Debates of Dec. 8th, 1994

Supply

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

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to be heard.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I was under the impression that you had understood that there was no time left. Following comments from both sides of the House I came to a decision. My decision is clear. The Secretary of State has the floor. The issue is closed. The Secretary of State has the floor.

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

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

One moment, please. Order! I will not accept threats from anyone.

Resuming debate, the Secretary of State.

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Secretary of State (Parliamentary Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, I rise to speak against the motion of the member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie. The Bloc Quebecois members are trying to use the same tactics as their colleagues from the Parti Quebecois; it is quite normal, both parties are separatist.

Both are trying to make Quebecers believe that the process they are putting forward is clever. Being clever and sly has nothing to do with democracy. Democracy does not resort to clever tricks. When I read the motion by the Bloc Quebecois, I was reminded of Mr. Parizeau's own comments boasting that he had found a clever way to convince Quebecers of the validity of the separatist ideology.

In turn, the Bloc members are resorting to Mr. Parizeau's clever trick. They are trying to make us believe that the process he started is democratic. When I read the motion, I came to the conclusion that this House cannot, in a million years, endorse such a trick. This House must not support a process which does not lead to the real question. This House must not support a motion which is trying to hijack Quebec's established and legitimate consultation process. This House, this bastion of democracy, must defeat the motion by the Bloc Quebecois.

It is also obvious that the process advocated by the Parti Quebecois and its mirror image, the Bloc Quebecois, was conceived to deliberately disguise the real debate, to lead Quebecers away from the real question, from the debate on the question the Parti Quebecois itself put forward on many occasions. This question, the real one, the one the Parti Quebecois had committed itself to put to a vote, was to clearly ask Quebecers whether or not they wanted to separate from Canada.

However, the Parti Quebecois, and by default, the Bloc Quebecois, preferred to skip this step. According to Mr. Parizeau, the people of Quebec should not be asked if they want to separate from Canada. They must not be asked to vote on a clear and simple question as part of the process set in motion under the referendum act. No, that would be too democratic and not shrewd enough.

Mr. Parizeau decided instead to force the people of Quebec to take part in a process, the outcome of which is already known, one that offers only one option and they are required to make a profession of faith for separation in order to take part in this process. Let us not delude ourselves. Parizeau has no intention of letting Quebecers who do not think like him influence his

process and its outcome. He has clearly stated that it would be difficult to change his mind about certain aspects of his draft bill. How are we to believe that the process will be democratic then?

How could a federalist who does not share the separatist ideal feel free to express her concerns to a commission mandated to consider the basis of a sovereign Quebec, separated from Canada? She will not even be given the opportunity to question separation or discuss the issue. She is invited to share with Mr. Parizeau her views on the choice of a currency, her citizenship, and the future of Quebec apart from Canada.

Where will federalist Quebecers find a forum where they can exercise their right to speak and put across their fundamental opposition to separation? They will quite simply have no forum, because the Parti Quebecois just does not want to hear what they have to say.

As we say in French, the PQ has no use for anyone who does not share its opinion. The Parti Quebecois has already decided the future of Quebecers. The PQ and Bloc members are the only ones who know what is good for the people of Quebec. They have charted their future without even consulting them.

In the interest of the people of Quebec, the Parti Quebecois will take Quebec out of Canada. Too bad for Quebecers who believe in federalism and object to separation. Too bad for you, if you wanted to express your concerns and fears about, or rejection of the separatist option. Just do not be afraid.

The Parti Quebecois is telling these people that there is nothing to be afraid of, since it has all been decided: economic association, currency, legislation and so on. All they have to do is vote on a bill that has already been passed by the Pequiste majority. They do not even have to worry about the desirability of separation because, as far as they are concerned, it is a done deal.

The Parti Quebecois says that it is the only option, that there is nothing else. Such is the democratic process PQ style. Everything has already been decided in advance. It is as though your neighbour Gilles woke you up on Saturday morning to tell you: "You are moving. The decision has already been made. You have no choice. If you want, however, we can discuss the size of the moving van you will need".

No one could describe this as an open approach allowing all viewpoints to be heard. You could not even object to your moving; it would be a done deal.

Like your neighbour Gilles, the opposition member is asking us to say: "No problem. Even though I have always been against moving, it does not matter. I will move. Let us now discuss the size of the van".

Such is the democratic logic of the motion they are asking us to adopt. Not only is the process rigged but there is an additional obstacle. Federalists are not allowed equal representation on the commissions advocated by PQ members. They are not given access to the same resources and do not have as much time to speak as the separatists. The process advocated by the PQ goes against the very spirit of the Referendum Act.

René Lévesque, who was a proud believer in fairness and parity, would be ashamed. Those who define themselves as his heirs are now subverting the basic principles underlying Quebec's tradition of consulting its people. How can they ask us today to ratify a process that flies in the face of democratic principles?

The PQ process is forcing people to conclude that separation is inevitable, that Quebecers no longer have a choice. I am denouncing this bluff by the Quebec government, just as I reject the motion tabled by the Bloc Quebecois.

Nowhere is it said or written that Quebecers must separate from Canada, and that to fully realize their future, they must create a new country. Quebecers already have a country, a country that they built, that belongs to them, that reflects their culture, their language, their achievements, a country where they are free to grow without constraints. This country is Canada.

Quebecers were directly involved in building and developing this country. They did more than preside over its birth. They are responsible for it and contribute to its growth. They are essential members of this country.

The opposition's motion asks us to presume that Quebecers want to break their ties with their country, to reject a country that they built and which belongs to them, without asking them whether or not they want to take that road.

In all conscience, I cannot support this motion. I cannot vote for a motion which is contrary to the spirit of a citizen's most basic right in this country, namely the right to free expression of his opinion.

I call on all members of this House to vote against this motion, to vote no to the trickery which subverts the democratic process, to vote no to the ruse which hides the real debate. That is why we must defeat this motion, out of respect for democracy.

The proof of all that I just said is in the press release from the Premier of Quebec when he tabled his draft bill. I would like to quote the third paragraph of this press release from the Premier who tabled a draft bill on Quebec sovereignty this week. Here is what it says, in the third paragraph: "A vast process of information and participation will get under way to give all Quebecers an opportunity to take part directly in the discussion which is beginning. The people can comment on the plan, discuss it and propose improvements-" Madam Speaker, it says "propose improvements", not propose changes, only improve it.

Again I quote from the same press release from the Premier of Quebec, this time the fourth paragraph: "Through this process, Quebecers will also be asked to draft a Declaration of Sovereignty".

Nothing is said about asking people whether they agree that Quebec should separate from Canada. We are presented with a plan. The Government of Quebec and the Bloc Quebecois think that Quebecers agree on separation. However, according to opinion polls, the majority, at least 60 per cent, are against separation. Although the government was elected on the promise of being a good government and holding a referendum on separation later, it is proposing a bill as if it had received a mandate to trigger this mechanism leading to separation. It is quite clear.

When we say that not only Liberal members in Quebec City and Ottawa do not want to participate, even important groups in Quebec that took part in the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, which my colleagues opposite in the Bloc Quebecois have mentioned repeatedly this morning, like the farmers' union, the president of the Quebec City Chamber of Commerce, the president of the employers' council and the president of the Quebec manufacturers' association said that they would not participate in this process because it is undemocratic. They would have taken part if it had been something like the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, but not in a process like this. We are not the only ones. We do not want to participate. We participate fully in Quebec life. We want to take part in a debate where people can express themselves and make points for Canadian federalism and for separation. Once Quebecers have made their decision, then their government can table draft legislation like this and tell them: You have voted for separation. Here is how we will proceed.

What is Mr. Parizeau doing right now? He is skipping the basic step, because he has already initiated the process, without even securing a mandate to separate. The answer is no, a categorical no, and we will fight the process all the way to prove it. That answer is certainly the one Quebecers will give Mr. Parizeau, and here in the House, we say no to the Bloc members.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to thank the hon. member for Saint-Léonard for participating in the current debate taking place in Quebec, this in spite of his views. He is acting like a true politician, as well as a solid and honest man, and I commend him for that.

However, I find that the hon. member is too easily outraged. I guess customs change with the times. Government members have been using the word democracy all day.

But remember the unilateral patriation of the Constitution. That was not the work of angels. It was done in 1982, by the Liberals opposite. Back then, they were proud of their democracy. The current Prime Minister, who is from Quebec, was the one behind that dirty job on Quebecers. What happened? It is very simple. They did not try to shaft Quebec. With his typical smile, which has become his trademark, he said: But we still got them, did we not? Just like a kid who did something bad.

The Liberals were not scandalized back in 1981. I remember Mr. Lévesque saying to these people, the day after the night of the long knives, that their rejoicing at Quebec's expense would end some day. Indeed, that rejoicing just might end very soon.

We mentioned the patriation of the Constitution. It goes without saying that this was not Canadian federalism's finest hour. René Lévesque was not impressed; he was no more impressed than the hon. member for Saint-Léonard is now when he talks about being forced to move.

At the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, the Bloquistes and the separatists did not have the upper hand. Yet, you were not upset by the undemocratic structure of that commission. You remained very quiet. Who took part in the 1982 coup, the unilateral patriation? At the time, you had relegated democracy to some dark place where the sun does not shine.

Madam Speaker, such a figure of speech is not unparliamentary.

Quebecers, including the hon. member for Saint-Léonard, are invited to a sort of summit. They are asked to give their views on the issue. Anything can be amended in this draft bill, which contains 17 clauses.

The preamble will be decided by Quebecers. I do not remember being consulted on the preamble of the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in 1982. Democracy works only if you agree with the Liberal Party. Then it is democracy at play and the Liberals can have anything done to Quebec, usually by a Quebecer, because it does not look quite as bad. In fact, we know who their hatchet man is; he is not here today, but we know who he is.

It is now up to Quebecers to speak up and even draft the preamble of this historic draft bill.

Maybe he did not realize it, but the hon. member for Saint-Léonard just scored a point for the federalists. I congratulate him on it, but I wish he would not say that the process is undemocratic. I think the members on the other side of the House should be the last ones to talk about democracy.

Look what they did to democracy in the famous Bill C-22 on Pearson Airport; look what they do to democracy in Bill C-62 which was introduced so innocuously and which the government will use to give away huge chunks of federal operations to its friends, probably the same people who were involved in the

Pearson Airport deal. Since the government can no longer subsidize its friends, it gives away chunks of government operations. Democracy? I say to the hon. member for Saint-Léonard that this has nothing to do with democracy.

I want to know something. You know that democracy also includes the right not to get involved. Some communities may decide not to take my advice, not to get involved, and not to contribute to the process. If they choose not to take part, it will not make me cry. I will respect their right, because it is their most basic right not to get involved.

But I still want to stress that they are welcome to participate in this debate, if they live in Quebec, of course. I hope that members opposite will have the magnanimity to respect their cultural communities, especially French-speaking communities outside Quebec, which will not be included in the debate either.

To conclude, I just want to say that I am deeply offended to hear our process being called undemocratic, especially by some of the big names in the Liberal Party who were here in 1982.

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Saint-Léonard, QC]

Madam Speaker, this morning, the hon. member mentioned all the amendments proposed to the Constitution in the last 30 years. He spoke of the patriation of the Constitution, the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, etc., but not even once did I hear the hon. members of the Bloc speak of the 1980 referendum. There was a referendum in 1980 on the issue of sovereignty and people-

Sorry. It seems someone did talk about it. Well done! Unfortunately, I was out of the House at the time.

In 1980, Quebec's sovereignty-association with Canada was proposed and the people said no. Now, we are in favour of this type of consultation. We say to the Quebec government: Ask the question! If the answer is yes, go on with the process you have started this week! What is undemocratic and what you refuse to acknowledge is that you have skipped the most important step.

There was an election in Quebec and this issue was raised during the election campaign. As you will remember, your leader corrected Mr. Parizeau on this, during the big meeting held in Joliette. He was speaking of the Parti Quebecois's strategy because nothing was being done. He would not introduce a bill in the National Assembly without holding a referendum first. And now he tables a draft bill in the National Assembly and once this bill has been voted on, there will be a referendum.

No, that cannot be. First, they must get a mandate from the people. They must ask Quebecers if they want to secede or not. Can you honestly answer this question today? Do Quebecers really want to secede or not? Do you have the mandate? That is the question. We do not think you have that mandate.

Ask the question and if the answer is yes in the referendum, you may then initiate-and I use the word on advisedly-the process announced this week by the Quebec government.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The hon. member for Terrebonne has 30 seconds for questions or comments.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would have a question to ask the hon. member on the subject of democracy. I would like to know if he can comment on this quote from page 181 of the book Straight from the Heart : ``The voice of Chief Justice Bora Laskin wasn't the only thing that wasn't clear; the majority judgment itself seemed rather ambiguous. It stated that the unilateral action of the federal government was legal but offensive to the traditional convention of getting provincial consent for constitutional amendments.'' Did my hon. colleague participate in that action?

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The hon. member has just 15 seconds.

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Saint-Léonard, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think that the hon. member is confusing apples and oranges.

[Some hon. members]

No, no.

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Saint-Léonard, QC]

It is simple. Why do you not have the courage to ask the question? Ask the question!

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to inform the House that members of the government will divide their speaking time.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am rising today to speak to the following Bloc motion:

That this House enjoin the government to recognize the legitimacy of the democratic process initiated by the Government of Quebec in order to allow Quebecers to chart their own political and constitutional future.

In so doing, let me be clear that I will be opposing the motion as I believe will be every member of the Reform Party. The motion is truly a test of our commitment to federalism in the most fundamental sense.

The motion talks about a democratic process. Is this a democratic process? The hon. member for Calgary Southwest, the leader of the Reform Party, has spoken on this point earlier. I will repeat some of his points but let me be emphatic in saying it is essential to say those things.

We are talking about a referendum. That is democratic. Before a referendum the bill proclaiming sovereignty or laying out sovereignty will be passed. It will be passed by a government elected by a separatist minority. It will be developed in stages which predefine a separatist outcome in a process completely dominated by separatists and restricted by separatist

options. The question to be asked will be lengthy. It concerns a whole bill. It will contain ambiguities and outright falsehoods.

The PQ government running this process has a very clear interpretation of the results. A yes counts; it is binding. As the leader of the Reform Party said, it is binding on those large unresolved items in the question. A no does not count. A no means we will just try again-some democracy.

The key of legitimacy is whether something is legal. This assumes that only the Quebec assembly, for this particular bill we are discussing, has sole jurisdictions in areas where it clearly does not. Articles 1, 10 and 13 reserve all powers now part of the Canadian state that require the consent of this Parliament to change and in many cases provincial legislatures strictly to the Government of Quebec.

Article 4 would allow the province to alter boundaries. It says it is not altering boundaries but it is a significant alteration to declare interprovincial boundaries to be international boundaries. Under our constitutional law that is a significant alteration.

Article 5 would authorize the Government of Quebec to pass laws regarding the use of Canadian citizenship.

Articles 7, 8 and 9 authorize the ascension of Quebec to Canadian interests and Canadian treaties, which are not just the business of this Parliament but also of our treaty partners, our internationally recognized fellow nations.

Article 11 authorizes the Government of Quebec to pay pension plans which are clearly under the jurisdiction of this Parliament and the Constitution, in some cases constitutional amendments that have been arrived at unanimously.

Article 12 would strip the Supreme Court of Canada and all other Canadian courts of their judicial authority to hear cases related to law. Article 16 would bypass all the legal amending procedures of the Constitution of Canada.

When I talk about legitimacy, I must say that, in my life, legitimacy has two parts: a political project and a political relationship. The first element is the democratic process, which is mentioned in today's motion. It is not a true democratic process, but there will be a vote, and the result of a vote cannot be ignored. I think this is important.

It will be a historic vote, and I hope it will be the beginning of an irreversible process if the result is yes or, more likely, no.

Legitimacy is made up of two other elements which are not mentioned in this motion. First, the interests of others in the political project or relationship. Their economic, fiscal, political, constitutional, social and international interests, as well as their preferences. This does not only apply outside Quebec. There are also the interests of foreign countries, of the Parliament of Canada, of other provinces and even those of hard core federalists in Quebec, in short, anyone who has the right to stay in Canada.

Second, and perhaps more important, there are the rights established by existing political and legal relationships, such as the treaties, laws, constitutions and powers of other governments here in Canada and in other countries. Our words should not be misinterpreted. It is not merely a wish, it is more than that. It is the duty of the Parliament of Canada, of the members of this House, whether they represent the Reform Party or another federalist party, to protect the interests and the legal rights of Canadians. Rights that are recognized by the international community, legal and necessary rights that all Canadians enjoy, in Quebec as in all other provinces.

The legitimacy of a unilateral process like the one proposed by the Parti Quebecois in Quebec cannot be recognized. I am not a Quebecer nor do I pretend to be one, but if I were, I would be proud to be a Quebecer, proud of my history, of my language and of my society, just as I am proud to be an Albertan. It is a choice I have made, not only as my province of residence, but also as a way of life, a vision.

I can understand Quebec's nationalistic policy which, like all nationalistic policies, has to lead to independence. I can understand this feeling, but I cannot share it.

We have to recognize that, in today's world, nationalism has its obligations just as it has its dreams. No group, no continent, no country, nobody can ignore the legitimate interests of others, but that is what the Parti Quebecois and its allies from the Bloc want to do.

This is nothing to be proud of. I think it is a shame and I sincerely hope for the benefit of Canada that the vast majority of Quebecers will recognize the irresponsible and dangerous nature of the unilateral process proposed by the government of Quebec.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened very intently to the member's dissertation. I am surprised in some real ways that the Reform Party has in a sense fallen into the trap of discussing a hypothetical case of the separation of the province of Quebec. What I do believe we should be doing is not being part of that program. What I would like to ask the member concerns some real issues that do occur and exist today in the province of Quebec.

Quebec has a massive per capita debt, a provincially formulated debt of over $9,400 for every man, woman and child in that province. Quebec's deficit is financed 40 per cent outside not only its borders but also the borders of Canada. Could the member reflect on what this debate is going to do and what it is going to cost the people of Quebec?

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to say a couple of things relative to that.

First, obviously this debate and the economic uncertainty that all this will cause will probably lead to no change whatsoever and is already costing us a great deal. It will cost Quebecers in terms of their bonds which already have a tremendous risk premium on the international market as well as the bonds of Canada which are affected indirectly. All of this uncertainty has cost us.

We know the cost it has caused Quebec over the past generation. When I was a boy, and it was not that long ago, Montreal was the major city in Canada. Today that is not true; it is Toronto. A lot of that is thanks to these developments that have occurred in the province of Quebec and this particular separatist debate.

I should be clear that in no way excuses the lack of action on the fiscal situation at the federal level. That is just as serious for Quebecers and for other Canadians and has also impacted negatively on the Government of Quebec.

Second, the member says that we are raising hypothetical scenarios. My speech and the speech of the leader of the Reform Party today were not on the hypothetical issues of separation, but on the real issue of the separatist process that is now under way in Quebec and which is the subject of this motion.

One cannot ignore the sentiments that exist in Quebec or ignore the process that is actually under way. That process is extremely dangerous and misleading. It affects the vital interests of this Parliament that is the responsibility of not only all members here but our responsibility to Canadians. We should be defending those interests much more than we are doing and defending the legal rights of the people we represent to not see this kind of a process go ahead without our participation.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to know, even though we cannot put a question to the previous speaker rather than to the hon. member for Calgary West, first, what is the national debt per capita, and second, what percentage of that debt is in foreign hands? He will surely have an opportunity to answer those questions when he speaks next.

Instead, I will direct my question to the hon. member for Calgary West, whom I congratulate for his French and for his relatively good understanding of the position of Quebec up till now. For my part, I do understand his position. He speaks clearly.

However, when the Liberal members or the Reform members talk about the legitimacy of the process initiated, I would tell you that in a democratic system, everyone can legitimately consult everyone else and have his say. Our draft bill will only be accepted once a referendum, where everybody in Quebec will have the opportunity to vote for or against it, has been held.

As far as legitimacy is concerned, I would like to remind my hon. colleague of a few processes that we have witnessed in this House and that were not exactly models of legitimacy. When the current Prime Minister of Canada was Minister of Justice and was taking an active part in the unilateral patriation of the Constitution, he said, and I quote from Le Droit of November 2, 1981: ``The intent of my government is to move ahead with the patriation of the Constitution; and even if there is no agreement with the provinces, we will do it''. Even without an agreement with the provinces: talk about a model of democracy!

Moreover, I recall that the Supreme Court had ruled that, all in all, this was legal but unconstitutional. So, I would like to ask the hon. member for Calgary West what he really thinks about it. Does he really believe it is undemocratic, in a so-called democratic system, to consult people about a social vision? I remind him that the majority of the members from Quebec in the House of Commons are sovereignists and the majority of members in the Quebec National Assembly are sovereignists, and people know it.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Madam Speaker, my answer is that we have to consult the people of Quebec, federalists as well as sovereignists, and people from outside Quebec too, I think. But we must have a real consultation process where the result is not predetermined and where all the available options are discussed. That is not the case in this process.

I would also like to talk about the repatriation of the Constitution in 1981. Someone said today that that process was undemocratic. Clearly, we do not have enough democracy in Canada today. Every day, Reformers call for direct democracy mechanisms. It is a necessity. However, under the law, the Supreme Court decided that patriation was legitimate. This question was put to the Supreme Court. Obviously, it would not have been legal or constitutional to decide to ignore all the provinces. But, in effect, a strong majority of provinces and their legislatures supported that constitutional amendment.

A government here, dominated by Quebec and the Prime Minister from Quebec decided to adopt that Constitution. Indeed, Quebec did not have a veto then, and still does not have one. And why not? We know why. It is because Mr. Lévesque, before the decision, had renounced his veto in an accord signed with the other provinces. This explains the process by which the Constitution was adopted in 1981.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to make a comment. The reason we have a consultation process is that we want to avoid being blamed for not consulting. Had we asked Quebecers whether they want sovereignty without telling them what it means, we would have been blamed because we had presented an option without spelling out its meaning. In order to avoid being blamed, and rightly so, for such action, the Quebec government decided to explain its proposal, and to give the people an opportunity to amend it. Once people know what they are voting for, they will decide through a democratic referendum whether they are ready to take one last step and say yes to Quebec sovereignty, with full knowledge of the facts.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Madam Speaker, on this issue, I am in full agreement with the Prime Minister and my leader. The question that should be asked of Quebecers is this: "Do you want Quebec to separate from Canada?" There are two aspects to that question. The first one is the desire to separate. But a desire is just that, a desire. All details would have to be negotiated afterwards. You cannot table a bill setting forth these details in the National Assembly, because it is outside its constitutional jurisdiction. The second aspect is separation. We know why the P.Q. government prefers the word sovereignty. We have seen the polls. To Quebecers, sovereignty appears less dangerous, less clearly defined. That is why that word is used instead of the real one.

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I begin by saying how extremely disappointed I am with my friends in the Parti Quebecois government in Quebec and their Bloc Quebec allies here in Ottawa. I say friends because while I disagree with their main political option, I have always respected them as reasonable and honest men and women.

I expected the Parti Quebecois government would proceed with the referendum on independence but certainly not in this undemocratic manner. Both the proposal that was announced in the Quebec National Assembly the other day and the process are contrary to the democratic principles usually followed not only in Quebec and in Canada but throughout the western world.

The process and the proposition are undemocratic on four grounds. First, the law is being tabled and passed first and then the consultation comes afterward. In other words they are putting the cart before the horse. That is certainly not what is usually done. It is not what we did in this Parliament when amending the law on the goods and services tax. We commissioned a committee which held wide ranging hearings, travelled the country and collected views. Now the government is preparing a law.

We are doing the same thing with the reform of our social security laws. We did the same thing with respect to defence and external affairs. Very important changes are being made to our policies and our laws but first we consult and bring in the law afterward.

Second, the Parti Quebecois government did not get a mandate from the electorate of Quebec in the last election to put forward such a law. It only got approximately 44 per cent of the vote and many of those who voted for the Parti Quebecois voted for them in order to have a change of government.

There are two principal parties in Quebec: the provincial Liberal Party and the Parti Quebecois. Many people were dissatisfied with the Liberal Party and voted for the Parti Quebecois for a better way of governing. That was the slogan that was on the signs: "For a better way of governing", to deal with economic and social problems.

Even among the 44 per cent that did vote for the Parti Quebecois many voted for a better way of government and not for the law that was tabled in the National Assembly the other day. It is true that during the election campaign Mr. Parizeau spoke about a referendum but he certainly did not speak of a referendum that would be preceded by a unilateral declaration of independence.

Third, in discussing the non-democratic nature of these proposals, the regional commissions that the Quebec government intends to set up are loaded in favour of the law and the principles behind the law. The premier of Quebec has invited MNAs from the Quebec National Assembly and members of Parliament to participate in the commissions. Added to those commissions will be other members who will be appointed by the Government of Quebec and favourable to its position. The chairs of those regional commissions will be persons who will not be elected members of Parliament or MNAs but, and I am referring to the words of Mr. Parizeau: "will be people who will be able to build consensus" toward the proposal that he tabled in the assembly.

In other words the goal of the chair or those regional commissions will be to build consensus toward the principle of a unilaterally independent state of Quebec.

The dice are loaded with respect to those regional commissions. They are undemocratic. That is why many groups, not just political parties, will not participate in the regional commissions. Their goal is simply to improve on, to build on, what has already been tabled in the Quebec National Assembly as a draft bill.

Fourth, the process is dishonest and misleading because it pretends to keep the best of both Canada and Quebec. It is a bit like the sovereignty association question in the last referendum in the early 1980s. For example, the draft bill provides for economic union with Canada, for keeping Canadian citizenship, for keeping the Canadian dollar, for maintaining Quebec's position in NAFTA and in NATO, for maintaining Canadian pensions and for maintaining the same territory which Quebec now has, but which it did not have at the time of Confederation.

It is a sort of having one's cake and eating it too, getting out of Canada but remaining in Canada. On those grounds as well the process is undemocratic, confusing and misleading for the ordinary voter and the ordinary citizen of Quebec.

The opening clause of the draft constitution states that Quebec is a sovereign country. That is a universal declaration of independence in the sense that it refers to an entire country. It is misleading for the people of Quebec because all provinces are now sovereign in provincial areas of jurisdiction. It was decided by the Privy Council many years ago that all provinces were sovereign in their areas of jurisdiction just as the federal government is sovereign in its area of jurisdiction.

I want to say a few words about the legality of this process. There is no provision in either the Constitution of 1867 or the Constitution of 1982 for any province to secede unilaterally. No province has that right legally. They no more have that right than would the federal government have the right to expel unilaterally a province from Canada.

Can one imagine if we passed a law in this Parliament and confirmed by the Senate to throw Quebec out or Prince Edward Island or British Columbia out, without going through the process of our amending formula. It would be considered outrageous if we even attempted to do that. Even if the federal government should try to do it with the support of a few other provinces it is unacceptable.

It is unacceptable that any province should leave unilaterally without the agreement of the other provinces because we have come to share so much together. If it requires an amendment of the Constitution to transfer a number of powers from the federal government to a provincial government-let us say to transfer manpower training or pensions or unemployment insurance or other things-then certainly it requires amendments to transfer all of the powers.

There are various views on this, but I would say at the very most for a province to secede it would require the amending formula which states that you need seven out of ten provinces, representing 50 per cent of the population in order to make such an extreme amendment to the Constitution. But at the very least, it would require the consent of the province in question and of the federal Parliament.

Some people would say that we should not talk about the legalities of secession, we should talk about the politics of it. Even politically and morally, the present government of Quebec has no political or moral mandate to introduce and pass the type of law which they tabled in the National Assembly the other day. They got only a little over 44 per cent of the vote and even then all those who voted for them did not support that option.

I understand my time is up. I had much more to say on this subject. However, we should reject this motion before the House today. We should certainly reject the bill that is in the Quebec National Assembly at the present time.

I would recommend again to my friends, whom I respect, that they go back to the drawing boards and come up with something that is more suitable, in accordance with our democratic process and then we can all decide it in a proper way.

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

Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak in this debate. In fact, I would urge all my constituents in Québec-Est, the riding I represent, to take part in the consultation process initiated by the Government of Quebec which, I would like to point out to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, is an entirely democratic process.

I think we can say that never in Quebec's history has there been a more democratic and more open process to consult Quebecers to find out what they really want. I must say I do not appreciate the use of the word "immoral" by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce in referring to the process initiated by the Government of Quebec.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

He should talk about the War Measures Act.

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

To imply that this is immoral is an insult to the intelligence of the members of this House.

What is immoral about wanting to consult and wanting to know what Quebecers want, what is wanted by people who have been deceived and whose rights have been violated for over a century? How can the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce say that this process has no legitimacy or is unlawful, when this Parliament has for years violated its own Constitution? It has shown no respect for its own Constitution or for the rights of the provinces.

The trouble with Canada was that the federal government failed to respect the rights of the provinces. If at the federal level in Ottawa, we had at least respected our own Constitution, perhaps we would not have the problems we have today, and I am referring to this failure to respect the rights of the provinces and the rights of francophones outside Quebec. Did anyone mention this? Can anyone in this House say that their rights have

not been violated by this Constitution? What about the lack of political will on the part of the federal Liberals, which has been going on for some time, to make Canada's provinces abide by the Constitution?

What I find particularly galling is that the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, who is a member from Quebec, did not say a single word in French in his speech. Is it too much to expect of a member of Parliament for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce to speak French when dealing with a matter of such importance, and I am referring to the sovereignty of Quebec?

I also want to say it is unrealistic to consider a third option, as the Reform Party did earlier, it is unrealistic to consider a third option when we realize that since 1980, every possible avenue has been explored to find an alternative to sovereignty and all attempts in this respect have been unsuccessful.