Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to rise to participate in a remarkable debate in the history of our country. Today we speak frankly and openly about how our country might break up through legal and democratic means. That this is a debate that arouses great passion should surprise no one, great passion among parliamentarians and among Canadians in general.
Today, we are talking frankly and openly about a sensitive issue: how to legally and democratically break up our country.
Every federalist who participates in this debate must do so with the determination to make sure that possibility never happens.
I will briefly outline some recent efforts of the federal New Democratic Party to do just that. I will share the basis of my optimism that if we proceed with appropriate sensitivity, with careful deliberation and mutual respect, we can succeed and we can emerge a united, strengthened Canada.
Immediately after the 1997 federal election the New Democratic Party launched its social democratic forum on the future of Canada, a party task force that undertook a thorough study and broad consultation on possibilities for improving the way Canada works for all of its citizens. Over the subsequent two years we held literally dozens and dozens of meetings in every corner of Canada. We talked to ordinary Canadians and representatives of organizations who are earnestly engaged in the work of trying to make Canada work better for all of its citizens.
What did we learn from those meetings and those discussions over the past two years? We learned that there is a real appetite to make Canada work more effectively and that there are a lot of good practical ideas about how we can accomplish that. We found that vast numbers of Canadians remain committed to doing the work that is needed to make our federalism more responsive to a rich diversity, the rich diversity which is Canada.
They remain committed to making it a responsive federalism, a federalism presenting all the advantages of a common citizenship and preserving all the rights inherent with that citizenship, and a federalism reflecting the many regional, linguistic and cultural differences which make Canada the country that it is.
One of the main pillars of responsive federalism must be an effective social union. In the framework we advocate, social programs would have enforceable Canada-wide standards as a right of citizenship, but those standards and mechanisms would be co-decided between the federal and provincial governments acting as genuine partners.
For the social union to work and for the unity of this country to be strengthened, provinces must have the flexibility to respond to local conditions effectively, and the federal government must be a reliable fiscal partner. If there is one thing this government has not been in recent years it is a reliable fiscal partner with the provinces.
To strengthen Canadian federalism, the number one thing the government must do is to undo the damage it has inflicted on our health care system, post-secondary education programs and critically important social welfare programs administered by the provinces. Through careful investment of the surplus the government can improve the quality of life of individual Canadians and strengthen the bonds of federalism at the same time.
Another quality of responsive federalism is to craft federal institutions and relationships that accurately reflect the unique position of particular cultural and linguistic communities in Canada.
Since the quiet revolution in Quebec the country has been grappling with exactly how to recognize Quebec's unique character both in terms of constitutional language that accurately and symbolically describes that uniqueness and in terms of particular federal arrangements that practically recognize that unique character.
That project failed, but we have to find a way to cut the Gordian knot if we do not want another referendum to be held in Quebec.
Canada's aboriginal people represent another community whose unique place in Canadian society cries out for action. Recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples have still not been implemented.
New Democrats joined with others in celebrating the passage yesterday of the Nisga'a treaty legislation. However let us make no mistake about it. The work of attaining justice for our aboriginal people is only just beginning. If we are sincere about national unity we must redouble our efforts to pursue the simple, positive project of making Canada a better place to live for all its citizens.
In short, and let me make it very clear, discussion of the legislation before the House today can never be a substitute for improving the Canadian federation to prevent a future referendum that would result in the breakup of Canada.
The bill we are debating had its origins in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada on questions relating to the right of Quebec to secede from Canada.
The essence of that opinion was that Quebec could legitimately separate from Canada if a clear majority of Quebecers answered yes to a clear question.
The supreme court also said that negotiations on the secession should be held in accordance with the principles of federalism, democracy, the constitution and the rule of law, and in a context of respect for minorities.
This opinion establishes two essential things about the way a future referendum should be handled within the framework of Canadian democracy and federalism.
The first is that Quebec under certain conditions could legitimately secede from Canada. In the words of the court, “the continued existence and operation of the Canadian constitutional order could not be indifferent to a clear expression of a clear majority of Quebecers that they no longer wish to remain in Canada”.
As a party that supports and has always supported Quebec's democratic right to self-determination, New Democrats welcome that confirmation of Quebecers' democratic values and perspectives on the Canadian federation.
In setting out that the rest of Canada would be obliged to negotiate secession with Quebec only on the basis of a clear majority on a clear question, the supreme court also established that the elected representatives of Canadians would have a legitimate circumscribed role to play in a future referendum. As committed federalists and democrats, New Democrats also support this principle.
The bill before us today is an attempt to set out a framework for the response of this parliament to a future referendum according to the supreme court ruling about the role of parliament.
We do not think this is an exact reflection of the supreme court opinion, and there are many complex elements both in the opinion and in this bill which require a more thorough examination.
Changes in the bill are advisable. There is work to be done, but New Democrats will be supporting the bill in principle at second reading.
I assure all Canadians that we take very seriously our responsibility to play a constructive role in working out a framework for an appropriate federal role in a future referendum that lives up to the supreme court decision. We intend to play that constructive role. We take it seriously. We invite all Canadians to draw inspiration from the supreme court ruling where it underscores that “a functioning democracy requires a continuous process of discussion”.
Today I implore the Prime Minister in particular to listen to the court's urgings. Regrettably there is no evidence so far to suggest that the Prime Minister is willing to do so.
From the outset, the Prime Minister could have taken a number of initiatives to discuss this issue and consult all interested parties in order to determine how we could discharge the obligations set out in the supreme court opinion.
The Prime Minister could have referred the supreme court decision to a parliamentary committee to offer suggestions but he chose not to do so. The Prime Minister could have held a first ministers conference to consider the question but he chose not to do so. He could have initiated a dialogue between the House of Commons and the Quebec national assembly to see if there were some common ground but he chose not to do so.
In short, he could have acted responsibly and democratically in the spirit of the court's opinion and reflected the longing of Canadians for constructive nation building, but to date he has chosen not to do so.
From the moment the Prime Minister began weeks ago issuing mysterious statements about his intentions, escalating the insulting and disrespectful rhetoric toward the Quebec people, and challenging other federalists to agree with a position which he refused to clarify, he defiantly set out to antagonize other federalists, other federalists in the House, federalists in Quebec and a good many federalists across the country.
It is a transparent and shameless attempt to play politics with the future of the country. It is a deliberate ploy to distract the public from the pressing responsibilities and many failures of the government.
The fact that the Prime Minister chose to announce his intentions literally hours before the 10th anniversary of the pledge of the House to eradicate child poverty in the country speaks volumes. The Prime Minister wants to play politics with this important question. His actions over the past couple of weeks have made that clear, but we cannot and we will not let him.
Today New Democrats pledge our willingness to offer a constructive contribution to the study and the improvement of the bill in committee. We want to make sure that the bill reflects as closely as possible the democratic responsibilities set out by the supreme court. We will be proposing amendments that we believe are necessary to achieve that.
The section of the bill dealing with the clarity of the majority sets out a framework where the rules of the game would not effectively be set until after a secession vote is held. Fears have understandably been aroused about the potential for abuse by the House of Commons in arbitrarily rejecting a clear majority after the fact.
The bill goes out of its way to say that the views of the Senate should be taken into account in the deliberations on the clarity of the question and the majority. Surely this is an absurd notion for a bill that is supposed to live up to a democratic ideal.
I have to say that I was astonished that the Conservative Party had taken the position that the Senate deserves an even greater role than the one set out for it in the bill. In the entire process of consideration and negotiation the role of first nations also needs to be carefully considered if the bill is to truly reflect Canadian reality and Canada's obligations.
My colleagues and I look forward to considering these as well as other issues raised by Canadians in the process of studying the bill. We urge the government to take a similar approach of being open to amendments in its work at committee. Indeed the way the government treats the committee process and its openness to amendments will be the test of the Prime Minister's true motives.
Does the Prime Minister really want a bill that is a true reflection of the supreme court opinion, or does he want to go on playing little games that are dangerous for the future of our country?
Throughout the debate we will be seeking a truly democratic and constructive process, one that can open the door to all federalists. In some cases that means reopening the door to some federalists so that they can all work constructively on building a united Canada.
Most of all, I hope the work on the bill does not distract the Prime Minister or parliament from the critically important task of building a better Canada, one that meets the hopes, dreams, needs and aspirations of all our citizens so that the legislation that we are debating today will never be required.