Debates of Feb. 10th, 1998

Supply

[Claudette Bradshaw, Liberal, Moncton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for calling me his Acadian friend. It is true that as Acadians we are friends of Quebeckers. However, I would like to relate my version of the evening of the referendum.

I was sitting in my kitchen with my children, my husband and some friends, because my friends wanted to be with us on the evening of the referendum. They came to our place for supper, and we watched the referendum together on television. I can tell you we were anxious during the voting because we wanted Quebeckers to know how those of us outside Quebec were feeling.

I intend to answer your question. I will say that my children and my friends agree with me that the question in the last referendum was not clear and specific.

I do not think it was the same question. I have to say that we talked that night and we felt that the question did not make it clear to those voting with the separatists that they would separate from Canada. For that reason it was not clear. I think the book Mr. Parizeau wrote after the referendum made it clear that they would have voted for separation.

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I see a lack of logic in the position of the members opposite.

While they say the questions in the last two referendums were not clear, they use the responses to these questions to argue that Quebeckers chose to remain in Canada. Either the question was unclear or it was not.

If it was, so was the answer, and so the 50% less three-tenths cannot be used. If it was not, then they should stop saying it was.

[Claudette Bradshaw, Liberal, Moncton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the answer to my friend is on two occasions Quebeckers clearly stated that yes they wanted to still be part of our great country and remain Quebeckers as well as Canadians.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.

Today's day of opposition by the Bloc Quebecois is extremely important and significant. The motion moved by my party leader and amended by my colleague for Berthier—Montcalm reads as follows: “That this House recognize the consensus in Quebec that it is for Quebecers to freely decide their own future.”

For Quebeckers, the stakes are basic since the debate deals essentially with democracy and the right of peoples to decide their own future. Whom are we talking about exactly? I am proud to say: the Quebec people who probably naively believed in the 1867 agreement when it was one of the two founding nations of Canada.

One hundred and thirty one years later, what we are talking about is Quebec's right to self-determination, a right it is denied by the federal government, as witness its reference to the Supreme Court. What was happened to cause the federal government to consider the reality of the Quebec people so negligible?

For the past 30 years, relations between the federal government and Quebec have not always been rosy. If I may, I will briefly remind the House of a few important events which will shed some light on what is happening today.

In 1980, four years after the Party Quebecois was elected in 1976, Quebec held its first consultation on the future of Quebec within the Canadian federation. The outcome was clear, the rules of democracy understood and accepted by all concerned.

After the yes side defeat, Quebec abided by the decision of its citizens and continued to act within the Constitution of Canada. Two years later, in 1982, the federal government of Trudeau decided, in a great impetus of independence, to renew and patriate the Constitution. Despite Quebec's unwillingness and despite nice but shallow promises made in 1980, the federal government unilaterally patriated the Constitution.

At that time, the government, once again through a reference order, had asked the Supreme Court to make legitimate a unilateral patriation without the agreement of all the provinces. The answer met the expectations of the federal government. Patriation without the agreement of all the provinces is legal. But is it ethical? That is something else.

Trudeau and his henchmen did not bother with these subtleties. For him, the new Constitution of 1982 would be the right one, and too bad if Quebec did not recognize it.

The problem is neither sovereignists nor Quebec federalists have recognized and recognize the Constitution of 1982.

In 1992, after years of negotiations both difficult and useless, the Canada-wide referendum is held on the Charlottetown accords. In Quebec, this exercise is framed by the Quebec Referendum Act. Again, all parties recognized the rules of the game and no one had any doubt about the legitimacy of this democratic exercise. The referendum of 1992 unequivocally rejected the Charlottetown accords: in Canada, because these accords gave too many powers to Quebec, and in Quebec, because these accords were below the traditional demands of Quebec.

In 1995, Quebec held its second referendum on the future of the Quebec people. This consultation again took place under Quebec's Referendum Act. Once again, the rules of the game were agreed to by all. The issues were clear. No one, not even the Prime Minister of Canada, questioned the legitimacy of the right of Quebeckers to decide their future.

Everyone remembers the result of the 1995 referendum. The yes side, the side that wanted change, got almost 50% of the votes, with 94% of registered voters taking part in this highly democratic exercise.

Having nothing to offer Quebec, the federal government went with what is now known as its plan B, a plan based on fear, a plan based on denying the existence of the Quebec people. One of the main elements of this strategy is the reference to the Supreme Court in order to deny Quebec's right to decide its own future.

Yet, ever since the 1960s, Quebeckers have always thought they could decide their own future and have always acted accordingly. The referendums that were held in Quebec are good examples of that. With its reference to the Supreme Court, the government is giving nine judges it appointed the right to decide Quebec's future. That is a most undemocratic and illegitimate move. When a government asks judges to make political decisions, democracy is always threatened.

The federal government is using the Supreme Court to validate its plan B, just as the Trudeau government seeked approval for unilaterally patriating the Constitution in 1982. The result of this action by the government in 1982 was that Quebec refused to recognize that Constitution. Today, the federal government is invoking this Constitution to pick on Quebeckers, by refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the National Assembly and the free will of the people the assembly represents, in other words, by denying the Quebec people its right to exist.

As in 1982, the federal government stands alone, its positions have garnered no support. About the reference to the Supreme Court, there is a consensus in Quebec that only Quebeckers have the right to decide their own future and that no court of law can take that right away and decide for them.

In fact, even the staunchest federalists in Quebec have decried the tactic used by the government. Mr. Claude Ryan, the former leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec and leader of the No side in 1980, was very clear on the reference issue: “It is for Quebec and for Quebec only to decide its own future.”

In his comments to the amicus curiae, Mr. Ryan said that, on the right to self-determination, which can be interpreted as including the choice to opt for sovereignty, there is in Quebec a broad consensus between the key political parties and the vast majority of politicians working at the provincial level. All agree that, at the end of the day, the future of Quebec, whatever option is chosen, depends on the political will of the Quebec people.

The current leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec and leader of the No side in the 1995 referendum, Mr. Johnson, approved Mr. Ryan's analysis and joined the vast consensus reached in Quebec. The right of Quebeckers to self-determination is a political issue, not a legal one. A legal measure would never stop a nation from democratically deciding its own future.

For the past week, the intergovernmental affairs minister has been making astonishing statements about the Supreme Court reference. After loudly invoking the rule of law, he recognizes, following Mr. Ryan's statements, that democracy prevails, but that the rule of law is essential. For us, the primacy of democracy is a fact and Quebec's right to self-determination cannot be challenged. Because they respect democracy and the right of people to self-determination, because they respect Quebeckers, the nine Supreme Court judges will refuse to answer the questions of the federal government.

Maurice Maeterlinck wrote, and I quote: “There is nothing finer than a key, as long as one does not know what it opens”.

The federal government has given a key to the Supreme Court with the intention of locking up the people of Quebec, but it did not know what this key opened. We see it now with the consensus in Quebec: there is no key to lock up the people of Quebec, there is no key to lock up democracy.

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the presentation of my honourable colleague. I would ask her two simple questions. First of all, does she believe in asking the people of Quebec once, twice or three times? How many times does she want to ask the people of Quebec what their views are and then when is she going to be ready to accept the expressed will of the people of Quebec? That is my first question.

My second question deals with how you train people to count votes and how you teach young people democracy. Is it by teaching them to look at a voting slip and accept a voting slip based on what has been indicated is the will of the people? Is it to teach them how to be un peu croches and reject 86,000, 100,000 votes? How many tens of thousands of votes are you allowed to reject based on disinformation and poor counting and then have to be recounted how many times?

So tell me about this very democratic society that puts an unclear question, says no twice and does not count the votes properly. Is that democracy in Quebec?

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am really not sure what I should do. Should I avoid answering the questions like my colleagues opposite do? I could make a nice speech instead, with elegance, and perhaps even with a measure of humour.

If I decide to answer my colleague's questions, I will probably show a more mature attitude and more respect for parliamentarians.

The choice between the two is quite clear for me, just as clear as my choice was in 1995, and also in 1980 and 1992.

The first question was about the number of referendums. I would like to quote from the classics by saying: “Hone your work carefully; spare no effort”. There will be as many as it takes.

My deeply held belief is that the Quebec people exists, that it has the right to have a country of its own and to run it in its own way, being respectful of international conventions and of its immediate neighbours and of countries that are a little bit more remote. That is what I believe.

Since this belief is a driving force for me, I am here to achieve a goal. I do not think I or my colleague opposite can ever say that two is enough, or three, or ten.

“Hone your work carefully”. I am confident that Quebeckers will finally take this extraordinary opportunity to join all other nations in the world when the next referendum comes, because we will have our own country by the year 2000.

The second question dealt with democracy and the vote counting.

I am almost tempted to make a comment. The Liberals must be really shattered, they must be really worried to wonder, to draw a parallel between the value of democracy in Quebec and a few unfortunate decisions that were made in all good faith by scrutineers who were under the stress that is normally felt in all polling stations.

Mr. Speaker, like me, you probably had the opportunity to witness the counting of votes, perhaps as a scrutineer or a secretary or a representative of the yes side, the no side or the perhaps side, and to know what goes on. There is some tension in the air. There is some stress and everyone wants to do his or her best. But you know, and I only have to look at my colleagues on the other side, obviously, it is not because one wants to do his or her best that one always does the right things. The evidence is in front of me. The Liberals want to do their best, but sometimes it does not work very well. So democracy is not in jeopardy in Quebec. Democracy is one of our fundamental values and I have confidence in Quebeckers' maturity.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois to join in a debate which is the prelude to the political mobilization of Quebeckers in support of the consensus re-emerging in Quebec which, as stated in the motion moved today in the House by our party, holds that it is for Quebeckers, and Quebeckers alone, to freely decide their own future.

Contrary to what the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs is saying, the Government of Canada has put three questions to the supreme court dealing with the future of Quebec and phrased them in such a way that it has shocked and troubled the chair of the UN International Law Commission, Alain Pellet, and I quote “on account of the partisan manner in which they are asked”, not because it wants to clarify the rule of law and become its champion.

No, this is a political move. So political in fact that it might jeopardize the credibility of this same court held hostage by the law, according to the prominent lawyer Jacques-Yvan Morin. This strategy is aimed mainly at discouraging Quebeckers from opting for sovereignty when the time comes because it would be illegal.

However in Quebec nobody, not only federalist allies, such as Daniel Johnson and Claude Ryan, is being fooled by such shifty tactics, such trickery, which, as Hannah Arendt put it, “never conflict with reason, because things could have happened just the way the liar claimed they happened”.

This strategy is probably also aimed at influencing the international community, which Canada will ask to oppose any action the supreme court might have ruled illegal. However, the international community is not and will not be fooled by this none too subtle federal stratagem. One day it will recognize the will of the Quebec to have its own country and to become a full-fledged member of the international community.

The international community will recognize a sovereign Quebec, a Quebec that will reassert, as it has stated for decades, its intention to abide by the Charter of the United Nations and the other international instruments ratified by Canada, guarantee the English speaking community and the native people the rights they need to develop within a sovereign Quebec, as well as respect all relevant commitments to ensure the stability of the continent and the whole world.

The Bloc Quebecois has been trying and keeps trying to expose this legal tactic that undermines democracy in Canada and it will intensify its discussions with foreign representatives, here in Ottawa and abroad, to politely and patiently explain to them why Quebeckers will soon opt for sovereignty, why Quebeckers no longer want to deal with the Canadian impasse and why they want a state where people speak French and enjoy a Quebec culture.

When the time comes to decide its own future, Quebec will have legitimacy on its side, as always. Canada, or at least the part being represented by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and his entourage, believes that it has the law on its side. The minister argues that the rule of law is crucial, but allow me to digress here for a minute.

To be so crucial, it would have to be understood. Last week, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs showed us that he does not understand anything about international law. When he was talking about unilateral decisions made by Canada, he said things that exposed and brought to light his lack of knowledge in this area, which we will continue to decry.

The law is not crucial. Democracy is, the will of the people is crucial, and that is what the Canadian government is about to learn at its own expense. There is today a large consensus which the international community will take note of, a large consensus that it is for Quebeckers to decide, and Quebeckers will soon have another opportunity to decide their own future.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to say that, as our leader stated this morning, we support the motion put forward by our colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois.

It is unfortunate that, once again, the Liberal Party of Canada has managed to focus the national debate on the relationship between Quebec and the rest of Canada. It is unfortunate—and I will say this before asking my question to my colleague—because, at a moment where Canadians have gone through successive serious crises over the past year and a half, that particular item is not on their agenda. Our priorities are definitely elsewhere.

Since Canadians are not sending us a clear message that a constitutional debate in the House of Commons is a matter of the utmost urgency, I would like to ask my colleague if he thinks that this debate has been fuelled for 30 years by irresponsible politicians who have made historical mistakes, especially over the last 20 years, that went against the objectives of Canadians as well as Quebeckers as a whole.

A survey released a few weeks ago showed that 80% of Quebeckers among those who voted yes have had enough and are sick and tired of the constitutional debate.

Is it an issue that is used and abused by politicians? I would like to hear what the member has to say on this subject.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

First I will say that the politicians whom the member calls irresponsible are those who, for more than 30 years, have been proposing reforms to federalism without ever being able to see them through.

It is not as if Quebeckers, and several of their governments, have not sought to take part in reforms aimed at changing the federation in order to bring it in line with Quebeckers' expectations. The ones responsible for the division today are the politicians, and I agree with you that the Liberals of Canada are without a doubt the ones who must accept the bulk of the responsibility, in particular Prime Minister Trudeau, who we are not upset to hear is now losing his popularity in Quebec. The Liberals are the ones who created the stalemate and they are the ones who continue to maintain positions that perpetuate it.

The sovereignist politicians have their faults, but they also have their good points, and one of their good points is definitely that they wanted to find an alternative, and alternative within a federalism which has reached a dead end and continues to be stuck there. Our alternative, since René Lévesque founded the Parti Quebecois, is the one proposed to the people of Quebec, sovereignty plus an offer to Canada in all friendship and respect to those who make up Canada, an offer of partnership or economic association.

We have done so, and will continue to do so, giving priority to the democratic approach and inviting Quebeckers to reflect on their future and to decide on that future after sober reflection. Quebeckers have the right to decide their future, as they did once in 1980, a second time in 1992, a third time in 1995, and they will still be free to decide their future again, and soon we hope, so that Quebec may be a country by the year 2000.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Questions and comments, for a very short question. The hon. member for Mount Royal has the floor.

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you asked for a very short question and I will therefore ask such a question to my colleague, with all due respect and considering that he has the right to explain and defend his ideas. Could the hon. member tell me why he did not want to accept the amendment moved by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, which was to include in the motion before the House the words “respecting the rule of law and the principle of democracy for all”? Why did he not want to deal with this amendment and accept it?

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I will tell my colleague that I was not there but I understand that the amendment was not accepted because it was deemed not to be in order by the chair.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share my time today with the member for Beauce.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to convey a message to Quebeckers on the part of the people of my riding: we want you to remain within Canada. We believe that you make a contribution to our country by your uniqueness.

The future of Quebec is very important to the residents of my province and my riding. After all, the people of Ontario and Quebec have a long and significant history as partners and friends. Historically we were the twin engines of growth in Canada. Today our two provinces are bound together by a complex web of ties, families, friendships, professional partnerships and trading links.

Many francophone Quebeckers have played an important role in the life of my province, and among them are Richard Monette, artistic director of the Festival of Stratford, and Yves Landry, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Chrysler Canada. On the other hand, Quebec has benefited from the talents of Franco-Ontarians, namely Paul Desmarais of Power Corporation. The magnificent synergy of our two provinces is embodied in such people.

The presence of Quebec within Canada is also of particular importance to the franco-Ontarian community that enriches my province of Ontario.

Let me just mention a few of their achievements. Both writer François Paré and playwright Jean-Marc Dalpé have won governor general's awards for their work. Ottawa's Franco-Ontarian festival, LeFranco, has grown to be the premier francophone cultural event of its kind in North America. The Ontario economy is bolstered by over 7,500 francophone owned businesses, companies and corporations. In economic terms the provinces of Ontario and Quebec are among the most closely linked of all Canada's provinces.

According to the most recent figures available from StatsCan, which are for 1996, almost 60% of Quebec's interprovincial exports were to Ontario and over 70% of its interprovincial imports came from my province. Meanwhile some 40% of Ontario's exports were indeed to Quebec and some 50% of its imports came from that province. Quebec is indeed Ontario's largest trading partner within Canada and vice versa.

For all these reasons, social, cultural and economic, it is very important to Ontarians that Quebec remain within Canada. As friends, it is natural that we should not wish Quebeckers to leave Canada in an atmosphere of confusion without a mutually acceptable process and a framework to ensure fairness and clarity.

However, I remain confident that Quebeckers will continue to choose to enjoy the fruits of Canadian citizenship. I feel confident that they will continue to build the federation alongside Ontarians and their other fellow citizens from British Columbia, the prairies, eastern Canada and the north, for there is no doubt that together Canadians are indeed a winning combination.

Former New Brunswick premier Frank McKenna said in his very emotional farewell address Canada is a country that has the civility to be able to deal with the most difficult issues in the most peaceful way imaginable, a country that has been able to fulfil the dreams and aspirations of hundreds of thousands and millions of people and it is a country that people want to come and live in.

One reason why Canada is so attractive for people around the globe is that we have found ways to accommodate and indeed to celebrate our tremendous diversity. In a world where so many countries are torn apart by ethnic and regional grievances, this is no mean feat. In a country such as ours with its great distances and a citizenry drawn from the four corners of the globe, respect for diversity is essential.

Few Canadians would deny that the First Nations, Inuit and Métis, together with the new and not so new generations of immigrants, all contribute an important though by no means identical way to our country.

I was pleased to see this aspect of Canadian reality reflected in the statement of principles drawn up by nine of Canada's premiers in Calgary, together with a commitment to individual and provincial equality. That commitment to equality, however, was by no means a call for uniformity. The premiers indeed signalled their recognition of Quebec's uniqueness within Canada in this context. It appears to be a signal to which Quebeckers can respond.

An Environics poll taken some time after the text of the Calgary declaration was released showed that over one-quarter of Quebeckers who currently support secession would change their minds if all nine other provinces passed resolutions recognizing the unique character of Quebec.

This clearly illustrates the ability of the Calgary principles to bring Canadians together from coast to coast to coast. That is what we in the government of Canada wish to do. We wish to bring Canadians together to continue building this remarkable country so that all Canadians can benefit from our combined strength in facing the challenges of the new millennium.

Advanced communication technologies are increasingly turning the world into the global village envisaged by Canada's Marshall McLuhan.

With our two official languages and our multicultural citizenry, Canada is increasingly well placed to compete in this new global reality.

Of course, the reasons for staying together as one country go way beyond our economic strength. Together we have built a strong social union which reflects our commitment to sharing and our sense of a national community. Together we are a stronger presence in the world and on the world stage.

As I mentioned earlier, there is a wealth of ties which bind Canadians together on a wide range of different levels. Our economic achievements are by no means negligible and it is clear that divided, our economy would be weaker than it is today.

There is no question that at present Canada is a success as plenty of international organizations and experts agree. According to OECD, Canada's economy and employment growth are set to outperform those of all other G-7 countries in 1998.

The investment bank Credit Suisse First Boston has indicated that it anticipates the Government of Canada will receive a credit upgrading in the near future. The world economic forum rates Canada as the fourth most competitive economy in the world based on such factors as the shape of the country's finances, our infrastructure and our technology base.

The economist intelligence unit of London predicts that we will have the third best business environment in the world over the next five years. As the president of the Toronto-Dominion Bank, Charles Baillie, observed, Quebeckers can survive economically without the other provinces and vice versa. But, he said, “since when is our standard and our aspiration simple survival? Canada has meant more than simple survival, much more than that to all its citizens, including Quebeckers”.

I know Quebeckers are interested indeed in more than survival. I know they want to continue to flourish as the only majority francophone society on this continent.

In the motion today Bloc members say they are against the democratic principles and rule of law of their own province of Quebec, my province of Ontario and indeed our country of Canada. It is for those reasons that I cannot support this motion.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to my hon. colleague for Mississauga West, a region I know well.

My brother, Maurice Marchand, lives in the riding of Mississauga West, and, like me as a Franco-Ontarian, is quite familiar with the treatment afforded francophones in Ontario.

Contrary to what my hon. colleague has just said or wants to have us believe, francophones have not been treated well in Ontario. The very opposite is true. In the history of Canada, if there is one province that is more responsible for mistreatment and for failing to respect the rights of francophones outside Quebec, it is Ontario. It prohibited teaching in French for nearly 50 years and only in recent years has it granted francophones their own schools. This is another issue I would have liked to tackle. It is a bit off topic, but it is related to the Quebec issue.

It shows once again how little respect is accorded the French language in Canada, and the very same thing can be seen in Quebec as well. Canada has not found a way to honour the integrity and unique character of Quebec. The uniqueness of its character is ignored despite the fact that Quebec has for many years expressed a need for some recognition.

In the past, a number of referendums were held. Changes in federalism promised to Quebec never materialized. The member for Mississauga West is trying to tell us, like a number of members on the other side of the House, the federalism and the Canadian Constitution have changed. It is true, but do they not think the federal government's stand on Quebec has hardened in the process?

Is its reference to the supreme court to prevent Quebeckers from freely expressing their will and their decision to become an independent country not further proof that the federal government has taken a tougher stand with Quebec rather than really honouring its claims for several years?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that if the hon. member's brother lives in my riding there is probably a fairly good chance that he voted for me. If he did I thank him.

The member made reference to some of the history in Ontario. What he failed to do was recognize some of the gains which have been made, particularly in recent years.

I was part of the David Peterson government in the province of Ontario. We made several changes in our province to recognize the importance and the significance of the francophone community.

That was not easily done. There were a lot of people who were saying why do we need bilingual signs on our highways in the province of Ontario. We would not find bilingual signs on the highways in the province of Quebec. That is an interesting double standard.

We have ignored that particular problem. We have done that because we believe in Canada and we believe in Quebec as being part of Canada.

I also point out there are a number of French schools and French immersion courses in Ontario. Many people in my riding insist on having their children go through their entire elementary education in the French system. That is tremendous. I wish I had done that. Then my attempts at French in this place would be dramatically better than they are today. The reality is Ontario recognizes the importance.

The bottom line which the member and other members of his party refuse to admit is that they have clearly spoken out today against the democratic principles of Quebec, of Ontario and of Canada. They have spoken against the rule of law of Quebec, of Ontario and of Canada. For that reason we will not be supporting the motion. However, we do support the people of the province of Quebec's remaining in Canada.

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a Quebec MP, I am pleased to take part in today's debate on the future of Quebec within Canada.

I find the motion before us significant on more than one account because it stresses our democratic values. It is not every day we parliamentarians have the opportunity to discuss such an issue; this is the reason why I find this debate so important.

Our government's position should another referendum be called in Quebec, the third one in less than 20 years, has always been clear. We do not want to deny Quebeckers the right to decide to separate from Canada if they believe it is the best thing to do.

What we have always maintained however is that the referendum process must be clear and allow Quebeckers to fully understand what is at stake. Whether we are for or against Quebec's secession, it would inevitably have a serious impact on every field of human activity, not only in Quebec, but also in the rest of Canada. This is the reason why the process must be clear. This is the reason why we are making sure it will be.

Bloc members accuse us at times of wanting to deny Quebeckers the right to decide their own future. Nothing is further from the truth. Canadians have always been known for their sense of freedom and democracy. This country was built on openness and tolerance. Respect for these ideals and their implementation give Canadians a very enviable reputation internationally. This legacy inherited from our forefathers is part of our identity and, as Quebeckers and Canadians, there is probably nothing we hold as dear as what sets us apart from the rest of the world.

As the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs so rightly said, Canada would no longer be Canada if was not based on the voluntary participation of all its constituent parts. Nobody is forced to be part of this country. Anybody who accuses our government of trying to exercise such force does not understand our position at all or does not want to understand it.

We respect democracy, but contrary to some of our friends opposite, we also believe in clarity. We do not want Quebeckers to lose their country over a misunderstanding.

We do not want the democratic experience to be turned into a bad joke. People have the right to understand what they stand to lose by opting for Quebec's separation. They will have to make their choice with full knowledge of the facts.

Bloc members will undoubtedly wonder why we are so prudent with them, since we have already taken part in two other referendum campaigns at the end of which Quebeckers still expressed the will to remain Canadians. The answer is simple: since 1995, several facts that were made public clearly demonstrated that the referendum process had not been followed with a concern for the respect of democracy.

Let us recall the controversial statements of Jacques Parizeau about a unilateral declaration of independence. Indeed, the three party agreement signed on June 12, 1995 between Mr. Parizeau, Mr. Bouchard and Mr. Dumont included dubious aspects. Concluded in mid-panic in the face of the probability of a bitter defeat, it had the effect of confusing Quebeckers by painting in glowing colours the possibility of an economic and political association with Canada, which Mr. Parizeau himself had never believed in.

Indeed, we have to see that the approach suggested by secessionist leaders—to use an euphemism—has not always been crystal clear. And how. For years opinion polls have been showing that a clear question on Quebec's independence gets less support than if vague and utopian concepts such as “association” and “partnership” are added to it.

Association and partnership scenarios are continually presented as certainties, when over the years all successive federal governments and those of the other provinces have always rejected the sovereignist option.

In this regard, results of the last referendum are most revealing. A few months before October 30, 1995, an opinion poll indicated that 80% of Quebeckers, including 61% of yes side supporters, said they were “proud to be both Quebeckers and Canadians”. Yet, 49% of Quebeckers voted in favour of sovereignty on that day.

Other results also enlighten us on the ambiguity that was knowingly fostered by secessionist leaders with regard to their option. According to a poll conducted at the very end of the referendum campaign, 80% of Quebeckers who intended to vote yes thought that, should the yes side win, Quebec would automatically continue to use the Canadian dollar as its currency. Close to 80% believed that economic ties with Canada would remain unchanged, while 50% thought they would continue to use the Canadian passport, and 25% believed Quebec would continue to elect federal members of Parliament. Another poll showed that close to 20% of yes voters thought that a sovereign Quebec could continue to be a Canadian province.

As you probably remember, the question asked in the referendum held on October 30, 1995 was based on the tripartite agreement of June 12, 1995. Unlike in 1980, when the question was made public five months before the referendum, the PQ government released the 1995 question only six weeks before the vote.

The agreement reached by Parizeau, Bouchard and Dumont was quite extraordinary in its own way. The government pledged that, once the secessionist plan was approved by a majority of people, it would wait one year before proclaiming sovereignty and would conduct negotiations on the infamous economic and political association project with the rest of Canada. However, as Mr. Parizeau would later say, nothing would have prevented Quebec from deciding that the negotiations were going nowhere, thus leaving it free to make a move whenever it deemed it appropriate to do so. This is sure a nice example of transparency and of respect toward Quebeckers.

I will not dwell on the remarkable unworkability of the 1995 sovereignist project. I simply want to stress the confusion that it generated among Quebeckers. A confusing and convoluted question almost resulted in the breakup of the country. We do not want the fate of our country to be dependent on tricks or semantics.

We want clarity, not confusion. The democratic process does not truly fulfil its purpose if we try to confuse voters instead of helping them make a decision. Voters must understand the consequences of their decision, and it is precisely the role of the government to make sure they do.

We are in favour of democracy, but we also trust Quebeckers' judgment. Quebeckers played a major role in the building of our country. They have left their mark throughout history, thanks to their determination and their drive. Canada provides them with even greater opportunities. Quebeckers excel in many areas.

What we inherited from my ancestors, yours and all those who came to settle in this beautiful country of ours is the strong will to build our future on a solid base made up of solidarity, compassion, freedom and respect for our differences.

These values come out for instance in our social programs and the assistance we provide to any part of the country that is hit by a natural disaster. These values are enshrined in our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is the kind of country I want to pass on to the next generations of Quebeckers and Canadians.

The right of Quebeckers to decide their own future is at the very heart of the initiatives the Government of Canada has taken to clarify the problems that could eventually arise from the separation of Quebec and the breakup of Canada. Yes, I believe in the future of Canada and I firmly believe that, in a democratic process that would respect all of the principles underlying our federation, Quebeckers will decide to remain in the country they have helped so much to build.

We cannot support this motion after seeing the Bloc Quebecois refuse to recognize the rule of law and the principle of democracy for all. Such a refusal cannot be approved by the people of Beauce, by Quebeckers and even by Canadians.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised to hear the hon. member for Beauce quote statistics about the 1980 referendum and the 1995 referendum, when his party and all his colleagues are about to support what is bound to happen in the supreme court, who will deny Quebeckers this very right. I wonder how he will be able some time soon to express his views about democracy and self-determination for the Quebec people.

The federal Liberals are more and more alone in this adventure. Think about the positions taken by Claude Ryan and the leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec, Daniel Johnson. They seem increasingly to be distancing themselves from the federal Liberal members of Parliament. There is in Quebec a consensus that this reference is pointless, illegitimate and disrespectful of our democratic values.

Does the hon. member realize that he can only rely on his Reform allies and Guy Bertrand to help him defend the hard line set out in Plan B, which is decried by the Parti Quebecois, the Bloc Quebecois, the Liberal Party of Quebec, some international experts and the people of Quebec?

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to my colleague opposite that I am not alone since the majority of Quebeckers are on our side, saying that we should make things very clear in order to have a sound basis because the country will not be divided on the basis of innuendos and trick questions.

That is why we must turn to the supreme court to clarify every legal aspect of the matter, and I am sure Quebeckers will support our initiative.

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member from across the way why the government was not interested in bringing before the people of Quebec the Calgary declaration as proposed by nine of the country's ten premiers. Why did the Liberal government not choose that opportunity to go before the people of Quebec and get a feeling from them on how they felt on those seven points that the rest of the country are prepared to consider with the issue of unity?

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that issue was raised by the provinces and it must be resolved in conjunction with the provinces. We would have liked the Quebec government to consider it. Unfortunately, it has refused to do so. Let us hope it changes its mind and decides to submit this issue to Quebeckers.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the question asked by my colleague from Lotbinière, which seems most relevant.

I want to ask the member for Beauce if he is conscious of the lack of support for the Liberal Party of Canada, particularly its Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, in Quebec. Think about a former leader of the Liberal Party, Mr. Ryan, and the present leader, Mr. Johnson, two former leaders of the no side who faced us with complete honesty and with all their talent, both in 1980 and in 1995.

Think about Jean-Claude Rivest, Conservative senator and former special advisor to the Liberal premier, Mr. Bourassa, a federalist, who said at one point that never again would Quebec go through what it went through after Charlottetown. Think about André Tremblay, special constitutional advisor to Robert Bourassa in Charlottetown in 1992. Think about Cardinal Turcotte—and that tops it all—who, despite his very delicate functions, has had the courage to take a stand in this debate, knowing what kind of criticism he would draw because of that. Where does the Liberal Party of Canada stand in Quebec at this moment apart from the support it gets from Alliance Quebec? I would like my colleague from Beauce to respond to that.

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I could repeat what I said to his colleague previously, but when I am given a list of 12 people and told that it represents the majority, I have a problem with that.

If the member wants to quote Mr. Ryan, I would like him to repeat everything he said. He said that he would like to have a clear question. Will it be possible for you to have a clear and honest question? I do not think so.

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, before I begin with the statements, I address myself to the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona. If you were seeking the floor, I will recognize you now and you will be the first intervener after question period.

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will wait until after question period.

[The Speaker]

It being nearly 2 o'clock, we will now proceed to Statements by Members.