Debates of May 16th, 1996

Supply

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the motion before us. It states that the House adopt as its own the statement made in 1985 by the current Prime Minister. The quote is: "If we don't win, I'll respect the wishes of Quebecers and let them separate".

That is a very open statement, "if we don't win". The term win is not identified as what would be a win. It has still not been identified some 11 years later. The term "let them separate" gives no indication of how that tragic action, if it were to take place, would take place.

The Reform Party cannot support this motion. As a party we have said that we will respect a yes vote if that is the vote of the people of Quebec, but we have also said that we can only respect it if there is an honest question, and if there is honest debate on the consequences of the question. If it does happen, it is critical to follow the rule of law as much as it can be applied to answering the question.

We are discussing this motion today largely because of a lack of leadership by this government. There is no vision for the future of Canada and there certainly is no plan for the future of Canada. The lack of leadership, lack of vision and lack of any plan is not only reflected in the failed unity issue. It is also reflected in the jobs, jobs, jobs which have yet to materialize for Canadians both inside and outside of Quebec. It is reflected in a failing economy that still has not been revved up to its full potential or anywhere near it. There has not been any plan for major changes to our criminal justice system that is failing Canadians.

While we talk about the failure to address the economy and create the jobs which Canadians are so desperately looking for, the failure in both those areas plays into the hands of the separatists. They can point to the failures in Ottawa and suggest that they could do no worse on their own.

I recall some 30 years ago when the B and B commission was first introduced. The government of the day appointed it in an attempt to unite our country, to bring us together as one country. I supported the commission which was originally the B and B commission but became B and multiculturalism commission. I supported it 30 years ago because I thought that was what we must do to unite the country and get Canada moving on to the greatness that could be ours.

After 30 years it is very evident that what has been done over this period of time is not working. As a country we have never been further apart. The October 1993 election in which 54 Bloc members were elected on a mandate to take Quebec out of Canada is living testimony, is living proof of the absolute failure of past policies, of the status quo. It is not working, yet no one is asking why we should be changing.

Going back to October 1993, not just 54 Bloc members were elected, 205 new members of Parliament were elected to this place, an unheard of turnover. Again the vote was a vote for change. Canadians were telling Ottawa: "We are not happy with the status quo. We want changes to be made, not just a change of faces, but a change of policies and a change of thinking".

That message for change was not just reflected in October 1993, it was the message Canadians delivered when Meech was rejected and when Charlottetown was rejected. Those were very strong messages from the voters of Canada that the status quo was not going to get us through.

With Charlottetown something unheard of happened. The three major parties came together in support of a position, as well as the major media. All of them said to the voters of Canada to vote for it. The Canadian people rejected it.

We must never forget the Spicer commission. The government of the day put the commission in place after the failure of the Meech Lake accord to determine the mood of the Canadian people. The taxpayers spent $27 million for Mr. Spicer and his commissioners to go all across Canada and talk to hundreds of thousands of Canadians to find out what was the mood of the country and what was bothering Canadians. Probably all members of Parliament have read the report. The message very clearly was that we in this place must change.

The most important part of the report is the very last quote. It is not a quote of Mr. Spicer's or of one of his commissioners; it is a quote from one of the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who were interviewed. It appears on page 137 under the heading "Conclusion": "No hyperbole or political hedge can screen any member of any legislature who thwarts the will of the people on this matter. The voters are watching and waiting".

That was in June 1991. Those were very prophetic words indeed when we consider what happened in October 1993. The politicians ignored the warnings in that report and because they did not respond to the wishes of the Canadian people, 205 new members of Parliament were elected.

Let us review the October 30, 1995 referendum. There was no understanding on the part of the government of the message that was delivered in the October 1993 election. The government felt that the status quo, good government, would carry the day: "Do not worry, be happy. It is a family feud. Stay out of it. Do not get involved. We will win. We do not have a problem". Politicians were encouraged to stay out of Quebec. As a matter of fact, when we tried to raise our concerns in the House of Commons we were accused of fearmongering. How tragic that almost was on October 30.

As we are doing today, we will continue to debate the yardstick for breaking up a country, the 50 per cent plus one. There were statements made in the House yesterday which were not accurate. I will take a minute to clarify exactly where we are on the question of 50 per cent plus one, or what percentage of votes is required to break up a country.

Actually, it started in the province of Quebec with the leader of the Liberals in Quebec. Mr. Johnson said that he was prepared to accept 50 per cent plus one because no yardstick had been defined. We had gone into this without clearly outlining what the number should be, but the Liberal leader in Quebec said that he was prepared to accept 50 per cent plus one. At that time the Minister of Labour who was leading the government's position in Quebec and is now the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration also indicated publicly her support for 50 per cent plus one. Two major players in the October 30 referendum were saying to the people of Quebec that yes, they would respect 50 per cent plus one.

However there was a lack of a plan or leadership. Mr. Bouchard, then the Leader of the Opposition, challenged the Prime Minister to back up the quotes that had been made by the minister and Mr. Johnson, the leader of the Liberals in Quebec. Tragically the Prime Minister backed away from the commitment of both of these people and said he did not think he would accept 50 per cent plus one. He did not say what he would accept.

The tragedy is that the Prime Minister played right into the hands of the separatists. He was telling them there would be no consequences to their rejection of Canada, that he may or may not accept their position. The battle was lost to a great degree right there in not making it very clear whether or not the government was going to accept the 50 per cent plus one, the will of the voters.

We need to clarify that at no time did anyone from my party say that it should be 50 per cent plus one. We challenged the government to clarify its position on the issue. When the Leader of the Opposition challenged the government as to whether it would accept 50 per cent plus one, the government missed that great opportunity.

It is this failure to understand the need for change that has brought us to the unfortunate position we are still in today. We as a party understood that the status quo was not sufficient, that there was going to have to be change.

[An hon. member]

What did your party do in the referendum campaign?

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

A gentleman on the other side of the House is questioning our part in the referendum. The contribution we made to the referendum campaign was one for positive change. We did not stick our heads in the sand saying that the status quo was going to carry the day. We realized far better than anyone on the government side that change was going to have to be made.

As part of our contribution to the referendum campaign we prepared a list of 20 positive proposals for change that would go a long way toward keeping the country united. We went so far as to publish the 20 proposals in a full page ad in the Globe and Mail so that all Canadians could see that what we were saying was that the status quo was not going to do it, change had to be made and these were the changes that would keep the country united.

We produced the same ad in French and offered it to many of the Quebec print media. Some of them chose not to run it, some did. We wanted to get the message to the people in Quebec who wanted to reject the separatists that there were 52 members of Parliament who agreed with them that the status quo was not going to carry the day. We understood the desire and the need for change.

We were asked to stay out, that this was a family feud. In the 11th hour when the government finally realized that its plan was a disaster, that it was going to lose the referendum then there was this great cry to go to Quebec to try to save it. Whether that worked or not is still open for debate. It may have hurt the cause. However we did make a contribution toward keeping the country united by running those ads.

In the 11th hour when the government realized the status quo or good government was not going to carry the day, we did see the government agree to change and what did it come up with? Distinct society and veto. Both already had been rejected by the Canadian people and the government was now going to bring them in the back door. Never mind what the people of Canada said, the government was going to bring them in whether Canadians liked it or not. That is a major problem here in Ottawa which has to change.

Imagine giving a veto to a separatist government. How was the Liberal government able to justify that? How could it give a veto to a separatist government whose mandate is to break up our country? Unbelievable, but it was done by the government.

We are facing one more battle. The separatists said on the night of October 30 that they will be back, that they have one more battle to fight and it will be the final battle. We had better be better prepared for that one than we were for the October 30 referendum or we will lose it. If anything good is going to come out of this debate, it is that we are talking about this threat because while it is coming, we just do not know how much time we have to prepare for it.

It has been seven months since that vote on October 30 and the Liberal government has yet to come up with a plan to deal with the separatists. Day to day it has been going from policy to policy and has nothing yet to put before the Canadian people.

Our party came up with a plan that we have had published and out for months. It is our 20-20 plan, a vision for a new Confederation. In producing this document we took a twin track approach to dealing with the separatist threat.

One track is the 20 positive proposals for change that we could make to keep Quebec in Canada. There are two common elements to those 20 positive proposals for change. One is that they have broad acceptance both inside and outside of Quebec. These are changes that all of the provinces are looking for, British Columbia, Ontario, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, as well as Quebec.

They are changes which are going to happen whether we like it or not. I say that because these changes mainly involve eliminating the duplication and overlap which are taking place between the federal government and the provinces. It is going to happen because of the fiscal crisis this country is in. We are going to have to find a better way of doing a better job with fewer dollars which means eliminating a lot of the overlap and duplication.

In our 20 positive proposals for change we see a win-win situation for keeping the country united. We are going to be dealing in a major way with the deficit and debt. The other common element is that the changes do not require opening up the Constitution. These changes can all be made by a willing government. While we have high unemployment and a fiscal crisis, we certainly have to look after both of those problems before dealing with the Constitution.

We have been talking to people about our plan. As I said, it is a twin track approach. There is the positive side and the other track has the realities of any province leaving this great country of ours. That was not on the table prior to the referendum but it certainly should have been. Had it been, the separatists would have been rejected resoundingly on October 30. Again the government's do not worry, be happy, stick its head in the sand attitude resulted in our not facing the fact that change was being demanded by the Canadian people.

What are the realities of breaking up a country? It is important that the people in Quebec understand the consequences of their vote. All Canadians must understand the consequences of a vote to break up the country because it would be painful for all Canadians.

In holding my town hall meetings to talk about unity and how to keep Canada united, there are those who ask: "Why are we talking about it? Just let Quebec go. Who needs all this discussion?" I say to those people to listen to and read about the consequences of the action they are suggesting. It is not just the people of Quebec who are going to be affected. All Canadians would be affected if we were to break up this great country of ours.

These things have to be understood. We certainly have to have that debate now. In no way do we want the people in Quebec voting in the next referendum without a clear understanding of the consequences of that vote. How could we do anything less and look at ourselves? How could we not do that and expect the people in Quebec to make an informed decision on such a vital and important question?

We have outlined our plan and as I have said, it has been out for months. We have been going across Canada talking to Canadians about it and inviting their input: Do you agree or disagree? Is there something that we have missed?

The difference between the government and ourselves is it does not have a plan. The government is critical of us and it is within its right to question us. However, I ask the government, where is your plan? Sadly it is not there.

Canadians are demanding some clarity to this question. Canadians are looking at a government that has no plan. Its plan is made up on the run. When we are dealing with such an important question, when we are dealing with Canada's future, it just is not good enough.

The people inside and outside of Quebec are demanding that this government start acting in a responsible way and show some leadership.

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to my colleague, and, do you know, I understand his federalist reactions when he criticizes the position of the Liberals, who lately, to our great delight, seem to be committing one mistake after another, to the detriment of their cause. I am speaking, for example, of their intransigence that even the federalist premier of Alberta has just criticized, saying that he does not understand their stubborn insistence on interfering in the fields of education and health in particular, as these are provincial jurisdictions, and that it is harming the cause of federalism.

Before that, there were the blunders about the distinct society that was not, and the right of veto that seemed equally imaginary. I therefore understand very well the position of my hon. colleague, who is a federalist and who sees the other federalist party stubbornly blundering on and harming the cause of federalism. I have only one explanation to give him, and it is this: Whom God would destroy He first sends mad.

Now, I have a question to ask. Newfoundland was mentioned earlier. Newfoundland became a province of Canada as a result of a referendum won by a close margin. First of all, I would like my colleague to enlighten me on a constitutional point. Back then, did the Constitution provide for the arrival of a new member in Canada? And if not, why is it constitutional that Newfoundland is a member? Would it not be in order to throw it out by force of arms, as it has no business being in Canada, having entered it unconstitutionally? That is my first question.

I have a second question. At the time-I was not yet in Canada unfortunately-was the opinion of the nine provinces already there sought, because the Prime Minister is telling us that there is no question of allowing Quebec to separate without the consent of

nine other provinces? Was the consent of the nine other provinces sought before Newfoundland was allowed into Canada?

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member. He started out agreeing with the Reform position and with the fact that the government is standing pat, still sticking its head in the sand and believing that the status quo will carry the day. That is wrong and we agree with the hon. member on that.

Where we disagree is that if we work together we can bring about the change needed to keep Canada united. Quebec does not need to leave, as the Bloc is suggesting. The problems can be dealt with and Canada can remain united.

Distinct society and the veto are not what will keep this country united. We are going to go into the next century as one country of 10 equal provinces. That is the way we will face the future.

The hon. member asks about a province joining Canada, such as when Newfoundland joined Canada. I brought Newfoundland up because I was talking about the fact that all provinces are looking for the positive changes that we have outlined in our proposals. They want more control over areas under our Constitution for which they have responsibility.

I do not have the background on the mechanics used to allow the province of Newfoundland to come into Canada. I would suggest it is a different scenario when an existing country is enlarged and when a country is destroyed or broken up. If I am correct, the basis of the hon. member's question is if it is 50 per cent plus 1 to bring a province in, why would the same formula not apply to a province that wants to leave? My party and I have not taken a position on what the percentage should be, on whether it should be 50 per cent plus 1, 55 per cent or 60 per cent. The point we are making is that in breaking up a country, those rules should be clearly identified now, in advance of the referendum. That is not the sort of debate to get into once the referendum has been called.

The rules must be clearly identified so that the voters understand going in if it is going to be 50 per cent plus 1 or 60 per cent. They also must have put before them an honest, straightforward question about whether they want to stay as part of Canada or leave. Those are the two points that I want to make.

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member that the first parliamentary institution in Quebec dates back to 1792, which means that there has been a Quebec Parliament for 204 years. It predates Confederation by 75 years. It must, therefore, be acknowledged that the people of Quebec have been in existence as an entity for a very long time. The day that certain people in Quebec decided to join Upper Canada, there was no referendum held. There was no referendum at all. A little group of people in Quebec and Ontario decided to create Confederation by joining together the two peoples.

Today, they are trying to sell us on the idea that the people of Quebec are not a people, whereas they have existed as a people for 204 years. We are not merely an ethnic group, we are a people who have been in existence for at least 204 years, with a parliamentary institution. We are one of the first peoples in North America to have our own parliamentary institution. All that seems to be getting forgotten.

So now, trying to make us swallow the idea that the people of Quebec are not entitled to get out of the Canadian Confederation with 51 per cent, that is 50 per cent plus 1, is like considering that this people no longer has its powers as a people, whereas we are the oldest people in North America. Before that, there were the native people, but they were made up of a number of smaller peoples, whom the French Canadians of the time respected, while the English Canadians hated them. They were always at war with the English, but they always got along well with the French. We have always dealt freely with them.

This is the big issue. If the agreement between Upper Canada and Lower Canada and the two founding peoples had been respected, and if it was still respected nowadays, perhaps we would not be holding this debate in the House at this time. Over time, particularly after the last world war, the federal government started to levy taxes, impose its legislation, meddle in the areas of education, unemployment insurance, health and so on, all of which were areas of jurisdiction of the people of Quebec.

When I listen to the speech of the hon. member for Simcoe Centre, it does not hold together. He is off topic. That is not the subject for today, it is whether the people of Quebec are entitled or not to separate with 50 per cent plus one.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Certainly no one in our party has suggested that the people of Quebec are not a people. What the numbers should be to take a province out of Canada is a matter for debate.

Personally, I do not believe it should be 50 per cent plus 1. Whatever it is going to be, it has to be outlined in advance of the question. We cannot go into a referendum with that question up in the air.

As to the right of Quebecers to leave Canada, Quebec does not belong only to Quebecers. Quebec is part of Canada. It belongs to all Canadians. When the hon. member talks about taking Quebec out of Canada, Canadians are incensed that someone wants to destroy their country. When it was suggested that Quebec may be divisible, the argument heard from the Bloc was that it was not divisible. It cannot be both ways. If Canada is divisible in your eyes, then by the same argument Quebec must be divisible.

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Nunatsiaq.

I welcome the opportunity to remind the House of the great strength and flexibility of Canada's constitutional structure and justice system, and the primacy of the rule of law, of democracy in this great country of ours. Too often in the debate about the future of Canada, the constitutional and legal foundations of our country are characterized as irrelevant, ineffective or to be discarded.

This country's Constitution and justice system form the bedrock of our society. They are powerful vehicles for preserving the values that underlie life in a democratic society. They are in large part what makes Canada the much admired country that it is. They were built by generations of Canadians, including Quebecers. Our Constitution and justice system are not without their legitimate critics, but we should consider the motivation of those proposing this motion.

Too often we hear criticisms of a system that has served Canadians well for over a century and a quarter, a system that has made Canada's justice system among the most admired in the world. Too often we hear the defamation of a constitutional framework and a modus vivendi within that framework that has made us the envy of the world.

We must not be seduced by too clever rhetoric, surreal perceptions of this country. We must not ignore the reality of how well this country does, in fact, work. We must not ignore how well this country has served Quebecers, whose interests the Bloc Quebecois professes to represent.

It is essential for all Canadians, those in every province and territory, to appreciate the strength of the values that underlie our Constitution and justice system.

Have Canadians from whatever corner of this land done so badly by our constitutional principles, by our justice system, by our commitment to freedom and the rule of law and by our much admired ability to compromise to serve the interests of all Canadians? The answer in every case is clearly no.

Canadians are the beneficiaries of one of the most egalitarian justice systems in the world, and all this in a country that is among the most prosperous and peaceful in the world. In a world beset by economic turmoil and violence, should we not consider ourselves among the very fortunate, despite the musings of the members of the official opposition?

Our political structure and justice system have not been imposed on Canadians. They are a product of continual debate and well-intentioned compromise. Decades of effort by Canadians from all walks of life, be they elected representatives, public servants, members of interest groups or ordinary Canadians, have produced a confederation that serves Canada well today and will continue to do so in the future.

Those who participated in this process of building the underpinnings of Canadian society have strived to make our systems workable and flexible. All have fought to establish the democratic freedoms and human rights that we now take for granted. Quebecers have been at the fore of the many legal and political advances that have shaped this country. They too have built this country and its institutions. Now members of the opposition would have us believe that these institutions, the development of which so strongly was influenced by the minds and souls of Quebecers, come from outside or do not serve them.

Canada is populated by diverse cultures, by diverse groups, yet our Constitution serves them all. It is not a prison preventing the realization of the aspirations of Canadians. It is our home. Our Constitution is a flexible vehicle that permits the goals of all Canadians to be accommodated. It is a vehicle that allows the values so important to the many cultures within Canada to be respected and maintained.

What are the underlying values in Canada's Constitution and its justice system? Certainly, foremost among these values is the preservation of freedom and respect for human dignity. Those who created Canada shared a fundamental commitment to freedom, representative democracy and the rule of law. This commitment not only laid the basis for the Constitution of 1867, but set the direction for its continuing evolution.

Canada is also a peaceable society. Surely this is one of our most enduring characteristics. Canada was built out of accommodation, not revolution. It endures through the same process today.

Our legal system is built on the foundation of the rule of law. We have a strong an independent judiciary, one that reflects the character of our nation. Three of the nine judges of the Supreme Court of Canada come from Quebec. No other province has such a guarantee. As the President of the Treasury Board said so eloquently in the House in December 1994, the soul of Quebec will

continue to influence and define Canada as a country for a long time to come through its impact on the Supreme Court of Canada.

Thus Quebec not only continues to influence the direction of the supreme court, but our highest court itself is the product of a society based on the rule of law and respect for individual rights. We are blessed by a trusted judiciary that permits us to resolve our disputes in a civilized, lawful manner. All this we accomplish under the fundamental notion of the rule of law.

As I stated earlier, Canada's governments and its justice system must conform to the fundamental requirements of the charter of rights, another reflection of our respect for the rule of law. Our charter provides fundamental freedoms, the right to freedom of expression, freedom of peaceable assembly and freedom of association among them. It asserts the democratic rights of all our citizens. It protects accused persons in their interactions with the state through safeguards on arrest, detention and interrogation. It ensures that criminal proceedings are carried out in a manner which respects the rights of the accused.

The charter provides equality before and under the law and affirms French and English as the official languages of the country. Never forget the Supreme Court of Canada required Manitoba to ensure its laws were written in both official languages in accordance with the Constitution. New Brunswick has enshrined similar rights. Let us not forget the Canadian model of federalism which has brought such strength to the country.

Let us remember Canada's federalism creates a common identity and purpose that can transcend differences without replacing joint local identities and local communities. Federalism provides the structure of an economic union but places it under control of a democratic legislature.

Federalism allows minority groups to exercise democratic control over their communities and to tailor laws and government services to meet their own needs and goals. Federalism allows Canada to care for all its people. It allows different communities within Canada to resolve various issues while at the same time offering their elected representatives the chance to be part of national policy making.

Canadian federalism today is very different from that of the time of Confederation. Contrary to the rhetoric of the official opposition, federalism is flexible.

Federalism is capable of listening and responding to the needs and goals of its members. It can adapt and evolve to serve the changing needs of Canadians, but federalism must always serve to reinforce the many sided character of Canada: a home for many peoples, a land of two linguistic majorities, a free and democratic society, a strong economic community, a community that provides equal opportunity and economic security, and an important player on the international stage.

Amidst all these democratic institutions as an integral part of Canadian federalism, under a legal system premised on respect for individuals and the rule of law, Quebecers have prospered. They have shared in the creation and evolution of these democratic institutions. They have shared in the progress that has brought Quebecers to the highest offices of the country, to unsurpassed success in education and culture, and to the heads of many of Canada's largest and most productive corporations. All this they did within Canada, within the present democratic, constitutional and legal framework.

Has Quebec done so badly under this system, as members of the opposition would like Quebecers to believe? The answer is clearly no. Canada is a country of freedom, tolerance and compassion. Quebecers, like their fellow citizens across this great country, have benefited from a governmental system that serves their historical cultural interests within the community of cultures that constitutes Canada.

The government's vision for Canada is one that builds on its finest traditions and grows to serve all Canadians and all of Canada in its wonderful diversity.

I assure the House the government will continue to abide by the true principles of democracy and by the rule of law in its dealings with the many issues facing the country, including those brought forth by the members of the opposition.

We intend to follow the principles that have made this country strong, democratic and tolerant as we deal with those who wish to tear us asunder. We will not stoop to measures that would do a disservice to the principles on which our country was founded.

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to direct a question to my colleague from Prince-Albert-Churchill River, but first I would like to make a comment, because, on a number of occasions in his speech he referred to the primacy of law, to the rule of law, to justify his government's intervention in the celebrated case of the person we can now identify as Mr. "B", in reference to plan "B", that is the Bertrand plan.

I am well aware that the member for Prince-Albert-Churchill River is himself a lawyer. He is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. I have not taken law myself, but I believe the first thing we learn when we study law is the principle of the separation of powers. There is a very clear distinction to be made between the political and the judiciary.

The member for Prince-Albert, a lawyer and a politician, can make this distinction, I am sure. He is well aware that, in the

present debate, the Bertrand case is essentially a political matter. All the commentators in Canada agree that it is a political case.

This is my comment. Perhaps he could react to it. Since the rule of law is so important to him, I would like to hear his comments on the reaction of his colleague, the government whip, and of the premier of Newfoundland, Mr. Tobin, his former colleague, when they say they could not care less about the Quebec referendum act and that they did not respect it in the past and will not in the future. What does the rule of law mean in such a case?

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Prince Albert—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. As I indicated many times in my speech, it is the government's stated intention and we will carry through with that intention in all times, in all places and in all circumstances to obey and adhere to the rule of law.

The hon. member referred to a court case. The actions of the federal government with respect to that court case were simply in response to the actions taken by the Government of Quebec, taking what has been viewed as a rather extraordinary position that the rule of law, the Constitution of Canada, the courts of the nation do not have any say or any impact on the unilateral declaration of independence.

It is out of a desire to provide information to the court, to assist the court and in response to the actions taken by the Government of Quebec that the federal government is involved at all in this litigation.

Why do we always talk about things that drive us apart and emphasize differences? When we look across this great nation what are the things that tie us together? Right across the nation we believe in tolerance. Right across the nation we believe in working together. Right across the nation we believe in generosity and helping those who cannot help themselves. These are the fundamental principles that underlie our Canadian heritage, our Canadian citizenship. These are the values that unite us.

Let us talk about the things that unite us and bring us together instead of that which divides and we will find that when we can truly bring to the fore these values in a concrete fashion not only will it be good for the country in human terms, it will be good for the country in economic terms as well.

[Maurice Dumas, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Prince-Albert-Churchill River told us that this country has been good to Quebecers. So why has sovereignty made so much progress?

I have been an independentist for more than 35 years. At the beginning, in the 1960s, we were seen as crackpots. In the 1966 provincial election, the Rassemblement pour l'indépendance nationale or RIN, which was led by Pierre Bourgault, garnered nearly 8 per cent of the vote. In 1970, 23 per cent of the people voted for the PQ. In 1973, the PQ received 30 per cent of the vote and, in 1976, it came to power.

Did the hon. member for Prince-Albert-Churchill River ask himself why there are so-called "separatists"-although we prefer to use the term "sovereignist"-in Quebec?

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Prince Albert—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member would be better placed to answer that question. As I have indicated, we on this side of the House place our faith in democracy, democratic principles, the rule of law and the application of our courts. We are sure we will be able to convince all people they should stay in Canada and that ultimately we will win.

[Jack Iyerak Anawak, Liberal, Nunatsiaq, NT]

Mr. Speaker, whenever I hear about the two founding nations I think of Christopher Columbus stumbling on to America by mistake thinking he was somewhere else and finding out there were already people here in 1492. Therefore when I hear about the two founding nations I think of the Inuit and the Indian people of North America.

However, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on the Bloc motion regarding Quebec separation and the wishes of Quebecers. I ask the Bloc today to respect the wishes of Quebecers, who have twice voted to remain in Canada, and to continue the development of the Quebec society within Canada.

The right to choose one's political destiny is not an exclusive solitary right. It cannot be exercised in isolation from its surrounding framework. The right to choose one's destiny does not belong to only one part of the population. The right to choose belongs to all of the population. Just as the population of Quebec has the right to express its views on its political future, so too the people of Canada have the right to express their opinion on their political future.

We are all in this together. Our past, our present and our future are shared and our destinies are intertwined.

Canadians, including a majority of Quebecers, have made it abundantly clear they want their political leaders to work together to make positive changes to improve our collective future. Yet the separatists refuse to accept and recognize this expression of the collective will. They do not respect the wishes of those in Quebec who voted against separation and for a renewed Canada.

I focus today on the wishes and the rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada who live in Quebec. They maintain strongly they have the right to choose to remain affiliated with Canada. What does the Bloc Quebecois say about aboriginal people's right to choose? Does the Bloc Quebecois believe the Inuit, the Cree, the Montagnais and the Mohawk have the right to choose their own destiny? Does the Parti Quebecois believe in the right of aboriginal peoples in Quebec to choose? The actions and the words of the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois on this issue are somewhat contradictory and illogical.

I remind the Bloc Quebecois of the words written in 1992 by Daniel Turp, who by the way was the Bloc candidate in the recent federal byelection in Papineau-St. Michel. Mr. Turp wrote a chapter in a book of essays on secession. He made some interesting statements about the right of aboriginal peoples within Quebec to choose their destiny:

In exercising their right to self-determination, the native nations may, like Quebec, use consultation mechanisms to freely determine their political status, which could include exercising their right to democratic secession. If Quebec were to object to sovereignty measures democratically approved by the native nations, these nations could undoubtedly claim that their democratic right to self-determination and to secession had been violated.

For the right of self-determination, it is up to the majority population of a given territory to determine its political status. Where members of the Quebecois are in the majority, the future of such territories would likely be determined more by these individuals than by the native nations. On the other hand, where members of native nations are in the majority, the status of these territories would be freely determined by the majority of the individuals living there.

If the Quebecois and the native nations were to claim the same land, as may well happen, arbitration would be necessary to ensure that all people living in the territory of Quebec were able to exercise the right of self-determination as established by international law.

Yet despite these pronouncements of one of their own, time after time throughout the last referendum, before and after it, other representatives of the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois have denied the right of aboriginal peoples in Quebec to choose.

Last fall, the House will recall, the Inuit of northern Quebec, the Cree of northern Quebec and the Montagnais held their own referendums and voted massively in support of choosing to remain in Canada. The Montagnais leader, Guy Bellfleur, said: "The message is clear. We will refuse the forcible inclusion of our people and traditional lands in an independent Quebec state".

Northern Quebec Inuit leader Zebedee Nungak stated: "We will not follow you in any journey toward Quebec sovereignty. We are one people, determined not to be bandied about from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. We believe very firmly that our rights are protected in a way that cannot be snipped by a pair of scissors called Quebec sovereignty".

In response the Parti Quebecois said it would not respect the aboriginal no votes and denied that the aboriginal peoples could remain attached to Canada in the event of Quebec's secession. Earlier this year northern Quebec Cree Grand Chief Matthew Cooncome stated clearly his peoples' view on the secessionist proposal: "Quebec would be separated from Canada and from the Cree. In that situation our lands would still be ours and we have the right to choose to remain with them, and the resources they contain, in Canada".

This past March at the annual general meeting of the Makivik Corporation in Inukjuak Zebedee Nungak reaffirmed the right of northern Quebec Inuit to decide their own destiny. At that meeting Quebec's native affairs minister, Guy Chevrette, outlined the limits of his government's position: "The continuation of future negotiations will be based on principles that our government has always advocated, including the respect of the authority of the National Assembly and the integrity of Quebec's territory".

Respect needs to be given in order to be gained. The separatists cannot continue to deny and ignore those whose views do not coincide with their own. Reality must be accepted. Aboriginal peoples in Quebec, as in the rest of Canada, have real rights that are constitutionally recognized and affirmed. A relationship exists between the aboriginal peoples of Canada and the Government of Canada. That is real and cannot be wished away.

Canada is a real country from sea to sea to sea. It is filled with real people, aboriginal and others, who care deeply about it and about making it work for the benefit of all. Just as one person's junk is someone else's treasure, so one person's prison is someone else's beloved homeland.

For these reasons the Government of Canada rejects the opposition motion as amended. The opposition motion has taken the Prime Minister's words out of context. The quote properly reads: "We will put our faith in democracy. We will convince the people they should stay in Canada and we will win". The opposition motion does not reflect the government's positive action to renew the federation.

We need to stop antagonizing and offending one another with sharp words and fabricated political crises. Let us work together in mutual respect, recognizing we all have a stake in what happens.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. colleague's comments as he address the specific part of the country's problem with which he is certainly very familiar.

It occurred to me this really points to some of the problems and some of the reasons the separatists in Quebec feel it is their God given right to divide the country. The Liberal government has seen fit to enter into agreements with Indians and Inuit to set up separate governments across the nation.

We are setting up small self-governments in various parts of the country based on race. Is it any wonder the people in Quebec would be led to believe they should be accorded this same right to divide the country and to have their separate government as well? Where does it eventually lead?

I wonder if the hon. member would address that. By its very actions the Liberal government is creating and fostering this environment across the nation of separateness, of divisiveness.

Since we are talking about the possibility of another referendum to decide the future of Quebec in Confederation, what percentage would be acceptable? Since his leader said 50 per cent plus one is not an acceptable level to recognize the right of Quebec to secede, what would it be, 70 per cent, 80 per cent?

[Jack Iyerak Anawak, Liberal, Nunatsiaq, NT]

Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of percentages that needs to be determined today. It will be determined over the next number of months if necessary. We do not need to get into percentages today. What we will have to determine is what will happen over the course of the coming months or years if there is another referendum.

On the first question, obviously the hon. member has property that as far as he is concerned is his by right. If he does not, I would be surprised.

Let us say he has a property, a farm or a house with a back yard, a front lawn and what not. I am bigger than he is and I come along and say: "we are taking three-quarters of your land but in the corner you will have a little area to live on". I would bet the first thing the member would do is say he owns that land legally and lawfully.

We are dealing with the law and legalities and maybe we cannot really say that is exactly what happened in the past. We did not have legalities for land and we had a poor immigration system. In 1492 we allowed in all sorts of people.

Three-quarters is a conservative figure. If 75 per cent to 80 per cent of his land were taken away from him, I am sure the hon. member would object very strongly and would cry foul. If somebody did that to him I am sure he would know exactly how the aboriginal people in Canada feel.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is leading us to the issue of territorial integrity, which is indeed a very important issue. With the right to self-determination also comes the right of a people to live within clearly defined boundaries.

The Canadian Constitution currently guarantees our right to clearly defined boundaries. The boundaries of each province cannot be altered without the consent of the provincial legislature concerned, and not the consent of a municipality, or of the people who live on a specific part of the territory governed by this legislature. If the legislature wants to consult with the people before making a final decision, so much the better.

On the day after a yes vote, our borders will be clearly defined. If there are suggestions that people living near the Quebec border, either in New Brunswick or in Ontario, should apply to join other entities, it is not the people of Quebec who will be the troublemakers but those acting as agents provocateurs. It is therefore in no one's interest to raise these Swiss cheese theories to partition Quebec. The dispute over raw-milk cheese has been resolved, so let us quit while we are ahead.

[Jack Iyerak Anawak, Liberal, Nunatsiaq, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke of the security of borders. Should we not apply that to Canada? The hon. member and his party say the boundaries of Quebec are indivisible. If the hon. member thinks the boundaries of Canada are divisible, surely democratically the boundaries of Quebec should be divisible as well. Otherwise that is being hypocritical and discriminatory against one or two groups of people that would like to remain part of Canada should Quebec ever decide to separate, which I think will not be the case ever.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the October 30 referendum, the true face of this government has emerged. It does not care about the legitimate aspirations of Quebec as a people. In fact, all the federalist parties represented in this House have been trying to do is bring Quebec in line by changing the basic rules of democracy. If we take a look back on the constitutional issue these past few years, we notice that never before has the federalist camp dared to challenge the 50 per cent plus one rule, a rule universally recognized in the democratic world.

During the 1980 referendum campaign, the current Prime Minister was a more than enthusiastic player on the no side, recognizing ipso facto both the validity and legitimacy of the referendum

process. In 1985, in his book entitled Straight from the Heart , the Prime Minister wrote, referring to an eventual referendum on Quebec's sovereignty, and I quote: ``If we don't win, I'll respect the wishes of Quebeckers and let them separate''.

Again in 1990, he made remarks along the same line before the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, when he said: "I am a democrat and I said so repeatedly in 1980, in many speeches to this effect. Had we not recognized that Quebec could decide to separate, we would have acted differently".

As we can see from such statements, as well as from the massive involvement of federalist forces in the referendum campaigns, the Prime Minister believes in democracy, that is to say the process by which citizens participate in deciding their collective future and in whatever comes of it, or at least he did at the time when he made these statements. If the whole exercise had been illegal, do you think the Prime Minister of Canada and the federalist parties would have participated in it with such determination?

No. During the last referendum campaign, the federal government kept repeating that a victory for the yes side would trigger an irreversible process. In the famous speech he made in Verdun a few days before the referendum, the Prime Minister said that a victory for the no side would mean three things: first, the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society; second, a veto power for Quebec over any constitutional amendment; third, a decentralization of federal powers.

Six months later, what happened to these promises and to the government's democratic attitude? In December, the government pretended to recognize Quebec as a distinct society by passing a resolution in this House. This concept does not recognize that Quebecers form a people. It has no constitutional value. It is merely a statement of principle. It is wishful thinking. The same goes for the veto power, which is not included in the Constitution.

As for decentralization, this government simply continues to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction, with measures such as the establishment of a securities commission. The promises made in Verdun had the same value as those made regarding the GST. The government certainly shows a great deal of consistency in this respect.

However, the same cannot be said regarding Quebec's right to self-determination. Given the Liberal government's decision to support Mr. B's appeal, it is obvious that those in favour of plan B, led by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, now have the upper hand over the democrats in the Liberal Party and the government.

When he was the Prime Minister's adviser, the current Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said, on March 17, 1995 that, should the yes side win the referendum, the federal government should make Quebec suffer as much as possible. This same minister endorses threats to partition Quebec and claims that Quebec has no right to decide its future, even through a democratic process recognized by all, except by him and his confederates. Who calls the shots in this government? Is it the Prime Minister, who claims to be democratic, or the member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville, who is denying Quebecers the right to decide their own future.

It is important that this House adopt the motion presented by the Bloc Quebecois this morning. There must be a clear signal that the Liberal Party is prepared to respect the decision of the people of Quebec about their future. If there is not, it would be a spiteful way to conduct the debate, an irresponsible way of governing.

It is, in fact, worrisome to see this government getting into bed with Mr. "B", Guy Bertrand, in a legal manoeuvre designed to prevent democratic debate. It is just as worrisome to hear the Prime Minister call into question the very ground rules of our democratic system as it is to see him interfere in Quebec's move toward sovereignty.

It is even more alarming to see this government sit quietly by and listen to threats of partitioning Quebec, in the event of a yes vote. The government's actions leave no room for doubt. It will support those who oppose sovereignty duly obtained through a democratic process.

Sovereignists respected the verdict last October 30. The Government of Quebec did not declare sovereign the regions in which a majority voted yes. This would have been anti-democratic.

As for the federal government, its promises were so much hot air. For it, what the sovereignists are doing is illegal. It unequivocally gives its support to the partitionists and those who oppose a democratic verdict. It is completely irresponsible. Either this government does not know what it is doing and is the sorcerer's apprentice of democracy, or it knows very well what it is up to with its plan B, and has no intention of observing the most elementary rules of democracy. This government is therefore either blind or just plain irresponsible. Clearly, Canada must be very worried.

This motion thus gives the Prime Minister and his colleagues an opportunity to reaffirm the democratic values that guide their actions. Once and for all, they must stop calling into question the democratic rules known to us all. What we are asking is that democracy be allowed to operate freely. The sovereignty of Quebec is a political debate in which the people of Quebec have participated and will participate, under the terms of the Referendum Act.

The national question will be resolved in this manner, not in a court of law by a handful of jurists.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that, listening to the Bloc Quebecois member-

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

You were impressed.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

No, Mr. Speaker, I was not impressed at all.

The member says that they are the protectors of democracy, that they accept the democratic decision made by Quebecers on October 30. Yet, that same evening, then Quebec premier Parizeau clearly said "See you next time", while the current premier threatened us again just recently.

I promised a constituent of mine that I would ask a question on his behalf. The question is: If Bloc Quebecois members truly respect democracy, why have there been two referendums, in which Quebecers expressed their will to remain Canadians? How could separation be achieved with only one yes win in a referendum?

The question was asked by a wise nine year old, my son Marco.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Very good question.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Vaudreuil-

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

You should thank my son.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, could I please thank whom I want and in the manner that I wish to?

I thank the hon. member for Vaudreuil. I know the riding very well, since I grew up there. Children in Vaudreuil are indeed bright kids.

It is true that two referendums were held, one in 1980 and one in 1995. These two referendums did not result in Quebecers choosing to form a country. Quebecers voted no because they were fooled, in 1980 and in 1995, by federal politicians who promised them a Garden of Eden. Fifteen years after the first referendum, it had become obvious that the Garden of Eden was still a thing to come. Therefore, a second referendum was held. Again, promises were made.

Someone may tell Quebecers: "Vote no and Quebec will really be recognized as a true society. You will have a veto power; you will really be in heaven". However, if that does not happen, what is the logical thing to do? The logical thing to do is to say to Quebecers: "Choose to become a state. You will be able to pass your own laws, and to pay your taxes to your elected government".