Debates of May 16th, 1996

Supply

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that there can be only one amendment. However, must I remind the Chair and the House that the Speaker has not yet ruled on the amendment? If the amendment is out of order, which it is not at this very moment, the minister is certainly allowed to propose another amendment.

The Chair, with the help of the Table officers, is considering whether the first amendment is in order, for two reasons: first, with regard to the substance of the amendment and, second, with regard to the point of order I raised as to whether the member had the right to propose an amendment when he did. Once the Chair rules that the first amendment is in order, if this is indeed the case, then the minister's amendment will clearly be out of order.

But until the Chair rules on the first amendment, there is no amendment before the House and, therefore, the minister has the right to propose an amendment as he did.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Once again, I thank the House leader of the official opposition, the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie, and the chief government whip, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.

First of all, I want to address the amendment brought forward by the official opposition. I believe it is in order in terms of substance. As for its timeliness, that issue is being considered as we speak. Therefore, there is no amendment before the House at this moment.

As for the amendment proposed by the minister, I will take it under advisement based on the ruling I will give in the first case and also on whether it is in order.

I will read to you the text of the amendment proposed by the minister: "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". The whole matter is being considered, and the Speaker will give his ruling to the House as soon as possible.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the minister and the House that the Prime Minister's answer followed a question which reads as follows: "At a town meeting-a-Liberal got up and said 'Chrétien, when will you tell the separatists that there will never be independence, that the federal government will never allow it to happen?'." And the answer was: "But I did not agree-it is Mr. Chrétien who is speaking-. 'We'll put our faith in democracy,' I said. 'We'll convince the people that they should stay in Canada and we'll win. If we don't win, I'll respect the wishes of Quebeckers and let them separate".

Can the minister explain to us why, in the amendment which he proposed and which may be in order, he deleted the part of the quote which appears in the Prime Minister's book: "If we don't win, I'll respect the wishes of Quebeckers and let them separate".

Why did the minister delete that part of the quote? In that quote, there are two parts: if we win, we will do this; if we lose, we will do that. That is how democracy works, it is making a choice between the two.

That is the question I am asking the minister, but I have one last comment to make.

In his speech, he said that Canada is practically the best country in the world. I would like to submit to him, for his consideration, a few examples of what Quebecers and French speaking Canadians experienced in Canada.

The first example is the assimilation process in Manitoba, where the French language was forbidden for many years, with the acceptance of the rest of Canada for a very long time.

The second one is conscription, which was imposed on Quebecers despite their decision not to take part.

The third one is that, ever since unemployment rates have been calculated, unemployment in Quebec has always been 2, 3 or 4 per cent higher that the national average. Is that an interesting economic result? Is that acceptable?

For the fourth example, I will ask why, since 1982, all the successive governments in Quebec, whether federalist or sovereignist, never accepted to sign the Constitution that was patriated without Quebec's consent? Do you really think that this makes for an interesting country for Quebecers?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the moment you mention the possibility of winning, it infers the possibility of losing.

As I said before, what is at issue here is not the right of Quebecers to leave Canada if they so desire and clearly state it, but the Quebec government's claim to unilaterally choose and change at will the process through which this right will be exercised.

Let the official opposition name one constitutional democracy that would accept a unilateral process of this kind.

As far as the examples mentioned by the hon. member, countries have their problems, but it is no reason to split. If you want to go to the UN and explain why you want to secede, you will have to come up with more serious reasons than this. You will not get anybody to shed any tears over the problems we have had with the 1982 Constitution. As a matter of fact, other countries will be very surprised to hear your objections, since Quebec representatives in the federal government supported the new Constitution, since we can produce polls showing that at the time Quebecers tended to support Mr. Trudeau rather than Mr. Lévesque, since Mr. Lévesque, instead of calling a referendum, appeased his own party, since in the following elections the separatist party got only 2 per cent of the votes; if you add up all this, you will not get anybody in the UN to shed any tears with your arguments.

All they will say is that Canada is a normal country, a democracy where there are disagreements, and that these disagreements must be settled through mutual consent and within the law.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Before continuing with questions and comments, I would like to remind all the members that they are to address their comments to the Chair.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to say that I am outraged at the lack of respect shown by the

Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to 49.4 per cent of Quebecers who voted yes, when he said that it would not make anyone cry.

To exercise a democratic right is not to try to make people cry.

But to try to sell an idea such as that of secession is more serious. Still, I should thank the minister for his excellent "Politics 101" lecture and for referring to three great classics: Tocqueville, Rousseau and Montesquieu. His speech took me back to my university years. I want to quote someone whom the minister probably considers to be a great classic too, the current Prime Minister.

Let us put things in their proper context with this more recent statement from the Prime Minister: "I am a democrat. I said it in 1980 in many speeches to that effect. If we had not recognized that Quebec could make the decision to separate, we would have acted differently. We could have used some powers. We did not use them". This is from the Bélanger-Campeau report, December 17, 1990, page 1515.

I have a question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Is he now telling us, after two referendums, after saying twice that the rules were fair and legal, after recognizing that we were democrats, that this is no longer the case and that the federal government will use the other powers alluded to in 1990? If so, what are these powers?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's ideology makes him incredibly touchy. It is an ideology based on paranoia, an ideology that makes people feel constantly insulted, humi-

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister, who just recently arrived in this House, should not only learn its rules, but also the basic rules of politeness and respect for others. It is unacceptable on his part to use such words, first because he is insulting a colleague and, second, because he is insulting those who suffer from this disorder. It is unacceptable and the minister should retract himself and show that he was well brought up.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I did not hear anything that would lead me to ask the minister to retract. However, I will take a look at the blues and deal with the issue if need be. I think we are engaged in a very important debate.

Both sides of the House stressed the importance of being respectful of each other. It may be even more important in the case of debates such as this one, on the official opposition's motion.

I am giving the floor back to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I talked about an ideology based on paranoia. I would never say that the people themselves were paranoid and I do not want the hon. member to believe that I was talking about him personally. I just wanted to say that the ideology he supports makes people feel constantly insulted and under attack. I would say that the members' reaction and their request to have me gagged and to make me apologize show that I am right to point out how paranoid their ideology is.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the minister explained what he meant by "an ideology based on paranoia" by saying: "Your ideology makes you feel paranoid", so that refers more-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Again, this is more a matter for debate than a point of order. I would remind the House that when some expressions or words are aimed at a group, they are deemed acceptable. However, when they are directly aimed at another parliamentarian, that is, as we say in Cornwall, a horse of a different colour. So, with due respect for this debate being held in the House of Commons during the 35th Parliament, I would ask the minister to resume his speech.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to say that some part of my speech was insulting to Quebecers is really paranoid, because, the 49.4 per cent of Quebecers who voted Yes did express their views. What was unfortunate during the last referendum is that we did not know exactly what a Yes vote would mean, because the rules of the game were not quite clear, as evidenced by the fact that the leader of the Yes side, Mr. Parizeau, on the night he lost the referendum, said that the 49.4 per cent was the result of the indépendantiste vote, an expression he never had the fortitude to use during the campaign itself. Rest assured that the Government of Canada is very worried about such a process that any constitutional democracy would find irresponsible.

As regards the quotes the opposition likes to use, which are in essence its only argument, I would like to point out that all the quotes the opposition have come up with show that Canada is quite ready to respect democracy but would never accept what any constitutional democracy would also find unacceptable, which is the violation of the law and a unilateral declaration of independence.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister can test the theory he has just described on the public to find out if they see it the same way. I put my seat on the line and invite him to try and get elected in my riding with its francophone majority. In order to get elected, the minister had to go through the side door. But let him face the people, let him try his luck in my riding. I wager my seat against his theories. He will see just what the public thinks of his wonderful philosophy. Democracy is a majority vote, the desire of a people to become sovereign or

remain in a federation. When the Russian federation broke up, the first government in the world to recognize all the small sovereign countries was the Canadian government. But when the same thing happens at home, it is a different story? Come on. What sort of respect for democracy is that?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the first government in the world to recognize the new republics created after the fall of the soviet empire was the Russian government. If I were happy with the state of opinion in Quebec and in Canada, I would be at the university today.

I am well aware that numerous francophones in Quebec believe that it is a contradiction to identify themselves both as Quebecers and as Canadians, and that they must resolve this contradiction by leaving Canada.

I intend to do everything in my power to convince my fellow Quebecers that they must not give up on Canada. If ever I fail, after rules expressing clearly and unambiguously what the people of Quebec want, we should take steps in a manner that is fair to everyone to bring about what for me would be a very sad thing, the secession of Quebec.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville just made an interesting speech in some respects, even though parts of it were rather shocking. It was interesting because this man, who has his own vision of Canada, concluded his speech by saying that if he cannot convince Canadians that his vision is the right one, he will be sad.

The problem is that, since 1960, Quebec's premiers of all political stripes have repeatedly tried to find a real place for Quebec through negotiations with the rest of Canada. And they have repeatedly failed to obtain satisfactory results.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am told the member for Mercier will have the floor to resume debate after questions and comments. The minister has 30 seconds to respond and I will then give the floor to the member for Mercier.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, from what I understood, the member just said that Quebecers and Canadians have had an ongoing dialogue for 30 years, which is normal in any federation, and that, according to her, this dialogue would justify the break-up of Canada.

Well, I will repeat what I have been saying since the beginning. We are talking about Canada, one of the most decentralized federations in the world. In my mind Canada is the most decentralized. Experts recognize that it is one of the most decentralized federations.

When we talk about one of the most independent federations in the world, if Quebecers let themselves be persuaded that it is not enough and that they have to separate from the rest of Canada, one of the problems they would face is that they would have to explain to their own minority that they refused one of the most generous independent status in the world without even being able to give them the same status. It would be sad and very difficult to swallow. A reconciliation within Canada would be so much better.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville is not the first to enter politics and to think that, because he is a politician, he will convince Canadians. I also have a great perception of Canada.

I came to the conclusion that the best way for this country to continue to give an example it has often given is to recognize, given its nature, that it cannot and does not want to give Quebecers the place they believe is necessary and, consequently, that it is better at this time, as many authorities in English Canada are starting to say, to make preparations to recognize that Quebec can become sovereign, and to negotiate an agreement with it. This agreement is called a partnership in Quebec and can be called otherwise elsewhere. This is where the real solution, the real hope lies. Not in plan B which the minister himself has flirted with.

Not in plan B that, unfortunately-and I was extremely sad about this because I know many colleagues opposite-the Liberal caucus discussed in Vancouver. The latest episode in plan B is the government's involvement, I do not know on whose advice, in lawyer Guy Bertrand's case.

I would like to point this out: for all lovers of democracy, what is Mr. Bertrand's logic? It is that Quebecers, who are a people, used their right to self-determination in 1867? So much for democracy. What referendum took place in 1867?

Guy Bertrand is saying: "Quebec used its right to self-determination once, when members of Parliament voted for Confederation", but we know that Confederation was a colonial act, the British North American Act. This Constitution was only patriated in 1982 and Quebec parliamentarians unanimously voted against it.

When Guy Bertrand says Quebec used its right to self-determination, when only members of Parliament voted for Confederation, he is leading the government down a road it may not wish to take, as it has spoken of letting Quebec clearly express its will.

This issue of democracy is central to the evolution of the sovereignist movement in Quebec. And I can even tell you that, over several years, I heard Guy Bertrand say repeatedly and eloquently that the 1982 Constitution was loathsome and that the National Assembly of Quebec could declare independence alone, without a referendum.

On the contrary, the sovereignist movement is the full embodiment of democracy. Over the years, it has, to quote a prominent French politician "accepted that its progression is the progression of the slowest". This was said by Michel Rocard, who, at that time, confessed that he had great respect for our way of doing things. Yes, Quebec's sovereignist movement accepts all the demands of democracy. And its behaviour has been exemplary in that regard.

Quebecers are becoming increasingly aware that they have no future for them unless they become masters of their own destiny, because they cannot take it any more, as many Canadians are tired of constantly discussing the basic conditions required for Quebec's recognition. Canadians are fed up, Quebecers are fed up, but this situation must be resolved once and for all.

We are a people and a nation. This is an inescapable fact. This is a historical fact. This is a fact the hon. member recognizes when he says that, sadly, it must be acknowledged that sovereignty is desirable, because the people of Quebec are the ones who will choose to become sovereign. The inescapable fact is that we are a pluralistic people and nation, which accepts and includes everyone living on its territory.

We equate sovereignty with the quest for the majority's approval, an approval that has been sought long and hard, with all the difficulties we went through.

To come out with statements to the effect that Quebecers would not make anybody cry is to ignore the emotions felt worldwide during the last referendum, where, I would say, the world admired the open and honest debate that went on and the way people accepted the result. Even if it was extremely close, there was no expression of indignation from the many Quebecers, not only francophones but also people of other origins with whom I have worked for a long time, from all those people who, for years and years, have dedicated their life to this cause in which they strongly believe.

The government has to stop trying to prevent Quebecers from proposing to Canada the ideal image that the minister should commit to, and that is to ensure that Quebec and Canada, once sovereignty is achieved, negotiate a partnership that will allow everybody, both Canadians and Quebecers, to address the most pressing issues that we have to set aside until this situation is resolved.

I have a series of amendments. If the Bloc amendment is rejected, I propose the following amendment to the amendment proposed by the member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville:

That the following be added after the word "win":

"adding that he would recognize the independence of Quebec if he lost".

If the amendment put forward by the member for Berthier-Montcalm is deemed to be in order, I move an amendment to the amendment.

That the amendment be amended by adding the words "the book" between the words "in" and " Straight from the Heart ''.

If both amendments are defeated, I move:

That the motion be amended by adding the following immediately after the word "stated":

"in his book, Straight from the Heart , on page 150''.

[The Deputy Speaker]

My colleagues, this is becoming very complicated. We will consider the matter and give an opinion as soon as possible. In the meantime, we can talk about any other subject related to today's debate.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member quoted a well known French political figure, Michel Rocard, to support her argument. I am always pleased to hear the extraordinary variety of points of view that come to us from that great pluralistic democracy, the Fifth French Republic, which proclaims itself an indivisible whole, and whose Prime Minister was recently quoted as finding the very idea of holding a referendum in Corsica on the future of Corsica ridiculous.

The truth is that the Canadian government's position on the right to secede is more conciliatory than that of many other western democracies. It is not saying that secession is always forbidden, but rather that a decision such a secession by one province cannot be made unilaterally. It must be done with the consent of the parties concerned and within the law. That was the position of the Government of Quebec and of the Government of Canada in 1980, and it is still the position of the Government of Canada.

Mr. Bouchard needs to get hold of himself. Instead of insulting the East Germans and the North Koreans who lost their lives in escaping totalitarian regimes, instead of saying that Canada is not a real country, he ought to keep in mind that, in free societies, in democratic and peaceful societies, the usual way to arbitrate disagreements and to settle conflicts is to plead one's case before the courts and to recognize the right of one's adversaries to do likewise.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. minister, who no doubt is much more aware of this than I, having taught political science for a long time, that facts come before laws, and that before there were constitutions there were peoples who constituted themselves before creating constitutions.

The people of Quebec are a people and a nation, one which, I repeat, has never subscribed to the Constitution. The Constitution began by being colonial, and when it was brought to Canada through the good graces of Trudeau, the National Assembly in its

entirety rejected the 1982 Constitution. Since that time, in Canada, in Canada outside Quebec, there has been a debate on how Quebec will, or will not, be allowed to rejoin the ranks of the Constitution.

During his term, Prime Minister Mulroney, regardless of what other qualities or shortcomings we ascribe to him, tried to make room for Quebec in the 1982 Constitution. This gave rise to Meech, this gave rise to Charlottetown.

This is the truth, a fact, not just a notion. What needs doing is not to convince Quebecers that Canada is an ideal country, but to find a concrete solution so that Quebec will at last have the powers it requires to develop as it is entitled to develop.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the whole basis is there. What law is the hon. member speaking of? It is not international law, which extends the right of secession only in cases of decolonialization or manifest exploitation. It is not Canadian law, which does not give a province the right to secede unilaterally.

So, if she is not speaking about a formal law, she should recognize that it is high time we talked calmly about rules that would be acceptable to everyone in order to ensure that Canadians are treated fairly in all circumstances.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, never in this fairly long stretch separating us from the two referendums has the Government of Canada said such things. It always distinguished between politics and the Constitution.

Why, when we almost won the latest referendum, did it change its opinion? I hope with all my heart that my colleague opposite is not the person advising this government to change its attitude, which was the right one in a democracy.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to start with I would like to recall the thrust of the opposition motion. In the seventies the Prime Minister of Canada said, as reported in 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. If we don't win, I'll respect the wishes of Quebeckers and let them separate''. The aim of the opposition motion is to have the whole House repeat this statement. It is to have the Prime Minister confirm that the rules he believed in in the seventies, and stated in his book, will still apply tomorrow. This is the objective of the motion.

We can safely say that when the present Prime Minister made that statement in the seventies, he probably had data telling him that the sovereignist side would never win a referendum. This is probably what he had in mind, given the numbers he had. But the inability of the federal system to reform itself has resulted in the sovereignist vote increasing from 22 per cent in 1970, during a Quebec election, to 40 per cent in the 1980 referendum to 49.4 per cent last year. Each time we make progress because federalists make promises they do not keep.

Obviously I understand the fear of the present government when it says that it cannot change the structure and come up with a proposal that will please Quebecers. If the present government were to say that it was going to negotiate between peoples, that it was going to enshrine in the Canadian Constitution the recognition of the two founding peoples of Canada, and that it would allow Quebec to develop-

Quebecers have been making these claims for a long time, but proposals never came to anything because they did not meet the needs of both peoples of Canada. We can understand this and there is a solution to it, which is what we are proposing. The aim of today's motion however is to make sure it will be done democratically.

I would like to clarify something the Prime Minister keeps on repeating. He says: "You lost the referendum twice, now respect democracy". Democracy does not mean we have to stop believing what we believe in when we lose an election, democracy is keeping on trying to convince people we are right and they are wrong. To do this, you need tenacity. Evolution of thought is important also. In Quebec, mainly at the suggestion of René Lévesque, we gambled on the profound belief that we would solve the issue democratically. We accepted the 40 per cent result of 1980 and the more recent 49.4 per cent.

The current premier of Quebec was the first to accept the results. We play according to the rules of democracy. We are sovereignists and we say so very clearly. We will call an election, we will win and we will prove to Quebecers that this is the right solution, because you cannot make a flower grow by pulling on it, you have to nurture it. We are ready to follow the pace of the people and to present arguments to convince them.

What we need now is for the government, and particularly the Prime Minister, to confirm their respect for democracy because, over the last few days, we have heard all sorts of contradictory statements saying that it cannot be done with just over 50 per cent, that other conditions will have to be met. The federal government and Quebec must agree on the question.

There is a paternalistic attitude now, just as there was in 1982. The rules of democracy were followed then. In 1982, the government said: "We are legitimate, we have 74 federalist Libreal members out of 75 seats. Therefore, we have the right to do so. And we will put our seats on the line during the next election". Democracy prevailed because after the following election, they were all gone. Since then, the movement has gathered momentum.

We went from nationalist members within the Conservative Party to the 53 sovereignists we now have, because of the Meech Lake accord demise.

There will be sovereignists until Canada solves the problem with Quebec and, for us, the solution is sovereignty. If the government has another solution to propose, it should put it on the table and let Quebecers judge its relevancy. At the present time, the game is not played on the rink. The federal government is trying to change the rules and the players' position on the rink. That is no solution. It does not solve anything. It is like negotiating a collective agreement, when, instead of agreeing at the negotiating table, people start negotiating the back-to-work protocol, the strike issue, etc. That is irrelevant.

So, the objective of the opposition motion is to allow the Prime Minister, the current government, to reaffirm what he said in the 1970's and 1980's, that is, if they do not win, they will let Quebecers separate.

The current Prime Minister made that statement. When he says: "I'll let Quebeckers separate", which in his vocabulary is about the most terrible thing that could happen, there is a fundamental recognition that, if the results make sovereignty possible, it will have to be accepted by the Canadian government.

It is also important to let everyone see clearly that we do not live in a society that has always existed as such. Canadian Confederation is not timeless, it did not come into existence at the same time our planet did. It is the result of compromises that led British colonies to become allied in a kind of organization in 1867. It was finalized by a vote in their respective legislative assemblies. That is when it was decided to found Canada.

In a sense, Quebecers could be said to be overdoing it. They have developed an acute sense of democracy. After joining the Canadian confederation by a vote in the legislature, they saw fit, in light of the evolution of political thinking, to impose upon themselves as a requirement that a democratic vote be held in which more than 50 per cent of the population should vote in favour.

Come to think of it, the result in 1995 was fantastic. Ninety-three per cent of Quebecers voted in the referendum, a participation rate unsurpassed anywhere in the world. It was a tight vote. The verdict came in. And we said: "We shall continue to be a part of Canada according to the wishes of the majority". The majority expressed its wishes and we acknowledged the referendum results.

We also tolerated, without displaying any violence, having 20,000, 25,000 or 30,000 persons-the exact number was never determined- come to Montreal to tell us in an ultrapaternalistic way that they would decide in our place what we want. I think that we can be proud of our democratic process in Quebec. It is fair to say that this may be behind the largest consensus in Quebec.

While realizing there are differences of opinion, we are prepared to live with them and to defend them. We are even prepared to take up the fight once again and to accept what comes of it. We are asking the Liberal government to take our lead. It should simply respect whatever decision Quebecers make and stick to its guns.

In conclusion, I move as follows:

That the motion be amended by adding, immediately after the word "stated", the following:

"in his book entitled Straight from the Heart , on page 140''.

I also move the following:

That the amendment moved by the hon. member for Mercier be amended by adding the word "autobiographical" immediately before the word "book".

I move this amendment to an amendment.

I hope that members will rise in this House to tell us that, first and foremost, they are liberals and democrats and that they will respect whatever democratic decision is made. Being a democrat must take precedence over being a federalist or a sovereignist. In the decisions facing us, it is of paramount importance that the wishes of the people be respected.

I expect the current Prime Minister of Canada to do so and to reaffirm by voting in favour of this motion that he still holds the same views on the matter, that democracy will prevail in his decision and that he will accept the result of the next referendum, which will see Quebec become a sovereign state.