Mr. Speaker, I feel we have been here before as I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-110, an act respecting constitutional amendments. The purpose is to condemn again the constitutional position taken by the Chrétien government.
I sometimes have the impression I am using that well-known teaching technique which repeats the same message in every possible form, the purpose being, of course, that its content will eventually be understood and retained.
Following the results of the referendum, members of the Bloc Quebecois unanimously decided to continue to defend the interests of Quebecers in the Parliament of Canada. Furthermore, since our members decided to continue the dialogue with the elected representatives of English Canada, it is important to repeat the message so that some day it will finally be understood and our Canadian friends will accept our future decision calmly, with dignity and respect, and be prepared to co-operate with us, albeit within an entirely different framework.
I think it is sad that the present Prime Minister still does not understand his fellow citizens from Quebec and especially what they want.
How can we in fact not get upset at such insipid statements as those made last week to the effect that there was no Quebec culture? How can we expect our Canadian friends to understand our position, if the Prime Minister himself and his Quebec cohort cannot explain the reality of Quebec to their colleagues? On this level, it is really a disaster. So much time and money spent harping on the same ideas.
Unlike the Prime Minister, we in the Bloc Quebecois consider good relations with our Canadian friends important. This is why I will try once again to explain Quebec's position in this House. Bill C-110 is unacceptable to Quebec. It is unacceptable for a number of reasons.
First, the veto is not given to the provinces, it is lent to them. Has anyone ever heard of such a thing in constitutional matters? A veto that is not actually granted, but is only on loan. In everyday life, when we lend something, we expect to get it back. Both the lender and the borrower know that there is nothing definitive about the transaction. Le Petit Larousse defines the verb ``to lend'' as to give for a time, upon condition of restitution.
Does the Prime Minister think for one instant that Quebecers will be satisfied with a loan? I think this makes a mockery of Quebecers and resolves nothing at all. Any government can decide to ask for its marbles back, and the provinces have no say, because the marbles do not belong to them. This is totally off the wall.
Is that what the Prime Minister had in mind when he made the people of Quebec the following promise, and I quote: "Any changes in constitutional jurisdiction will only be made with the consent of Quebecers"? As we know all too well, a veto on loan does not give the people of Quebec any guarantee or any security. It is therefore totally unacceptable.
Another problem adds itself to the first, as the federal government could apparently decide that this veto will be exercised either through the National Assembly or by referendum. I say apparently because there seems to be some confusion about this within the government. In fact, Bill C-110 only refers to the provinces. It is not specified whether this means their legislative assemblies or their people.
Also, when he tabled his bill before this House on November 29, the Prime Minister said: "This bill requires that the Government of
Canada first obtain the consent of Quebec, Ontario and two provinces from both the western and Atlantic regions representing 50 per cent of the population of each of those regions before proposing a constitutional amendment to Parliament".
As we can see, he did not specify either the conditions of approval. We took for granted that he meant the provincial legislatures. Surprise. If you take a look at the documents prepared by the Minister of Justice, in the section dealing with how the bill applies to constitutional amendments, you find out that, after at least six provinces have given their consent (through resolutions, referenda or government approval), the federal government will be released from the obligation to proceed with motions in the Senate and the House of Commons.
There, it is in the bag and the cat is out of the bag. Not only does the federal government only lend its veto, it is set to have absolute control over the process, given that it plans to go directly to the people if it suspects that the provincial government might not take the direction that it, the almighty central government, thinks it should take. That too is taking Quebecers for fools.
I wish to point out to this House that my suspicions were confirmed as recently as this morning, when the Prime Minister was quoted as saying that a referendum is a frustrating process held under provincial legislation and led by provincial politicians. The Prime Minister has no qualms about telling everyone that he fully intends to interfere in provincial matters whenever he feels like it, thus going over the heads of provincial politicians.
This is not a good sign of respect for democracy and the Constitution. It can be said, however, that this undemocratic approach is consistent, in light of the Prime Minister's repeated admissions that he would not abide by the results of the referendum should a majority of Quebecers vote for sovereignty.
I could go on and talk about the other reasons why this veto bill is totally unacceptable to Quebec, but I do not have enough time.
Although, as he himself admits, he had made only three small promises to Quebecers, we and all Quebecers now realize that it is nothing but a sham, nothing but false representations. Rhetoric and crocodile tears will not change anything.
The Chrétien government still does not understand anything and I fear that it has no intention of changing the federal system in line with Quebecers' aspirations. Everyone knows that. The time for deception is over. I therefore urge our Canadian friends to discuss a new partnership that would finally accommodate the aspirations of Quebecers.