Debates of Feb. 10th, 1998

Supply

[An hon. member]

It's frustration.

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

No, not frustration. It is true that we have everything we need in hand, and have proven it with all of the decisions, all the organization of our political structure in Quebec, everything we need to continue to determine our own future without waiting for someone else to do it for us.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Madam Speaker, in response to the Bloc Quebecois motion, I wish to reaffirm the position of the Government of Canada, which acknowledges the right of Quebeckers to decide their future. It is precisely because it believes in that right that the Government of Canada has introduced certain initiatives to ensure that the debate for the possible secession of Quebec is held in an atmosphere of clarity and transparency. It is only then that the right of Quebeckers to determine their future takes on its full meaning.

It is clear that Quebeckers cannot be kept in Canada against their clearly and democratically expressed will, but they must not lose Canada without having renounced it clearly. A clear question, a legal, orderly process acceptable to all, an enlightened decision made by citizens who have all the information they need and a clearly expressed will, these are the essential components for Quebeckers to be able to decide their future. To settle for less would be to deny Quebeckers the exercise of their democratic rights that clarity and transparency are paramount for the Government of Canada.

Some information that has now been made public reveals the true intentions of the Government of Quebec at the time of the 1995 referendum, and the approach it had in mind, even after a weak yes on a nebulous question.

The unilateral declaration of independence, plan O or the big game plan of Jacques Parizeau, as well as the famous political and economic partnership suggested by the referendum question but described now by Mr. Bouchard as just the bare bones, or a summary, clearly demonstrate that the process for taking a decision as serious as separation from Canada must be clear and transparent. The process proposed by the PQ government to achieve sovereignty was irresponsible and unrealistic, and the negative consequences of a vote in favour of secession were not disclosed.

Not only must the process be transparent, but the consequences of a vote in favour of Quebec's separation must be clearly explained to people. The fact that the government was prepared to risk losing over $17 billion in people's savings for the unrealistic purpose of limiting panic on the markets after a victory of the yes side—this after assuring people that the consequences of such a victory would not be alarming—clearly shows that the right of Quebeckers to decide their future must be exercised with full knowledge of the facts. The decision to break up a country must be taken with full knowledge of the consequences.

Quebeckers must be allowed to decide, but they must also know exactly what they may have to give up. The confusion generated by secessionists regarding the consequences of Quebec's separation convinced the Canadian government to ensure the clarity and transparency of the process. Do I have to remind the House that, according to a CROP poll taken in July 1997, 44% of Quebeckers who voted yes thought Quebec would still be part of Canada after a yes victory?

The President of the Queen's Privy Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs reaffirmed the importance, for Quebeckers, to have all the information required to properly exercise their right to decide their future. In a letter dated February 6, addressed to Mr. Ryan and dealing with the reference to the supreme court, the minister wrote “Through this reference, the Government of Canada seeks clarification of an important issue, that of the legal aspects of a unilateral secession. We believe Quebeckers and other Canadians are entitled to that information. Above all, the decision whether or not to secede should not be made on the basis of myths and false theories”.

We could add that the governments of Quebec and Canada alike have a duty to take necessary measures to inform citizens of all the aspects of a possible secession by Quebec. I repeat, only under those conditions does Quebec's right to decide its future take on all its meaning.

The Government of Canada has and will always have the responsibility to respect that duty, to provide information that is incumbent on every government.

The current Quebec government said on a number of occasions that, should the yes side win a referendum, even with a small majority, it could separate Quebec from the rest of Canada by unilaterally declaring its independence, adding that neither the Constitution nor the courts have a role to play in a secession. The Government of Canada is of the opinion that such a statement has no legal foundation.

In fact we rather agree with Lucien Bouchard's statement in his book Mot à Mot , and I quote:

Quebeckers, whatever their stripe, did not and do not agree with living outside the Constitution of Canada, when we live in a society based on the rule of law. And Canadians have to understand this.

Secession within the law would already cause huge problems. While it is true that unilateral secession has no basis in law, it would raise problems that are even more difficult to overcome, as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs indicated in his letter to Mr. Ryan.

In it he said that one of the consequences of such legal instability could fly back in the face of the secessionist government, and I quote:

Many Quebeckers would claim the right to not lose Canada in the confusion, without a recognized legal framework. The Government of Quebec would have a hard time obliging its citizens to comply with its laws, since it would have moved itself outside the legal framework. We Quebeckers would not want our society plunged into such instability.

No person and no government would benefit from such instability, which would, in turn, create economic uncertainty and threaten peace in society.

The action taken by the Government of Canada for clarification purposes in no way questions the legitimacy of a referendum. The aim is not to prevent Quebeckers from expressing their opinion on their political future, but rather to clarify certain matters of law to enable Quebeckers and other Canadians to better understand the scope of the unilateral action proposed by the current Government of Quebec.

Among other things the principle of the rule of law protects the democratic rights of the population. It ensures that over and above the political choices of the day all democratic principles underlying society and guaranteeing its existence within an orderly and peaceful context are respected.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs went further in his letter to Mr. Ryan, stating that the law is necessary in order for political action to take place democratically and not in anarchy.

The Government of Canada undertook to explain clearly what was at stake in a possible third referendum on Quebec's independence and, in particular, the consequences of unilateral secession.

I agree with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs when he says that, as a Quebecker, he wants to be sure that neither he nor his fellow citizens will lose their identity or their full rights as Canadians in the confusion, with no legal framework to decide our disputes, in a dangerously unclear state that is democratically unacceptable.

I cannot support the motion introduced by the Bloc Quebecois because this party refuses to recognize the rule of law, as we saw with its refusal to agree to the amendment moved earlier today by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, Education; the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington, Trade; the hon. member for Frontenac—Mégantic, Dairy Products.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. parliamentary secretary. As always I was impressed with the logic and concise nature of the arguments he put forward against the motion before us today. Among the many good points he made, he made it quite clear that we must at all times in this very civilized country rule ourselves in accordance with the rule of law.

It would seem to me that an avowed separatist would want to pursue a strategy to achieve his or her objectives which are in accordance with the laws of the land. After all, in the case of a favourable vote in accordance with a good clear question, he or she would want the international community to recognize that decision.

Could the parliamentary secretary elaborate a bit more on the importance of the rule of law in any civilized society, particularly as we might unfortunately at some time face another referendum in Quebec on the question of separation? Why is it so important to remind all Canadians and all Quebeckers that we must at all times conduct ourselves in accordance with the rule of law?

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member emphasizes the point that the government is trying to make sure that Quebec or any other province is not denied the right to determine its own position within Confederation or, for that matter, outside Confederation.

The rule of law is important. This needs to be done in an orderly fashion. I would like to quote from the former justice minister and current health minister when he was in the process of this reference to the supreme court. He made reference to the rule of law by saying:

The rule of law is not an obstacle to change. It permits change to take place in an orderly way. It allows Canadians to alter and adjust institutions that govern our country in a fashion that reflects our values of consensus, dialogue and accommodation.

The government is hoping to have clarification. It is not a question of attempting to deny the right of Quebec or any other province to determine their own future. We trying to guarantee that it is done in an orderly fashion.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Madam Speaker, I know the parliamentary secretary was sincere in what he said, but I think he abandoned originality and emphasized sincerity, because it was a speech straight from the Privy Council, prepared by speech writers obviously hired for that very purpose.

I have three comments and one question. When our colleague, the parliamentary secretary, says that we do not know the consequences of sovereignty, if he says something like that at this point, then he has not followed the debate, because all Quebeckers know that, on the day Quebec becomes sovereign, through democratic means, no other means having ever been considered, there will be three consequences: Quebec will keep all its taxes; Quebec will decide on its international politics, and there will be a single parliament, the National Assembly, that will pass laws having force over its territory. So, the next time the parliamentary secretary is asked about the consequences of sovereignty, he can give as a reply what all Quebeckers know.

What is at issue in the parliamentary secretary's discourse is whether he admits that, unlike Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, Quebeckers form a nation and that, because they form a nation, they have the right to decide their future democratically. And does he admit that that is basically what the last two referendums were about? Once his government took part, it recognized Quebeckers as a nation.

I would like to hear what my hon. colleague has to say about this.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, the documents the government just submitted to the supreme court mention there would be many people in both Canada and Quebec; however, as I said in response to the member's question, the questions the government put to the supreme court are aimed at clarifying what the consequences would be.

Even the speech my honourable colleague opposite has just criticized mentions there are questions, claims regarding sovereignty that need answering. The Parizeau government set $17 billion aside to try to calm the financial markets.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have had a motion before us I would like to reread to be sure that I understand its terms and that there is no confusion.

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

I have some reservations I would like to express. Despite these reservations, I was almost prepared to support the motion. Some would consider my reservations fundamental. Often it is simply a matter of semantics. Are Quebeckers a people, when the definition in the principle of the founding peoples included much more than Quebec? In spite of this potentially contentious difference, this was not reason enough for me not to support the motion.

It mentions a consensus. The word consensus has become a buzz word. It is being used, abused and interpreted. Is there really a consensus in Quebec? This too is contentious, and I am far from convinced there is one. In spite of this I might have supported the motion.

We moved an amendment. It said “while respecting the rule of law and the principle of democracy for all”. This amendment was not accepted. So I have to say no. Democratic values are being promoted abroad. In Quebec, inclusively—

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

Madam Speaker, I would like you to remind my colleague opposite that the Chair ruled on the amendment in question this morning and that a parliamentarian should not question a ruling by the Chair.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to remind the House that, this morning, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs proposed an amendment. The Chair ruled that amendment out of order. The minister then asked the unanimous consent of the House for his amendment to be accepted, but the House refused to give unanimous consent. I am not questioning the Chair's ruling, but these are the facts.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, our society, both in Canada and in Quebec, has a tradition of promoting democratic values, and I do not mean only at home. I am speaking here of our influence around the world. The role that Quebec and Canada play abroad is marked by this desire to promote democratic values throughout the world.

How is it that what is good for others is not good enough for us? How can we refuse that any debate be based on a fundamental and inescapable premise, which is respect for democracy for all? If that term is not included in this motion, then I cannot support it.

The supreme court was put down in just about every speech made by members of the Bloc Quebecois today, but this was not the first time. I am not trying to make the point the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs made this morning but, if the supreme court has so little credibility, why is it that, less than two weeks ago, Serge Ménard, a Quebec minister, the former justice minister as I recall, was quoted in Le Devoir as stating that, following a separatist victory in a referendum, should Quebec declare its independence or sovereignty, he would be prepared to repatriate the three supreme court judges who are Civil Code experts.

There is a contradiction in there, a double standard. The same argument is twisted around.

The amendment providing that the rule of law be respected was defeated. As far as I know, correct me if I am wrong, there are only two alternatives with the rule of law. Either you have it or you do not and face anarchy or dictatorship. The rule of law is fundamental, so much so in fact that, regardless of political affiliations, it has been a fundamental basis of our lives for centuries.

Not only as a Quebecker, a francophone and a federalist, but also as a human being who advocates stability for the people, I find it deeply disturbing when an amendment concerning respect for the rule of law is defeated. There is a fundamental contradiction.

Granted—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Order, please. On a point of order, the hon. member for Richelieu.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Madam Speaker, you heard what the previous speaker just said. He just challenged the Chair's ruling, and that is unacceptable. It goes against the democratic process established in this House.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie was not taking issue with the motion, but with the decision made by the House. It was the decision of the House, not the ruling made by the Chair. It is the House, not the Chair, that did not accept the amendment.

Is the hon. member for Richelieu rising on a point of order?

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Madam Speaker, first there was a ruling made by the Chair, and then the House did not give its consent. So, to come back to this decision is a direct challenge to the Chair. The decision made by the Chair is being challenged. Members should never challenge a ruling made by the Chair.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, I am pleased to see that some members are listening to what I have to say. Second, I want to condemn all attempts, for dubious technical reasons, to stop me from addressing the issue. I will not stand to be muzzled.

I want to make it clear that I recognize the freedom of Quebeckers to decide their own future, but with freedom come some responsibilities. The first is to ensure the security and stability of the people of Quebec, these Quebeckers, and I am one of them, who have already expressed their opinion twice on this issue.

I have confidence in the choice Quebeckers will make if the question is clear and shows respect for the rule of law and guarantees democracy for everyone. I am confident, but I am not sure my opponents are ready to put as much faith in their fellow citizens.

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

Madam Speaker, I have several questions to ask my colleague.

First, he raised the consensus issue, that is what is an adequate consensus. Does the fact that the leader of the no side in 1980, Mr. Ryan, finds that the federal policy in this area is unacceptable, that the leader of the committee in 1995, Mr. Daniel Johnson, the current leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec, finds it unacceptable, not seem to be the beginning of an interesting consensus in Quebec?

Second, when Liberals say “a clear question”, that is an insult to Quebeckers. If the question had not been clear, do you think that 93% of the people would have answered it? His whole political organization worked to have people vote on the no side. That means that you are contradicting yourselves.

Is there not a clear message in there? Is it not a insult to the intelligence of Quebeckers to tell them that the question was not clear and that there was no possibility to decide properly? Quebeckers came to a decision in 1980, came to a decision in 1992 on the Charlottetown accord, came to a decision in 1995. They know full well the political issue that is at stake. It is an insult to their intelligence to show such an attitude.

Third, what we reproach the supreme court for is not the fact that it is a tribunal. It is the federal government that uses the supreme court as a tool, with three loaded questions, to ensure beforehand that the answers will be the ones it wants to obtain.

That is a tactic one usually resorts to when one knows once are losing. Instead of trying to win on the skating rink, they are trying to change the rules of the game. It was the same thing this morning with the amendment.

There is an important distinction to be made. This morning, the minister was not able to move his amendment because it was out of order. It is not my fault if he still does not know how things should be done. If he does not know our procedure, and if there were difficulties within the majority in Parliament, it is not my problem.

But it should never be said that this amendment has been rejected by people on this side. It was not accepted because it was out of order.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, this morning, the minister was following the practice of this House. Anything can be done with unanimous consent. It happens all the time, and it is not exceptional. The hon. member is impugning the minister's motives, but he could perfectly well do what he did under the rules of the House.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is the second time a ruling of the Chair has being challenged. The hon. member is telling us the House could have reversed the Chair's ruling on procedural acceptability. That is not so. Once again, the integrity of members on this side has been questioned, just as the Chair's integrity has been.

This situation should be clarified, and the Chair should tell these members they should be talking to the motion before the House and not to an amendment that has been ruled out of order by the Chair.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

This matter has been debated long enough. I have already made a decision and we will go back to where we were in questions and comments.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to see that we did touch a nerve with the majority on the other side. To get back to the wording of the motion, the motion on which we will vote is very clear and simple.

When the member, as a member from Quebec, will return to his riding, when he will have to make a decision before his fellow citizens, before all Quebeckers, will he say that he voted against what should have been in the resolution, rather than what is actually in it? He will have to bear this responsibility before all Quebeckers, like all the other members from Quebec.

I am very anxious to hear his answer to this question. Is he able, in all good conscience, to say that he has Quebeckers' interests at heart when he denies their right to decide their own future?

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am much more concerned about Quebeckers than about the separatist government of Quebec. I hear talk of a consensus, when—

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

That is an opinion.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Democracy is all about letting people speak when it is their turn. There is talk of consensus. Has somebody forgotten to mention the fact that Mr. Ryan, whose intellectual contribution to this debate I always welcome, was very definite on the need for a clear question and solid rules of interpretation? There is no mention of that, because it does not serve their purpose.

The insult was trying to get Quebeckers to swallow the affront of an unclear question, an unclear interpretation and no plans from Mr. Parizeau. That was the insult.

Now what I find totally hilarious is the arrogance I see. If the members opposite are so sure of winning, why do they fight the principle of a clear question with clear rules of interpretation and a clear context? Why are they trying to fool the people if they are so sure? René Lévesque must be rolling over in his grave.