Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak today on the Prime Minister's motion to outline Quebec's traditional demands and show that this motion of the Liberal Party of Canada is nothing more than a charade to water down the aspirations of the people of Quebec.
My remarks will be broken down into three parts, covering the last three decades. What happened during each of these three decades?
Thirty years ago, during the quiet revolution, there developed in Quebec a clear movement in favour of Quebec becoming a sovereign state and assuming sole responsibility over its social and economic policies. This prompted the Quebec government to undertake discussions on the patriation of the Constitution, that is to say on a new division of powers and on an amending formula that would be acceptable to Quebec.
In 1964, the Fulton-Favreau formula restricted the federal government's capability to act unilaterally, by requiring a majority of two thirds of the provinces to make substantive changes to federal institutions. This gave rise to widespread protest in Quebec.
In fact, the Fulton-Favreau formula was putting off negotiations on the substantive issue, namely the division of powers, to deal only with the technical aspect of the matter, namely the patriation of the Constitution.
The Quebec government then specified that any agreement concerning the patriation of the Constitution would be subject to a positive and satisfactory redistribution of powers. From then on, this will become a traditional demand. A new Constitution was to give the Government of Quebec the broadest powers possible on the basis of affirming the two-nation status of Canada in the country's social, political and economic structures.
But Pierre Trudeau and the Liberal Party of Canada did not agree. Trudeau objected to policies based on Quebec as a nation. As part of the patriation process, they were intent on doing away with the Quebec rhetoric based on the concept of collective rights and with the fact that the French Canadian nation was becoming identified with the Quebec government.
At this stage of the negotiations to patriate the Canadian Constitution, the political thinking of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau is clear: Canadian federalism cannot, without jeopardizing its integrity, tolerate any constitutional asymmetry in the distribution and use of legislative powers.
Moreover, in Mr. Trudeau's mind, there are essentially only citizens and their individual freedoms vis-à-vis the state. Consequently, the Quebec society must blend with the rest of Canada.
The Victoria charter marks the beginning of a second decade of negotiations and discussions to patriate the Constitution. The charter recognizes Quebec's jurisdiction over social policies, but seeks to impose national standards. In a letter to the Prime Minister, in which he states his refusal to accept the Victoria charter, then Quebec premier Robert Bourassa writes: "Canadian federalism must be decentralized to reflect the diversity of the regions, and to allow the Quebec government to preserve the cultural future of its majority".
In March 1976, Pierre Trudeau, who was still Prime Minister, writes in a letter addressed to all provincial premiers that if there is no unanimity, the federal government will have no choice but to decide whether or not to recommend to Parliament the patriation of the 1867 Constitutional Act.
The third decade of discussions and negotiations on the patriation of the BNA Act starts with the failure of the Quebec government to obtain a mandate to negotiate sovereignty-association with the rest of Canada, a concept which implies the national
recognition of Quebecers, as well as a major redistribution of constitutional powers, in favour of Quebec. As early as 1981, and in spite of having been re-elected, the Parti Quebecois finds itself in an extremely vulnerable position vis-à-vis the federal government. A scathing answer came from the Liberal Party then in power in Ottawa. The Canadian Prime Minister took advantage of Quebec's vulnerability and proceeded with unilateral patriation of the Constitution.
On December 1, 1981, Quebec's legislature adopted a resolution opposing unilateral patriation of the Constitution. Thus, Quebec reaffirmed its will to entrench in the new Constitution the fundamental equality of the two founding peoples as well as, as a natural consequence of its distinct society status, its extended and exclusive jurisdictions.
The "Canada Act", or the Constitution Act of 1982, was the temporary conclusion of a process which had been going on for over 20 years. The charter of rights and freedoms, enshrined in the new Constitution, is the very basis of the principle of a Canadian nation. It gives the central power unprecedented political influence, an unparalleled power of centralization.
We all know what happened next: the day Pierre Trudeau decided to unilaterally patriate the Constitution, the Liberal Party of Canada lost Quebec; since the 1984 election, it never could obtain more than a third of Quebecer's votes. From then on, it spoke mainly for Canada. The Conservative Party came to power in Ottawa and undertook to have the newly patriated Constitution signed by Quebec. More consultations were held between the premiers, which led to the Meech Lake accord in June 1987. A strong basis for negotiation was then laid out between Canada and Quebec since that accord has forced the courts, from the Supreme Court on down, to interpret the whole Constitution, including the charter of rights and freedoms, in light of the traditional claims of Quebec.
Once again, however, the Liberal Party of Canada was not prepared to accept that and did everything in its power to scuttle the 1987 accord. The current Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Party made every effort, with the assistance of the hon. member for Sherbrooke, to water down the recognition of the distinct nature of Quebec. In English Canada, where the Meech Lake accord gave rise to much opposition, his voice was heard as being extremely effective in ruining any political basis needed for the accord to succeed.
The current Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Party then reiterated his party's position: Canadian federalism cannot accept constitutional asymmetry without being substantially weakened, Quebec cannot be regarded as a nation and only individual rights are recognized by the charter of rights and freedoms, which is the only instrument for interpreting the Constitution and the status of the Quebec state.
Last week in the House, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois described the rapprochement that was made in the late 80s between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party of Canada, a rapprochement which led to the Charest report, where the interpretative clause granted to Quebec in view of its distinct nature, as a state representing a nation, was formally denied.
The beginning of the third decade of talks and negotiations about the status of the province of Quebec in the Canadian Confederation, pursuant to a Constitution which Quebec never agreed on, is marked again by a toughening of Quebec's position. Since it obviously could not expect anything from English Canada, the Quebec government, largely supported by the voters, now favoured a clearly sovereignist option, as shown, first, by the emergence of the Bloc Quebecois and the mass election of its members in Ottawa; second, by the almost total disappearance of the Conservative Party; third, by the failure of the Charlottetown accord; and lastly, by the election of the Parti Quebecois in Quebec.
From then on Quebec would no longer get involved in endless and useless rounds of negotiations. The results of the second referendum on the sovereignty issue held in the province of Quebec occurred half-way through this third decade, recognizing the dazzling progress made by the sovereignty option in Quebec since the failure of Meech. Quebec is now heading towards its political sovereignty and nothing can make it go backwards. Certainly not this silly resolution which the Prime Minister of Canada introduced last week to urge the House of Commons to recognize Quebec as a distinct society. This is only a token recognition.
This very day, in the House of Commons, during question period, the Prime Minister himself denied the existence of a Quebec culture although his own resolution aims at recognizing it. He stated that there is only one culture in Canada, and that is the Canadian culture. We will vote against this resolution, which is as hypocritical as it can get.