Debates of Feb. 10th, 1998

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader of the Reform Party for his question. I said in my speech that we saw, in 1982, that the rule of law is the rule of law of Canada and not of Quebec. Quebec was not asked whether it accepted the Constitution of 1982. All parties in Quebec, both federalist and sovereignist, never accepted that Constitution.

I would have liked to see how, for example, the leader of the Reform Party would have reacted if, in 1982, the Constitution had been patriated without Alberta's consent. Let us think about that for two minutes. I am convinced that the leader of the Reform Party would have denounced this unilateral action. Federalists have been coming here since 1867 to support unilateral actions, always to Quebec's detriment. We have seen them at work.

Now, today, I am being asked whether, in a new Quebec, the rule of law would prevail. The answer is yes, and it will be a true rule of law, not a hypocritical one, like the federalists who knowingly violated Quebec's referendum law at their “love-in” on the eve of the referendum on October 30, 1995.

They came and told us: “we love you”, while as the same time violating the very principles of the referendum law. “We love you” in French, in English, in multicultural, in all languages. They cannot even speak French in Nagano. We have had enough of this hypocritical rhetoric, Mr. Speaker.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating this morning a most important motion, probably the most important that the House will be examining during the 36th Parliament, since it deals with the foundations of our political system, democracy, and aims at allowing a people to express itself freely.

The goal of this motion is to obtain the acknowledgment of the consensus reached in Quebec, according to which it is for Quebeckers to decide freely their own future. Faced with this Liberal government, which is trying to hijack democracy, we could not stand idly by. We could not allow what they are doing to democracy.

Every party in this House has a civic and political responsibility to rise against this dangerous political manoeuvering by Ottawa. As the Leader of the Bloc Quebecois said earlier, other parties in this House will have to make their position on this issue known. Reformers, Conservatives and New Democrats alike will have to take a stand on this most important issue, democracy. When the time comes to vote, we will see on which side those parties stand. Will they be on the government's side, which is trying to use the supreme court for political ends?

If they vote against this principle, they will become accomplices and players in this machiavellian plan of the government. Their hands will be stained by their rejection of a democratic principle recognized throughout the world.

However, Quebeckers have understood what is at stake. In the last several weeks, we have seen and heard men and women from every political background condemn the government for what it is trying to do. Since I have little time left, I will name only a few of them. Claude Ryan, chairman of the no committee during the 1980 referendum and former Leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec; Daniel Johnson, leader of the no committee in 1995 and present leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec; some senators, and among them Jean-Claude Rivest; former Conservative ministers, among them Monique Vézina; reporters who are not always on our side but who have vigorously condemned what the federal government is doing. There were also members of the church hierarchy, namely Mgr Blanchette, bishop of Rimouski; Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte, who delivered the same message, namely that it is for Quebeckers to decide their own future.

Liberals, Conservatives, civilians, the secular clergy and members of religious orders, former ministers, senators and even present politicians, all have in common a sense of democracy. The consensus was reached in Quebec and it is still there. The government must take note of that. As Claude Ryan rightfully proclaimed on February 4, 1998, “democracy is more important than anything else”. The future of Quebec is not a legal but a political issue. It is not a legal debate for lawyers or judges but a democratic debate for the people of Quebec.

I find the actions of the federal government, the way they use the Supreme Court of Canada, revolting and shocking. I am not the only one to think so.

Let me just quote the Chairman of the International Law Commission of the United Nations, who is not a sovereignist and who is not beholden to Quebeckers. I doubt anyone will question his credibility and expertise in international law. In a brief to the Supreme Court of Canada, he said that he was deeply disturbed and shocked by the partisan way the questions were asked and suggested that it was the duty of a court of justice to react to what clearly appears to be a blatant political manipulation attempt. This is quite something.

However, if Mr. Pellet had gone over all the decisions made by the Supreme Court of Canada throughout the years, he would have seen that this is not the first time Ottawa has tried to manipulate the Supreme Court judges on issues dealing with the Constitution and the division of powers.

In Quebec, we have a saying: “Don't bite the hand that feeds you.” The Supreme Court judges probably feel like saying: “Do not argue with the people who appoint and support you.”

It seems like the learned and distinguished judges sitting on the Supreme Court of Canada, or rather the loyal servants of the central power, have always been trying to distort the 1867 Constitution.

Ernest Lapointe, who was justice minister and attorney general of Canada in 1925, a long time ago, once made the following statement, to which, I think, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs should listen carefully. He said that the federal power is a creation of the provinces, and not the opposite. That is quite easy to understand. However, through the years, we have noticed that the Supreme Court judges, in collusion with the federal government, do not see things the same way.

There is another consensus in Quebec about the legal impasse we have reached. People feel that things have never been so bad, and it has been like this for a long time.

The Supreme Court is like the Tower of Pisa, because it always leans the same way. This is more than an image, it can be proven. You only have to review the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada to get the picture.

Quebeckers cannot expect anything from the Supreme Court of Canada. It is biased when it comes to protecting Canada and centralizing powers.

Following the patriation of the Constitution, René Lévesque said, in 1982: “What it does for Quebec is that it simply makes it virtually impossible to resist centralization every time the federal government wants to impose it”. Unfortunately, history has proven him right.

Since 1982, we have witnessed a systematic consolidation of federal powers and prerogatives to the detriment of provincial constitutional jurisdictions. This tendency is not only because of Ottawa's political will, but mainly because of the many decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada.

A statistical look at all the cases heard by the Supreme Court that came from provincial appeal courts between 1987 and 1996 reveals a pretty astonishing fact. Almost six out of ten judgements from Quebec are reversed, whereas the national average for all the provinces is about four out of ten. It must be, on the part of Supreme Court judges, a special treatment for a distinct society.

The year 1981 was a very dark moment in Canadian history since it is the year when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of the federal government's decision to unilaterally patriate the Constitution. That opened the door to the largest possible centralization of powers by federalists.

In 1981, judges of the Supreme Court said that the federal government had the right, despite the provinces' opposition, to ask London for a patriation that would affect provincial powers, but that it would violate a constitutional convention by doing so. Therefore, the unilateral patriation of the Constitution by Trudeau and by the present Prime Minister of Canada was viewed by the highest court in the country as legal but illegitimate under a constitutional convention.

Today, to render judgement on the three matters submitted them by the federal government, the judges will not even have to examine constitutional conventions because these questions are based solely on the Canadian Constitution of 1982.

Time really flies. You are signalling me that I have only one minute left. I will certainly have the opportunity at some later point to say more on this subject and to refer to several judgements, dealing with matters ranging from Hydro-Quebec to intergovernmental affairs, to show that, more and more, centralization of powers by the federal government is done with the blessing and the complicity of the Supreme Court.

I would like to propose an amendment to the Bloc Quebecois' motion on this allotted day:

That the motion be amended by adding the word “alone” between the words “Quebecers” and “to decide”.

In addition, a comparison of the French wording of the Bloc Quebecois' motion with its English translation in today's order paper reveals a number of what I hope are unintentional translation errors. When reading it, it is obvious that the English and French texts differ substantially.

In the interests of clarification, I have translated the motion for the House and I would like to table it so that both the English and French versions reflect our original intent.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm for tabling the correction already ruled in order by the Speaker of the House earlier this morning.

The amendment is also in order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to comment on the speech by the member for Berthier—Montcalm and that of the leader of the Bloc Quebecois.

Today is an historic occasion, as both speeches made very clear. The appeal to representatives of other parties is important because there was a very significant parting of the ways in Canada in 1982, and there will be another even more obvious one today if the other elected parties in the House decide to vote against the motion and allow the Supreme Court's decision to take precedence over that of the Quebec people.

This is why I would like the member for Berthier—Montcalm to be able to make all Canadians and Quebeckers understand why democracy must take priority. What in particular should Quebeckers and Canadians understand about our motion so that their decision is a clear one and so that the Canadian public, which has seen three referendums since 1980, can be sure that here in the House, which is a symbol of democracy, all parties act with respect for this democracy?

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It gives me an opportunity to add something to the argument I was making.

Indeed the purpose of our motion is to have the House recognize the existence in Quebec of a very broad consensus on a very critical issue, that of democracy.

The mere fact that someone like Claude Ryan, a political opponent who headed the no committee in 1980, is now recalling the first referendum held on Quebec sovereignty and now speaking up to seek recognition for the very important principle of democracy, and siding with the likes of Lucien Bouchard and the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, that is very important.

Also when someone like Daniel Johnson, the present leader of the Quebec Liberal Party who will face the premier in a campaign debate in a few weeks or months, takes a stand on the critical issue of democracy, like he did this week, all the political parties in the House should understand that, by rejecting the Bloc's motion they would be rejecting a well-established consensus in the province. Moreover, for the Conservative Party and the NDP, it would mean going against resolutions duly adopted by their members during their convention.

It is for Quebeckers to decide their own future. It is not a legal issue but a political one. It is not up to judges and lawyers, but to the province's population that is of age to do so. Recent referendums demonstrated how the Quebec people deals with such issues properly, in an organized manner.

Answering this question gives me the opportunity to add a very precise point. I could not mention it in my statement for lack of time.

Over the last few years, a new principle has become apparent in the Supreme Court of Canada's authoritative judgments. Someone said earlier that the questions raised by the Court created some fears. It is now clear that those fears were justified since the new constitutional jurisprudence does not simply deal with the division of powers; in some cases, it clearly asserts the constitutional intention to create a single country.

That notion is nowhere to be found in the Canadian Constitution. That is the judges' interpretation. So much so that in her presentation in response to the amicus curiae's presentation to the Court on Quebec's right to secede, in a case now before the Supreme Court of Canada, the Attorney General of Canada declares that it is clearly the intent of the Constitution and the wish of the founding provinces to unite in a federation to create a single united dominion.

I think that this is not the way Quebeckers see the situation. To me, the real meaning of the concept of founding provinces and of two founding peoples that existed at the time has been lost on the way.

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

Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the leader of the Bloc for giving me the opportunity to explain once again for the benefit of the Bloc the reasons why the Canadian government asked the supreme court for legal clarifications on a unilateral declaration of independence.

However, let me deplore the totally uncalled for charges both spokespersons of the Bloc made against one of the most respected courts in the world, whose decisions have been quoted by the major judicial authorities in the whole world.

I could give various quotations supporting the competence of the highest court in the land. I will give you only one, and I quote “I have been practising law for 20 years. I can testify that justice in Canada is in good hands and that we have judges who are responsible and aware of their obligations”.

That was said on September 1, 1988, by a former federal minister who is now the Premier of Quebec, that is, the Hon. Lucien Bouchard.

I could add this, and again I am quoting him “As for me, I am for the rule of law in all cases. Rights must be respected. In a society where the rule of law applies, it is totally unthinkable, in particular for a first minister, to consider threatening brutal action against the rule of law”.

That was said on September 21, 1996, by the current Premier of Quebec. I want to do him a favour and prevent him from continuing to claim that he can, in fact, take dramatic action outside the rule of law, for this is indeed the purpose of our reference to the supreme court.

We have never said the issue was to keep Quebeckers in Canada against their will, but the opposite. Our country would not be the same if it were not resting on the voluntary participation of all its constituent parts.

What is at issue is the claim by the current Quebec government that, under the international law—and they must stop telling us that this is not a legal issue, as they are the ones who claim they have a right—they have the right to proclaim themselves the government of an independent state as a result of a referendum process they alone would have defined and interpreted.

We believe there is no such right. When there is disagreement on a legal issue, the thing to do is to go to the highest court or to some court in order to get clarification, which everybody should welcome as a needed clarification in democracy. I say it is undemocratic to refuse to hear a legal clarification and ask people to make a decision without knowing the legal consequences of their decision and the legal context surrounding it.

If we say in Canada that we cannot keep part of our population against its clearly expressed will, it is not because we are bound by some international or Canadian legal requirement—at least that is what we believe and we will see eventually what the court's opinion is on this score—but because that is part of our political culture in Canada, part of our values. We feel that our country would not be the same, as I said earlier, if it did not resting on the voluntary participation of all its constituent parts.

The issue in this debate does not concern peoples' will, but the way peoples' will should be expressed. We think that this procedure should be crystal clear and transparent, and express this will in such a way that it will be obvious to all.

If a community in Canada does not want to be part of Canada any more, which clears the way for separation, a most unfortunate occurrence, this community would not proclaim itself to be a people and bring along other peoples against their will. Because if that were the case, I would ask Bloc members whether this is a purely political issue which has nothing to do with the law. In that case, they would surely agree with this motion: That this House recognize the Cree consensus that it is for the Cree to decide freely their own future. Are the Cree less of a people than Quebeckers?

You can see that they would be the first say: “Oh, no; the Cree do not have this right. We have it, and, on top of that, the right to take the Cree along with us. But no, they do not have this right”. This is a double standard that has no moral basis and, in our opinion, no legal basis. We will see what the court has to say about the legal basis.

The political culture Quebeckers and all Canadians share has been summed up very ably by Ernest Renan, a French philosopher who said that a country is based on the clearly expressed will of a community to live together. We believe that Quebeckers, if the issue is clearly defined, will always say that want to go on sharing this common life inside a great federation they have contributed to, along with all the other Canadians.

What I have just said should have been obvious and readily acknowledged for a long time. On September 26, 1996, in explaining why we were referring this matter to the supreme court, the attorney general of the day, who is now the health minister, said in the House, and I quote:

The leading political figures of all the provinces and indeed the Canadian public have long agreed that this country will not be held together against the will of Quebeckers clearly expressed. And this government agrees with that statement. This position arises partly out of our traditions of tolerance and mutual respect but also because we know instinctively that the quality and the functioning of our democracy requires the broad consent of all Canadians.

He went on to say:

The issue is not whether a democracy such as Canada can keep a population against its will. Of course, it cannot. The issue arises from the false claim by the Government of Quebec that it alone, in a unilateral fashion that changes according to its short term political interests, can decide the process that may lead to secession. Quebeckers as well as their fellow citizens across Canada would be dramatically affected by the break-up of our country. Everyone has the right to be certain that the process is lawful, mutually acceptable and fair to all.

This position, which I just stated, as did my colleague in September 1996, is not new. It was stated by the Prime Minister of Canada a few days before the 1980 referendum, that is on May 14. The Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau said: “This is what we have to tell the yes side. If you want independence, if you want to vote yes, you will not achieve independence, because you have made it conditional on an association. If you want association, voting yes is meaningless, because it does not bind the other provinces, which may refuse to associate with you. This is the impasse in which this vague and confusing question put us”. These comments were made just before the first referendum, on May 14, 1980.

What did the Prime Minister, who is still our Prime Minister, say during the first referendum? This is what he said in this House on September 19, 1995:

And perhaps I could explain this to the Leader of the Opposition. I would like to quote to him from a document produced by the government of Mr. Lévesque, and of course he knows Mr. Lévesque. In 1977, in a document which appeared under the title: La consultation populaire au Québec , they said: “Referendums would be consultative in nature”. I agree. The document says: “The first imperative of politics in a democracy is a clear majority”. I agree. The document goes on to say: “The consultative nature of referendums”, they should have said referenda, in any case, “means that it would be unnecessary to include in the legislation special provisions on the majority required or the minimum participation rate”.

We could ask the Bloc Quebecois to comply with the Quebec Referendum Act. Again, on September 19, the Prime Minister added:

Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, I want to make sure that the Canadian constitution is complied with.

On September 20, the Prime Minister said:

Mr. Speaker, I answered all those questions yesterday and the day before. I even quoted from René Lévesque's program, in which he mentioned the concept of a referendum as consultation, the need to respect the laws and constitution of a country and the need for a clear majority.

If we accept that Canada can be broken up, it is not because we are forced into it by law, it is because of a political culture peculiar to us, one which other highly respectable democracies do not share. The Australian constitution states that it is an indissoluble federal Commonwealth. Is Australia a bad democracy? Surely not, but according to the Bloc definition, it would be a pariah among nations.

Article 167 of the Belgian constitution states that “No devolution, no exchange, no adjunction of territory can take place except by virtue of legislation”.

Denmark blocked the separation of the Faeroe Islands after a 50.7% yes referendum. Is Denmark a pariah among democratic nations? No.

In the Czech Republic, “The territory of the Czech Republic forms an indivisible entity, the borders of which may be modified only by constitutional legislation”.

In Finland, another multicultural nation, “The territory of the State of Finland is indivisible”.

I have a long list of democracies which have decided they were indivisible.

In conclusion, let me say that it is absurd to state that the decision can be made by one side alone. The amendment is therefore absurd, because secession must be negotiable. Quebeckers cannot decide the division of the debt on their own.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Oh, yes, they can.

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

I therefore ask the unanimous consent of the House to move the following amendment to the amendment:

That the motion be amended by adding the following after the word “future”: “while respecting the rule of law and the principle of democracy for all”.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The amendment moved by the minister is actually a substantive amendment to the main motion. What is presently before the House is the amendment moved by the member for Berthier—Montcalm. Therefore, any sub-amendment must be related to his amendment.

According to the rules of procedure, I must declare the minister's amendment inadmissible.

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

Madam Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent to have the amendment ruled admissible anyway.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is there unanimous consent to rule the minister's amendment in order?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The member for Joliette, on a point of order.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, by making this request, is the minister not challending your decision since you already ruled his amendment to be inadmissible?

If the House unanimously agreed to ask you to rule the amendment in order, would it not be telling you you were wrong?

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Unanimous consent was requested. We will leave it at that.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Madam Speaker, I just want to clarify something.

First I want to stress how important today's debate is. In any case, I believe it to be consistent with the rules of this Parliament, this democracy, this institution, to ask for unanimous consent on any issue at any time.

It is not a matter of questioning the Chair's ruling but of asking for unanimous consent, which in the present case has unfortunately been refused. We have always respectfully abided by the decisions of the Chair and of parliamentarians from all the parties represented in this House.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have both a favour and a question to ask the minister.

I cannot conceive of a minister rising in this House to question the quality of democratic life in Quebec. You will agree with me that it takes some nerve to tell the Quebec people, who, not just once but twice already have overwhelmingly expressed their willingness to be involved, by reaching a consensus in a referendum process, in the process their government was asking them to participate in. I will not stand idly by while the minister rises in this House and questions the democratic quality of the consultations that have taken place in Quebec.

One thing is crystal clear to the Quebec people and that is that the minister is isolated, a lone wolf. His yearning for attacking the deep-rooted democracy in Quebec is doomed to failure because the likes of Claude Ryan and Claude Corbo, the former rector of UQAM, have stood up to him. They contend that the Supreme Court cannot be the one to decide because what this is about is the right of the Quebec people to freely make an informed decision the only way it can be done and that is through a referendum process initiated by the Quebec National Assembly.

All members of this House, and government members in particular, who do not recognize this process violate Quebeckers' cherished right to democracy.

I would like to know if the minister will have the honesty to recognize that he is alone and isolated in his position and that the dynamic forces of Quebec, everyone who took part in the various referendum processes these past few years, said no, it is not up to the Supreme Court to decide. Will this minister now rise in this House and admit that he stands alone, that he was wrong and that Quebeckers have the right to come to a decision through a referendum? That is what democracy is all about.

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

Madam Speaker, we must comply with the provisions of the Quebec referendum act. That is the bottom line. It provides that a referendum is consultation and that, after the consultation, the results are assessed.

The issue is whether the government of all Canadians can fully assess the results. That is the issue. It seems that that is self evident in any democracy in the world. It is a very basic principle of democracy that Quebeckers are also Canadians and that their possible loss of Canada can arise only from a decision that is clearly expressed and recognized as one. It cannot be a decision the provincial government takes because at that point in time it has the option of withdrawing Quebec from Canada according to a procedure it alone has established and interpreted.

I ask the member, who claims he believes in democracy, whether there is one democracy in the world that supported this procedure —I can hardly wait to hear—and whether there are many political parties in democracies that oppose the constitutional state and democracy for all.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister, who has just—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The member for Winnipeg—Transcona, on a point of order.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am sure if you consult the tradition, the practice and the intent of this procedure for questions and comments the idea is that the questions and comments not only be spread around the parties but, when this rule was created, the intention was that members of parties other than that of the person who just spoke would get precedence.

We are now about to have two questions in a row from the Bloc Quebecois. I think it should be spread around.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I must tell the hon. member that he is quite right in his assessment of the situation. Unfortunately I did not see him rise before the other member.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC]

How could you miss him?

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

I am not exactly small. Do I have to get up on my desk?