Government Responds to Progressive Conservative Leader


February 10, 2000
Ottawa, Ontario

Attached are the texts of letters sent today by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, the Right Honourable Joe Clark, in reply to his letter concerning Bill C-20.

- 30 -

PMO Press Office: (613) 957-5555


Ottawa, Canada
K1A 0A2

February 10, 2000

Dear Mr. Clark:

I would like to thank you for your letter of February 10, 2000, concerning the consideration of Bill C-20, An Act to give effect to the requirement for Clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference.

I have asked the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the Honourable Don Boudria, to review the issues you have raised. Enclosed you will find his response.

Sincerely,

(ORIGINAL SIGNED BY JEAN CHRÉTIEN)


The Right Honourable Joe Clark, P.C., C.C.
Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada
Suite 501, 275 Slater St.
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 5H9

February 10, 2000


The Right Honourable Joe Clark, P.C., C.C.
Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada
Suite 501, 275 Slater Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 5H9

Dear Mr. Clark:

The Prime Minister has asked me to respond to your letter to him of February 10, 2000, on parliamentary consideration of Bill C-20, An Act to give effect to the requirement for Clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference.

As you are aware, the House of Commons adopted shortly after 12:00 noon on February 10 a motion for Time Allocation of Second Reading on Bill C-20. This will enable Second Reading of the bill to be completed on February 10 and the bill to be sent to a Legislative Committee.

Your letter requested a delay of Time Allocation of Second Reading in order to allow "a reasoned amendment to improve the Bill" from a Member of your party. Parliamentary authorities make it clear that the purpose of a reasoned amendment is not to improve a bill. In this regard, a book titled House of Commons Procedure and Practice, by Messrs. Marleau and Montpetit states that:

"Where a reasoned amendment is ruled to be in order, the House must dispose of it. To date, there have been no instances in which the House has decided in favour of a reasoned amendment. If it were to do so, that would end debate on the bill, and the House would have to forego second reading of the bill. The order relating to the bill would disappear from the Order Paper." (Page 640)

Your proposal would therefore have the effect of killing Bill C-20 – it would not, as you suggest, improve the bill.

The House Legislative Committee will begin its work on Bill C-20 in the coming days. This will enable Members of Parliament to examine the bill in detail, to hear from witnesses, and to consider amendments to the bill. If your party intends to propose amendments to the bill, I would suggest that its Members in the House take advantage of the normal opportunity to do so at Committee stage.

Yours sincerely,

(ORIGINAL SIGNED BY THE HONOURABLE DON BOUDRIA)

The Honourable Don Boudria

c.c.: The Honourable Stéphane Dion


Return to regular web page:
http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/default.asp?Language=E&Page=archivechretien&Sub=NewsReleases&Doc=news_re200002101150_e.htm