Debates of Feb. 10th, 1998

Supply

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is with great satisfaction that we heard the leader of the Conservative Party say that he has no problem supporting the motion put forward by the Bloc Quebecois. But he has questions about what the motion does not say. He speaks about reality and truth.

I want to remind him of a reality that is still very present, namely that of the constitutional deadlock. For thirty years all the political parties in Quebec have been asking for radical changes to the Canadian Constitution. Every single party was calling for it. At the time, we were hoping to be able to stay within Canada, to live happily under this constitution and to have the respect we deserve. Unfortunately, English Canada was acting as if Quebec did not want to lose Canada.

So far, Canada has never acted as if it did not want to lose Quebec. The roles have always been reversed, we were never taken seriously. Even the Charest report, the author of which just spoke in this House, gave all powers to Ottawa. The federal government did not listen to Quebec. It did not listen to the people's demands. From what it said, it looked like it understood us, but through its majority, it kept imposing its federalist and centralizing designs on us.

What happens in reality when a law is abusive or unfair? People will not obey that law. We saw it with cigarette smuggling. Because taxes were too high, very few people obeyed that law. The government did not take too long to understand what was going on and changed it. It lowered taxes so that people could be happy and proud to obey that law. That was not done with the Constitution.

Quebeckers have been saying for 30 years that they are unhappy with the Constitution and that they want changes. Each time Quebeckers said yes to Canada, in the two referendums, they did so because they truly hoped substantial changes would be made to the Constitution. But they were duped. Such changes were never made.

Canada got a wake-up call when 49.4% of Quebeckers voted yes in the last referendum. Canadians now realize, as the NDP member said, that it is no longer a game. Quebeckers mean business. If it were to become reality tomorrow, Canada might wonder whether it is prepared to lose Quebec. As for Quebec, it has already done its thinking, and an increasing number of Quebeckers realize that they are not happy to live in this country under current conditions.

Does the rest of Canada want to force Quebec to stay, even if it is not happy, to justify the notion of unity, as the leader of the Reform Party said? Is this the case? Do they want to force Quebec to stay against its will, because it is important to look united? This is the reality.

Can the Conservative leader tell me whether he agrees that this is the reality that makes us want to become a sovereign Quebec.

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to reply to the hon. member for Joliette and debate with him. First of all, not to flatter him, I think I can detect in his remarks a cri du coeur from someone who does not want Canada to break up.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

That is right.

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

He says that is right. He may well be reflecting the views of many Quebeckers who want this country to work, who want Canada to work.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

The reality is that it does not work.

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

They want it to work. The hon. member knows as well as I do—and we are going to tell it like it is—that the majority of constituents in his riding would like Canada to work. That would be their first choice. He knows it and I know it. It is important to point it out and it is important for those outside Quebec to hear this because we do not want to leave them with the impression that having a sovereignist government in Quebec means that a majority of Quebeckers are in favour of Canada breaking up. They are not.

Let us be more specific. The great majority of francophones in Quebec, those who vote and are concerned in this debate, feel profoundly attached to Canada and want the Canadian system to work.

I disagree with the hon. member for Joliette, however, in that I do not assess my country on the simplistic basis of the Constitution. I think of my country, Canada, with 300 years of history behind it and 300 more ahead, as more than a bunch of constitutional amendments. It is a partnership that was established between English and French-speaking Canadians in the early days of our country. That is how our language and culture were able to live on. That is how the British Empire at the time was able to keep this piece of land in North America. This is a partnership that evolved into a federation, an economic and social partnership reflecting the values shared by everyone who live here, whether French-speaking or English-speaking. That is the context in which I set my assessment of my country.

That being said, I will conclude by saying that, as I see it, regardless of our constitutional failures, anglophones and francophones alike view Canada as a great success that I care for, both for myself and for my children.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have my turn to speak to the Bloc Quebecois motion before the House today, which reaffirms, since the consensus is nothing new in Quebec, that it is for Quebeckers to decide freely their own future.

First of all, if I may, I shall make a brief comment on the words of the leader of the Conservative Party in which he rejoices at constitutional failures. Many conclude each time there is a failure that the system, at a certain point, is no longer changeable. That is what has led a growing number of Quebeckers to back sovereignty.

Many have done so because it strikes them as natural for a people to have all the tools necessary to manage and control its own future. Others came to that conclusion because of circumstances, when the inability of the present political system to meet their aspirations became evident, whether in accordance with the formula developed by Robert Bourassa around the distinct society or some other formula. They found themselves with the door shut in their faces, not only closed but locked as well.

We have moved from one constitutional failure to another. The difference between the hon. member for Sherbrooke and members over here is that we realize that, at some point, the thing must come to an end. Discussions cannot go on forever. I personally do not want to be here when I am 55, still talking about the latest constitutional failure, and about what ought to be done in the next round of negotiations in order to avoid another failure.

The hon. member for Joliette said that this has been going on for 30 years. I believe that 30 year point was reached 5 years ago. Now we are up to 35. We have been talking about it so long that we have stopped keeping track of the time.

In response to this federal strategy, what do we have in front of us now? What is comes down to, finally, is who is entitled to decide the future of Quebeckers and of the Quebec people. Ottawa's strategy, and the federal government's in particular, is clearly not unanimous. The Conservative Party clearly said it did not support them. For a number of reasons, we can believe that the New Democratic Party would not support them either, following the resolutions passed at its political conventions.

The future for the federal government has to be defined by others besides Quebeckers. By whom? By the justices of the supreme court? By people in the other provinces? Because in the end, the question they are putting to the supreme court is: if Quebeckers cannot do it, who can?

We can see clearly where they are leading us. Their traditional constitution amending formula involving provincial consensus. In the end, it means subjecting the future of the people of Quebec to the approval of a province, and I will let you decide on that. But you can clearly see that it would make no sense for the people of Prince Edward Island, and I have nothing against them, or the people of Newfoundland, Alberta or Saskatchewan, to have a veto over Quebec's future. It makes no sense. There is no basis for it, and on the very face of it, I think it should not even be considered.

What is Ottawa's strategy? They are playing both horses. On one hand there is the hard line of the minister, the one who told us during the last referendum campaign that Quebeckers had to be made to suffer to prevent the recurrence of such a situation, where we get a bit excited at expressing our deepest hopes. It is now implementing its plan, on the one hand toying with the concept of partition, and on the other asking the supreme court to rule the whole sovereignty issue illegal within the present constitutional framework; it keeps on making incendiary declarations right, left and centre.

Furthermore, the provinces are led to believe there might be a glimmer of hope for some changes. This is the kind of line the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party keeps on pushing, changes are possible. What does all this mean? Let us have a look. In Quebec, nobody is talking about the Calgary declaration. And yet, this is the great constitutional reform process Canada is currently promoting.

In about seven paragraphs, it sets out Quebec's uniqueness. A statement which is promptly watered down on four or five occasions by the fact that provinces are all said to be equal. These are profoundly contradictory pronouncements. If Quebec is truly distinct, meaning different, it should be given, through a formula yet to be determined, the tools to shape its own future. But the declaration is silent on this point. Quebeckers are told “You are unique, but you will be treated like everybody else”. So we are unique, period. End of story.

This is hard to sell. It is done in an underhanded way, on the Internet, and through a small questionnaire stuffed in an ad-bag so that nobody can see it. It is all hush-hush, but it will be passed by Parliament, possibly on a Friday afternoon, so that people do not talk too much about it.

In this way, they could say to Quebeckers, but not as loudly as during the referendum “See, we still love you”, to allow Daniel Johnson, the federalists leader in Quebec—officially, in any case—to campaign in Quebec and say that there is a willingness elsewhere to make changes.

Each time, they start again with a lower offer than the previous time. We are part of a distinct society, an interpretative clause in the Constitution, a different sharing of powers and the Meech Lake accord that included a number a things that were given to Quebec. Of course, that did not respond to the aspirations of all Quebeckers, but there were some elements in there.

No, it did not work, we started off with less the next time, Quebeckers were given less. Then there was the Charlottetown accord, rejected by all Quebeckers. Since this did not work, the federal government tried giving even less. Then they wonder why there are more and more sovereignists in Quebec or people who have drawn the conclusion that this system does not work. They want it both ways.

Now, our dear intergovernmental affairs minister has launched a philosophical debate in all this. He is a former university professor who wants to solve a deep academic issue, that is whether democracy exists within the law or the law exists within democracy. This is his pet subject and he wants to have his argument examined and validated by the supreme court.

The very foundations of democracy, and all of us here are products of democracy, provide that it is up to people to decide their future. It is not up to us to use all kinds of constraints, to put people in a straitjacket and tell them they cannot decide their future. What does a unilateral declaration of sovereignty imply? It implies that Quebeckers would, after an eminently democratic exercise—that is a successful referendum in which a majority of people would have supported sovereignty—decide to start the process to achieve sovereignty.

There is a stage in this process about which Ottawa is silent. We sovereignists have always said, in good faith, that we will negotiate with Ottawa. In fact, a period of one year was even provided for this in a draft bill tabled in the National Assembly. A transition mechanism was defined. Ottawa is assuming it will not work because the unilateral declaration of sovereignty will come at the end of the negotiations if an agreement is not reached. So, Ottawa starts from the premise that we will not be able to reach an agreement, that we will not want to negotiate, etc.. There is some bad faith here.

Ottawa admits it would not respect the democratic will of Quebeckers. Every now and then, the minister tries to tell us that he would recognize that will, provided it is expressed within the law. It is not true, because the minister would try to define how he would negotiate with Quebec. He would not be preparing the next stage, he would be preparing the first stage. I have no problems with Canadians discussing how negotiations should be conducted with Quebec, or who should represent them. I realize the Liberal Party has a problem, and I would be very surprised to see the current Prime Minister negotiate on behalf of Canada. They will not dare debate this issue.

The strategy is obvious: getting a Supreme Court decision stating that the Canadian constitution does not allow a unilateral declaration of independence on the part of Quebec, and that such a declaration would be illegal. We will then see the likes of Guy Bertrand come out in the open and tell us that we are thugs, armchair revolutionaries, and whatnot. Guy Bertrand has been the inspiration of all this. He is the one who launched this Ottawa strategy with the Reform leader breathing down his neck, and the intergovernmental affairs minister jumped on the bandwagon.

In conclusion, I would like to point out that the Bloc Quebecois is not the only one condemning this strategy. I will not have enough time to read all the quotations I have here, but let me give for the record the names of people who agree with us: Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte; Mr. Claude Ryan, the leader of the federalist no committee in 1980; Mr. Daniel Johnson, the leader of the no committee in 1995, and still the leader of the Quebec Liberal Party—he is therefore the current leader of the Quebec federalists; Mr. Lucien Bouchard; Mr. Alain Dubuc; the hon. member for Sherbrooke; the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois; Mr. Alain Pellet, chairman of the UN International Law Commission; Mr. Gordon Wilson, a constitutional adviser to the B.C. premier. There are many more. This consensus which is building up extends beyond Quebec borders at the international level.

The federal government should recognize the obvious. Its strategy of using the Supreme Court for its own purposes should be set aside. It should in good faith let Quebeckers decide freely their own future like everybody wants them to and let the discussions in the coming years deal with this issue.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Témiscamingue for this overview that was much too brief for lack of time. I will try to be brief in my question in order to give him ample time to answer.

I would like my colleague to elaborate on a vital aspect of this reference to the Supreme Court. Is it acceptable, in 1998, in a democracy, for a government to refer such matters to a court, its own creation, consisting of a panel of nine judges appointed by the federal government itself? To reinforce that argument, one just has to look at the very close ties that the last two judges appointed to the Supreme Court have to the Liberal Party. Is it normal, is it acceptable, in 1998, in a democracy such as Canada, for a federal court consisting of a panel of nine judges appointed by the government to be asked to substitute itself for the democratic will of 7 million Quebeckers?

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague's question is so clear that the answer becomes obvious.

It does not make sense to let nine judges hold in their hands the future of our people, because it is the future of Quebeckers that is at stake here. We talked about the appointment process, the fact that these judges are appointed by the Prime Minister. Moreover, two of these judges were appointed after it was known that there would be a reference to the Supreme Court on that issue.

Looking closely, it is obvious there is a kind of incestuous relationship there, to say the least. In their infinite wisdom nine judges will decide, based on the Constitution, what kind of a future we, Quebeckers, can have.

Think about it. During the last democratic exercise in Quebec, the voter turnout was almost 93% if I remember correctly. So 93% of all those old enough to vote, millions of Quebeckers, voted at the end of a long debate during which the federal government kept repeating what it always says, that is: “The question is not clear. What is at stake is this and that”. Today, they may have come to realize that their campaign was not all that effective, because now they say: “The people did not understand”. I for one think that the people did understand very well indeed.

It was a long debate, nothing new in Quebec. The people know full well what is at stake. At the end of the campaign, 93% of all voters decided: “We are going to vote, to state our positions.”

The majority voted no. We respect the will of these people. No one has put in motion the process leading to sovereignty. Nevertheless, we still believe that it is the best solution and we continue to promote it.

We were reelected as Bloc members, as sovereigntist representatives in Ottawa. People in Quebec will have to chose between sovereigntists and federalists during the next provincial election. This is par for the course, and people are fully aware of the situation.

In the final analysis, how can there be a balance between 7 million people on one side and nine supreme court justices on the other? Let us be serious. It does not make any sense and I have no doubt that Quebeckers understand this very well. That is why the provincial Liberals in Quebec, the Parti Quebecois, the Bloc Quebecois, the Conservative Party, the bishops, a cardinal, business people, people from all walks of life, say that it does not make sense.

Only the Prime Minister and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs defend this strategy, and they drag the federal government into their crazy enterprise, plus the person most sympathetic to the Quebec cause, the leader of the Reform Party. Can you imagine this fine group organizing our future? These people are trying to manipulate the court, to put us in shackles, and they would like us to buy it? No way.

Calmly, peacefully, we keep explaining the situation and we realize that, as people from all walks of life start to react, more and more of them are adding their voices to those who already oppose this reference, and I am convinced that the movement will snowball.

Therefore, to answer my colleague's question, it is clear that this makes no more sense in 1998 than it did 25 or 30 years ago and it will be the same five years from now because, in a democracy, citizens are free to decide their own future. This is true for all peoples, including the Quebec people.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Jonquière, who was democratically elected June 2 to represent the constituents of my riding in the House of Commons, I wish to support the motion introduced by the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, concerning the future of the Quebec people, and to repeat my conviction that Quebeckers alone have the right to decide their future, and that the current reference to the Supreme Court on the sovereignty of Quebec is contrary to our democratic values.

I have spent several years of my life in community and political work and throughout these experiences and for as long as I can remember, I have observed Quebeckers' attachment to the democratic values of our society.

The referendums to date have always had a high turnout, showing our people's wish to decide their own future.

On the eve of the Supreme Court hearing on the legitimacy of a unilateral declaration of independence by Quebec, I think it vital to appeal to all Canadians and to point out to them once again that the Chrétien government is on the wrong track in relying on a legal authority to resolve the essentially political question of a people's right to decide its own future freely and to take responsibility for its destiny.

I am not a lawyer and I am not about to launch into legal arguments. My eminent colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois are doing a brilliant job today of demonstrating the futility of the exercise in which the Supreme Court is now engaged.

What I want instead is to appeal to common sense, which is in keeping with the feelings of the majority of Quebeckers, whether federalists or nationalists, concerning what I would call the hijacking of democracy.

We are again seeing a process which fits perfectly into Plan B, concocted by the Chrétien government to keep Quebec within the Canadian federation. This time, though, the reference to the Supreme Court strikes me as totally pathetic, since it is evidence of the failure of the Chrétien government to rise to the challenge of renewing the Canadian federation.

The Chrétien government's strategy was to stir up public opinion in Quebec on the legality of a unilateral decision to secede. Instead, it is being bombarded on all sides with the testimonials of Quebeckers stating their right to self-determination loud and clear. Whether federalist or sovereignist, all join in opposition to the federal claims on the right to self-determination. All agree that it is for Quebeckers to decide their own future.

The federal government is presently facing a strong consensus, a common front of all those who have at heart the defence of our democratic values and the institutions with which we have equipped ourselves in Quebec in order to express our societal choices. The federal encroachment in the Supreme Court was found unacceptable, even by such people as Claude Ryan and Daniel Johnson, although they headed the federalist forces in the last two referendums.

By so doing, they confirmed the fundamental break between the Quebec Liberal Party and the federal Liberals.

By rejecting the very substance of the legal arguments raised by the Chrétien government, Claude Ryan and Daniel Johnson have rejected beforehand the ruling by the Supreme Court.

Besides, Mr. Speaker, we have witnessed the establishment of a non- partisan groups composed of sovereignists and federalists, like the Pro-Démocratie group, which was joined by key figures like Monique Vézina, Jean-Claude Rivet, Pierre Paquette and André Tremblay, to name only a few.

Leading the movement which has always been more in evidence in all classes of Quebec society, the Pro-Démocratie group makes a point of condemning the initiative of the federal government in the following terms: “We share the conviction that the constitutional debate is first of all a political debate and that it should be resolved by political means. Constitutional law is based on decisions made by the people. It is not the role of constitutional law to substitute itself to the people's prerogative of choosing their own political system.”

Other key figures like Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte, archbishop of Montreal, and Monseigneur Bertrand Blanchette, archbishop of the diocese of Rimouski, have said that the Supreme Court should not decide the future of the Quebec people, thus echoing the position taken by the bishops of Quebec and Canada in favour of self-determination, at the centennial of Confederation in 1967.

I wish to stress one more time that all these people think it is up to the people of Quebec to decide their own future.

It must be recognized that the highest court in the country is widely mistrusted in Quebec today. Everyone of us will remember that in 1980, in the famous case regarding the veto right that Quebec thought it had, the Supreme Court concluded that the federal government could amend the Constitution with the support of a substantial majority of the provinces.

This constitutional deadlock has lasted for 15 years. Quebec has learned that within the existing system, no compromise is acceptable to the English-Canadian majority.

For 15 years, political players have been prisoners of that majority and incapable of renewing the federal system.

The federal government has found no better solution than to go into the legal arena in an attempt to muzzle the democratic expression of a whole people.

With this new case, the Supreme Court is heading towards a new impasse. Should we be surprised? Is it any wonder the supreme court defends the institutions that created it?

In the end, it is nothing more than the expression of the centralizing will of the federal government and bears witness to the impasse facing Canadian federation. The fact is that the Chrétien government has no argument to counter the advance of the sovereignist movement.

The reference to the supreme court is, in the words of Quebec premier Lucien Bouchard, an act of powerlessness. In addition, the reference to the supreme court arises from the change in public opinion in Canada, which is galvanizing around the doctrine of the equality of the provinces and the denial of any special status for Quebec other than a symbolic and totally insignificant one.

When I see the consensus within Quebec on our democratic values and the defence of our institutions, I am more than ever sure we can meet the challenges facing us in building our country.

I invite all of you watching me on television to express your opposition to the Chrétien government's initiative.

Our struggle will not end until we have given ourselves a country for the year 2000, because what counts for us is the right to decide our future. Let us be proud to be Quebeckers.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All members should refer to one another by title and not by name, please.

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it was Montesquieu who, in the 18th century, considered the separation of the three powers, that is the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government, as the foundation of democracy.

Now, the executive branch is asking the judicial branch to interpret the Constitution.

That would be agreeable if the Constitution had not been unanimously rejected by the people on whom the court's interpretation is to be imposed. The initial Constitution was developed by two peoples, the two founding peoples. The Constitution of 1982 was adopted by only one of these two peoples and now this people wants to impose it on the other one because it forms the majority.

Does my colleague think, like myself, that this process is nothing more than another sign of the domination of the rest of Canada over Quebec?

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Terrebonne—Blainville for his question. I fully agree with him.

I think he is right. The Canadian government completely ignored the fact that there are two founding peoples when it referred the case to the Supreme Court. There are the Canadian people and the Quebec people. By referring these three questions to the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court, the federal government misused that institution and proved that it has no sense of fair play.

I want to state for the record that, by referring the case of Quebec sovereignty to the Supreme Court of Canada, the federal government loaded the dice in its favour, as it always does.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the ability of Quebeckers to decide their own future is at the heart of the motion tabled today by the Bloc. This principle and that of respect for democracy and the rule of law are as dear to the hearts of government members as they are to the hearts of our colleagues opposite. It is this principle, our right to decide our own future as exercised during the 1980 and 1995 referendums, that I will address.

These principles—that are being discussed in detail today—have already enabled Quebeckers to choose Canada. By applying these principles, we Quebeckers have refused to relinquish either one of our identities as Quebeckers and Canadians, which increase rather than limit our opportunities. One thing is for sure: twice we Quebeckers exercised our right to decide our own future, and twice we decided to stay within Canada despite the attempt to hide the option behind a confusing question.

Several reasons supported the decisions we made. Each time, Canada proved to be the logical choice since it has always allowed Quebeckers to promote their culture and language throughout the world. The linguistic duality of this country and its multicultural character open the door to world markets for Quebeckers and other Canadians. These components of the Canadian identity are valuable assets for the future.

As we approach the next millennium, during which multiculturalism will flourish as will countries that will successfully meet the challenge of a harmonious multicultural society, I am confident that we Quebeckers will again choose to stay within Canada.

On each occasion Quebeckers have found that Canada gives us an exceptional quality of life. On each occasion we have been proud of our country's remarkable international reputation. On each occasion we have understood that Canada has one of the most developed economies in the world and that we, Quebeckers, have contributed largely to its prosperity.

If on two occasions Quebeckers chose Canada it is because not only are we aware of the rich history we share with our fellow citizens across the country, but we are resolutely forward-looking. We know that in the new economy we must combine the strength of major entities with the flexibility of smaller ones, national solidarity with regional autonomy; our federal union is vital to our survival.

On each occasion, Quebeckers took into account the fact that through the years Canadians have built a strong social safety net. Compassion and solidarity, the Canadian federation's underlying values, are shared by citizens from coast to coast. These are the values that prompt us to lend a hand in difficult times.

Need I remind the House how quickly the country as a whole responded and helped all those affected by the recent ice storm? Beyond linguistic and cultural differences, beyond distances, these values are shared by all. They form the Canadian fabric.

On every occasion, Quebeckers said no to secession and yes to Canada. We have invested too much of our creative energy in this country to let it go. Quebeckers have contributed their culture and their way of life to Canada, making them part of our common heritage.

What makes Canada strong is the values inherent in our identity. Openness, solidarity and respect for individual rights are often mentioned, and rightly so. These same values have shaped our common history.

Quebeckers' desire to stay in Canada has always been the subject of a consensus. That consensus has twice been tested and has twice held firm. On each occasion Quebeckers have said yes to the Canadian component of our identity. I am sure that we will do so yet again if the secessionist option is submitted to us Quebeckers again for approval for the third time in less than 20 years.

The 1995 campaign and some revelations since have shown to what extent the referendum process was very very much like manipulation and intellectual dishonesty. That is why the Canadian government has decided to put forward initiatives aimed at clarifying the stakes of secession.

Every member of this House will recall of the circumstances around the publication of the infamous book by Jacques Parizeau entitled Pour un Québec souverain , the case for a sovereign Quebec. Quebeckers, like Canadians as a whole, were shocked to learn that the one-year period for the negotiations that was always alluded to was only smoke and mirrors and that Mr. Parizeau had no intention of abiding by it. On the contrary, he wanted to drag us Quebeckers into an adventure which, as great as it was, was no game.

Fortunately, when the lobster trap closed, on October 30, 1995, we, Quebeckers were not caught in it. The strategy of the secessionists is to bury our heads in the sand and to play with ambiguity. For its part, our government wants clarity. A possible secession would have a huge impact on Quebeckers and Canadians as a whole.

It is thus essential to ensure that the referendum process follows well defined, precise rules accepted by everybody.

This debate, if there is one, should be held calmly and peacefully. We cannot sit iddly by when the Bloc member for Richelieu says cynically that his party wants to destroy federalism. Nor can we remain indifferent to the terrible call for intolerance by the Bloc member for Louis-Hébert who said, in 1995, that only so-called old stock Quebeckers should vote in the referendum.

Finally, we cannot accept the disgraceful declarations by Jacques Parizeau on the evening of October 30, 1995. The list of the irresponsible comments by the secessionists is very long, but I do not have the time to speak to that.

I could add, however, that the lofty statements about respect for democracy coming from the Bloc would be more acceptable if they were coming from more credible individuals.

Despite the dogmatic opposition of the Bloc, our country is progressing and changing. Just a few weeks ago, the Canadian Parliament and the National Assembly passed a resolution amending the Constitution, which allows the Quebec government to proceed with the establishment of linguistic school boards.

The secessionists supported this amendment, proving that it is possible to work together for the common good, when they want to. If the interest of Quebeckers took precedence over partisan interests, the Government of Quebec would work with us much more often than it does.

The vast majority of Quebeckers are proud to be Quebeckers and also proud to be Canadians. They do not want to reject one of the two elements of their identity, and certainly not in a confused way, and against democratic principles and the constitutional state.

To conclude, Mr. Speaker, we cannot support this motion from the Bloc, a party which is against the constitutional state and democracy for all. As Quebeckers and Canadians, we cannot support this motion.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine referred in her speech to a huge operation of intellectual manipulation when speaking about the referendum in 1995. I would like to ask her two questions. I am convinced that she has all the intellectual capacity to answer them brilliantly.

My first question is: How does my colleague describe the millions of dollars spent by Option Canada, which did not hesitate to violate the referendum law and the measures governing the funding of political parties within a referendum?

My second question is: How does she describe the declarations of love and the phoney promises that were made loud and strong by the big names of federalism, starting with the Prime Minister and continuing with other big names who are also here in this House?

I am anxious to hear the answer of my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. I am sure she will do me the honour of clearly answering this question.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we already experienced two referenda in Quebec, in 1980 and in 1995.

[An hon. member]

Don't forget 1992.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Each time, the question was confused and, despite the confusion that existed, the majority of Quebeckers voted against it.

And if they respected democracy, there would not be a third referendum, because the will, the ability of Quebeckers to decide their future has already been expressed twice and, in the end, despite the confusion, the answer was very clear. By a majority, we said “We want to stay in Canada. We want to preserve our identity as Canadians and our identity as Quebeckers”. We answered “We want to stay in Canada”.

I find it deplorable that the secessionists are still saying that there must be yet another referendum when the will has been expressed clearly.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I seems to me that the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine does not recognize the Quebeckers' ability to understand when she would have us believe that the Quebec people did not understand correctly the two questions that were put to them in 1980 and 1995.

Of course they understood them correctly. We must recall that promises were made to Quebec by big federal guns, Pierre Trudeau at the time and later Jean Chrétien, and these promises were broken. Quebec has always wanted to command respect within Canada but we have been denied that as well when Canada failed to recognize Quebec's distinct nature. I would say that there is a solid basis for Quebec's frustration, which make us want to get Quebec out of Canada.

There is nothing antidemocratic in wanting to go through the referendum process again and it does not confuse the issue. It is entirely democratic. But once again, in spite of the demands made in the past to show respect to Quebec, the federal government is the one who failed to fulfil this requirement, making a reference to the Supreme Court and failing to acknowledge the Quebeckers' ability to understand and Quebec's determination to freely decide its future.

It seems to me that the hon. member should also recognize that the process was not antidemocratic in the past, was not intended to confuse anything and was not dishonest. It was not an attempt to manipulate. On the contrary, we were quite clear, still are and will continue to be until—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order. There are only 20 seconds remaining in the five-minute question and comment period.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the question asked in the 1995 referendum was not clear. A CROP poll held in July 1997 revealed that 44% of Quebeckers who voted yes in 1995 thought that, after a yes victory, Quebec would still be part of Canada. This clearly illustrates the state of confusion that prevailed at the time.

The question must at least be clear. I would like to know why secessionists would not use a question similar to the one asked in Armenia in 1991: “Should the Republic of Armenia become a democratic republic, independent from the USSR?” This question is rather clear—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry, but the period for questions and comments is over.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation.

[Claudette Bradshaw, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, our country is respected around the globe for its commitment to individual freedom and democratic values and the rule of law that sustains them.

Indeed, as Argentine President Carlos Menem said today, Canada is a nation that has grown to symbolize perseverance, democracy, solidarity and tolerance.

Canada is a remarkable country. I believe in the 21st century it will be an even stronger and more united one. Why? Because I think Quebeckers will continue to chose to remain part of a country that they have done so much to build.

Most Quebeckers are proud of both their Quebec and Canadian identities and do not wish to have to choose between them. However, if Quebeckers should ever choose to leave Canada, I would want them to make this choice, as I am sure they would wish clearly and unequivocally. I would not want Quebeckers to break the bonds of solidarity with their fellow Canadian citizens in an atmosphere of confusion where no mutually acceptable ground rules were in place.

I firmly believe that Quebeckers will choose to remain Canadians because Quebec benefits from being part of Canada and is an essential component of our nation. The province prospered in Canada, particularly since the Quiet Revolution. The Quebec economy includes thriving high tech industries, such as aerospace, biotechnology and the pharmaceutical industry.

The federal government did its share to help those industries which, in turn, help all of Canada face international competition. For example, tools like R & D tax credit and the Export Development Corporation helped the high technology industries to develop, and the federal government's major strategic investments continue to produce the kind of growth that stimulates the creation of well paid jobs for young Quebeckers.

Quebec within Canada also has a dynamic, living and unique culture. There are more than 100 theatre companies, 100 publishers, 20 dance companies and 25 orchestras and choirs in the province, and many of them receive federal assistance so that they can perform in Canada and abroad.

Quebec is flourishing within Canada and Canada is flourishing because of Quebec, but there are always new challenges to be addressed. In many instances this commitment has seen the prime minister working side by side with the premiers. As the minister of intergovernmental affairs has often said, what Canadians need today are strong provinces, a strong federal government and strong relationship between them.

I could name a great many policy initiatives on which the different orders of government have co-operated recently. I will content myself with mentioning two, the Canada child tax benefit and the new partnership on labour market training.

According to statistics, one in five children lives in poverty in Canada. That is just unacceptable. As Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer put it, a society's morality is judged by the way it treats its children. Our children are our future. When a child has to go to school on an empty stomach, we all lose out.

In May 1996 the federal government offered its provincial and territorial partners the opportunity either to assume full responsibility for job training measures, funded through the employment insurance account, or to develop a new core management partnership.

The Canada-Quebec job training agreement, in the words of the prime minister, demonstrated that the governments of Canada and Quebec could work together to find practical solutions that are adapted to the real problem of Quebeckers. As an executive of the Quebec business organization, the Conseil du patronat, was quick to observe, the agreement shows that it is possible to conclude administrative agreements in key areas without having to amend the Canadian constitution.

In fact, the manpower training agreements and the new national child benefit show what can be accomplished, within the scope of administrative agreements and through the exercise or non-exercise of powers without having to change one iota of the Constitution.

However, that does not mean that our Constitution is or should be immutable. Our Constitution is not a straitjacket preventing us from changing it. Rather, it is a framework allowing for orderly and timely changes. It reflects our evolving identity as Canadians.

We have seen recently how our Constitution can adapt to the evolving needs of Canadians with the passage of a constitutional amendment requested by the Quebec government to set up the province's school boards along linguistic rather than denominational lines. Everybody in Quebec agreed that denominational school boards reflected the reality in Quebec in 1867. Today, however, linguistic school boards are more in line with the values and sociological realities of Quebeckers. The Parliament and the National Assembly combined their efforts at the appropriate time and invoked Section 83 of the 1982 Constitution Act to proceed with a bilateral amendment.

I am sure the constitutional amendment will enable Quebec to flourish further within Canada. It will enable Quebeckers to have a stronger school system that responds more closely to their needs.

Indeed it was seen as such a positive step by the Government of Quebec that the minister of education, Pauline Marois, was moved to praise the federal minister of intergovernmental affairs for having «livrer la marchandise».

I am confident the government of Prime Minister Chrétien will continue to deliver the goods for Quebeckers and for all Canadians. All these changes, both constitutional and non-constitutional, show that our federation is capable of responding to the needs of Quebeckers.

Of course we have our challenges. Which country does not? Our challenges are ones that can be resolved through negotiations and a long tradition of accommodation. We must put our difficulties into perspective.

We face serious challenges but they are nonetheless the problems of a prosperous country with strong, democratic institutions and a thriving civil society. None of these challenges should lead to a break-up of our country. In fact thousands of people from other countries apply to share our problems every year.

We must not lose sight of the fact that there have been debates and discussions on the Canadian identity since the beginnings of the federation. The debate has, of course, become particularly lively in the past few decades, but the consolidation of national unity is an ongoing task.

To those who choose to wallow in past humiliations, real or imagined, chewing them over and over, we offer our vision of the future, a future in which Canada will continue to be a source of influence for the world, a source of pride for its people.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Once again I wish to remind hon. members to refrain from referring to other hon. members by their surnames or any other name except their title or the name of their constituency.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask the hon. member what she thinks of the statement by her colleague for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine referring to the confusion over the question asked of Quebeckers in the 1995 referendum.

I will read her the 1992 referendum question on the Charlottetown Accord, and then the one from 1995. I would like to know where the confusion lies. In 1995, 94% of the people of Quebec spoke. I shall read the question the federal government asked in 1992: “Do you agree that the Constitution of Canada should be renewed on the basis of the agreement reached on August 28, 1992?” That was the 1992 referendum on the Charlottetown Accord.

And then in 1995 the question asked by the Government of Quebec was as follows: “Do you agree to Quebec becoming sovereign after making a formal offer to Canada of a new economic and political partnership under the terms of the draft bill on the future of Quebec and the agreement of June 12?”

I would like to know whether our Acadian colleague shares the view of her colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce on the confusion that clouded those two questions. It is very clear to us. The people of Quebec spoke out clearly in 1995. When it has a similar question put before it, soon I hope, there will be a resounding yes.