Debates of Feb. 10th, 1998

Supply

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I addressed that point somewhat in my speech when I said that even though there may be some sense of consensus in Quebec, the fact of the matter is that there is not a clear consensus as to whether first of all Quebec has actual support for separation from the rest of Canada.

As the Conservative member pointed out, in the Constitution currently there is no legal provision for any province to separate from the federation.

Clearly we need to have some legal parameters as to what this means. That is why we have supported the reference to the court.

[David Kilgour, Liberal, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak against the motion of the Bloc Quebecois. The motion is that the House recognize a consensus—

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My hon. colleague from Edmonton Strathcona before he started his debate announced that he would be dividing his time with me, the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley and I am ready to speak in this debate.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

My answer to the hon. member is that we are checking the blues right now. On the other hand, under the circumstances if the House has no objection, does the member has the unanimous consent of the House to speak at this point?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity. I have spent the last three months working with the B.C. unity panel going around the province of British Columbia discussing the issue of Canadian unity. I am very aware of the emotions that run to a high level when we talk about this issue.

The motion the Bloc has introduced is “that this House recognize the consensus in Quebec that it is for Quebeckers”—and it was amended to read—“alone to decide their own future”. I think the question is can they make that decision on their own without consideration from the rest of the country.

It would appear to me that this motion has arisen because of the three questions that have been put before the Supreme Court of Canada to make a recommendation on. I want to clarify what those questions are for the Canadian public listening to this debate.

The three questions that have been put before the Supreme Court are:

One, under the Constitution of Canada can the national assembly, legislature or Government of Quebec effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?

Two: Does international law give the national assembly, legislature or Government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?

Three: In the event of a conflict between domestic and international law on the right of the national assembly, legislature or Government of Quebec to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally, which would take precedence in Canada?

I would suggest that the question is not whether or not Quebec can raise the issue of separation, that Quebeckers are not in a position to say by referendum that they want to secede from Canada. The question is do they have the right to do so without the input from the rest of the country.

I know the analogy has been made before but the analogy of a divorce is very apropos in this case. A member of a marriage can state that they want to leave the marriage, that they want a divorce but there are laws in our country that help that process to proceed, that have to be followed for that divorce to go through.

There has to be a mutual agreement on the division of assets and liabilities. If a mutual agreement between the two parties cannot be reached, then the intercession of the courts is required. One partner cannot say that they are taking the house and the kids and walk away from the marriage. If it is not agreed upon, the courts enter the situation and the courts decide whether it is fair for one spouse to take the house and one spouse to take the children.

If there was not law in this matter and in all other matters, then what we would have in this country is anarchy. I do not think anyone wants to see that happen.

Quebeckers can decide whether they want to leave, but the laws must be followed. Even the former Quebec premier, Jacques Parizeau, understood the rule of law when writing the draft bill that he introduced in 1994. I would like to quote two sections of that draft bill.

In section 10 he acknowledged that laws passed by the Parliament of Canada shall remain in force until amended or repealed by the national assembly. It is very clear that he believed in the existence of laws to give some direction.

The second thing that he acknowledged and which I want to quote was, “In so far as the negotiations unfold in a positive fashion, the national assembly will declare the sovereignty of Quebec after an agreement is reached on the partnership treaty”. After an agreement is reached.

It is very clear that he did not mean an unilateral declaration when he recognized the need for an agreement with the other partner. I do not think it is possible for the Bloc to suggest that Quebec can separate unilaterally and not allow or extend that to parts of Quebec that could then unilaterally separate from Quebec.

My colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona brought up the aspect of the aboriginal communities and others who have specifically indicated that they do not want to leave Canada and that they would make the decision to stay in Canada given that option. For the Bloc to suggest that Quebec has the right to unilaterally leave Canada but not extend that to members of the Quebec province, be they the Cree in the north or other municipalities, is hypocrisy in the least.

Unilateral declaration of independence would set a precedent for the Quebec Cree, for the Outaouais and the island of Montreal to vote on partition. If separatists wish to ignore the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, they set the precedent for the partitionists to ignore any Quebec court ruling. If Quebec separatists believe that this is purely a political decision to be made solely by the people of Quebec, they are setting a precedent for the partitionists to make purely political decisions made solely by the people in the affected regions of Quebec.

There is a real myth that there is this thing called the rest of Canada that Quebec could negotiate with. Separatists are living a pipe dream if they believe that an independent Quebec would be able to make a negotiation and an agreement with the rest of Canada. If Quebec were to separate there is no guarantee that the rest of Canada would remain intact. No one can predict what would happen in the aftermath of the breakup of the country, but none of the realistic proposals include a rosy scenario.

I assure separatists that if they were to be successful in separation there would be very little willingness in British Columbia to welcome Quebec as an equal partner. However British Columbians are more than willing to accommodate Quebec within Confederation.

Hopefully the country will never come to a point where Quebec decides to leave. Hopefully the separatists will never get a majority. It is clear to me and others that people in Quebec are looking at a third option. People in Quebec are realizing that separation is not the answer to getting rid of the status quo. It is clear to me that people throughout the country, including British Columbia, feel very strongly that Canada is worth fighting for and Canada is worth making changes so that all provinces, all regions, have a much greater say in their future.

Although maybe not perfect, the Calgary declaration was brought by nine premiers to the Canadian public to talk about other options: the devolution of power, the equality of citizens and the equality of provinces. Hopefully this attempt by Canadians to talk about the unity issue in a positive way, in a way that all regions including Quebec can benefit from, will be successful.

As a result of my work with the B.C. unity committee I can say that Canadians are willing to talk and make concessions. Canadians are willing to accommodate the differences in our societies and in our country under the understanding that all Canadians are equal and that all provinces have equal status within Confederation.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Before carrying on with questions and comments, I would like to offer a clarification.

We have checked in Hansard and found that the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona had indeed said he would be sharing his speaking time. I think this settles the matter.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, we will have to address three important elements in the whole scenario of the right of Quebec to separate from the rest of Canada. When Quebec entered into Confederation it became a part of a partnership. At the time there were no terms concerning what would happen in the event the partnership would come to an end.

First, to that extent any one partner of all 10 partners in the partnership would have to seek the consensus of the rest of the partners, or at least the consensus of the majority of the partners, before the partner departs.

The second one concerns the notion of native people in Quebec who entered into a historical agreement with the rest of Canada of the day. The agreement these people had with the rest of Canada has to continue to remain intact notwithstanding what would happen to Quebec.

Third, if we were to move with the assumption that Quebec is a level of government that has a right to decide on its own what happens to it, we would have to look at the third level of government, the municipal governments in Quebec in urban settings or urban cities such as the city of Montreal and other cities in western Quebec.

If we were to move forward with the notion that Quebec is a level of government that has a right to decide once it consults its people, the city of Montreal as a level of government would have the right to consult with its people and make a decision based on it.

The whole issue is irrelevant now in light of what has happened around the world. Borders are collapsing at an incredible speed, faster than the speed of light. People are coming together around the world faster than ever before. The European Union is now moving toward political, monetary, economic and social unions where language is no longer an issue. People to people relations are becoming the prime element of our global village.

To that extent, rather than continuing to frighten the people of Quebec and the small, medium and large businesses of Quebec with uncertainties, we as Quebeckers, as Canadians, must work together to ensure that society as a whole is meeting the needs of our people. There is nothing one level of government in Quebec, the provincial level of government, cannot do now within Confederation. It can do just about anything it would like to do. It has control over education, labour, health, immigration and transportation.

What is it the Government of Quebec wants to do and cannot do in the present Confederation?

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is obvious a question was not posed. It was just comments. However I agree with the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

It is a very serious issue. It is something that Canadians are very able and wanting to address. Canadians want the issue settled. They do not want to be dealing with the unity issue 20 years from now.

I urge my hon. colleagues to let us get on with settling the issue once and for all.

[David Kilgour, Liberal, Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa)]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying before, the government would oppose this motion but not because of its terms. It reads:

That this House recognize the consensus in Quebec that it is for Quebeckers to decide their own future.

This is fine. It is because of the fact that the Bloc Quebecois refused to give unanimous consent this morning to our proposed subamendment which would roughly translate as being that Quebeckers should decide their future but with respect for the rule of law and of democracy for all.

As Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa I have had the opportunity to meet with people in places as diverse as Peru, Honduras, Brazil, Uganda and Rwanda. Visiting places like those has made me even more aware of how fortunate we are in Canada with our high standard of living and our comprehensive social safety net.

In some cases my visits have shown me just how important respect for individual rights and democratic values are and the crucial role that the rule of law and an independent judiciary play in upholding both. These travels have already driven the message home. If Canadians, with our virtually unparalleled good fortune, are not capable of settling our differences and building our future together, it does not bode well for many other people around the world. A member of parliament from a southern African country said to me a year ago that if this country could not stay together how could his own country stay together.

Having written extensively on relations between western Canada and central Canada I know that learning to live together will remain a constant challenge for Canadians.

It is certainly an ongoing task but respect for differences is a hallmark of the country. In my own province of Alberta, first nations, British and French settlers have learned to live side by side. They were joined by Ukrainians, Poles, Germans and people of many other nationalities, many of whom were fleeing persecution or economic deprivation in their own homelands. We have welcomed a new generation of immigrants who are often from the Pacific Rim and more recently from Latin America and the Caribbean.

This history has made Canadians more open to cultural diversity than perhaps anywhere else on the face of the earth. It is part of who we are. I strongly believe that we can overcome the difficulties of today and build a Canada for tomorrow that is even stronger, more united and entirely secure in its diversity because it is part of who we are as a nation.

I have been reminded that I am sharing my time.

My current portfolio makes me keenly aware of Canada's presence on the international scene. This presence reflects our commitment to democratic values and the lessons our country's true diversity has taught us.

It was a Canadian, John Humphrey, who 50 years ago drafted the initial Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which, as predicted by Eleanor Roosevelt, was to become humanity's Magna Carta. The Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs stated recently before an American audience, and I quote:

Our democratic tradition, our commitment to the rule of law and our bilingual, multicultural society have prepared us well to help Eastern European countries and the former Soviet Union make the transition to democracy.

As a matter of fact, we are doing our very best around the world to convince governments to support human rights and the values inherent in a democratic regime.

Would it not be an enormous shame if Canada, which has served as an inspiration for so many countries, were to crumble? I do not believe it will. The vast majority of Quebec, the Québécois and Québécoises, will remain committed to building their future within Canada; but if they should decide otherwise, it must be with all the facts before them.

Nothing would be more sad for the country than if a quarter of our population were to leave “in confusion without a legal framework to overcome our divisions in a dangerous ambiguity that is unacceptable in democracy”, to quote my ministerial colleague.

I come from a province which is one of the engines of economic growth and innovation in Western Canada. However, Alberta is also the cradle of pioneer spirit in Canada.

Therefore, in Alberta, we appreciate the kind of determination needed to overcome difficult situations. So I do appreciate the efforts required of French speaking Quebeckers not only to protect a mainly francophone society on this continent, but also to allow it to prosper.

This is no small achievement. Now is the first time in the history of humanity that almost an entire continent, North America excluding Mexico, is more or less unilingual and more or less unilingual in what has become a major international lingua franca, the language of business, the language of the Internet.

In spite of this, since the beginning of Confederation, Quebec has never been as francophone as it is today. In 1997 no less than 94% of Quebeckers can express themselves in French. This is a triumph for Quebec and it is an enrichment for the whole of Canada.

I know solidarity is a value dear to Quebeckers. It is also important to Albertans. Those of you who believe that Alberta is a bastion of rough-edged individualists might be surprised to learn that it has the highest percentage of volunteers of all provinces.

On a larger scale, Canadians from sea to sea feel they belong to the same community. It could be said that it is when tragedy strikes that our belief in solidarity shines through; such was the case during the recent ice storm, the floods in Manitoba and in the Saguenay in Quebec, and the tornado which ripped through my home town of Edmonton in 1987.

Every time it was obvious that Canadians care for one another and love their fellow citizens. Is there a more telling sign of the links uniting the prairies to Quebec than the decision by the head of the Saguenay relief fund to send $1.5 million to flood victims in the Red River area in Manitoba?

Do we really want to see these ties broken by the secession of Quebec? At an international level this solidarity is of vital importance as well. Our two official languages give us an edge when it comes to competing internationally. They are two of the various official languages of the European Union, a market into which we are seeking to expand. Both are recognized languages at the United Nations.

English is the official language of 56 countries, and French of 33. Our country benefits for membership in both la francophonie and the Commonwealth. It should be noted that our image abroad is strengthened by the important role that Canada plays in international peacekeeping.

It was a Canadian, former prime minister Lester B. Pearson, who came up with the idea of an international peacekeeping force for which he won the Nobel peace prize.

Since that time, thousands of our fellow Canadians have served on international peacekeeping missions. Our bilingual capacity has been invaluable in countries like Haiti, Cameroon and Rwanda and in helping our troops to work with peacekeepers from other nations.

Our peacekeeping is good for Canada's international image. The fact that we are a united country gives us more economic weight. Together we are strong enough to be a member of the G-7.

All provinces benefit from this membership. Domestically, all employees benefit from being part of a large internal market. The importance of international trade was underlined recently by an economic who estimates that when adjustments are made for distance and size of market, Canada's provincial trade is some 14 times more with each than with American states.

Quebec, for example, imports about $33 billion worth of goods and services from other provinces. Our economic union, our international strengths are important building blocks for the future of this country.

To position Canada optimally for the challenges of the coming millennium, we must draw on the strengths and diversity it brings all of us.

I was delighted when the premiers met last September in Alberta. They stressed the importance of diversity in drawing upon statements and principles that can serve as well for the 21st century.

As the premier of our smallest province, P.E.I., put it, the Calgary declaration sends a positive signal to Quebec by recognizing the province's unique character but it does so within a framework that mirrors the ideals of a great many Canadians from coast to coast.

It is a celebration of Canadian diversity with an emphasis on the importance of provincial and individual equality. The declaration of Calgary and the broad public relations it has engendered can also be positive steps toward national reconciliation and a stronger future together.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. member, who is a minister as well as a lawyer. He is extremely familiar with the Canadian justice system. I liked his serious speech. However, I would like him to look a little further at what is currently going on in the justice system, and especially at the use that the federal government, of which he is a minister, is making of the Supreme Court of Canada.

I do not know if he had the opportunity to hear me this morning when I made my speech where I tried to demonstrate in the 10 minutes allotted to me that, since 1981, the supreme court, with the unilateral repatriation of the Constitution, has been more than a tribunal that was there to interpret the law. With these decisions, since 1981 and 1982, the supreme court judges became legal scholars; they became tools for the federal government to centralize more powers at the federal level. Let us just think about the veto that was taken away from Quebec in 1982. In 1983, in trade and economy, there were some extremely important judicial precedents.

In 1989, there was the General Motors case, where provinces were told this is not your jurisdiction; everything at the interprovincial level is under federal jurisdiction. There were decisions in 1990 and in 1993. Recently, there was the Hydro-Québec case, where Hydro-Québec was told that environmental studies were not their concern, but under federal jurisdiction.

Each time Quebec went before the Supreme Court of Canada because it had no choice, because it was taken there, even about the language law, even about extremely important institutions in Quebec, it came out weakened. I would like the member, as a lawyer, as a law professional who looks at what is going on in the supreme court, to give me an answer if he has reviewed the supreme court's decisions.

I would also like him to explain to me why decisions made by Quebec's courts of appeal, superior courts that come before the Supreme Court of Canada are reversed six times out of ten by the tribunal known as the Supreme Court of Canada. This is the case for Quebec. But when it comes to decisions made by courts in other provinces, they are reversed by the Supreme Court of Canada only four times out of ten. Why is that? I would like him to explain this to me. Why is it that the supreme court treats Quebeckers and the whole Quebec justice system in such a way?

[David Kilgour, Liberal, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm. His comments are very eloquent. I certainly hope judges will read them and people will reflect on them. The hon. member is well aware that, in West Germany, there is a constitutional court made up of eight judges. Four of them are appointed by the Länders, and four by the federal government.

In a federal system, I personally think we should have a court whose members are appointed by both sides. I am convinced the hon. member and the people in my region gave some thought to this issue. We hope that, in the near future, the provinces, including Quebec of course, will have the right to appoint half of the judges. It could be that the people appointed by the two sides might be perceived as being, shall we say, less neutral. I was very interested in the hon. member's comments.

[Réginald Bélair, Liberal, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am also very pleased to address the motion moved by the Bloc Quebecois. First, let me say that I intend to oppose this motion. However, I would like to explain why I hope Quebec will never take a chance and go for the secessionist gamble.

For obvious reasons, French speaking communities in the other provinces have special ties with Quebeckers. We speak the same language and we may share more intimately certain episodes of our history. As a Canadian and a francophone, I am obviously concerned by the political situation in Quebec, and I hope that province will continue to be part of our country.

There are of course many similarities between French speaking Quebeckers and francophones from other parts of Canada. However, the context in which we live is very different. Francophones who live outside Quebec are in a minority position in three ways. They are a minority on the continent, in their country and in their province. French speaking Quebeckers are also in a minority on the continent and in their country, but they form a majority in their province.

Linguistic and cultural insecurity can partly explain the desire of some Quebeckers to opt for secession. We francophones living outside Quebec are particularly apt to understand this feeling of insecurity.

We know, however, that the French language is not threatened in Quebec and that it is becoming even more prevalent in that province. Data from the last census shows that Quebec is more francophone than ever and that the future of francophones in Quebec have never been so promising. We can only be thrilled about the vitality of the French language in Quebec because, as francophones outside Quebec, we also benefit from this strengthening of the francophone community in our country. What affects Quebeckers affects us as well.

My community has been called on to face special challenges. The linguistic and cultural uncertainty experienced by Quebeckers is felt by us even more intensely. We believe in solidarity among the country's francophones and we have always counted on Quebec's influence within the country to ensure francophone communities from coast to coast to coast the cultural vitality needed for their development. That is why we oppose Quebec secession.

The history of our country has been marked from the start with a French presence that has influenced our collective journey. Our language is part of our Constitution. The Official Languages Act recognizes our country's linguistic duality and prescribes the use of both official languages in every institution of the Canadian Parliament and government. As for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it ensures the growth of the French language and culture, along with the many initiatives implemented by the Canadian government to this end.

We owe this official recognition to generations of francophones from coast to coast who asserted their rights. That does not mean that justice was always easily achieved. As is the case with any minority, the historical journey of francophones outside Quebec had its dark moments. We still have to assert our language rights today.

All these struggles have created between members of my community ties of solidarity that make us strong and proud. And we have confidence in our future and in that of our country as a whole. The Canada in which I live is no longer the one that existed under Regulation 17 in Ontario.

Canada's francophones are proud of what this country has become. They have helped Canada to become what it is today, a country distinguished by its openness and its tolerance. These great human values are the essence of Canadian ideals. Francophones and anglophones have learned to live together and to grow in mutual respect. Naturally there have been some obstacles along the way but no one can dispute that Canadians have achieved a degree of maturity to which Quebeckers have greatly contributed. We have achieved this because we have worked together, not divided.

Nobody can ask me to be indifferent to the political debate in Quebec. By separating from Canada, Quebec would take away a vital part of ourselves. Nobody wants to deny the right of Quebeckers to express their choice to separate from Canada if they were to do it some day with full knowledge of the facts.

It is essential that they fully understand the consequences of the action they are contemplating. One of these consequences has to do with the fate of the francophone minorities in the other provinces.

It is obvious that, by staying in Canada, Quebec is in that much better a position to promote the French fact in all regions of the country. Quebec plays a vital role in our linguistic and cultural development, as we too, for our part, help consolidate the Canadian French-speaking community.

The best proof that Canada has never held Quebec back is that its language and culture have flourished, to say nothing of Canada's promotion of the Quebec culture internationally, so that it is now associated with Canadians.

French language and culture are essential elements of the Canadian entity. They strengthen the unique character of Canada. While this vitality is due, as I have said before, to the determination shown by francophone communities across the country, it is also true that the recognition of the French fact in this country has also played an important role.

Together francophones in every region of Canada have succeeded in affirming the bilingual character of this country and have helped to give it an identity that is expressed in a genuine openness to the world.

Canadian federalism has greatly contributed to the French fact's vitality throughout the country. Canada can reap the benefits of its participation in the francophonie. Quebec also benefits from its ties with this country with the different countries of the Commonwealth.

Yes, francophones in Quebec and Canada have made a remarkable contribution to building our country. That contribution stems from a vitality specific to each of our communities. In every region francophones are inspired by the same ideal, to make live and flourish an identity enriched by their contribution to our collective heritage.

Need I say more about Quebec's exceptional contribution in this respect. Quebec should never feel this country is foreign to it because, on the contrary, it has an exceptional place within it. Canada would not be Canada without Quebec. I also think it is right to say that Quebec would not be Quebec without Canada. We francophones in other provinces need our fellow citizens of Quebec.

Our ancestors had a great dream: to help francophone communities survive in a country whose spaces were as far-reaching as its ideals. Together, we have built a land of tolerance, in which each of us can choose our own way of being Canadian without apology. Canadians know that diversity is a strength, not a weakness. It is in large measure to the maturity with which they live out this diversity that they owe their international reputation.

No one is thinking of forcing Quebeckers to stay within Canada. If I may, however, I will tell them frankly what I think: You would be making an irreparable mistake if you were to leave Canada. Why renounce a part of what you are, of what we all are? The loss would be everyone's. Canadians themselves would be irremediably diminished, and francophones outside Quebec doubly so.

Together, as francophones from western Canada, the Prairies, the territories, Manitoba, Acadia and Quebec, we have shown that those who, through their sacrifices, their hopes and their efforts, fulfilled the promise that the Fathers of Confederation saw in Canada, were right.

Together, we have made this country a wonderful success.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate the member opposite for the speech he gave as a francophone outside Quebec. We in the Bloc are always moved when we discuss this issue with our colleagues opposite.

The previous speaker's question was just as emotional: “Why would Quebeckers want to leave Canada, a country as beautiful and great as our ambitions? We can be Canadian any way we want.” That is what he said in his speech. We do not have anything against francophones outside Quebec. We love them too. But the hon. member forgot to mention that Canada was founded by two peoples, the two founding nations as they are called in Canadian history books. These two peoples each had their own territory, one was called Upper Canada, the other one, Lower Canada, and they have become Quebec and Ontario.

That was the beginning of the famous 1867 Confederation. After that, more people joined Canada, and the last province to join was Newfoundland. I hold no grudge against them, but they had two referendums and joined Canada after the third one. This decision was made by Newfoundlanders. I do not think my father ever told me Quebeckers were consulted in 1949 on the admission of a new province. The question that begs to be asked today is this: Why should the rest of Canada be consulted today if Quebec wants to separate and go back to the situation before it entered into an association with Upper Canada, which is now Ontario?

Why should Quebec want to separate from Canada? That was the member's heartfelt cry. Maybe because we do not feel a lot of respect, maybe because we want things we cannot get within Canada.

My question to the member opposite is this: Why did his government choose Plan B, which focuses on repression? “If you do this, you will get a slap on the wrist.” In more polite terms, the reference to the Supreme Court tells us: “We are going to ask a few questions, and the way they are asked, it all means the same thing.” For some of us, the questions as phrased call for a certain kind of answer.

Let me ask the hon. member why his government or the people in his party are not looking for ways to keep Quebec in Canada. During the last referendum, the Prime Minister made promises in Verdun. What are they? Are they reason enough for Quebeckers to stay? Instead of wasting their energy looking for legal tricks to force us to stay in Canada, they should look for real solutions. If they do not have any, Quebeckers will stay on the same track, and I can assure my hon. colleague I will make an excellent neighbour.

[Réginald Bélair, Liberal, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I hope the hon. member is speaking in the name of his colleagues from the Bloc when he says he recognizes at least that there are many affinities between French-speaking Quebeckers and francophones outside Quebec because we must admit to ourselves and to all Canadians that we, francophones outside Quebec, come from the province of Quebec, one way or another.

In 1925, my father, who incidentally was from Boucherville, settled in northern Ontario, so I am a francophone immigrant. Consequently, I have no doubt that we have a lot of affinities. The message I conveyed in my maiden speech is that I do not understand why Quebec would want to separate from Canada since, in my humble opinion, it has benefited just as much as the other provinces from being a part of Canada.

I am happy and proud to say that I am living proof that it is possible to live in Canada, to exercise one's rights, to keep one's mother tongue, one's culture and even to blossom. This is why I say to Quebeckers: “Make no mistake about it, the best solution for you is still to stay in Canada. Think seriously about the consequences”.

I wish I had more time to speak.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to participate in this debate, which the Bloc Quebecois launched today to bring this House to recognize that only the people of Quebec should decide their own future.

It is also with some emotion that I heard my colleague who has just spoken and who is, if I may say so, a francophone outside Quebec.

I would like to tell him that what the people of Quebec want is the collective ability to establish their own priorities, to develop their potential, and to fight poverty, as it competes annually with Newfoundland for the title of poorest province. Many Quebeckers are tired of seeing the Quebec government fight with the federal government over a budget surplus to which Quebec has contributed more than the other provinces, because the Employment Insurance Act was especially hard on Quebec and the maritimes and the reduction in transfers hurt Quebec more than other provinces.

Now that the deficit has been wrestled to the ground, the federal government wants to use the money to give scholarships, for example. But the political life in Quebec is marked by these endless fights. If only this had started six months ago and could be resolved within two years. But this is not the case. The truth is that the people of Quebec, who are concentrated in what we call the State of Quebec, must usually fight with less powerful weapons.

Finally, what we want to say today is that the people of Quebec themselves are the driving force behind this democracy. That is a basic fact: only the people of Quebec can decide for themselves. If there is one thing that we can declare in this House, it is that. The right of one people to make its own decisions takes precedence over a Supreme Court that was created by another people for its own ends. Always we may respect its intentions, we cannot let another people decide what shape democracy will take in Quebec.

That is the bottom line. We must go to the bottom of things. Liberal and Reform members say that if Quebeckers can make the decision, then municipalities will have to ask themselves questions. The members across the way and beside us do not want to recognize the right of the Quebec people, but they are ready to give that same right to municipalities which are administrative creations of provincial governments.

When I hear the hon. member and others speak about the Canadian dream, I can only see a theoretical Canada where the two languages and the two cultures can flourish.

That is not how things are in real life. The truth is closer to what happened in Nagano, the truth is that we had to fight some battles for Quebec artists to be able to pursue their careers, because many of them receive financial assistance to promote their art throughout Europe. The truth is we had to face huge cuts in higher education and we will have to fight because they are trying to go over our heads by setting up two grants systems. And I could go on.

The debate tonight is part of our history, of our evolution. Quebeckers and their longing for sovereignty have been around for a long time. It is a result of history, but not only of history. Our project does not dwell on the past. It is forward-looking. It is a result of a socio-economic and democratic project that will no longer suffer any obstruction. As I said before, poverty also affects a lot of people in Quebec. In education, the needs are great and there are many of us—people of my generation and others—who are fed up with debates that lead nowhere.

As I said before, there is a theoretical Canada, the Canada which is said to be the best country in the world, but where the political leaders do not care enough about the best country in the world to wonder what it would take to keep the other founding nation part of the country. The other nation, not just a province. What do they offer us? They tell us we should stay in the best country in the world as a province just like the others and that we should be very pleased to remain in this country and also that we should be very careful if we are serious about leaving because they will not let us go so easily.

This Canada only exists in theory. The truth is that if Canadians were so concerned about this great country of theirs they would be worried. They would finally agree that Quebeckers are a people. They would take a look at other federations, not uninational federations, but multinational federations, and get concerned. But we are faced with the terrible situation of a people governed by a government which does not want to face the problems, because it is committed to saying that it is the best country in the world, a government whose political leader is incapable of looking at what could be done, and who knows only how to refuse negotiation of a future partnership, and to use threats.

What the Bloc Quebecois has said on numerous occasions is that, with its present leadership, Canada is headed—and rapidly—toward a dead end. It is amazing to see how few people outside of Quebec will say so. I must say that I am very proud that Claude Ryan has acted consistently with what he has done for most of his life. Although I have often disagreed with him, he has taken courageous steps in the past, and this is one more.

The same thing goes for Daniel Johnson, Jr. In 1965, his father wrote Égalité ou indépendence. In it he said that if there were no equality between the two nations, French Canada and English Canada, it would be understandable if the French Canadians in Quebec were to wish to realize their full potential there, and he was not opposed to that. Daniel Johnson, Jr. sometimes remembers that point. He has stated that the question must be decided in Quebec.

For us, this was a fundamental debate.

It is up to the Quebec people to determine its future and we deeply regret that the federal government has dragged the supreme court into it, because the way the question is worded is very tricky and neither Quebec nor Canada can get out of it easily, on the contrary.

This desire of Quebeckers, which we have now expressed a number of times in our history, will be forcefully expressed again, and you will have helped us in the end.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member opposite if she would care to comment on this. She mentioned that a lot of what we are very proud of in Canada is in theory only. However, I can think of two of the most important votes that I as a member have voted on. One was the Newfoundland school question and the other was the Quebec school question. Those votes were a clear demonstration that this country and its constitution are willing to keep time with current events as they unfold and also to make room for an emerging nation.

I would ask the member opposite how she could make those comments in the face of legislation which has already been passed.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I cannot respond for Newfoundland, but I can for Quebec and say we wanted to carry out this reform a very long time ago. Had it passed this time in the House of Commons—I deeply believe so, and I am not speaking for my colleagues—Newfoundland too had a problem, and Quebec could have posed its problem in the same process.

However, you have to understand one thing. It is a small part of the problems we experience as a different people. When we see how Canada is changing and how Quebec is changing, we are forced to admit that they are not changing differently, they are growing apart. It is quite legitimate for you to change in one direction, as it is for us to change in another.

We are tired of having to fight over every little thing when the matter of jobs is so important as are the issues of fighting poverty, education and economic development.

[Réginald Bélair, Liberal, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, as there is not much time left, I shall be brief.

Could the hon. member for Mercier tell us, first of all, how Quebec would go about giving back to the rest of Canada its share of the national debt? Also, how would a new Quebec government give money back for all that was investment in infrastructure, anything provided by the federal government in Quebec, including occupational training?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is a very interesting question.

I will tell you that the sovereignists in Quebec have been giving a great deal of thought to what would happen “after” for quite some time. The Bloc Quebecois had been instrumental in defining such terms and conditions. Discussions were held, as they were byn the Bourassa government in Quebec, at the commission on sovereignty. We have looked at negotiating strategies.

During the 1995 referendum campaign, a booklet was distributed to every Quebec household and this booklet said that, following a victory of the yes side in the referendum, the National Assembly would make an offer of partnership; this would naturally entail negotiating assets because part of these assets are ours.

These matters would be addressed as part of negotiations carried out afterwards, but nothing stops us from looking at various scenarios together before then. In fact, we would feel it is quite normal to start now.

To do so, one must recognize and agree that this offer of partnership made after achieving sovereignty may provide the basis for settling disputes. Bear in mind that our goal is to maintain an economic zone. The various treaties that will have to be signed may require that ministers meet on a regular basis, as some sort of political body.

Basically, what we want is to be able to pursue our dreams without bothering the rest of Canada and for the rest of Canada to stop interfering with this pursuit so that we can work in partnership and like each other better.

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would never have thought that I would speak about the very foundation of democracy in our society that I considered a democratic one until today.

Today, I would be ashamed if I were a Quebecker and an elected Liberal member of this government. I will therefore bring to the attention of Liberal members elected by Quebeckers the consensus that was achieved in Quebec.

Despite their allegiance to federalism, their fellow citizens never denied the right to decide for themselves the future of Quebec, their Quebec. I invite these members to respect their constituents and the consensus of the people and of the major political stakeholders, including those of the Liberal Party of Quebec, and to support the motion moved in this House by the 44 Bloc Quebecois members. I address them—you—directly as a part of the Quebec society.

The decision of the Quebec government to respond to the possible choice of the people of Quebec in favour of sovereignty is a political decision, not a legal one. A court of justice will never be able to replace the will of a people. A court will never be able to impose on a whole nation a road it did not choose to take.

In fact, public remarks made by former leaders of the no side fully demonstrate that there is a strong consensus in Quebec. I remind this House once again of the statements made by Mr. Ryan and Mr. Johnson, because I think that, as the day gets closer, it is better to recall the essential things.

Mr. Ryan said: “I support a most elementary principle, namely the primacy of democracy over any other consideration in an issue as fundamental as determining the future of a nation”. He even stated that it would be a tremendous victory for democracy if the Supreme Court clearly confirmed that the right to self-determination is fundamental and must be respected by all means.

As for Daniel Johnson, leader of the opposition in Quebec and leader of the no committee in the 1995 referendum, he said that the Supreme Court should not deny Quebec's right to self-determination. And I quote: “Quebeckers will decide what will become of them, and it is they who must determine the referendum question”.

The wisest thing the court could do is to give politicians the responsibility of finding democratic answers to the questions that were submitted to it. Quebec politicians have demonstrated their ability to steer the debate on Quebec's political future with the utmost respect for democracy.

On many occasions, Canadian politicians have shown respect for the approach taken by the people of Quebec. But after the close results of the 1995 referendum, the rules have changed. The old rules were no longer applicable and valid. That is when the federal government decided to set its plan B in motion, that is the hard line strategy.

It seems clear to me that the future of seven million people cannot be decided by nine judges of the Supreme Court of Canada.

This misuse of the court by the Prime Minister and his associates shows that they seek victory at any cost, regardless of democratic principles. Plan B reflects a unitarian vision of federalism, in which the historic equality of the two founding nations is scorned.

The referral asking the Supreme Court to rule on Quebec's right to secede is illegitimate since the federal government's real objective is not, as claimed, the respect of the rule of law. The government is using that pretence to try to have the Supreme Court judges take part in lowdown dirty tricks. This referral is an attempt to fraud democracy. It is an attempt to put our democratic institutions under state supervision. This referral denies the existence of the people of Quebec.

There is still time for the court to avoid undermining the Quebec democratic and political process. In order to do so, Supreme Court justices must refuse to answer the questions submitted by the federal government. I am referring in particular to the judges from Quebec, Chief Justice Antonio Lamer, and Justices L'Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier. We urge them to refuse to play the game of a federal government running out of arguments and strategies to stop the sovereignist project.

If I rise in this House to ask Supreme Court judges not to answer these questions, it is because the referral to the Supreme Court is a basic demonstration of the inability of Canadian federalism to meet Quebeckers' historic demands.

Let us talk about history, the official one and the other one. Historically, Quebec's gains were made within the political sphere, in the respect of democracy. Let us remember the nationalization of electricity, the Caisse de dépôt, the creation of the local community service centres, the powers relating to culture, language and immigration. These development tools were not given to Quebec by the Supreme Court of Canada. We got them by occupying the political space, in the respect of democratic rules. The result is that we have now become a modern democracy.

The other history concerns the heart of Quebeckers. It has to do with the very fabric of the people of Quebec.

I am a native of the lower St. Lawrence region and my family, the Lizottes, owns the same land since the 17th century. Like other families, over the years, it has welcomed the unfortunate survivors of the great famine that struck Ireland and Scotland. We are tolerant, generous and open. My great-grandfather was a seagoing captain. At the time, the motherland was constantly in contact with our founding people.

I grew up in this environment, and I learned to understand and to protect my people. This is where my political commitment comes from. With a pride reminiscent of that of my ancestors, I am asking Supreme Court judges to refuse to answer the three questions, and to let Quebeckers decide their future themselves.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take the floor for questions and comments on the speech by my colleague for Louis-Hébert. She dealt with the substance of the matter. It is quite important to point out that this debate has been requested by sovereignist members, who have come to Ottawa in order to make sure decisions on Quebec's future would be made democratically.

We were given a mandate in 1993, and it has been renewed in 1997, after the referendum. People tell us we lost the referendum and we should accept these democratic results. We do accept them, but we think we can go on trying to convince Quebeckers because we have been able to raise the level of support from 40% in 1980 to 49.4% in 1995.

Our approach is a democratic one, and I am very proud that we are the ones who raised this issue.

I appreciated the call to Liberal members, especially newcomers, those that have nothing to do with the Trudeau generation, who did not take part in the process that gave us the Canadian constitution, a constitution for the judges. When the constitution was unilaterally patriated, it was to create a society ruled by the judges, the Pierre Elliott Trudeau society. The result is an ever greater involvement of the judiciary.

My question to the hon. member for Louis-Hébert is this. If the Liberal majority in the federal Parliament votes down our motion, would that not be an even greater rupture than the unilateral patriation of the constitution? Once more, Quebeckers would realize that the country in which they want to live would not make such undemocratic decisions.

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague has raised a very important point. If we do not have the agreement of our colleagues in the House today, we will probably be facing an even greater impasse than the one we faced when the Constitution was unilaterally patriated in 1982.

Talking about working towards rapprochement and understanding is one thing, but I think that if members oppose the most basic step of allowing a people to define themselves and be able to say what they wish to become, if they ignore this issue, I really wonder how this could ever be put behind us later on. I see some very sad times ahead.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-De-La-Madeleine—Pabok, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will give you a small lesson in geography. The riding of Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok is the nose-shaped part of Quebec that extends into the Gulf of St. Lawrence. I will take this opportunity to echo my colleague from the Lower St. Lawrence region, who said that her family still has its parcel of land from the 1700s.

Back to the Gaspé in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. All the inhabitants of Upper and Lower Canada, all those who live in the western part of my riding, passed by us on their way up the St. Lawrence and now the members opposite are telling us what to do, that we can no longer decide for ourselves. I will not stand for it and, on that note, I give the floor back to my colleague.

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will continue the heartfelt words of my hon. colleague. It is true—