Debates of Dec. 14th, 1999

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, an act to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Brossard—La Prairie.

I am proud to speak today to Bill C-20 since this debate is very important to me. In addition to the issue of the majority and the clarity of the question, this debate deals with a particularly important point, namely what would be at stake should there be a referendum, namely the breakup of Canada.

We have to put forward this legislation because the choice the people of Quebec would have to make for the third time in 20 years is fundamental. We have to make sure our democratic ideal remains untarnished.

We are doing what we are doing because we owe it to all Canadians. In a word, we owe it to Canada. When our country is envied around the world, the world can expect no less than that we ensure the transparency of the referendum process.

We do not want to determine the question because that is the job of the national assembly, but we have the responsibility and the duty to ensure that the process does not give rise to the underhandedness we saw in 1980 and in 1995.

We need to set the criteria that will guide the conduct of the House of Commons and the Government of Canada in determining what constitutes a clear question and majority. That is our duty as Canadian parliamentarians.

The people of Quebec have the right to determine their own political future. Nobody on this side of the House is denying it. All we want to do is ensure the choice they would make through a referendum is a fully informed one, which means the question must be clear.

What we want is for their choice to be shared by a sufficient number of supporters, and for it to be the unequivocal expression of the will of the people, which implies a clear majority. It is not surprising that under such conditions the supreme court in its opinion insisted to such an extent on the concept of clarity.

Our determination to act is based on the parameters set by the supreme court with regard to the referendum process. We have been blamed countless times for having asked the supreme court to clarify certain aspects of the referendum question. We did it, fully aware that some people would not be pleased. We decided to do it anyway because we do not see democracy as a toy or as a credit card one can use as one pleases without being accountable.

Democracy finds its true meaning when it allows people to have real influence on their future. That must be the objective pursued in any referendum. Was it the objective pursued by the PQ government in the 1980 and 1995 referendums? We all know the answer to that is no. The objective was to find a question that would allow the PQ government to get as many votes as possible. That is why we have no choice but to step in to ensure that the basic requirements of democracy will be met in a possible third referendum.

I would be lying if I said we get any pleasure in doing what we are doing today. Canada is a country that works well, but it is also a demanding country to govern. It faces many challenges at the dawn of the new millennium. We would far prefer to devote all of our efforts to the substantial challenges of economic growth and jobs but we would be derelict in our duty to Canadians if we did not deal with this question.

Democracy consists of giving the people a voice, but in a referendum on secession everything has to proceed in a context of clarity with a clear question and a clear majority. All of the trumped up precedents and arguments used by the separatist leaders to advance their cause are now coming home to roost because their initiatives have been based on ambiguous and misleading questions. That is what has to change if the Bouchard government, which certainly has no lack of other issues to deal with, goes ahead with its plan to hold another referendum during its current mandate.

This debate could have taken a totally different turn had Mr. Bouchard responded positively to the Prime Minister's proposal. What was that proposal? The Prime Minister of Canada proposed in good faith to set aside the referendum debate and to work together toward solving the problems that really concern Canadians. What was the answer given by the Premier of Quebec? True to form, he said no.

Should we be surprised? No. Mr. Bouchard is a prisoner of his option. He is a prisoner of his party, which wants a third referendum at all costs.

I cannot accept the breakup of my country, of our country. We are all Canadians. We are part of a large family, and it is our ancestors, mine and those of the members over there who are trying to break up our country, who helped to build this great country.

As a francophone member from northern Ontario, I am proud of my language and I am proud of my beautiful country, and that is why I support this bill.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the spirit of the holiday season, I would like to point out that the good people of Surrey Central will very much appreciate the gesture by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader on my question of privilege. I am counting on the parliamentary secretary to put the glasses on issues rather than on political stripe and to try to help me. I appreciate that.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Very well. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by the hon. member, who pointed out that three referendums were held on this issue in the last 20 years.

Let me remind the House that the 1992 referendum was held at the request of the federal government in an attempt to renew the federal system, and it did not work.

The 1980 and 1995 referendums were held by governments that had received a mandate to do so, and every time they acted they had the support of the people.

The Bloc Quebecois members sitting in this House were elected in 1997 and make up the majority of elected representatives from Quebec. They received their mandates after the 1995 referendum. The current Quebec government was elected last year, just a year ago, and clearly stated its determination to have a referendum on sovereignty, because it is the only way for Quebec to sort out its relationship with the rest of Canada and to break out from under the yoke of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Is the hon. member not aware that the will of Quebecers is being systematically ignored by the federal government, which is making no attempt to find some way to keep Quebec within the federation?

The federal government is making no effort toward this end. It only tries to confine Quebec in a neat little box, which explains why all Quebecers are expressing their dissatisfaction.

What does the hon. member have to say to Quebecers about this?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am really saddened by the remarks of the hon. member from Kamouraska. I gather from what he said that Quebecers never got anything out of Canada and are denied prosperity.

It is particularly painful for me to listen to that, because my own ancestor landed in Kamouraska in the mid-1600s, around 1642 or 1652. He founded a family, the members of which settled in all parts of the country, not only in the Kamouraska and Rivière-du-Loup area.

Today I am a Franco-Ontarian member of parliament, and I am proud of the work my ancestors did. We share the same ancestors. They were the founders of a great region of this country. The hon. member's remarks are unfortunate, because, to us, a country is something very important. We should not take lightly the breakup of a country. And we do respect democracy.

How many referendums shall we have? Quebecers have said no twice already. This is hardly respect for democracy. But since the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois have decided to keep talking about referendums, we have a duty to put forward clear rules in order to protect democracy.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a question—

[An hon. member]

The ex-minister.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

That is right. The ex-minister. If the promotion of the French cause was so important for her, why did she pick an unilingual anglophone as her chief of staff? She also chose to receive her correspondence in English.

Nor does she mention the assimilation of francophones. In the city of Hamilton, which the Minister of Canadian Heritage represents, there was, according to Statistics Canada, an 80% assimilation rate. When she talks about the great French Canadian family, I would like to remind her that her predecessors at the Association des francophones hors Québec, representing francophones from the rest of Canada, supported the yes side during the 1980 referendum.

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have to stop playing games. We are talking about a country.

There are two official languages in our country. In some regions we speak French; in some we speak English.

[An hon. member]

We are talking about democracy.

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

The referendum that will take place in Quebec is not only for those who speak French. Are they trying to tell me that only francophones are entitled to being listened to in Quebec?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Absolutely not. And as far as I am concerned, it has to be clear. It has to include every citizen.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, no one will dispute the fact that everyone in this House was elected on the basis of a platform they presented to the public.

My own included the following: first, as a Quebecer I believe in Canada; second, as a Quebecer I believe in its democracy; third, as a Quebecer I believe in its future; fourth, I believe that in spite of all the flaws that our country may have, these flaws should not affect our future prospects.

These are the convictions that I expressed to the voters of Brossard—La Prairie, and they gave me the mandate to promote these convictions, because they share them. This is why day after day, if not hour after hour, I strive to fulfil my responsibilities with integrity, decency and fairness.

It is in that context that I rise today to support the clarity bill.

Let me briefly explain how I view the role of the Canadian parliament in this regard, a role in which parliament must respect the Quebec national assembly as much as it must respect itself.

The Quebec Referendum Act passed by the national assembly in December 1977 allows a government—in this case the Quebec national assembly—to consult the population on a specific issue. The national assembly has an indisputable and essential right in that regard.

It can, very legitimately, decide alone to hold a referendum. It can, very legitimately, decide alone which question it will ask. It can, very legitimately, note the results of that consultation. However, after that public consultation the Quebec national assembly must make a political decision.

After the consultation a political decision must be made. Under the circumstances, the issue for the Quebec government then becomes the following: on the basis of the public vote on the question that was asked, can we legitimately undertake negotiations on the secession of Quebec?

To illustrate my point, let me quote Robert Burns, who was a minister in the government of Mr. Lévesque in 1977. He said:

This is why, in the current situation, a referendum can only have a consultative value, even if this consultative value does not diminish in any way the moral value of a referendum with the government, which will not, I believe, override with impunity the clearly and widely expressed will of the people.

This is exactly what the Parliament of Canada is doing.

We, like Mr. Burns at the time, make a connection between the “clearly and widely expressed will of the people” to the legitimacy of our decision, as political actors, to enter into negotiations for Quebec secession.

Consequently, it is clear that this bill does not aim in any way at giving a framework to the national assembly. It aims at giving a framework to our role, as the federal parliament, in case these conditions on clarity are fulfilled.

Quebec has some institutions, laws and processes to allow it to fully assume its rights and responsibilities. These are exactly the same rights and responsibilities that I am claiming on behalf of the Parliament of Canada, the right to interpret the legitimacy of the political approach as a political actor having responsibility for Canada.

In Quebec, it is the same voters who elect Quebec members to the national assembly and to the House of Commons. Voters have given to all of their elected people different but complementary responsibilities.

Today I am taking the responsibilities given to me by my constituents. I am taking them by supporting a bill that is necessary today, but which I hope will never be used. Let us never again remain silent when myths are spread around. Let us never again remain silent in the face of what I perceive as manipulation. Let us never again remain silent in the face of what I perceive as exclusion policies.

As a Quebecer, to counter myths, I propose transparency. As a Quebecer, to counter manipulation, I propose clarity. As a Quebecer, to counter exclusion policies, I propose Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, with all due respect for members opposite, I think the speech we just heard is incredible.

Surely, most members present in the House today know that, whatever manipulation there is, is coming from that side. It takes quite a nerve to rise in the House, claim to be a Quebecer and say that the national assembly manipulated people, because that is what our colleague said.

We represent those who are for democracy. No member on this side has any fears about our project. What we want is for Quebecers and Quebecers alone to decide on the question and to determine their own future. That is what is at stake.

The hon. member quoted Robert Burns. I happen to be the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve and I want everyone to know that each time the people of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve had a chance, they always voted for sovereignty, and I am proud of that.

Today is a sad day for democracy. I hope the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is not very proud of himself. One can be a federalist. There is no question about that. Of course, Liberal members from Quebec are elected just as we are, but what is not on is suggesting that Quebecers cannot by themselves decide on the clarity and the legitimacy of the question. Let there be no mistake, there is not a single Bloc member who will agree to this.

I am extremely saddened by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs' speech, because convictions are not at issue here. We are speaking of people who are against democracy. Today, when the minister rose and when our hon. colleague rose a moment ago, they said they were not democrats. They are not democrats, because if they were, they would recognize the integrity, the legitimacy and the validity of the referendum process.

Is my colleague going to rise and say, as a Quebecer, that Quebecers sitting in the national assembly and those who will vote on this question are the only ones who can decide the clarity of the referendum question? Is he going to say that?

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, I noticed that, as the hon. member for Québec did informally yesterday, it is very difficult for my colleague not to hesitate to consider me a Quebecer. I have a lot of problems with that, in terms of democracy, since I took the initiative to come here, live here and do my part for society here. I have a lot of problems with that. Second—

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I never said that our colleague is not a Quebecer. He is misleading the House—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

This is not a point of order but a point of debate.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, through his question my colleague spoke to me—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

I suppose this is what they call democracy and respect for the right to speak.

My colleague spoke about our right to be federalists. I am happy to know that. However, how can he reconcile this statement with the refusal, clearly expressed by a majority of Quebecers on two occasions, of the option to make me lose my Canadian identity, and come back again with this same question? There is an inconsistency here.

Third, my colleague talks a lot about the legitimacy and integrity of the national assembly. I would like to mention to him that my speech was mainly concerned with the fundamental right to recognize this essential quality of the national assembly. According to me, the House of Commons must have for the whole country the same powers and the same rights as those exercised by the National Assembly of Quebec.

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

Madam Speaker, it is with great respect for the debate that we are having here this afternoon that I am honoured to partake.

We have seen in the House just how emotional this issue is, not only for the people who live in the province of Quebec, but for all Canadians who have lived in harmony for over 130 years, trying to resolve through the democratic process the differences which the provinces have.

We have been faced more than once with a province which has addressed the issue of separation to leave the country we know as Canada. I do not for a minute think that this will not occur again.

In anticipation, the government took the issue to the supreme court and asked it to make a decision as to whether a province could unilaterally leave the country. The supreme court was very clear that it is the democratic right of provinces to address the issue of separation, but that it could not be done unilaterally. It was quite clear that the court felt that if there was a clear question and a clear majority the federal government and the other provinces would have a responsibility to negotiate with that province which chooses to leave the country.

That brings us to the bill which was introduced by the government yesterday. It is a bill which, I presume, tries to strike clarity. It may strike a degree of clarity when it addresses the question, in that it outlines a question that would be considered clear; however, what it does not outline, and perhaps should, is what is a clear majority. It is very hard to play a game, it is very hard to be in a game of this nature, when we do not know where the goal post is. We only find out after the game is finished where the goal post is. Therefore, I would suggest that the government, in looking at this legislation, attempt to reach some clarity as to what is a clear majority. If the government feels that a clear majority of 50% plus one is not good enough to leave the country, then it should state what it considers to be a good enough majority. I think it is unfair to continue this process without that clarity, without the rules of the game being known before the game is played.

I do not think there is anybody in the country who does not agree that the rules of the game have to be laid out in the beginning. The Reform Party tried to lay out some rules with the 20/20 discussion paper of 1994. We took a lot of heat as a party for bringing clarity to what the understanding of Canadians was when we talked of separation. We took a lot of heat for raising the issue at that time. I find it a little ironic that we raised the issue when the debate was hot and heavy and the government waited until everything had quieted down and the separatists were busy trying to run a province, rather than a referendum, to revisit the issue.

One could question the timing, but I do not think one could question the need for establishing clear rules to the game so that there is clarity in the question that is asked and there is clarity in the result that is delivered.

Another concern that I have is that the federal government in the process, for whatever reason, seems to have walked away from plan A; plan A being the reasons that we would give to the people of Quebec to choose to stay in Canada, developing a new relationship between the federal government and the provinces which would enable them to have more control and a greater ability to define what the future of the provinces would be, based primarily on those jurisdictions that were given to them at the time of Confederation.

The federal government had an opportunity with the social union. I would argue, and I know it is debatable, that the federal government blew it. It had an opportunity at that time to show Quebec how we could change the federation to allow the provinces to have greater certainty and greater control over the delivery of social programs without the intrusion of the federal government in provincial jurisdiction through its spending power.

The social union, originally developed by the premiers, developed some controls or guidelines with which they could all agree, a dispute mechanism and an understanding that if a province wanted to withdraw or not take part in an agreed program, it would have the right to do so and still get the dollars that should go to the people of that province.

For whatever reason, the federal government felt that allowing this change in the relationship between the federal government and the provinces was not okay, that it was more important that the federal government retain its control and its power over provincial jurisdictions, primarily through its spending power.

As I said earlier, I think the federal government blew it. I think that it walked away from a prime opportunity to show the province of Quebec that it would be much better to remain in Canada and that in working with other provinces Quebec could achieve the best that is possible for that province.

The government, again for whatever reason, walked away from developing this new relationship with the provinces. Instead it decided to come down heavy with plan B. The timing is confusing to me. I am not sure this is the time one wants to confront the issue. I would have thought this would have been a more appropriate time to talk to Quebec about the division of powers, about respecting what is the federal government's responsibility and respecting what is the provincial government's responsibility.

I would even suggest that it is time to introduce a new concept. There are some grey areas where neither the federal government nor the provincial governments have been given the jurisdiction, and where there is a real need to collaborate and negotiate to come up with some means of working together.

One area is national standards. It is not right for a federal government to impose national standards on the provinces. What is more appropriate is for the provinces to negotiate with the federal government and with each other to come up with those standards they feel are appropriate for all concerned.

Interprovincial trade is another example of the need for provinces to work together with the federal government to overcome the barriers. Because it is province to province the federal government has to be involved.

There are laws like the criminal code which is a federal act and jurisdiction but it is applied through the provincial governments. The provincial governments are the ones that apply the criminal code to their citizens.

It would seem to me that rather than confront the province of Quebec, the federal government should have put more time and energy into trying to find new and better ways of working with the province. But the government decided to go to plan B . Having its concept of plan B of clarity before us, we have to debate whether or not this piece of legislation is going to make it clear to the people of Quebec that if they decide to leave Canada, there will be some consequences in doing so.

During the 1995 referendum I was amazed to see that poll results showed that 25% of Quebecers thought that they would still send representatives to the House of Commons in Ottawa and that there would not be any change in representatives sitting in the House of Commons. Over half of Quebecers thought that they would still maintain their Canadian citizenship.

It has to be very clear to the people who will vote on whether or not to leave Canada just what in fact they are leaving. The Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois owe it to the citizens of Quebec to be honest and up front with them.

Having sat in the transport committee and having listened to the debate in the House and in the committee, it was interesting to see how the Bloc represented the debate on restructuring the Canadian airline industry. Canadians have indicated a bit of concern that Air Canada's headquarters by legislation are located in Montreal. It was interesting to see that the Bloc Quebecois wanted to protect that. It wanted to protect the 10% ownership in Air Canada and leave the foreign ownership at 25% in the airline industry. I do not know if the Bloc Quebecois understands that if Quebec leaves Canada, then any shareholders who own shares in Air Canada in Quebec become foreigners and would be limited to the 25% that it was arguing for. I do not know if the people in Quebec understand that.

I would suggest that the illusion the Bloc members are creating in Quebec that the separation will be like a velvet glove, that there will be no upset and that there will be no extreme changes to the way they deal with Canada is a fallacy. If Bloc members honestly feel that the rest of the country will allow Quebec to leave without any kind of consequences, they are fooling themselves. And they are certainly not doing anything positive for the people of Quebec who have to make that choice.

This legislation is at least a start in the direction the government has to go. The government does have to establish clarity of the question, what question would be acceptable, what result would be acceptable, which is still unclear. The government has to at some point address what a clear majority—

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member's speech is very interesting and it would be greatly appreciated if the Liberals could hear it. Thus, I would like you to check the quorum, because obviously there is no quorum in the House.

And the count having been taken:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

We now have quorum in the House.