House of Commons Hansard #48 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was quebec.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Indeed, there was no objection from anyone when I did it. Moreover, the hon. whip raised his point after I had finished speaking. If he had any objection, some of his colleagues were there across the way when you agreed to my request and everybody thought it was all right.
Why all of a sudden, once I have finished my speech, would I no longer be allowed to do it? Mr. Speaker, I am asking you to take these elements into consideration in your ruling.
Paul Zed LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, while I understand the comments made by my hon. friend, it is important to mention that it was out of respect for the fact that he was in the middle of making his speech that no one rose at that time. It was a courtesy to the hon. member. We felt that it was important not to get up in the middle of his speech over one comment. Otherwise, we would be always standing.
While I accept the point that my hon. colleague made, I do not think that the Chair should take it too seriously. The points that the chief government whip made amply demonstrate some of the difficulties that we would endure if the Chair were to rule in a different way.
My hon. friend, the opposition House leader, has talked about a recent decision, but there was no decision of the Chair. It was a practice; not a decision of the Chair. It is only one practice. It does not make a ruling. There has been no ruling of the Chair.
There is no ruling and the chief government Whip has made that point. There is no precedent. If there were a precedent, then I would suggest that the chief government whip would not have risen at all.
I believe respectfully that the Chair should consider this matter in due course and we should be given an opportunity to hear what the Chair's ruling might be in this matter.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I think you authorized it by allowing the Leader of the Opposition to split his time. It is done regularly by members of the House. The whips do not always say: "Our members will be doing that". The members just rise and say: "I will share my time with my colleague". Liberals do it regularly.
If the member is so courteous today, I imagine it is only because, as a former leader of the rat pack, he experienced a special surge of politeness.
Nobody objected. They could have done so before the beginning of the speech and they did not. They realized later on that, since nobody had offered any opposition, a second member would speak. This member has the right to present amendments or not, just as much as any other member in this House.
I repeat there should not be two sets of rules, one for the party in office and one for the opposition. Next time, be prepared; that is all I can say.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
I will take the question under advisement and the Chair will rule on it later today.
I want to thank the chief government whip and the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader on the government side for their interventions on this point of order.
I would also like to thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition and the House leader of the official opposition for their statements on this very important issue. The Chair will study those statements very carefully.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
I do not think there is reason to suspend the proceedings of the House at this time. I do not have a crystal ball, but if the scenario suggested by the chief whip occurs and the second member to speak does present an amendment to the amendment, I will then take that new amendment under advisement, just as I will do so for the statements, as I said before. The Chair will then come back to the House with its final ruling as soon as possible.
Resuming debate. We were at questions and comments following the first statement of the Leader of the Opposition.
Ron Irwin LiberalMinister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have had the opportunity to ask a question of the leader of the Bloc. This is a major problem which at some point has to be addressed.
Within Quebec there are aboriginal peoples: Abenakis, Montagnais, Cree, Innu, Algonquin, Mohawk, Huron, Micmac, Malecite. According to Mr. Turp, the former adviser to the Bloc, they have the superior right to self-determination. Everyone knows about the outcome of the referendum taken by the Montagnais, Cree and Innu. They are Quebecois. They are aboriginal people living in Quebec.
Within Montreal, for instance, there are 450,000 Italian Canadians. These are Canadian citizens living in Quebec. Twenty-three of the 30 ridings in Montreal voted no. The people in Hull, the Pontiac and eastern townships want to remain part of Canada.
How does the Leader of the Opposition intend to deal with this? Is he saying that 50 per cent plus 1 takes away the rights of all these people who want to remain Canadian citizens? It is a very difficult question.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to get a question from the minister of Indian affairs because, for once in an exchange between the two of us, an answer will be given.
It is unacceptable for a politician, all the more so one invested with ministerial responsibilities, to continually disrupt major political debates with remarks which do not make any sense. Let me explain.
First of all, Quebec is an entity, Quebec is a territory, and Canada is made up, as far as I know, of ten provinces and two territories. When Canada was founded, it was not by the reunion of pieces of land to form Canada, leaving the rest to form a separate country. Recognized territories in their own right, provinces joined together to form the Canadian confederation. The last example is Newfoundland. Newfoundland joined as one, not as separate pieces, even though it had to go through a second and third referendum which passed with a majority of only 52 per cent.
When the Minister brings up the concept of partition, he knows full well that, should he venture on such grounds, what is true for Quebec would also be true for the rest of Canada. Canada is a collection of entities, Quebec being indivisible, just like Newfoundland and Ontario are indivisible. These complete entities constitute a whole, they are not the amalgam of small pieces of regions which form Canada.
When Newfoundland held a recent referendum to put an end to denominational schools, did the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, with his wonderful logic, rise to say that we should not take religion out of all Newfoundland schools? Some regions voted for it, some massively against it, and others where almost evenly divided. Did he rise to say: There is a problem in Newfoundland, we cannot take religion out of all schools, because there was not a majority everywhere?
He should understand that, in Quebec, the same logic applies. The people of Quebec, as his leader said on several occasions, has the right to decide its future. Should it decide to separate, so be it. Besides, what we are asking him to support is what his own leader said: "That the House endorse the declaration of the Prime Minister of Canada, who stated in 1985: 'If we don't win, I'll
respect the wishes of Quebeckers and let them separate". The Prime Minister did not say: "I will accept the separation of small parts of Quebec", he said "I will-let them separate.
I quoted that statement on several occasions, and the Prime Minister always said the same thing. If the Indian affairs minister has difficulties with his leader's statements, that is his problem, but I would simply remind him that, on October 25, 1995, not long ago, his leader said: "Dear friends, Canada is now at a decisive moment in its history and people throughout Canada know this decision is in the hands of their fellow citizens in Quebec". The Prime Minister never used the logic of the minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and he never said Canada's future was in the hands of some citizens in some small parts of Canada that will go. Never. This is only the minister's logic.
The referendum that brought Newfoundland into the Confederation brought the whole province into it. The last referendum in Newfoundland to make schools non-denominational will bring about measures throughout the province of Newfoundland, even though there are some places where people did not vote in favour of that.
And the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development would want it to apply to only bits and pieces. That does not make any sense.
Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC
Mr. Speaker, the motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition is very important. The big fuss made by the government this morning about the way we are proceeding shows how significant and important this motion is.
Later this afternoon we will see if the Prime Minister will vote against his own democratic philosophy. We will also see if Liberal members will disavow their own Prime Minister's statement by voting against the motion. Above all, we will know where the Prime Minister stands between his fine rhetoric and his concrete actions.
For us, democracy is sacred. It is one of the greatest political legacies we can leave to our children, and we will fight for this democracy, as our ancestors did in Quebec. That is why we are saying straight out that democracy has precedence over the law. The rule of law does not stand up to a democratic verdict.
When a people hands down a democratic decision, no government, no court, not even a constitution can stop this people. This kind of decision is so important that the federal government has intervened in both Quebec referendums. In 1980 and again in 1995, the federal government felt the need to intervene in Quebec's referendum debate because it knew that, in making a decision, the people of Quebec were showing how important the democratic action of casting a ballot was to them.
In 1980-I will not insist on this because I think we all know our history, but it is still worthwhile to remind the members across the way who seem to have forgotten-in 1980, democracy was so important, the referendum was such an important event that the federal government had to intervene. Seventy-four out of the 75 Liberal members at the time put their seats at stake and made promises to Quebecers. Why? Because democracy is important, because the referendum results were important.
In 1995-a very recent event in everyone's memory-the federal government intervened once again. Once again, it made promises to the people of Quebec, including three major promises: distinct society, a right of veto, and the decentralization of powers. Everyone in Quebec knows that what was said in November and in the days following the referendum is rubbish; they did not keep the promise they made, in October 1995 for example.
Democracy will judge this government as it did following the unilateral patriation of the Constitution in 1982. It is democracy that will judge this government. It is also democracy, at the level of the Quebec people, that will decide whether or not Quebec will become a sovereign country.
What this means, I guess, is that the federal government took these two referendums seriously. It was fully aware of the implications. Moreover, just days before the last referendum, the Prime Minister of Canada addressed the nation, saying: "The decision the people of Quebec are about to make will be irreversible". That is quite a statement.
Indeed, in a democracy, when the people have spoken, it must be acknowledged and taken seriously, without interpretation. You do not come out and say that the result is not valid, because the question was not clear or what have you. You speak up when it is time to speak up. In 1980 and in 1995 for instance, the members opposite were involved in the debate. They participated in it. They should acknowledge the result, as they will have to acknowledge the result of the next referendum, which, this time, the people of Quebec will win.
The Prime Minister knows it. In his 1985 book entitled Straight from the Heart , he clearly stated: ``If we don't win, I'll respect the wishes of Quebeckers and let them separate''. There is no room for interpretation in there. This is the same man and he will accept separation if that is what the people of Quebec wish.
Why would he change his tune? In Quebec, we are used to hearing the Prime Minister make contradictory statements. But this week, he really surpassed himself. He has one version for Quebec, another one for English Canada and we learned he has yet another for the international community. Interviewed on an American program rebroadcasted in Mexico and Australia, he held a totally
different view of democracy, a view which may be more in keeping with international law and with the statement he made in his book in 1985.
The Prime Minister's rhetoric changes depending on the circumstances: before or after a referendum. He does not give the same definition of democracy in the days leading to a Quebec referendum and in the days following a Quebec referendum. His rhetoric and his definition of democracy change when he is the one planning a unilateral move, as in the case of the patriation of the Constitution in 1982. As far as I know, he had not been given any democratic mandate to patriate the Constitution, but he did just the same.
Now, when a majority of Quebecers decide through a democratic referendum that they want a country called Quebec, the Prime Minister will say it is illegal, or that Quebec cannot unilaterally decide to become independent. This makes no sense.
It did not really surprise me to hear the Prime Minister tell Quebecers, on the eve of a referendum, that their choice would be irreversible. Nor was I surprised to then hear him say that Quebec could not unilaterally declare its independence, and to find out that there is another version for international affairs.
What surprises me though is the government's strategy to take Quebecers head on. This surprises me. I am also surprised to see the Prime Minister join forces with a character such as Mr. Bertrand. This surprises me, considering the declaration made by the Prime Minister about the motion moved by the Leader of the Official Opposition.
I would like to propose an amendment to the motion. I move:
.TPC Amendment
That the motion be amended by adding the following, immediately after the word "stated":
in Straight from the Heart ,
Why do I move this amendment? Simply because I want the government to know exactly where the quote comes from. When we make a claim, we can prove it. When the official opposition makes a claim, it can prove it. The declaration referred to in our motion is in the book Straight from the heart , which the Prime Minister may have written at a quieter and less emotional time, probably when he was getting ready to run against John Turner for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada.
This statement is undoubtedly a more accurate reflection of the democratic spirit of the Prime Minister. I do not doubt for one moment that the Prime Minister is a democrat and that he really means what he wrote in 1985 in Straight from the heart . Given the motion moved by the leader of the opposition and my amendment, members opposite have all the necessary information to make their decision.
I hope they will not disavow such an important statement from the Prime Minister. I hope the Prime Minister will not go back on his own word and will support the Bloc Quebecois motion, which reads:
That the House endorse the declaration of the Prime Minister of Canada, who stated in Straight from the heart , in 1985, ``If we don't win, I'll respect the wishes of Quebeckers and let them separate.''
This is what democracy is all about.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
The Speaker takes this amendment under advisement and will inform the House of its decision as soon as possible.
Paul Zed LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what my hon. colleague said, as I always do. In his view the Prime Minister has three different speeches for three different audiences.
Did his former leader, the now premier of Quebec, Mr. Bouchard, not have a different speech or a different commentary when he was in California trying to explain the concept of sovereignty to the American audience? In describing the concept of sovereignty in the United States he was trying to liken it to the sovereign state of California, and the Americans could not quite understand that.
I am wondering whether my colleague wishes to comment on the confusion which occurs. Perhaps it is planned with crooked questions that are being put to people, with questions that are confusing, with questions that in fact supplant democracy. We believe in democracy, as my hon. colleague knows. However, when my colleague talks about different kinds of speeches he might want to reflect in the mirror or have his leader reflect in the mirror about the kinds of speeches his leader is giving to the ethnic communities and business communities in Quebec City and Montreal, the Toronto business community or to the California community.
Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's comments regarding Quebecers are quite scornful. Quebecers have made the distinction and they have no trouble understanding the words of the present Quebec premier, Mr. Lucien Bouchard.
The hon. member referred to Mr. Bouchard's visit to California. What the premier said there was consistent, for it was exactly what he said in Quebec, which is: "Yes, we must separate from Canada
to become a sovereign country." A sovereign country is never tied to another country.
Quebec does not wish to be more sovereign than France or England. To become a country, it must separate, of course. It is obvious from the speech of the member opposite that history keeps repeating itself: as they do not know history, Reform members have no idea of what is really at stake or, rather, they did not follow the referendum debate in Quebec.
I remember the hon. member in the Jacob case. Here again, Reform members do not know the background. They are unaware of the Referendum Act and of the tripartite agreement. They do not know what the question was, and now they criticize us.
No part of Mr. Bouchard's speech can be compared with the contradictory and inconsistent speeches made by the Prime Minister who, within one week, on the same subject, on an extremely important issue concerning democracy, said three totally different things. The hon. member would benefit from reading his leader's speeches to see how different they are.
Stephen Harper Reform Calgary West, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am going to begin my speech by noting that the government has passed up its own first slot in terms of speaking in this debate. Obviously it wants to gauge what all the parties are going to do before it has a position. This is fairly typical of the government and on this particular question it is totally irresponsible. Let me make that absolutely clear.
The motion states that the House recognize or adopt as its own the statement by the Prime Minister in 1985: "If we do not win, I will respect the wishes of Quebecers and let them separate". I draw the attention of the House to the French version which reads "will accept separation".
I am rising today on behalf of my party to oppose this motion. However I do want to thank the official opposition for bringing this motion before the House for a couple of reasons. It will allow some frank discussion of what is an important subject. There should be a clear communication between Quebecers and other Canadians on this. I also thank the official opposition for drawing the attention of the House to the inconsistencies of many Quebec federalists on these matters, particularly the inconsistencies of the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister's position on these kinds of issues over the year has been an absolute mishmash of confusion. During the referendum itself he said, as has been pointed out, that the referendum result would be irreversible and that it would lead to separation. Then he also insisted that separation could never actually happen. He even suggested it would never be tolerated.
The Prime Minister has said recently that he opposes a unilateral declaration of independence. Then of course there is the aforementioned quote and others which suggest he would be open to accepting it. There is a pattern by the Prime Minister in particular of very dangerous vagueness, of a lack of clarity and outright contradiction on a subject that probably more than any other subject before the House requires absolute precision.
Instead, over the years, when it comes to relations between Quebec and the rest of Canada, between English Canadians and French Canadians, we have seen from many traditional federalists dishonesty, vagueness and the outright manipulation of political and ethnic symbols. Probably the best example of that is the entire debate on the distinct society clause, which I hope to address in my remarks today.
The history of contradiction and mixed messages reached a dangerous crescendo in the last referendum. The Prime Minister was asked by the leader of the Reform Party at the beginning of the campaign whether he would take the results of the referendum seriously, whether he would recognize that the vote would be either yes or no, one way or the other. The term was 50 per cent plus one. The leader of the Reform Party also asked if the Prime Minister would recognize that the vote had important and lasting consequences.
The Prime Minister, who only days before had said the vote was irreversible, in a sudden about face refused to give a straight answer to that question. Instead he attacked the leader of the Reform Party saying that it would be irresponsible to break up the country on a single vote, et cetera. He went on to suggest that he would not even recognize a vote to separate under any circumstances, although of course he was vague on that.
That was a very interesting response. It set the tone for the entire referendum campaign. It is so typical of the way the Quebec Liberals have handled this debate. In making that kind of an answer he was, as he always is, deliberately sending mixed messages to an English speaking audience and to a French speaking audience.
In English speaking Canada he was taking the position that the country was indivisible, that it was certainly not divisible by this tiny vote and that he would stand up against it. He would stand up against the Bloc and the Reform Party to ensure that the country stayed together. However, in French Canada he sent a very different message. The message was that voting for separation really would have no consequences. It was a message that undermined the entire federalist campaign. As we know, every street corner in Montreal had a sign that said "separation". All of a sudden they could vote yes and there would not be separation.
It ultimately led to the Prime Minister's complete about face at the end of the campaign. Far from waging a campaign simply against separation in Verdun, he began to make all kinds of promises about constitutional and other changes. Actually, he did
not promise constitutional change, as he has pointed out. He sort of hinted at it. He was actually just promising change, but he wanted people to think it was constitutional change. Then he tried to get out of that after the referendum. That is his pattern of behaviour.
More important and something the Prime Minister still does not seem to realize is that he sent a mixed message on both sides of the question. It is impossible for him to get up and say that he does not recognize 50 per cent plus one, without sending the message that he does not recognize it either way. When in the end, the result was a very small victory for the no side, the Prime Minister's message that small votes do not count meant that he had snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. It is not surprising that no one accepts the result of the referendum as final. He himself said it was not, especially when it was by a small majority.
The contradictions do not end there. Since the last referendum the Prime Minister has made a statement to the Government of Quebec which does reflect the views of Canadians both inside Quebec and outside Quebec. He said that the Government of Quebec should forget about sovereignty, get on with the economy and respect the results of two referendums which have rejected sovereignty. I would agree with that.
However, the Prime Minister himself insists on resurrecting elements of his own constitutional agenda which have been twice rejected. The distinct society clause was rejected in Quebec and outside of Quebec in a national referendum on the Charlottetown accord. In the case of the Meech Lake accord, it was rejected without a referendum vote because nobody in the Conservative government would even dare put that to a referendum. It is important to note it was rejected in the Liberal leadership race by the Prime Minister himself who ran against it and got elected by being against it. He now wants to resurrect it. It is absolutely incredible. And we wonder why there is mistrust among Canadians on subjects like this one.
The government has intervened in the Bertrand decision, the case that brought this matter to the fore. My party and I have said that we support the intervention on the narrow issue that the Minister of Justice is intervening on. That is the issue that the Constitution and Canadian law must be respected and do have a role to play in any process of secession by a province. Even here there are contradictions.
I asked the Minister of Justice, what is the precise role laid out by the Constitution? What is the process of separation which they are defending? He said that he did not know. Experts have different opinions, the government has none. There is a role for the Constitution although we do not know what it is.
It is even more contradictory than that. I asked the government this very question in October 1994. I posed questions to the then Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who is now President of the Treasury Board, on October 17, 1994. On October 19, 1994 during the adjournment debate, I received an answer from the then parliamentary secretary which contained this statement: "The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, for whom I am answering, believes that the Constitution acts do not provide any rules or procedures for secession of one of the provinces".
In other words, the government then had a position which was almost identical to the position of the Government of Quebec: that the Constitution is silent on these matters, and it is a political question. If we read the rest of the answer that is precisely what the government stated, although now it has changed its position. It has changed its position to the correct position, nevertheless it has changed its position once again.
Yesterday the leader of the Reform Party moved a motion in the House to assert that this House will not recognize a unilateral declaration of independence. Unbelievably, I was asked by members of the press why we would possibly want this motion moved and voted on. It is for the simple reason that this government and the Prime Minister cannot stick to a line on this issue for more than a month. That is why. Let us get it on the record.
My view reflects the fact that I believe there is a serious split in cabinet on the entire issue. It is not a split only between soft liners and hard liners. It is a split between certain ministers from Quebec and certain ministers from the rest of Canada who I will not name.
It is a dangerous game. We have had this problem from the Quebec Liberals, not only federally but provincially, for some years. They want to take a position that is federalist and pan-Canadian, but only from Quebec's perspective. It is the dangerous game of being very unsure whether we defend the rights of Canada as a country and as a nation.
That is why we have, as we see once again this week, Mr. Johnson in Quebec City and the Quebec Liberal Party constantly being led into position where they are parroting the constitutional framework of the Parti Quebec, the framework of self-determination.
This has led particularly to the Quebec Liberals and traditional federalists in Quebec putting all their eggs in the basket of the distinct society clause. This in itself is a perfect example of why we have misunderstanding and distrust in this country.
It is a nationalist slogan. What would be the purpose of putting the distinct society clause in the Constitution? The purposes are unspecified. When we say it means special status, the government
says it does not mean special status. When we amend it to make it clear that it does not mean special status, the government says it would have no legal weight. We ask would it unify the country. Yes, but it would be a first step. A first step to what?
The basic reality is, as we have seen so many times with this issue, that when we are speaking in French in Quebec, the distinct society clause means everything. When we are speaking in English outside Quebec, the distinct society clause means nothing.
In the process Quebec federalists repeat in effect the very assertions of the separatist movement that Quebec's language, culture and civil code have never been recognized in Canada. That is absolute nonsense. Nevertheless it is the very basis on which the proposal for the distinct society clause is made.
Let me move to our position. It is clear. As Reformers, we would not accept simple separation on a simple majority vote. We voted on this issue in the House in December 1994 when we voted on the concept of self-determination. Only a few months ago we had a debate on whether Quebecers constituted a people under international law and therefore possessed the right to self-determination.
In both cases we took the position that Quebec does not have a unilateral right to separate on its own terms. This has always been our position. We took that position consistently.
At that time the government in those votes and debates also took that position. It is important for English Canadians to understand that the Progressive Conservative Party has not taken that position. It has taken the opposite position. It has consistently skipped debates and votes whenever that issue has arisen.
Although we do not accept a referendum result in Quebec as a mandate to separate, we accept it as a mandate to negotiate separation. We would expect the federal government to respond in good faith. We would go farther. Canadians, including Quebecers, are fooling themselves if they believe a yes vote would lead to anything other than separation.
It would begin an inexorable path that would lead to separation in one form or another. We would maintain one probably not satisfactory to either Quebec or to the rest of Canada. It would probably damage our interest. Nevertheless it would lead in that direction.
We have also made clear that we would accept majority rule as the basis for that mandate to negotiate. No other position will really be tenable as a practical political matter.
Let me make some reference to the last referendum. I would qualify it to this degree. In the last referendum the Government of Quebec was measuring 50 per cent plus one. It was measuring a majority as a majority of the valid votes cast.
We say a majority should be measured as a majority of all votes cast. In other words, a majority cannot be attained through the elimination of ballots or through invalidating ballots. That must never be allowed to happen. The majority must be absolutely clear in the sense that it must be a majority of all votes.
Let us recognize the political realities. We know the demographics in the province of Quebec. The majority of votes cast for a sovereignty mandate should be the majority of the population, which represents not only the majority of the people and the majority of the Government of Quebec but a majority of the ridings and, I know this is heresy, a majority of the ethnic base of the francophone Quebec voter.
Not that I consider that any more legitimate than anybody else's vote, but we have to face facts here. No matter what the Bloc Quebecois says, we are dealing with an ethnic nationalist movement and it is seeking an ethnic nationalist mandate. That is a political reality.
I also point out for those federalists who accuse me or the Reform Party of being weak on Canada by accepting a majority vote, it is not Canada which suffers from this position. It is the government and the people of Quebec who suffer from this position, as I pointed out during the referendum debate.
If the Government of Quebec chooses to go into a negotiation in which it has 51 per cent or 52 per cent support, it puts itself into an extremely weak bargaining position with the rest of the country. The rest of the country does not want separation. Many people, if not most, are extremely hostile to Quebec's separation. Therefore Quebec will face the rest of Canada which is united. It will bring Quebec to the table in a position where Quebecers are extremely weak and divided.
The final deal would have to be ratified by all partners to the Constitution. Our preference is that it would be through a referendum. However, let me be clear this is not to stop Quebec from leaving. It is my opinion that if Quebec ever voted to leave the rest of Canada would want Quebec gone. That would be the attitude that would take hold after a few weeks.
What the rest of Canada would insist on is a settlement that respected its interests. The rest of Canada has lots of bargaining chips if it would choose to go to the table and would receive a settlement that would reflect its interests. Ultimately Quebec would be in a far worse position than it would be if it simply stayed in Canada and negotiated a renewed federalism.
Canadians and Quebecers should back away from extreme positions on this. One extreme position is that we can respect
democracy without respecting the rule of law. Some sovereignists say that. Some federalists say we can respect the rule of law and somehow work around the democratic will. That is also a dangerous position and the thinking of some Liberals.
The only position if we ever get into this secession thing deeper is to proceed by respecting both. Even Mr. Lévesque in 1980 insisted there had to be a mandate to negotiate and there would have to be a second referendum. I ask the sovereignists to look at their own history on this matter.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member opposite has just said worries me. I wonder if he has seriously considered the implications.
The hon. member told us that if an unspecified majority of Quebecers were to vote yes in a referendum, he would prefer Quebec to leave Canada as quickly as possible, or something of the kind.
Has the hon. member seriously considered the implications of what he has just said? Does he not think those are irresponsible comments, especially on the part of someone who claims to be a federalist, and that comments such as these are almost as difficult to swallow and as contemptuous as those made by the Bloc Quebecois? Would it not be appropriate for the hon. member to reconsider his remarks to the effect that, in a matter of weeks after a referendum, Canadians in the rest of the country would like to get rid of Quebec as a member of the Canadian federation?
Does he not think a close association that lasted more than 130 years is worth more than a few weeks before we decide to get out of it? Does he not think, after reconsidering, that his remarks should at least be left out of the Debates of the House of Commons?
Louis Plamondon Bloc Richelieu, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the Chair the fact that the whip has used the word "contemptuous" about the Bloc Quebecois, and therefore about members in this House. Could he please withdraw these words?
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
With all due respect, I think the hon. member for Richelieu is on a point of debate.
Stephen Harper Reform Calgary West, AB
Mr. Speaker, this position is in no way different from the one I have expressed in the past, even on national television. I am saying that we have to abide by the rule of law and the democratic will. If a majority of Quebecers vote for separation, it will be impossible to ignore that reality.
Stephen Harper Reform Calgary West, AB
But the same thing holds true for Quebec. Even if separatists are applauding, it is just the same for Quebec. If a large proportion, if millions of Quebecers vote no, that political reality cannot be ignored in the separation process, and that is why there is a partitionist movement. That is a reality.
I am surprised the member finds this shocking. Of course Canadians want to keep their country together. They do so on the assumption that all Canadians want to be a part of this country. We have been told for years, and I think the majority of Canadians believe it, that in spite of the separatist movement and its power the majority of Quebecers want to remain Canadians.
However, if the majority of Quebecers express themselves in a democratic referendum and make it absolutely clear they do not want to be Canadian, it will change the attitudes in the rest of the country.
If we have intelligent leadership that cares about the interests of the rest of the country, we will then negotiate sovereignty in a way that is quick, peaceful and in the best interests hopefully on both sides but particularly in the best interests of Canada.
We will not go to the barricades and have civil strife and unrest so that we can keep a bunch of Liberals sitting in power in Ottawa.
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC
Mr. Speaker, the speech made by the hon. member for Calgary West reminded me why the referendum results went from 40 per cent in 1980 to 49.4 per cent in 1995. Why is it that Canada has not been able to adapt to this change?
Does the hon. member think that the results were affected somewhat by the message the current Prime Minister has been sending for some time now, when he says that there is no constitutional issue to be resolved in Canada, and that the problems between Quebec and Canada will solve themselves if we have a good government?
Is it not also the result of trying to hide the fact that the Canadian Constitution is outdated and needs to be changed, from a federalist point of view-need I remind you that I am a sovereignist-but from a federalist point of view, after 16 years of inaction on the part of the federal government?
Is it not the best message that could be sent to Quebecers to let them know that the system cannot be changed from the inside, but more importantly, outside Quebec, in the rest of Canada, does the message sent by the current Prime Minister not lead Canadians to believe that there is no problem, when in fact we are still faced with a problem and all we see are the Prime Minister's efforts to create a diversion?
Stephen Harper Reform Calgary West, AB
Mr. Speaker, as a federalist reformer, I have said several times that we do recognize the need to overhaul the federal system.
That, by itself, cannot explain the influence of the sovereignty movement, because there is also dissatisfaction with the federal system in Western Canada, although there is no sovereignty movement. Of course, the situation is different over there.
I agree that the message the Prime Minister sent during the referendum campaign was a factor in the increased support for sovereignty. What I am saying is that if Quebecers had voted No, they would have obtained nothing. It would have meant the status quo, of course, the end of everything, but no reform and no promises.
In his speech in Verdun, the Prime Minister said that if Quebecers were to vote No, they would get some constitutional concessions, and that a Yes vote would not be dangerous since separation would never occur.
With messages such as these, we can easily explain, I think, why the undecided voted Yes. I hope we can change things around, but it will not be easy. We will try to convince Quebecers of two things: first, that the federal system can be significantly changed for all Canadians, and second, that sovereignty will not change the important stuff and will not be in the best interest of the province of Quebec.
Maurice Godin Bloc Châteauguay, QC
I want to thank the hon. member for Calgary West who at least understands and is honest enough to say that he does not agree with referendums that lead to separation but that he would accept that kind of outcome. If Quebecers really vote for Quebec sovereignty, he will respect their decision. What is important to him is not simply a fistful of money or his own job as a member of Parliament but the will of the Quebec people, and I want to thank him for this.
However, he has encouraged us to continue negotiating. I want to remind him that we have been trying to change the federal system since 1763, since 1838. Only recently, as he said himself a moment ago, the Prime Minister promised real changes during the referendum campaign. Everything was recorded but we did not get anything.
Does the hon. member really believe that it is possible to change the federal system? I do not.
Stephen Harper Reform Calgary West, AB
Mr. Speaker, this is not an easy question. We suggested reforms to the federal system and I note two things. The Prime Minister made commitments for reform during the referendum campaign but he did not have a mandate from the rest of Canada to do so. Moreover, do not forget that it was Lucien Bouchard himself who spoke about a partnership with the rest of Canada. This was his basic platform during the last referendum campaign.
To have a partnership you need partners. A partnership is negotiated among partners. It is impossible even for the sovereignist movement to go on with its own plan without negotiating or getting the consent of the rest of Canada.
Stéphane Dion LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, having had the honour of being elected by the citizens of Saint-Laurent is particularly relevant to what I am about to say in my maiden speech in the House of Commons.
I will never be able to express my gratitude sufficiently to the constituents of Saint-Laurent-Cartierville for having chosen me to represent them. This diverse and harmonious community inhabited by over 50 different nationalities fully integrated into Quebec society intends to exercise its right to remain in Canada.
I dedicate what I am about to say to all the young people I met during my election campaign last March. Sometimes speaking in French, sometimes in English, and often in one or two other languages, a sign of how well equipped they are for the next century, these young people sadly told me that they were not sure their future lay in either Saint-Laurent or Montreal. They belong in Montreal and to the surrounding area, that is their home.
And rather than leave, they must convince their fellow Quebecers that belonging to more than one group is a source of strength, not a contradiction. They must convince their fellow Canadians in other provinces that recognizing the distinct nature of Quebec is not a threat to Canadian unity, but, on the contrary, a wonderful way to celebrate one of Canada's fundamental characteristics.
The theme of this first speech will be democracy, which the opposition invites us to consider this May 16, 1996, by presenting the following motion:
That the House endorse the declaration of the Prime Minister of Canada, who stated in Straight from the Heart , in 1985, ``If we don't win, I'll respect the wishes of Quebeckers and let them separate''.
This quotation is taken out of context by the official opposition. It goes back to 1970, and was repeated by Mr. Chrétien in 1985. In the same passage, the current Prime Minister also said: "We'll put our faith in democracy. We'll convince the people that they should stay in Canada and we'll win". We'll put our faith in democracy. This reliance on democracy is an invitation to us to consider the meaning of the word, and to ponder the teachings of the classics.
Let us begin with that great prophet of democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville, and I quote: "I consider unjust and ungodly the maxim that, in matters of government, a majority of the people
have the right to impose their will". De Tocqueville is saying that democracy cannot be limited to the rule of the majority, because it also includes the rights of minorities, and of the smallest minority of all, the individual, the flesh and blood citizen.
The second classical author I call on is Jean-Jacques Rousseau. I will quote him in English.
The more important and serious the decisions, the closer the prevailing opinion should be to unanimity.
What Rousseau is setting out here is not obviously the rule of unanimity, which clearly is impracticable. What he is showing us is that the more a decision threatens the rights of individuals, the more irreversible it is and the more it involves future generations, the more stringent must be the procedure democracy selects for the adoption of this decision.
This brings me to the fine quote of Montesquieu linking democracy tightly with universal solidarity. And I quote: "If I knew of something that could serve my nation but would ruin another, I would not propose it to my prince, for I am first a man and only then a Frenchman-because I am necessarily a man, and only accidently am I French.
Tocqueville, Rousseau, Montesquieu. With these three French authors, no one can accuse me of distancing myself from francophone tradition. In fact, however, the principles these three set out are universal and have guided constitutional democracies in establishing their rules of law. These principles are the reason that the supremacy of law is a vital component of democracy.
Let us apply these principles to the issue dividing us in Canada: secession. It is defined as a break in solidarity among the citizens of a common country. This is why international law in its great wisdom extends the right of self-determination in its extreme form, that is the right of secession, only in situations where a break in solidarity appears de facto to be incontrovertible.
Let us quote, in this regard, the five experts who testified before the Bélanger-Campeau Commission. I quote: "Legally, Quebec's eventual declaration of sovereignty cannot be based on the principle of the equality in law of peoples or their right to self-determination, which permits independence only to colonial peoples or to those whose territory is under foreign occupation".
The secessions that have taken place to date have always arisen out of decolonization or the troubled times that follow the end of totalitarian or authoritarian regimes. It is not simply a matter of chance that no well established democracy with a minimum of ten years of universal suffrage has ever faced secession. Such a break in solidarity appears very hard to justify in a democracy. International law and democratic principles encourage the people to remain united, not to break up.
While democracy infers that a group of people cannot be forced to remain within a country against their will, it also sets strict rules, which, under the law, maximize the guarantees of justice for all. That is what we learned from near-secessions that have taken place in stable democracies. It may be a good idea to review the procedure by which Switzerland, a fine example of democracy, managed to separate the Jura from the canton of Berne while being fair to all. We could also look at how the U.S.A. intend to consult the Puerto Ricans on their political future. Closer to home, we might consider the approach taken recently by Canada to transfer title, in all fairness, on lands in the north.
Now it the time to calmly set, under the law, mutually acceptable secession rules. Not two weeks before a referendum. The Government of Canada does not deny in any way the right of Quebecers to pull out of Canada, if such is their explicit wish. However, the Government of Canada does object to the Quebec government's plans to unilaterally set and change as it pleases the procedure according to which this right will be exercised and expressed. A unilateral declaration of independence would fly in the face of democracy and the rule of law.
What is not known is whether the secessionist leaders are able of entering into a calm, level-headed and reasoned discussion process. The coarse language used recently by the Premier of Quebec, who compared Canada to a prison, or Quebec's Minister of Finance, who compared the Canadian government to former totalitarian communist governments, is an insult to the memory of the East German and North Korean people who were killed trying to escape totalitarian prisons. Independentist leaders must take a grip on themselves and make responsible statements. Otherwise, they should be prepared to call every constitutional democracy a prison, as well as the separate entity they want to make of Quebec, whose territory they consider indivisible and sacred.
With mutually consented rules in place, Quebecers could then examine with some clarity the argumentation used by secessionist leaders to try to convince them to break their ties of solidarity with their fellows citizens of the maritimes, Ontario and western Canada. It is my belief that Quebec will find this secessionist argumentation very shaky.
Exploitation cannot be used as an argument to justify secession, when the Canadian federation is one the most generous for have-not regions. Neither can self-determination, or the lack of it, be used as an argument, as few other federal components in the world benefit from as much autonomy as Quebec does within the Canadian federation.
The only argument secessionist leaders could put forth is the fact that, according to several established criteria, Quebecers could be considered as a people and that each people must have its own state. This idea that any group of people that is different from the others must have its own state is terribly untrue.
The flawed equation "one people, one country" would blow up the planet. Experts have estimated at around 3,000 the number of human groups with a recognized collective identity. But there are fewer than 200 states in the world.
Quebecers and other Canadians should reflect on this fine statement by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and I quote:
[English]
If every ethnic region or linguistic group claimed statehood there would be no limit to fragmentation, and peace, security and well-being for all would become even more difficult to achieve.
Canada is the last place in the world where identity-based fragmentation should be allowed to prevail. In the eyes of the world, this country symbolizes better than any other the ideal of how different people can live together in harmony in a single state. In this regard, let us listen to President Clinton, who said, and I quote: "In a world darkened by ethnic conflicts that literally tear nations apart, Canada has stood for all of us as a model of how people of different cultures can live and work together in peace, prosperity and understanding. Canada has shown the world how to balance freedom with compassion".
Many others have said the same thing about Canada. I will give just one other quotation:
Canada is a land of promise and Canadians are people of hope. It is a country celebrated for its generosity of spirit, where tolerance is ingrained in the national character.
"A society in which all citizens and all groups can assert and express themselves and realize their aspirations". These words, which have the ring of truth and could have come from Sir Wilfrid Laurier or Pierre Trudeau, were pronounced on July 1, 1988, by the then Secretary of State, the Hon. Lucien Bouchard.
The Canadian government's priority is to help Quebecers and other Canadians reconcile. They must speak to one another, stay in closer contact, clear up misunderstandings, find ways to make their federation work better, and celebrate Quebec's distinctiveness within Canada. They must reconcile, not only as fellow citizens but also as inhabitants of this poor planet. Let us bet on democracy.
Therefore, if the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm is deemed to be in order, I, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North, move:
That the motion be amended by deleting the words "in 1985" and by substituting for those words the following:
"in the 1970s and in 1985 as outlined on page 150 of his book Straight from the Heart : ``We'll put our faith in democracy. We'll convince the people that they should stay in Canada and we'll win''.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that one cannot move an hypothetical amendment, like my colleague just did, because he said "if". The issue is under advisement.
It is under advisement and as long as you have not ruled on the original amendment, the only thing one can do is to move an amendment to the amendment by the member for Berthier-Montcalm. In this sense, you have to rule on that matter.
Should you decide-and I do not think that your ruling will be along this line-but should you decide that the amendment is out of order, another amendment could then be moved by a member. This is very clear when you look at citation 581 which deals with amendments to amendments; it says that you cannot move an amendment when there is already one that has not been disposed of. This is the case now, and the issue is under advisement.
You must make a ruling. Once this is done, the whole series of amendments and amendments to amendments will start over again.