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.