Madam Speaker, before speaking directly to Motion M-206, I would like to set the record straight regarding an aberration often heard in this House. It originates with the member who moved Motion M-206, the member for Esquimalt-Juan-de-Fuca. He said something to the effect that nearly only in Canada, a beautiful and democratic country, are sovereignist groups allowed to have a say.
I would like to remind him, just in case he does not know, that in Belgium there is a right wing Flemish party, called Vlaams Blok, which promotes independence for Flanders. Out of 150 members sitting in Parliament, 11 advocate independence. In Italy, the Northern League has sent separatists members to the Parliament. They number 59 out of 630. In Spain, there are three separatist sovereignist parties. Taiwan and the United Kingdom also have sovereignist parties. Canada is not the only country where this is allowed. This is democracy.
If there is something totally undemocratic, it is Motion M-206. If you were to ask me to describe this motion in a few words, I would tell you that it is useless, it lacks intellectual rigour and is provocative.
It is useless, because when you read it, you see it has only one purpose, namely to impose the will of the majority, not of Quebecers, but of Canadians, on Quebecers. This is not the first time we have said this, and I will say it again very calmly, Quebec sovereignty will be decided by Quebecers alone, not by English Canada, not by the rest of Canada. Quebecers will decide.
This motion does not make any sense, especially when everybody uses the expression the "people" of Quebec. Even the Prime Minister, last week, answering a question I had put to him, used the expression the "people" of Quebec. Everyone in this House, except perhaps for a few Reformers and a few Liberals sitting in front of me but who would probably feel more comfortable sitting beside me with Reform members, recognize that Quebecers are a people.
It is obvious that the secessionist unit is comprised of a people meeting international standards, as stated in the motion, but it is also obvious that Quebecers are a people. So this motion is unnecessary in that regard.
This motion lists five criteria, and I will go over each of them. The first criterion is that the unit be recognized as a people. This is unnecessary, as everyone in this House recognizes that we Quebecers are a people. We also showed in the last referendum that we were a responsible people, since we proposed the term "partnership", which is very fashionable these days in the House.
I am not saying that we invented it, but I think it was the first time the term "partnership" was used in this House. The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister then turned around and used it at every opportunity. All this to tell you that we are a responsible people and that we have already proposed a few things.
The motion says that the government should consider negotiating with any claim. Again, this is unnecessary because, if the hon. member had followed the referendum campaign a little more closely, he would have seen that this is in the standards, in the concrete measures proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, the Parti Quebecois and all the sovereignists in Quebec. They propose that some things be negotiated to benefit Quebec, of course, but also the rest of Canada. There are major issues to be negotiated.
The third criterion in this motion is also quite ludicrous and unnecessary. I think this motion is wasting the very valuable time of the House. I would also say that, on the basis of the points I raised earlier, this motion lacks intellectual rigour. Indeed, this motion addresses several issues, including democratic rights and international law.
This motion makes a grab for powers vested in legislative assemblies, as-and I think the hon. member did not make any secret about this-its sole purpose is to prevent Quebecers from voting again on their future, or at least to try to put up roadblocks by imposing an endless selection process. All this just for Quebec, to grab powers belonging to the Quebec National Assembly, among others, to try to subvert set rules and to interfere with the political judgment of a people.
I think that these are extremely important criteria and that trying to legislate and put them down on paper results in the kind of nonsense we have here in Motion M-206.
I also smiled when I read the second point, which says that "the people must have been subject to a denial of political freedom or human rights in a discriminatory manner".
If I am not mistaken, until there is evidence to the contrary, Canada is a democratic country. I think that everyone agrees to say this is one of our finest values, to which the people of Quebec, Ontario and the other provinces have all contributed. Correct me if I am wrong, but it is the democratic people of Quebec who will achieve sovereignty and, similarly, it is the democratic people of the rest of Canada who will negotiate a partnership with the newly-formed country called Quebec.
It is also to lack intellectual rigour to try, through a motion, to interfere with the judgment passed on the wording of the referendum question. I am referring to here to item 4 of the motion, which states: "a clear and precise question is asked as to whether the population in question wishes to secede from Canada".
If anything was made clear in the last referendum, this was it. The issue of sovereignty has been discussed extensively, and not just since 1995. I can remember, when I was elected in 1993, making speeches on sovereignty and promoting Quebec's independence; that was part of my mandate. Come on, this is really to ascribe to us intentions we do not have.
The question will be clear. In fact, it was clear. But the important thing is that it is not up to the federal Parliament, to the Ontario Legislative Assembly, or to other provincial legislature to phrase the question. It is up to the Quebec National Assembly, as in the case of Newfoundland. Indeed, referendums are not held only in Quebec. Over the years, some also took place in other provinces. Never did the federal government, or a provincial government, interfere in the process.
In 1948, Newfoundland joined Confederation with 52.34 per cent of voters supporting the idea. Did anyone claim it was not enough? If we can join Canada with 52.34 per cent of voters supporting the idea, we can certainly leave it with the same number. The Avalon peninsula said no to Confederation in a proportion of 67.18 per cent, but eventually joined it. There was no talk of partitioning.
As you can see, this motion lacks intellectual rigour, to say the least. More importantly, it is pure provocation. To say that 66.6 per cent of the population must vote in favour of sovereignty is to provoke Quebecers. In the last federal election, some members in this House got elected with barely 35 per cent of the votes. Do we question their legitimate right to represent their riding? No, because this is democracy.
When democracy speaks, there is not a parliament, an MP, or a constitution that can oppose the will of the people. This is what democracy is all about.
Motion M-206 goes squarely against this principle. Fortunately, it is not a votable item and we will not see how many Reform members, and perhaps Liberals members, would have been tempted to support it. We would have voted strongly against the motion.