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.