipulates that no decision to remove a part of Quebec, for example, can be taken without the agreement of the National Assembly itself. Similarly, in the case of British Columbia, if the Nisga'a people decided to become sovereign, you couldn't agree to them leaving. The Constitution says that the federal government cannot decide overnight to cut off part of a province, be it British Columbia or Quebec. You need the agreement of the provincial legislature concerned and the legislatures of the other provinces affected by such a measure.
Some might argue that the procedure provided for in section 43 of the Constitutional Act may perhaps be amended. Pursuant to section 41, in order to amend that provision, you need the agreement of seven provinces and 50% of the population of the country. I think that there are population groups living alongside federal territories also. I am not sure whether Manitoba and Saskatchewan would agree with amending that rule.
Therefore, according to Canadian domestic law, Quebec's position seems to me justified in constitutional terms. There is no valid legal argument for proposing the breakup of its territory or the removal of part of it. If, at the next referendum, the people of Quebec would decide to leave Canada while maintaining an offer of partnership, it would be international law which would apply.
International law uses a latin expression which sums up the whole situation: Uti possidetis, uti possideatis. Perhaps Mr. Patry, who studied latin, could translate it. Basically, it means that those who owned something continue to own it. This is an important principle in international law because it is important to maintain the stability of borders. The United Nations' Charter states that force may not be used to do so.
If force cannot be used, you can use legal arguments or arguments based on international law, as the Reform Party wishes to do. But international law is clear on that point also, you cannot move the borders of Quebec the day after the people have decided that they want full autonomy and sovereignty.
From a political viewpoint, I also find that the argument of our colleague is without foundation. In fact, following the proclamation of sovereignty, what is important for a new country is international recognition. On that point, international rules are quite flexible, because in international law the same rule cannot apply around the world. However, there are some principles which are clearly established and serve as precedents in international law, such as respect for minorities.
I don't want to get into a long debate on this. It seems to me that the anglophone minority is fully respected in Quebec. We know how successful Mr. Galganov was when he went to New York. The financiers there pointed out to him that the United States was wrestling with racial problems, whereas we did not have such difficulties in Canada.
.1135
I agree with that observation: the anglophone minority in Quebec does not have to deal with that kind of problem. They have their own health and education systems, as well as their own institutions. Such a level of respect is shown to few minorities around the world.
As regards aboriginal peoples, I think we also have a model for them, the James Bay Agreement. I don't want to come back to the statements my colleague made concerning the main impact and principal clauses of the James Bay Agreement. One of the points was that the aboriginal nations waived certain rights, and jurisdiction was transferred to Quebec. Moreover, this waiver is enshrined in legislation governing the Crees and the Naskapis. The federal government in fact approved this agreement.
I would also like to remind my colleague that he could be opening a Pandora's box with his proposal or if he continues along these lines. If you allow aboriginal peoples living in a province to remain in their country of origin, and not to be part of a new country, the following could happen. Aboriginal nations would be free not only to choose self-determination but also to secede. To the best of my knowledge, the Nisga'a people in British Columbia are still part of Canada. But if you take the approach proposed by my colleague, the Nisga'a people could go further and no longer wish to be part of Canada. Canada and Quebec might then become like a piece of gruyere cheese, full of holes, with pieces of legislation that are not necessarily consistent. The situation would become ungovernable.
I agree, with respect to self determination, that self-government should be granted. That is what we have done in the case of the Cree and the Naskapi, and what we are trying to do at the present time with the Atikamekw, so long as their laws are consistent with ours. We agree to recognize their culture and that responsibility for justice and education should perhaps be transferred to them, while ensuring that the legislation of each community is respected and consistent with that of Quebec and Canada.
However, to give them a complete right to secede, which would for example enable them to circumvent all economic legislation, with all the problems that would create,... We know that is already being done on certain reserves. Imagine what would happen if those problems were multiplied by 500 or 600 aboriginal communities.
Therefore, my colleague is opening a Pandora's box with his proposal, by venturing further into this area.
As regards the positions of Mr. Irwin and Mr. Dion... Look, some people even asked for the resignation of Mr. Irwin because it was considered that he showed little sense of responsibility by fomenting unrest among the aboriginal peoples living in Quebec by promising to defend them. I think that the federal government knows full well that the aboriginal nations in Quebec are well treated. Brad Morse, Assistant to the Minister at the time, recognize that himself, as regards conservation of the language, socioeconomic and sociocultural considerations, and recognition of the First Nations by the National Assembly.
These are well known facts. They realize full well that they are trying to phit the Quebec nation and the aboriginal nation against each other. We will fight against that because we consider that we in Quebec are models as regards the aboriginal peoples. I am not saying that we are perfect; we still have work to do. But I would say to you that the James Bay Agreement has served as a model everywhere in Canada. We don't have much to apologize for as regards the treatment of the aboriginal nations in Quebec.
I don't want to repeat myself because I have spoken for long enough. But I think that we are going beyond the mandate of our committee. As regards the position of Quebec and the motion as such, I don't want to debate that issue here. I have stated the arguments which the Government of Quebec has reiterated everywhere ad nauseam, explaining that legally and from the point of view of international law, the position of Quebec is irrefutable.
Therefore, for these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I would state that I am going to vote against the motion of my colleague.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bachand. Mr. Patry, as a member from the government side, you have the floor.
Mr. Patry: I certainly would not wish to get into a long debate with my colleague from the Bloc québécois on who owns what and continues to own it, or with respect to the infallibility of the Quebec government concerning secession.
I would particularly like to speak to the motion of my colleague from the Reform Party.
[English]
I feel this motion of my colleague from the Reform Party is totally redundant. First of all, the question of Quebec secession has been addressed by our Minister of Justice, and right now three questions regarding the secession of Quebec are in front of the Supreme Court of Canada. That's quite important to say right now.
.1140
I feel this motion is very paternalistic for the Inuit and the first nations of Quebec. I have very much confidence in the ability of the first nations and the Inuit of the province of Quebec to defend their rights and interests. These reasons are not the same reasons as those of my colleague from the Bloc Québécois, but I feel this committee should reject this motion totally.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Dhaliwal.
Mr. Dhaliwal (Vancouver South): Mr. Chairman, I don't think we need to spend a lot of time on this motion. Frankly, I think it's a waste of time. Sometimes you wonder why the Reform members are putting this motion forward. Their record on their concern with native rights is pretty clear in the House and in their voting. This is nothing more than political posturing on behalf of the Reform Party. I think we should get on and vote on it and get on to business, instead of wasting this committee's time.
The Reform members are always concerned about the time and money spent in government, but they come forward with motions like this. It reminds me a lot of the debate during South Africa and the trade sanctions. The British were always saying they were against trade sanctions because they were concerned with the blacks in South Africa and how they would hurt the average black out there; that's why they were against the trade sanctions. This motion reminds me of that debate that happened at that time.
So I would ask that we call the question and move on to other matters, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: I have a request to call the question.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton - Melville): I'd like to speak to this first, please.
The Chairman: Let me finish my sentence.
I have a request to call the question that will be put to a vote. The committee will decide if we call the question now, although I want to indicate to this committee that Mr. Breitkreuz had asked to say a few words and common courtesy would request that the mover be given the last word. I will say no more to influence the vote on the call for the question.
Our problem is solved. Beauchesne's requires that there be a vote when someone calls for the question, but it does not apply to committee, I'm told. Therefore, Mr. Breitkreuz.
Mr. Duncan: May I interject for a minute, Mr. Chair? I'm not sure what exactly the rules are, but -
The Chairman: There's no call for the question. Mr. Breitkreuz has the floor.
Mr. Duncan: As the mover, will I get another opportunity to speak after Mr. Breitkreuz?
The Chairman: As the mover, you will be the last to speak on the motion.
As we progress, if this is going to drag on, we will start limiting time, but I'd like everyone to have an opportunity to participate.
Mr. Breitkreuz.
Mr. Breitkreuz: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'll try to be as brief and succinct as I can. I think we have to reply to some of the things that have been raised.
It's important that the committee pass this motion, because it would indicate to Quebeckers, and to all of Canada, what the view of the rest of Canada is: that the aboriginal people should have the same rights as the rest of Quebeckers, and of course all Canadians. I believe we have to set aside partisan politics and recommend to the House as a committee - as a committee - that the government take the position that if Quebec can divide up the country, then by the same reasoning Quebec is divisible.
Of course I don't agree with Quebec breaking up the country. But we have to look at this in this light.
We aren't going beyond the mandate of this committee, as the member from the Bloc has already suggested. It is our duty to take a position on this. If one government, such as Quebec, can take a position on separation and any issues that are raised by that, then another government, one that has special agreements with part of that population in Quebec, has the right to make its position clear also, and that's what we're trying to accomplish here. We're not looking on Quebec's territory with envy, as was suggested. This is a matter of principle.
The phrase ``territorial integrity'' was used. That's a vacuous argument, to say the least, because by the same reasoning Canada could say that territory belongs to Canada, not to the Quebec government.
The member across the way over here also argued that these people are well cared for in Quebec. Again, that's irrelevant. The issue is whether these people have the right to remain in Canada, not whether they will be better off here or there.
.1145
The issue we are raising today is one of the key issues in the whole debate. Don't people who have settled in Quebec or who were there for centuries - with the understanding that they were part of Canada - have the right to remain in Canada?
I'll repeat that. Do those people who have been there for centuries or who have gone to Quebec with the understanding that they are part of Canada not have the right to remain in Canada? We, as a Parliament, must speak up about this.
This is not redundant, as was suggested over there. The issues may be before the courts. The courts and Parliament are two separate entities. Parliament needs to clearly indicate where it stands. Parliament passes the laws. The courts interpret those laws. We have to make sure to be clear as to where we stand on this.
That's why I think this is a very key motion, and I've tried to clearly and succinctly put those arguments forth in response to what the Parti Québécois have said.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Breitkreuz. Mr. Murphy, and then Mr. Harper.
Mr. Murphy: One of the things this motion does not take into account is the inherent rights of our native people. I believe we are moving in the direction of self-government with regard to our native people, and they can be their own guides.
As far as the motion goes, this committee doesn't have the right to be almost paternalistic with regard to our native people and say that we'll make the decision here for them as opposed to our native people making their own judgment and as opposed to their own inherent right to make that judgment. That's where I'm at. I think we're out of our league here. We're usurping the rights of our native people.
The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Harper.
Mr. Harper (Churchill): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I believe we have a government that's governing the country and we have to give the opportunity to the government to govern. The government has made a decision to address this issue. They've referred it to the Supreme Court of Canada, and whatever the decision may be, I guess we will act as a government and as leaders of this country.
So I support my colleague on this motion that we put the question as soon as possible. I think there is a way to support the aboriginal people. Indian Affairs has enunciated a number of policies on self-government and land claims agreements and things like that. We should address those policies. That's definitely the way to proceed, because we're not doing anything differently. I would proceed on that basis.
Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Harper.
Does anyone else have a comment? Monsieur Patry?
[Translation]
Mr. Patry: Before you give the final word to the mover of the motion, I must say that we have received a letter from Mr. Jack Anawak, the member for Nunatsiaq, who is replaced this morning by Mr. Dhaliwal and very effectively so I would add. In the letter Mr. Anawak states he is against the resolution as such. He does not say whether he is for or against the motion. I would just ask you to place this letter on the record of the committee and then circulate it to the other members.
[English]
The Chairman: The comment is in reference to a letter sent to us by member Jack Anawak, and I will read it to you. Do you agree? Of course his position is not one of support. Do you prefer that I just circulate it? I want to be fair to the opposition.
Mr. Duncan: How long is it, Mr. Chair?
The Chairman: Two paragraphs.
Mr. Duncan: Please read it.
The Chairman: He writes:
- Since I cannot be at next Tuesday's meeting, I am writing to express my views on the Reform
motion which will be discussed at that meeting. I am not in support of this motion.
- I have every confidence in the ability of the aboriginal peoples of Quebec, the Inuit and the First
Nations to define and defend their rights and interests in this matter. They know what to do and
how to do it. They don't need this committee's help or interference.
- Thank you for taking these views into consideration.
This is now part of the record.
Mr. Duncan, closing remarks.
Mr. Duncan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll try to respond to various members' comments.
In terms of the comments of Mr. Patry, that this is no more than paternalism coming from the Reform Party, there are two things I'd like to bring into play here. First, we do have a notice of motion that yesterday was sent to us as members of the committee from Mr. Harper. If my motion is paternalism, then what is that motion? I don't see a lot of difference. I think you may be attributing source rather than the actual content of the motion, which does concern me.
Further, I read this motion into the record at the foreign affairs committee last Thursday, with Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come in attendance. I asked him to comment on the motion. He certainly did not accuse me of paternalism at that point in time. As a matter of fact, I detected some degree of real interest in the substance of the motion.
In response to Mr. Dhaliwal's comments that this is no more than political posturing, yes, indeed, politics comes into what goes on in political parties in Ottawa. I would like to point out, however, that this is very consistent with the document on the question of Quebec succession, our 20/20 document, which has been around since January 1996. This is not just a convenient entry into this debate. We've been here for a long time.
There was a suggestion by Mr. Harper that maybe we should just blindly follow the decisions of the Supreme Court, or that maybe there was no role in influencing government policy coming from the committee.
I'd like to remind committee members that Standing Order 108(2) essentially sets out the role of what standing committees are here for. I quote:
- 2) The standing committees, except those set out in sections 3(a), 3(c), 3(d) and 4 of this
Standing Order, shall, in addition to the powers granted them pursuant to section (1) of this
Standing Order and pursuant to Standing Order 81, be empowered to study and report on all
matters relating to the mandate, management and operation of the department or departments of
government which are assigned to them from time to time by the House. In general, the
committees shall be severally empowered to review and report on:
(b) the program and policy objectives of the department
(c) the immediate, medium and long-term expenditure plans
(d) relative success of the department
(e) other matters, relating to the mandate, management, organization or operation of the department
So I indeed do believe it is our role to try to influence government in our deliberations.
.1155
My Bloc colleague talked at some length about this whole question, and indicated a great reluctance to talk about what he described as a Pandora's box. In my view, there's every reason to talk about it because it's a Pandora's box. It's our role as parliamentarians and responsible individuals elected to represent the various regions and constituents in Canada to bring up what's in a Pandora's box.
I consider much of the argument coming from my Bloc colleague to be bogus. Quebec is the province that is talking about separating. We are not hearing that from other provinces. So we're really not talking about self-determination; we're talking about the right of Canadian citizens to continue to reside in their country of choice.
I think, Mr. Chair, that concludes my comments. I would like to give my congratulations to you as chair for seeing this thing through, ensuring that we did have full debate on this motion I brought forward. It was put through the proper hoops, through the steering committee and so on.
The only thing further I would like to request is that this come to a vote and that the vote be recorded.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Before we proceed to the vote, although the mover has the last say, there may be occasion where some members would like to make a rebuttal that will not be accepted. But I will clarify two points. Mr. Harper did not say we should blindly follow the Supreme Court. I want that cleared up.
As well, in the list of things that are assigned to the committee, the regulations do say ``assigned by the House''. Therefore, when we receive a motion, it's debatable whether or not it's acceptable. We run an open committee. As long as we're able to work the way we did today, I think it's good for all.
We're ready for the question.
Motion negatived
The Chairman: Other business? Mr. Harper.
Mr. Harper: I had forwarded to you a motion. I leave it up to the chair as to whether you want me to elaborate on it. What's the proper procedure?
The Chairman: I'll explain the procedure, and it's certainly open to challenge by any member.
I am receiving this as a notice of motion, because it wasn't on the agenda for today. I will refer it to the steering committee, the same way we did with the previous motion. The committee will decide when it will be dealt with by this committee, with no debate on the notice of motion. A copy will be given to everyone.
Is that acceptable to you, Mr. Harper?
.1200
Mr. Harper: Thank you.
Mr. Breitkreuz: I have a point of order. With unanimous consent, could it not be dealt with immediately?
The Chairman: That's not a point of order. If he wants to push his notice of motion, he can call for unanimous consent.
Mr. Breitkreuz: Okay, sorry.
The Chairman: Unless you're calling for unanimous consent....
Mr. Harper: Mr. Chairman, I don't have very much to say about whether there is unanimous consent. I don't see much debate at all, myself.
The Chairman: The question is, do you want to request that your colleagues deal with this motion now, or do you wish to continue the way we had suggested: that this be a notice of motion, that it be put through the steering committee and that equal time and fairness be given to this motion as we've given to the Reform motion?
Mr. Harper: My concern is to give an opportunity to the members to read the motion.
The Chairman: Therefore we will receive it as a notice of motion to be dealt with as I suggested earlier?
Mr. Harper: Definitely.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Is there any other business?
The meeting is adjourned.