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.