Mr. Speaker, as the member for Jonquière, who was democratically elected June 2 to represent the constituents of my riding in the House of Commons, I wish to support the motion introduced by the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, concerning the future of the Quebec people, and to repeat my conviction that Quebeckers alone have the right to decide their future, and that the current reference to the Supreme Court on the sovereignty of Quebec is contrary to our democratic values.
I have spent several years of my life in community and political work and throughout these experiences and for as long as I can remember, I have observed Quebeckers' attachment to the democratic values of our society.
The referendums to date have always had a high turnout, showing our people's wish to decide their own future.
On the eve of the Supreme Court hearing on the legitimacy of a unilateral declaration of independence by Quebec, I think it vital to appeal to all Canadians and to point out to them once again that the Chrétien government is on the wrong track in relying on a legal authority to resolve the essentially political question of a people's right to decide its own future freely and to take responsibility for its destiny.
I am not a lawyer and I am not about to launch into legal arguments. My eminent colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois are doing a brilliant job today of demonstrating the futility of the exercise in which the Supreme Court is now engaged.
What I want instead is to appeal to common sense, which is in keeping with the feelings of the majority of Quebeckers, whether federalists or nationalists, concerning what I would call the hijacking of democracy.
We are again seeing a process which fits perfectly into Plan B, concocted by the Chrétien government to keep Quebec within the Canadian federation. This time, though, the reference to the Supreme Court strikes me as totally pathetic, since it is evidence of the failure of the Chrétien government to rise to the challenge of renewing the Canadian federation.
The Chrétien government's strategy was to stir up public opinion in Quebec on the legality of a unilateral decision to secede. Instead, it is being bombarded on all sides with the testimonials of Quebeckers stating their right to self-determination loud and clear. Whether federalist or sovereignist, all join in opposition to the federal claims on the right to self-determination. All agree that it is for Quebeckers to decide their own future.
The federal government is presently facing a strong consensus, a common front of all those who have at heart the defence of our democratic values and the institutions with which we have equipped ourselves in Quebec in order to express our societal choices. The federal encroachment in the Supreme Court was found unacceptable, even by such people as Claude Ryan and Daniel Johnson, although they headed the federalist forces in the last two referendums.
By so doing, they confirmed the fundamental break between the Quebec Liberal Party and the federal Liberals.
By rejecting the very substance of the legal arguments raised by the Chrétien government, Claude Ryan and Daniel Johnson have rejected beforehand the ruling by the Supreme Court.
Besides, Mr. Speaker, we have witnessed the establishment of a non- partisan groups composed of sovereignists and federalists, like the Pro-Démocratie group, which was joined by key figures like Monique Vézina, Jean-Claude Rivet, Pierre Paquette and André Tremblay, to name only a few.
Leading the movement which has always been more in evidence in all classes of Quebec society, the Pro-Démocratie group makes a point of condemning the initiative of the federal government in the following terms: “We share the conviction that the constitutional debate is first of all a political debate and that it should be resolved by political means. Constitutional law is based on decisions made by the people. It is not the role of constitutional law to substitute itself to the people's prerogative of choosing their own political system.”
Other key figures like Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte, archbishop of Montreal, and Monseigneur Bertrand Blanchette, archbishop of the diocese of Rimouski, have said that the Supreme Court should not decide the future of the Quebec people, thus echoing the position taken by the bishops of Quebec and Canada in favour of self-determination, at the centennial of Confederation in 1967.
I wish to stress one more time that all these people think it is up to the people of Quebec to decide their own future.
It must be recognized that the highest court in the country is widely mistrusted in Quebec today. Everyone of us will remember that in 1980, in the famous case regarding the veto right that Quebec thought it had, the Supreme Court concluded that the federal government could amend the Constitution with the support of a substantial majority of the provinces.
This constitutional deadlock has lasted for 15 years. Quebec has learned that within the existing system, no compromise is acceptable to the English-Canadian majority.
For 15 years, political players have been prisoners of that majority and incapable of renewing the federal system.
The federal government has found no better solution than to go into the legal arena in an attempt to muzzle the democratic expression of a whole people.
With this new case, the Supreme Court is heading towards a new impasse. Should we be surprised? Is it any wonder the supreme court defends the institutions that created it?
In the end, it is nothing more than the expression of the centralizing will of the federal government and bears witness to the impasse facing Canadian federation. The fact is that the Chrétien government has no argument to counter the advance of the sovereignist movement.
The reference to the supreme court is, in the words of Quebec premier Lucien Bouchard, an act of powerlessness. In addition, the reference to the supreme court arises from the change in public opinion in Canada, which is galvanizing around the doctrine of the equality of the provinces and the denial of any special status for Quebec other than a symbolic and totally insignificant one.
When I see the consensus within Quebec on our democratic values and the defence of our institutions, I am more than ever sure we can meet the challenges facing us in building our country.
I invite all of you watching me on television to express your opposition to the Chrétien government's initiative.
Our struggle will not end until we have given ourselves a country for the year 2000, because what counts for us is the right to decide our future. Let us be proud to be Quebeckers.