House of Commons Hansard #39 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was quebec.

Topics

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

Noon

Some hon. members

No.

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

Noon

Reform

Grant Hill Reform Macleod, AB

Mr. Speaker, the unity debate in Canada has surfaced again with a vengeance. Most Canadians are neither keen to open this subject nor ready for the arguments that follow. I feel the country has referendum or unity fatigue.

However, the Prime Minister has decided that there is no better time than now to clarify referendum rules so I will speak to the bill in the following way. First, I will speak to why the official opposition supports the basic principles behind the bill. Second, I will present some suggested changes. Third, I will suggest that there is a major missing component to the bill. Fourth, I will review the history to show how visionary the official opposition leader has been on unity.

Reform, as the official opposition, supports the bill because it does improve the chances that a referendum on secession by any province will be conducted fairly.

The bill lays out specific criteria for Canada's elected representatives to respect the principle of clarity. Is it reasonable to expect the question on such a serious matter as secession to deal with only that topic? I think so.

Is it reasonable for the question to specifically refer to a province “ceasing to be a part of Canada”? I think so as well.

These ideas are fundamentally fair. A province may ask any question of its population, but to be clear enough to divide a country the question cannot be ambiguous.

It is important to state that the province must propose the question and only the province can do that under our referendum law. No one else can provide the wording, but to have legitimacy everyone should be able to accept the result of a question posed that cannot be misunderstood.

A clear majority has also been referred to in the bill. On this point I also concur. I feel that a clear majority should be defined in such a way that no one could misunderstand exactly what that means. I will return to that point later.

I will now reflect on the changes that I think would improve the bill. First, there is the issue of a clear question. Since the subject is open to debate, I believe it would be wise to place a sample question in the bill as a suggestion to a province intending to hold a secession referendum. I stress the word suggestion. The following is the official opposition's sample question that meets our personal test of clarity.

“Should—the name of the province—separate from Canada and become an independent country with no special legal ties to Canada, yes or no?”

This is only a proposal. Why should sovereigntists oppose such a question?

Now to the somewhat more complex issue of the clear majority. The government treats this issue a bit like a poker game. Both the Prime Minister and the intergovernmental affairs minister have said that 50% plus one is not good enough. They then, however, hold their cards close to the vest and refuse to say what is good enough. I listened carefully to the arguments that state that this cannot be defined. However, this issue is not some tactical battle. It is not a poker game. It is an issue that involves millions of Canadians. I believe that the plain truth is always better than tactical strategy.

I will use a hockey analogy to show how I feel changing the rules can backfire and fail. In 1955 the Montreal Canadiens won the Stanley Cup. What a team it was, so fast, so difficult to check. Jean Béliveau scored three goals during one penalty and it was determined that was too big an advantage. In 45 seconds there were three goals, a hat trick. That summer the rules of hockey were changed. A minor penalty was now to be terminated as soon as a goal was scored. This rule was changed for but one reason: to slow down this fast skating team from Montreal. The rule change failed. An even more determined Canadiens team went on to win four more consecutive Stanley Cups. The rule change backfired.

Let us fast forward to 1984. The Edmonton Oilers were then the dominant force, another fast, offensive oriented team. Coincidental minor penalties for four on four gave them an advantage. Four on three was even more of an advantage. They won the Stanley Cup in 1983-84. The rules were changed that summer so that coincidental minor penalties gave no advantage to this fast skating team. The rule change failed again. They went on to win three of the next four Stanley Cups, even more determined than before to overcome the rule change. Again the rule change backfired.

I believe changing the rules on a suitable majority could backfire as well. The last two referendums were run under 50% plus one.

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

An hon. member

No, they were not.

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Reform

Grant Hill Reform Macleod, AB

The intergovernmental affairs minister says “no”. Let me simply say that when the Prime Minister said that this issue would be irreversible, and when the Prime Minister, right after the referendum, said “We won”, he in fact said that this rule was the one we expected.

I listened very carefully because I said this was debatable. I say to my colleagues across the way that they should bring forward the powerful arguments they have to make this debate clear to every Canadian. I simply ask for that.

Reform supports and argues for 50% plus one of all the ballots cast, including spoiled and rejected ballots. That would prevent electoral shenanigans from affecting the result. We also believe—and this is the flip side of that coin—that 50% plus one is a powerful deterrent. If 50% plus one could divide Canada, 50% plus one could also divide Quebec.

We have laid out and, if an unclear question were asked under a provincial secession referendum attempt, we propose a two pronged question. I will shorten the question. First prong, “Should—a province—separate from Canada, yes or no?” Second prong, “If—the province—separates from Canada should your community remain a part of Canada, yes or no?” What a mess. What chaos. Who would enter such a disaster knowingly? One other issue that could and should be improved in the bill is the level of public consultation. The government rightly notes that this is not just an issue for the province wishing to secede, but neither is this just an issue for politicians nor just for journalists and professional commentators. This issue cries out for public consultation, public hearings and vigorous debate. The debate should not be conducted behind closed doors. It should be conducted around the kitchen tables of the country.

The bill has highlighted some problems with secession that would need to be negotiated, namely the division of assets and liabilities, any changes to the boundaries of a province, aboriginal claims and the protection of minority rights. This list is not exhaustive. I might suggest that the bill could also mention citizenship, passports, pensions, creditor confidence, the Canadian dollar, international agreements, an access corridor if the province is in the centre of Canada, defence issues, military assets and a potential rejoining of Canada. All these issues make separation chaotic and very unappealing.

When the official opposition put forward its ideas for improving the federation and laying the clear rules for secession, we made it plain that the secession rules would be debated and passed in parliament but never proclaimed unless a secession attempt were made. That was in the hope and belief that positive changes to the federation would make this legislation unnecessary. I suggest the bill before us could well be improved by exactly the same proposal.

Now to the gaping hole in the bill. It may be unfair to call this a hole in the bill, but along with this bill we believe there should be specific measures to improve our federation. When this issue is raised in questions to the government, we hear that the government has actually made significant changes. I hear that the recognition of distinct society, a regional veto and the social union are evidence of those changes.

However, these are not the sorts of changes that I think Quebecers and other Canadians want. Once again the official opposition has put its significant changes to paper in “Loi sur le nouveau Canada, Partie A—Améliorations au fonctionnement de la fédération”.

These fundamentals are designed:

(a) to treat all Canadians with fairness and equity;

(b) to promote equality of opportunity for all Canadians;

(c) to respect the equality of rights and the dignity of all Canadians, as well as their various needs;

(d) to recognize that all provinces, despite their different characteristics, have the same legal standing.

We wish for a better sharing of powers under the constitution; reduced federal spending powers in areas of provincial jurisdiction; a dispute settlement mechanism and a change in policies and programs for aboriginal people; and a democratic reform of federal institutions, especially the House of Commons, the Senate and the supreme court, to make them more accountable to Canadians.

These changes must be made if we want to avoid problems with the federation in Quebec and outside Quebec.

These are changes that would leave us with an option other than the status quo or separation. These are positive and constructive changes.

Finally, I will put a historical context on the unity debate and place on the record what the official opposition has said and done on this debate both here in Ottawa and even prior to our arrival here.

The Leader of the Opposition in chapter 17 of his book The New Canada, and I ask my colleagues to read chapter 17, laid out with a clarity of vision the unity issue and foresaw exactly where we are today. I invite any student of Canadian history to look at the copyright date, which is 1992. This is a short quotation from the book:

This revival of the concept of Canada as an equal partnership between founding races was doomed from the start. Even in the 1960s it was profoundly out of step with the times. The Québécois wanted to be “maître chez nous”.... Federal politicians responded by trying to bolster a national duality that had been in decline for ninety years. The cultural backgrounds of people in English-speaking Canada were becoming more and more varied. Quebeckers were calling for less bilingualism, not more bilingualism, in their own province and in the other provinces.

Most importantly, Canadians outside Ontario and Quebec were beginning to realize fully the real significance of the “two nations” theory of Canada. A Canada built on a union of the French and the English is a country built on the union of Quebec and Ontario in which the other provinces are little more than extensions of Ontario. Moreover, arrangements giving special constitutional status to the French and the English as “founding peoples” relegate the twelve million Canadians who are of neither French nor English extraction (including aboriginal peoples) to the status of second-class citizens.

It goes on to say that this history describes the constitutional road that federal politicians and their predecessors have travelled for a very long time. It is a road marked by signs in both official languages that say things as equal partnership between French and English, founding races, languages and cultures, and special status based on race. It largely bypasses the constitutional concerns of Atlantic Canada, western Canada, northern Canada, aboriginals and the 12 million other Canadians who are of neither French nor English extraction.

In other words, this road leads to an unbalanced federation of racial and ethnic groups distinguished by constitutional wrangling, deadlock, regional imbalance and a fixation with unworkable linguistic and cultural policies to the neglect of weightier matters such as the environment, the economy and international competitiveness. That was in 1992.

On June 9, 1994 the Leader of the Official Opposition published an open letter to the Prime Minister asking him to bring clarity to the issues of a secession referendum. He asked the Prime Minister:

Prime Minister, we cannot stand by passively and allow Quebec voters to make the decision—separation or Canada—without offering them a vigorous defence of Canada, including a positive federalist alternative to the status quo. And we cannot let them make their decision without disputing the separatist contention that separation will be a relatively uncomplicated and painless process.

That was in 1994 before the last referendum. He went on to lay out 20 issues that would need to be negotiated, including division of assets and liabilities, boundaries, native rights and minority rights. Does that sound familiar?

Then in the spring of 1996 we brought out our 20:20 vision for a new Canada: 20 proposals for a new confederation; 20 realities of secession. That was clear as a bell.

Bill C-341 was given first reading October 30, 1996. That bill was Stephen Harper's act to establish the terms and conditions that must apply to a referendum relating to the separation of Quebec from Canada before it may be recognized as a proper expression of the will of the people of Quebec. It set out the ground rules for a clear question. Does that sound familiar?

Also in October 1996 we released a fresh start for unity, again laying out ways to rethink the Canadian federation and improve it.

On August 20, 1998 there was the supreme court reference, which we supported alone among the parties opposite the government, the government having asked for it. We asked for two things: clarification on secession rules and new partnership rules to make Canada work better.

In May 1998 we brought out the new Canada act, once again putting forth positive changes to fix the federation. After public consultation we introduced the new Canada act this month, taking into consideration the Prime Minister's wish to finally clarify the secession rules.

I have spent this time going over the historical record so that everyone in Canada will know that the Leader of the Official Opposition has ploughed this ground before.

In summary, Bill C-20 does provide some clarity on the issue of a question that could result in separation. It leaves undefined the issue of what would be a suitable majority and I repeat, I think that is unwise. I urge the government to put forward positive changes to the federation that will truly put the secession issue forever into the annals of history.

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Madam Speaker, today is a very sad day indeed as the House of Commons prepares to deny the legitimacy of the national assembly to trample upon democracy in Quebec.

In order to have a proper understanding of what is going on, we must go back over history to learn from it and to identify the key figures of yesterday and of today.

The Quebec people, who were then called Canadiens or even Canayens, were conquered by the British in 1760. This was a victory for one side and a defeat for the other.

Since then Quebec has had no desire for revenge. In fact there have instead been several attempts to reach an agreement between the two peoples. The Canadiens of the time, who later became French Canadians, and still later Quebecers, invested all of their imagination, their goodwill, in getting along with Canada.

There is, however, one fundamental and undeniable requirement for this: recognition of what we are, a people.

That objective has not been attained, despite much effort. Throughout history democrats in Canada have stood up to open their arms to Quebec, but their point of view has never won out. This, unfortunately, has been the case for a number of peoples. Some Canadiens, later French Canadians and still later Quebecers, offered their services to the conqueror, and now to the rest of Canada, in order to put the people of Quebec in their place, to do a number on their fellow Quebecers, which they could do a far better job at than their masters.

History is replete with individuals for whom principles and the defence of their own people are of very little importance compared to the power they can gain, the kudos they get from it, and the perks of all kinds that are forthcoming to those who do the dirty work for others, who are only too pleased not to have to do it themselves. That held true yesterday, and holds equally true today.

Throughout its history the Quebec people have resisted, have fought for their rights and have obtained some, even in 1774 with the Quebec Act.

There people, by their resistance fighting, got one of the first parliaments in the world, the parliament in Quebec City in 1791. Our democratic roots go a long way back. In Quebec we have a long tradition of democracy.

The 1791 parliament did not really have much power, no more than the modern parliament in Quebec has every power, as it is not sovereign. The people were denied power then and will again be denied power now, 200 years later.

The people of Quebec are a tolerant and peaceful people, but they will not live on its knees or let others decide on their behalf. This is as true today as it was then. Men and women rebelled against the uncompromising attitude of the British back then. They were called the Patriotes. Our ancestors are a true inspiration to us.

They were definitely ahead of their time. Forerunners of the modern Quebec, they fought for their people, not for an ethnic group. Among them were men like Robert Nelson and Wilfred Nelson. They recognized native rights. It took 150 years for another Patriot, René Lévesque, to rise in 1985 and recognize, before any other Canadian province and the Canadian government itself, the first nations' right to self-government, as provided for in the motion of the national assembly that was not unanimously accepted because Quebec Liberals voted against it.

The Patriotes fought along with the Upper Canada Patriots, the democrats of the time, against the family compact or la clique du château, laying the foundations of the kind of co-operation that is needed between democratic neighbours and treating each other as equals. This was long before sovereignists started to talk about this. These were the first steps in what we now call a partnership between equals.

The Patriotes were crushed, as we know, but their legacy is still alive. At the time, however, the authorities did not learn anything from these rebellions. They responded with the Durham report, which said that the people of Quebec, the people of Lower Canada, were a people with no history and no culture. Today, 160 years later, this government denies the existence of the people of Quebec, makes Quebec culture a regional component of the Canadian culture and is trying to undermine our democratic institutions.

Durham laid the foundations of the union of the two Canadas, the Province of Canada, the plan for a single Canada that now has a much more subtle, pernicious and dangerous look. This plan was based on equal representation in parliament, even though the population of Lower Canada was significantly larger than the one of Upper Canada. Today we are told that all provinces are equal, Quebec only being a province like the others, no more no less.

The only official language of the parliament of the time was English. Today Ottawa, the federal capital of this supposedly bilingual country, is not even bilingual. And this is what the government wants to hold up as an example. How history repeats itself.

Lower Canada paid for the debt of Upper Canada, which did not have debt. Today we are told about the great generosity of the federal government, which paid off its deficit on the backs of the provinces, knowing full well that the one who has the money is the one who sets the rules. This was once called fair play, and still is. In my view, this was once hypocrisy, and still is.

Those who wielded power at the time even went so far as to burn down the parliament building in Montreal. Today their heirs want to give us lessons in democracy. Let us talk about democracy.

When the men known as the Fathers of Confederation signed the 1867 pact, they did not allow the people of Lower Canada to hold a referendum. They were satisfied with the votes of a few parliamentarians, as was the case in 1982 for the patriation of the constitution. The assemblies of the other provinces and the House here made the decision without ever consulting the people of Quebec.

That is when a whole series of attacks began against French-speaking Canadians from coast to coast. Now the House is paying tribute to Riel, who was hanged. But the problems that gave rise to the situation with Riel were never resolved. The Metis and the natives are second-class citizens in Canada. Francophones in the other provinces are more than ever in danger of becoming assimilated, despite the laudable efforts they are making across Canada to resist assimilation. The figures do not lie.

Legislation was passed in Manitoba and Ontario on behalf of the majority and for the sake of fair play to hinder the development of francophone minorities. That is what I call hypocrisy.

However, the French Canadians who believed they were one of the founding nations of this country never gave up. I am thinking, for instance, of people like Bourassa. Hon. members from the province of Quebec have always been asked to help Canada put Quebec in its proper place. It happened before, and it is happening again today.

There are members from Quebec in this House whose ultimate job is to put Quebec in its place. As time went by, as Canada developed as a country, the consolidation of Hugh McLennan's two solitudes became more and more obvious. We can think of the conscription in World War I, where the militia even went as far as opening fire on people in Quebec City, killing a few protesters.

The anglophone majority was counting on its parliament in Ottawa and on London to put Quebec in its place. It did happen in 1927, with the privy council's decision concerning Labrador, but French Canadians kept trying to make Canada their country, and they were consistently deceived.

Promises concerning conscription were broken in World War II. Today the government would have us believe that by not determining what would be an acceptable majority in a Quebec referendum it will keep its promise. We have heard that before. The federation became increasingly centralized with the creation of the unemployment insurance program in Ottawa and the introduction of income tax for the duration of the war, or so they said at the time.

French Canadians continued to fight. We were patient. Then came a great awakening, the quiet revolution, when Quebec discovered itself while discovering the world. “Masters in our own home”, said Lesage. Our own home meant Quebec. It could no longer be anything else. At that time only Quebec was considered home by all Quebecers. It was true then, it is true now, and it will still be true tomorrow. “A mari usque ad mare” was a dream, and it became an illusion. The quiet revolution marked the start of an overwhelming impulse, with Quebecers moving from resistance to affirmation. The Quebec culture was flourishing like never before. Quebecers were taking control over their own affairs and penetrating the business world. We were being told that we were not able, that we could not create Hydro Quebec. It was always the others, always the same who were telling us “You cannot do it”.

I remember this beautiful slogan, popular in 1966, “We can do it”. We were told “You are not good at business”. We certainly had enough blows. Ottawa reacted by establishing the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. In 1963 we found out that, on average, Quebecers had a grade nine education. Enough to be water boys but not nation builders.

Quebec then focused on education. It took control over its destiny. Quebecers developed a taste for freedom, and we all know that those who get a taste for it never have enough.

This is when the sovereignist movement appeared in all its modernity. It provoked reactions in Canada. I think of Lester B. Pearson who spoke of “a nation within a nation”, and of Robert Stanfield who referred to “two nations”. Some people were starting to see us for what we were, for what we are, a distinct people, a nation.

Then came out of Quebec a French Canadian who was ready to play the role that Canada generally assigns to those who agree to put Quebec in its place. Pierre Elliott Trudeau did not miss a chance to criticize Quebec's modern nationalism. According to him, nationalism was a good thing for all other peoples around the world. It was good for Canadians, but a shameful disease for Quebecers.

Then a real nation building effort started, the Canadian nation building, in which Quebec never had its place, still has no place and will never have a place.

Yet Quebec persevered. We have great patience. Daniel Johnson Sr. put forward the concept of equality or independence. Nobody listened. He was even rebuffed by Pierre Elliott Trudeau. We understood then that there could never be equality without independence.

This is the great hope, the blueprint for the future that was put forward by the Parti Quebecois, a resolutely modern and democratic party, the bearer of a project of hope, a contemporary and modern project that finds its inspiration in Europe, where various sovereign countries are getting together into larger entities such as the European Union.

The federalists have denounced this project; they would have had the people believe, back then as today, that Europe was taking Canada as a model. How I would like to see the Prime Minister go to the national assembly of France and predict to its members and senators that within 15 to 20 years France will no longer be a sovereign country. How I would like to see the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs go to Westminster and announce to the British people that within 15 to 20 years Great Britain will disappear into a large European entity, having lost its status as a sovereign country. And while we are at it, why not have the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport go to the Bundestag in Berlin and bring the good news to the Germans.

This is a modern project we are proposing. Ottawa's answer to this modern plan was scaremongering, a favourite tactic on the part of those who have nothing to offer. Then came the Brinks affair, and the War Measures Act whereby hundreds of innocent people were thrown in jail. We can already see the hand of today's Prime Minister in this.

He was so sure he had succeeded that in August 1976 Pierre Elliott Trudeau turned prophet: “Separatism is dead in Quebec.” Three months later, René Lévesque and the Parti Quebecois formed the first sovereignist government in Quebec's modern history.

Quebec witnessed then a tremendous momentum. It was the scene of many achievements in the area of democracy, opening up to others, to Canada, to the world. René Lévesque offered a policy of reciprocity regarding Quebec's anglophone minorities and Canada's francophone minorities, which are supposedly a concern of this legislation. The Canadian provinces turned him down.

We can see the hypocrisy of some people, such as the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, who says that anglophones in Quebec are being discriminated against. Let us look at the facts. Anglophones in Quebec have access to a state-of-the-art hospital network while, right here in Ottawa, the only francophone hospital in Ontario, the Monfort hospital, has to repeatedly fight for its life before the supreme court. There is no comparison.

Quebec's anglophones have access to a school network ranging from elementary school to high school to college, with three universities of their own, McGill, Bishop and Concordia. They have rights and so they should. Look at the painful situation of francophones outside Quebec. They have their own social and cultural institutions.

Compare this to an assimilation rate of 70% in British Columbia, over 60% in the prairies, 40% in Ontario, and even 8% in Acadia where the francophones, a courageous breed, the Acadians, are fighting with all their might and are dreaming of enjoying the same living conditions as anglophones in Quebec.

The Parti Quebecois government proposed a referendum that would provide it with the mandate to negotiate a new framework for Quebec's relationship with Canada, the kind of relationship between two sovereign nations, and the kind of modern association that can exist between two sovereign nations. That was a project based on the European model a project, I repeat, which was promising. Was it not the U.S. president himself, Bill Clinton, who in Mont-Tremblant used the evolution of the European Union as an example of federalism development in the future? How is it that, if it is so promising for Europe, it could be so bad for Quebec and Canada?

The response of the federal government was to try to scare Quebecers in the 1980 referendum, telling them that they would lose their old age pension, showing no respect for Quebec's democratic referendum process, spending federal funds to interfere in that process without any consideration for the Quebec referendum legislation and promising change, sticking its neck out.

Quebec got scared. It believed in change one more time, but the disappointment was huge. We then saw the patriation of the constitution, following the night of the long knives, in which, once again, the present Prime Minister took part. This is one thing that has remained constant in our history over the last 40 years.

The constitution was patriated despite a very large consensus in Quebec among all parties represented in the national assembly. Not one Quebec premier, federalist or sovereignist, from Lévesque to Ryan, leader of the opposition, to Robert Bourassa, to Daniel Johnson Jr., to Pierre-Marc Johnson, to Jacques Parizeau to Lucien Bouchard, signed the constitution, and Jean Charest would not sign it either.

What was done to Quebec at that time would have never been done to Ontario or even to Prince Edward Island. And it was done without a referendum. That insult, that injustice, did not bring Quebec to capitulate. It continued to fight and tried to work toward a reconciliation. This was the “beau risque”, which paved the way to the Meech Lake accord. Once again Quebec was isolated and once again we saw the current Prime Minister say “Thank you, Clyde” for a job well done.

At that point, Robert Bourassa said that English Canada must clearly understand that whatever happens and whatever is done, Quebec is and always will be a distinct society, one that is free and quite capable of taking charge of its own destiny and development. He created the Bélanger-Campeau commission that carried out broad democratic consultations and recommended that a referendum on sovereignty be held if renewed federalism were to fail.

Quebecers tried to figure out what they would do either within Canada or as a sovereign nation and they examined the pros and cons. It may be about time for Canadians to ask themselves the same question. How do they see Canada with Quebec and how do they imagine Canada without Quebec. They should address this issue. It would be the responsible thing to do.

However, Mr. Bourassa lacked confidence in his fellow Quebecers and backed down. He signed an agreement that had yet to be drafted—talk about clarity—an agreement based on legal documents that had yet to be drafted, an agreement that would never have been distributed to the population were it not for the opposition party. The agreement fully embodied the two solitudes. Both sides voted no, but for very different reasons: the agreement was not enough for Quebec and too much for the rest of Canada.

A new government was elected in Quebec, a sovereignist government that submitted for a second time to Quebecers a sovereignty project along with a new partnership proposal.

The question was clear. Nowhere in the opinion of the supreme court does it say that the question was not clear. Nothing in it excludes a partnership proposal with some federal or confederal bodies.

For Ottawa, there is only one kind of federalism on this earth and it is the one in existence in Canada. There is only one kind of relationship, one kind of collaboration possible, and it is what we have now in Canada. For Ottawa, the rest of the world does not exist.

As I remember, during the referendum campaign the Prime Minister very eloquently predicted that we were going to get it, that we were going to get under 40% of the votes. We know what the results were, even after the love-in that was held, with total disregard for the Quebec referendum legislation, where people came to tell us that they love us when we are subservient, when we are pliant, when we are down on our knees and when we are Liberal. More promises were made after that.

The distinct society motion had no substance at all. We were told that “The motion would impact on all the bills passed in the House”. However, take the Young Offenders Act. All of the political parties represented in Quebec's national assembly as well as all the lawyers, judges, social workers and even police officers have stated “We do not want this new bill. Let us keep the system we have in Quebec, which has given us the best results possible in this area”. What impact did the distinct society motion have on the recognition of this consensus? None, none at all. It had no substance at all. We knew it and we see it once again today.

A so-called veto was also given to all of the regions. This led to total paralysis, as we saw with the Meech Lake accord, where not only a province or a territory, but a single individual was able to block what Quebec wanted. To top it off, we were offered a social union. There were two distinct views: one in favour in Canada and one opposed in Quebec. The Liberal members in this House, a minority here, we remind them, once again supported the Canadian view, ignoring the view in Quebec.

This belittling of Quebec is a true obsession with the Prime Minister. Inspired by his muse, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, he is now going after the powers of the national assembly. He would like to impose the wording of the question on the national assembly. Yet, in 1994, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said that the words secession, separation, sovereignty and independence all meant the same thing.

Apparently, this is no longer the case. He has changed his mind. I suppose he would also say that Quebecers are not intelligent enough to decide if a question is clear; the folks in Vancouver, Moose Jaw, Halifax, Toronto and Regina, who know all about clarity, must be consulted.

He tells us that elected representatives in the national assembly are incapable of clarity, as are the federal members from Quebec in the House of Commons, the 44 Bloc Quebecois members in Ottawa and the four members of the Progressive Conservative Party who are not in agreement with the bill. The Liberal members from Quebec are in the minority, but we would not understand. The 26 Liberal members from Quebec know what is best. This is nothing more than contempt and arrogance.

This same bill questions the rule of 50% plus one. Let us consider Newfoundland. Why? Two referendums. Why did 50% plus one apply in the case of Newfoundland? Why was Quebec never consulted when Newfoundland joined confederation in 1949? Why this double standard? Why did the government not set figures, rules, percentages and thresholds in its legislation? Undoubtedly because it was afraid of being challenged internationally or in the courts.

If it was dangerous to set a percentage beforehand, why is it any less so to set one once the results are in? How can Ottawa be judge and judged? What are these relevant conditions for setting the percentage? Again, Ottawa will decide.

Is the federal government, the Liberal party, essentially the sole bearer of the truth, the whole truth? By raising the issue of partition in this bill, is the government not going back on all its positions with respect to maintaining the borders of new countries, such as the Baltic countries, the Ukraine, the federated republics of the former Yugoslavia? How can it take one stand internationally outside the country and another here in the House for Quebec?

They who have so much to say about consensus and clarity, do they not see a great consensus in Quebec within our civil society, among all parties represented in the Quebec national assembly, even federalist parties, among the vast majority of members from Quebec who were democratically elected to this House, within the Progressive Conservative Party, I suppose, and I hope within the NDP, which recognized Quebec's right to self-determination? Those are the ones who are on the side of democracy, but this government just ignores them.

Who do we find on the other side, on the side of the Prime Minister's Liberals? The Reform Party, which has a great presence in Quebec and a good understanding of Quebecers, Guy Bertrand, Bill Johnson, Keith Anderson, Howard Galganov. Is that the Liberal consensus in Quebec? Is that their great consensus?

How did we get to this point? Because support for sovereignty went from 8% in the 1960s to 49.6% in 1995. In his 35 year career the Prime Minister will have seen sovereignty surge like never before in our history. Seeing this incredible surge and unable to propose anything to Quebec, he thinks the best thing to do is to prevent Quebecers from making a decision.

Nothing can resist the will of the people. Quebecers will not give in to Ottawa and will remain masters of their own destiny. Someday we will see two peoples who respect each other, who appreciate each other and who do not prevent each other from going forward in the direction they each want to follow.

I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“this House declines to give second reading to 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, because the bill contravenes the inalienable right of the Quebec people to decide freely their own future.”

Someday Quebec will be sovereign. Canada can certainly count on that.

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The Chair will take the amendment under advisement and return to the House in a few moments as to its admissibility.

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

NDP

Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS

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.

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The amendment moved by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois is in order. Debate is now on 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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Scott Brison Progressive Conservative Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, my question for the leader of the New Democratic Party is very simple. She listed a number of very convincing arguments on why this is bad legislation and why the government is playing meanspirited politics with the national unity issue to advance its own short term goals at the expense of the long term interest of Canadians.

Having articulated so forcefully why this is bad legislation, how could she possibly be supporting the legislation?

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

NDP

Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very understandable question. Given how very distressed we have been and remain about the actions of the Prime Minister, about the cynicism and the crass political manoeuvring that preceded the introduction of the bill, why would we be willing to consider it in good faith?

I will answer the question. We are prepared to look at the bill on its merits and to consider it in good faith because that is the job that is required of us as parliamentarians. We must try to make a distinction between whatever the political motives may be or whatever the political manoeuvring of the party in power may be. I think we all have some pretty big suspicions about that. I have outlined some of them today. We have to separate that from what is truly in the interests of Canada and what is truly the route to a strengthened united Canada that is going to work better for all of our citizens.

As I indicated, there are improvements needed. The manner in which government members and the Prime Minister participate in that process will indicate whether this is a project worthy of support and whether the final results can indeed advance a stronger united Canada. We are prepared to take our responsibility as parliamentarians to play a constructive role in that process.

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Winnipeg South Manitoba

Liberal

Reg Alcock LiberalParliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to thank the leader of the New Democratic Party for her willingness and ability to put aside partisan politics and focus on this very important question. It is not an easy issue for all of us. As she has so rightly pointed out, it involves the future of our country. We look forward to working with her as this debate unfolds.

I note that her party's critic and House leader is one of the few members in the House who has been through both referendums. He has often spoken to me about some of the difficulties in sorting out these questions. We want to thank them for their willingness to work with us in trying to find a solution.

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

NDP

Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the member on the government bench takes under serious advisement our urging that government members come to the committee process and participate in this debate in a way that is absolutely respectful to the rights and interests of all people of Quebec. They must be sensitive to the fact that there obligations upon all of us to understand that we have to find new ways to create a more flexible federalism that will respond to the particular conditions of Quebec, just as we need to do the same as it relates to aboriginal Canadians. If government members are prepared to do that, then I think we will all discharge our responsibilities as representatives of the interests of all Canadians within Quebec and across this great country of ours.

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Bloc

Antoine Dubé Bloc Lévis, QC

Mr. Speaker, last summer I was an observer at the NDP convention in Ottawa and I could see what was decided there.

I read with a great deal of interest one of the resolutions that the convention adopted, clearly recognizing Quebec's right to self-determination, and going as far as recognizing Quebecers as a people. This is the first federal political party that did that. The NDP recognized that Quebecers are indeed a people.

How can the NDP leader now explain that, in an unbelievable flip-flop, she is accepting that the federal government can make a pronouncement on the acceptability of the referendum question asked by the national assembly? How does this position square with the resolution passed last summer?

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

NDP

Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, I very much welcome that question. I am not sure whether the member was listening to my comments, but that is precisely why I opened my discussions of the New Democratic Party position on this debate with a proud reference to the social democratic forum and the recommendations that were endorsed overwhelmingly at our federal convention in August. It recognizes the right of self-determination of the people of Quebec. That is what the bill is about.

What the supreme court ruling did, and we welcomed this clarification, is it acknowledged the right of self-determination of the Quebec people. It also said that there is an obligation on the federal government under certain conditions to recognize a vote, a clear decision on a clear question that would indicate that the people of Quebec want to separate from Canada.

The supreme court decision that is reflected in the legislation now before us acknowledges exactly that right. It also makes it clear that it is not possible to take the view that there is no other impact, that there are no other implications for the rest of Canadians. Therefore it acknowledges both a right and a responsibility, a circumscribed, very particular, limited role on the part of the federal government. It is around our doing the most careful and sensitive job possible of defining what that role is in which the Parliament of Canada is now engaged.

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

André Harvey Progressive Conservative Chicoutimi, QC

Mr. Speaker, in any parliamentary debate the NDP leader is considered to be, as a rule, very sensitive to social issues such as health care, education and poverty.

Would she not agree that the government is wasting our time with such a bill giving effect to a supreme court's decision?

It is going to drag on for months and months. In the meantime, the House will be monopolized by this one issue. Does the NDP leader not believe it is a waste of time not to deal with more practical issues the NDP usually cares about?

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

NDP

Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, I guess I should not expect that members listened to my comments over the last half hour but that is precisely the point I made. New Democrats have no intention of allowing the government to use the bill as an excuse for not dealing with the critical problems of child poverty and homelessness, with the worst agricultural crisis in this country since the great depression, with the deterioration of our health care system and with the access barriers to post-secondary education that have been erected for our young people.

I am in total agreement and so are my colleagues that those are the priority issues. That is why we implore members on the government benches but we also implore our colleagues on the opposition benches to participate with us in dealing with this issue in a reasoned, responsible, sensitive way, while none of us on this side of the House let the government off the hook on its responsibilities to Canadians.

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

André Bachand Progressive Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Mr. Speaker, this morning, and even this afternoon, we have had the “pleasure” to listen to several speeches, including one by the intergovernmental affairs minister. I must say that if I were at home, if I were a mere individual and not an MP, listening to the minister, I would say it is as though tomorrow morning Quebec is going to say yes to a referendum on sovereignty. When listening to the minister's speech, one had the definite impression this government is giving up on Canada and any improvement to the federation. This is exactly what it is doing.

This bill says: “Here is the recipe to break up the country.” We cannot support it. On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party I have the following message for the government: Step aside. It is going to be all right. We will put forward some positive proposals. We are going to talk about the real problems Canadians and Quebecers are facing. We will take care of the future of the country.

The governing party used to say: “We want to keep the country together. We want to keep Quebecers and Canadians united.” For the past few days and weeks, Canada has never been as divided as it is today.

Quebecers themselves have never been this divided. Canadians have never been this divided. For years now parliamentarians have never been this divided. I must say that even within our own caucus some members are having reservations and questioning the strategy to follow. Nevertheless, our party's line is clear: we will fiercely oppose the Liberal government's initiative.

This bill on clarity is also an instrument of division. It shows us how to break up our country and, in the meantime, how to shatter the common interests that parliamentarians share in the hope of eradicating poverty. Why not try to build something positive to solve this problem? Instead we are given the instructions on how to break up a country. We are told how to destroy parliament. We are told how to drive a wedge between family members, individuals and the provinces.

Let us talk about the provinces. The supreme court has always referred to the politicians. The federal government has decided to act on its own and ignore the provinces. How many provinces today have stated that they agree with the federal government? They are divided. Is that what the federal government's strategy is all about? This is pure machiavellianism. It is more than machiavellianism 101. It could give us a lecture on this theme.

Where are the provinces that support the federal government in today's newspapers?

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

An hon. member

Where does Ontario stand on this issue?

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Nick Discepola Liberal Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC

Four out of four.

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

André Bachand Progressive Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

They are divided, that is true. Is that the kind of country you want? Not me.

What is important here, and it is even mentioned in the bill, is that the role of the provinces is a residual one. It is subject to the federal role. Even though Quebec and Ontario are the two main trade patterns, Ontario has officially no say in this. Nowhere does the opinion of the supreme court give the federal government an additional role compared to the provinces. However, the federal government has decided to negotiate on behalf of the provinces and to take into consideration their points of view.

Take into consideration? Did it consult the other provinces about this? Did the provinces introduce a bill like this one? Did they give to the great federal government the authority to negotiate secession on their behalf? I am not sure that Albertans would agree to that. I am sure that Ontarians would disagree. I am not sure the maritime provinces would support the Liberal government and say “Yes, if Quebec separates, go ahead and negotiate on behalf of maritimers. You have the authority to do it. We rely on Ottawa to negotiate on our behalf and on behalf of western Canada”. This is hogwash.

There is more. In addition to excluding the provinces from the negotiations following the secession of a part of Canada, there is talk of excluding the opposition here. There are speeches about uniting during the Christmas holidays. But here we are talking about dividing as a country before the Christmas holidays. But that is another matter.

Mr. Speaker, I had forgotten to tell you something. First, I really appreciate having you as a Speaker and, second, I will divide my time with the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

In the bill, the government, in addition to excluding the provinces, is technically excluding the four opposition parties here. Why? Because it talks about the House of Commons. It says the House of Commons will analyze all this. Looking at the way the Liberals have been conducting their business since 1993, we see that it is the PMO that makes the decisions. However, the PMO, the Prime Minister's Office, is not Canada. Is it clear enough? The decisions should be made by all parliamentarians.

The government bill is silent. The government talks about negotiating sovereignty, secession, and says that parliamentary rules will remain the same. It does not even talk about free votes.

I was talking with the hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac this morning. I asked “Why not have a free vote on that?” He said “Why not?”

But they are not saying what we will be voting on. We do not even have a resolution. There is no analysis of what a clear question is. We do not even know if our negotiations in this House are clear.

What percentage will be needed for the House to say that there is a clear majority? What percentage of the votes cast? Will we use the parliamentary rule which requires 50% of the votes plus one? Will the governor in council or the Prime Minister's office decide if the question and the majority are clear?

Why not say in the bill that members of parliament will be more involved and, above all, that provinces and regions of Canada will be involved? There is nothing like that. It is the silence of the lambs. There is absolutely nothing to that effect.

The only one who is given a role is the Prime Minister, so that he can say that the question is not clear and that the majority is not clear. There will be a short debate in parliament, but, knowing the parliamentary process as we know it, we can anticipate a closure motion and the debate will be cut short. We will be told “Enough talking. We find that it is not clear enough”. The provinces will be told “You can write a letter if you want and tell us what you think, but we will make the decision”.

This is not what the supreme court said. The bill was introduced last Friday thanks to a little trick. They used to accuse the former premier of Quebec, Mr. Parizeau, of trickery. However, promises were made and agreements were concluded with the House leaders. They were told “This is an important bill, an important draft bill. We will wait for everybody to recover from the madness the Reform Party put us through, and we will come back with it next week, when everybody is rested”.

But no, the draft bill was tabled. What is going on? What a great beginning for negotiations. If the government is not even capable of treating parliamentarians with respect, imagine the provinces, imagine Quebec. This is nothing to be proud of. It is not just the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, I realize, there is a little gang of people controlling the procedural aspects of the government. This is a slap in the face of democracy. They could have waited until Monday.

What happened is that he introduced it and then he took off. After that, out came the ministers, one after another. The Minister of Finance came out first of all with his “Hi there, how are you? I am in agreement with it”. Then, two minutes later, the Minister for International Trade said “Oh yes, we are fine with it”. That is the way it was done. All the people who had nothing to say on the matter, who remained silent, were anxiously waiting to be told “Go out there, we will be timing you”. That is the way it went—a lovely sight to behold.

I was off in my riding, settling some real business, like making sure some people on unemployment would at least get a cheque for Christmas, because they have children too. It is important.

There were the ministers all saying, one after another “Oh yes, it is reasonable”. But at that time no one had seen the bill. Many MPs were off in their ridings. There were the initial reactions. Mr. Clark put it very well, borrowing a quote from Robert Stanfield “Nothing is easier to do than to turn the majority in a country against a minority”. Nothing is easier to do than to divide this country.

Now we have a bill. Hooray. We are one of the few countries in the world that now has such a thing. We have a recipe book. The finest country, the best place to live, now has a recipe book on how to break up. That is really something.

I know my time is nearly up. I can get emotional. When Quebec is being discussed, it affects me. When they come up with such a piece of legislation, when I am taken for a fool, it affects me. It upsets and offends me.

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

John Bryden Liberal Wentworth—Burlington, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague.

Is it true that one of the winning conditions for the separatists would be to have as prime minister a party leader like Joe Clark, since Mr. Joe Who likes to be chummy with the separatists? If we had not a clear question, everything would be lost with Mr. Clark as prime minister.

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

André Bachand Progressive Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke is part of a political party that will go down in history as one that always went around major constitutional conferences to find a solution with long knives. Thus I do not need him to give me any lessons.

With regard to Mr. Clark, the hon. member should come to Quebec to see how well Mr. Clark is, a priori, appreciated and respected by Quebecers. This morning the newspapers were saying that Mr. Clark is consistent. So, on that score, the Liberals have nothing to say to us.

There are many parties in the House that are flip-flopping. First, there is the government party that is flip-flopping on the issue, to an unbelievable extent. It was against the Meech Lake accord, against the Charlottetown accord. It centralizes everything in the Prime Minister's office. It gives nothing to the provinces. And now it has decided to deal with national unity. Reform flip-flops. The NDP members are also flip-flopping. It is unfortunate, but I must say that we are the only federalist party which still believes in Canada and which is against this bill.

It is not easy for Mr. Clark. However, if they think that Mr. Clark is a winning condition for sovereigntists, they are wrong because he is a winning condition for the country, including Quebecers. When the time comes, Quebecers will decide what their future will be. Once they decide to vote for the Progressive Conservative Party, they will do it. It is as simple as that, and we have no lesson to learn form them, particularly from the Liberal Party. The Right Hon. Joe Clark is taking a stand, and it is not easy because he is faced with quite a problem.

In fact, everybody agrees on certain elements of the secession process. By the way, we use words like secession, sovereignty, independence, sovereign country interchangeably. Secession is a process; the result is sovereignty or independence. If Mr. Clark, the Right Hon. Joe Clark, comes to power, unlike the present Prime Minister, who feeds on the sovereignty movement, he will put a stop to that, he will find a way to co-operate in a completely different way and as fast as possible, I hope. I think it is high time we stopped working ourselves into a state over all this.

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

December 14th, 1999 / 1:35 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Paul Marchand Bloc Québec East, QC

Mr. Speaker, at the outset of his speech the member said that this bill is an admission of failure by Canada because the government, whether it is Liberal or Conservative, cannot succeed in improving the constitution nor the country to accommodate Quebec and to do what Quebec has always requested.

It is indeed an admission of failure. Obviously, the federal government wants to reject Quebec and to treat it like any other minority instead of recognizing that Quebecers really form a single people. It is an admission of failure, and I must say to the Conservative Party member that it does not matter whether the government is Liberal or Conservative, because Canada does not accept Quebec.

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

André Bachand Progressive Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier people who are working themselves into a state and the problems of the ultra federalists and of the ultra separatists, who both exist and need each other to live. What is clear is that when I mention the admission of failure, it is the failure of this government I am talking about.

Clearly, the Conservative Party has a completely different vision of the way our federation should work and of the respect that should be shown for the regions and the provinces. It is that spirit that has to be developed here.

I ask the member to prove to me that a man like Mr. Clark tricked Quebec. I know that is impossible to prove. Our party did not trick Quebec. There were hard times in the history of our country, but I can assure members that the Conservative Party gives Quebec the recognition it deserves and that it also gives Canada the recognition it deserves, that of a country where Quebec has its place.

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 ReferenceGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, I commend my dear colleague for Richmond—Arthabaska. Unfortunately, I cannot express myself in the other official language of Canada, but my passion for the French language, for Quebec and for the country is as great as his.

History has been very kind to this country. We have enjoyed a great deal. We have enjoyed freedoms, bountiful gifts of natural resources, prosperity and peace for much of our history. However, we continue to struggle with national unity. Although our country was forged from the fire of two warring nations on this continent, we continue to be engaged in some form of warfare. That is not the wish of the Conservative Party.

There is little that is certain about the aftermath of this debate, but one thing can be sure: passions will be inflamed and emotions will run high. This bill makes secession respectable and more accessible. This bill is not about clarity; it is about confusion. It will not lead to a conclusion, but more confusion.

It is ill-timed to introduce this legislation before the country. The national agenda has been hijacked and it will cause contentious debate to erupt at a time when the focus should be elsewhere.

My fear is that the Liberal definition of clarity will give separatists the winning condition which they have sought. A red flag has been waved. We question, as Conservatives, the process and the timing.

Strategically, the Prime Minister has brought this legislation before the House immediately prior to the holidays, ensuring that this debate will continue without opposition. We understand that this was done over the protestations of senior cabinet ministers, caucus colleagues and many advisers within the province of Quebec. As before, Canadians will once again embark on this divisive, destructive debate.

This legislation is not a positive framework for negotiation. It is in fact a provocative and threatening attempt at undermining a lasting relationship that we have enjoyed in this country. Instead of drawing Canadians together, this legislation provides a road map to secession. It codifies a process to permit a province to leave confederation and it says nothing of actions to create a common purpose, but it will bring about fear and loathing.

This is not progress for Canada. It is not leadership. It is not the leadership that we should expect from a government and from a prime minister. We have already received an opinion from the Supreme Court of Canada which clearly recognizes the requirement of a clear question. No one is against clarity. Why is it necessary to repeat this in legislation? It becomes a classic double-edged sword.

It will allow or be perceived to allow the federalists the power to cut off disingenuous separatist tactics. Premier Bouchard is once again going to be elevated into his rhetorical and lofty debate over self-determination. He will tell Quebecois that English Canada has abandoned them and in the end it will be imposing its will over Quebec.

Why are we allowing this to happen at this time? This issue detracts from many important issues: health care, unemployment, education, brain drain, agriculture, fisheries and, of course, poverty. All of these issues are real issues, real issues that face Quebecers and all Canadians. These are some of the pressing issues that we should be debating at this time. Positive efforts to address them are being delayed by this ill-timed, ill-conceived initiative.

Government efforts should clearly be focused elsewhere. We should be convincing Quebecers to stay rather than making provocative threats. Like the sword of Damocles, this legislation will hang precariously over the heads of Quebecers from a thread.

We are left to believe that the Prime Minister is embarking on a legacy building attempt. Running roughshod over the objections of others, he calls this nation building. We know the often quoted phrase that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Canadians should not forget about the Prime Minister's participation in flawed constitutional repatriation attempts or how he helped cynically to torpedo past attempts at putting the country's contentious unity debate to rest.

Canadians will, of course, recall how he disappeared in the 1995 referendum campaign. What confidence should Canadians and the provinces have that the Prime Minister will do their bidding? He has clearly demonstrated in the past that he does not understand nor respect Quebec. He appears as the Prime Minister who is trying to define or defend his legacy with the imposition of this bill.

Canada should not be put in jeopardy to appease the Prime Minister's ego or afflict his legacy in envy on the rest of the country. This is a personal, meanspirited and divisive process meant to provoke Mr. Bouchard and Quebec at a time when the Quebec premier is mired in real issues, issues such as labour unrest, high unemployment and financial problems in health care and education.

The Liberals are going to try to capitalize on what they perceive as a vulnerable period in the life of the Pequiste government. The Bloc, the Pequiste and Mr. Bouchard appear to be at their lowest level of popularity, but this issue, make no mistake about it, will breathe new life into the debate of separatism. The smiles on the faces of our Bloc colleagues here, members of the House, signal that this has begun. The war has begun. The Bloc and Bouchard will reload and get ready for this divisive debate. Obviously the Conservative Party opposes this legislation for reasons much different than the Bloc. The Liberals will carefully word their press releases and try to spin it that somehow we are cozying up to this movement. Let us make it very clear that is not the case.

The Conservative Party has always stood proudly for a united country. Our party has always sided with history on nation building from Macdonald to Clark. Make no mistake about the love of this party for our whole country. It is a birthright that we will not neglect.

The possibility of an early referendum and an early election is signalled by the introduction of this legislation. Let us be clear on one thing. The timing, the wording and the method all indicate that this legislation is about crass politics, putting Liberal electoral fortunes ahead of the long term fortunes of the country.

The Prime Minister has proven time and time again that he is a ruthless, reckless partisan. This is a very dangerous game. While it is politically clever, it ensures Bloc seats, helps the Reform Party, keeps the country polarized and the implications for Canada are grave. The potential backfire of this manoeuvre could cost us dearly.

It is ironic that the Reform Party has aligned itself with the Liberal government. This is the same party we all recall that ran ads with red slashes through the faces of Quebec leaders in the 1997 general election, and yet it purports to understand Quebec.

We just heard from the NDP leader who spoke adamantly against the bill, railed against the politics of the Prime Minister's move, and yet she stated that her party will support it, a weak and submissive move.

There is currently no provision in our constitution for a province to secede. However, for the first time in our history, this bill would have Ottawa spell out the steps for separation. The legislation will now give Canadians an entrenched plan through legislation to dismantle the country. It legitimizes the separatist movement. It is not necessary but it is temporarily politically popular.

I hope I am wrong in my prediction of an early referendum, but I suspect we will see an unclear question, not about separation but about the right of self determination, which sadly the separatists could win.

The Liberal government and its brand of federalism is autocratic and insulting. The Prime Minister and his government are acting like bullies. Co-operation and compromise, the essence of federalism that built this country, are put aside. Parliament is ignored, the caucus that the government has brought together has been brought in line and some cabinet ministers have been silenced. That is not democracy.

Mr. Charest, who went to Quebec for the right reasons, is finding that now he has to fight a prime minister as much as he has to fight the separatists. The federal Liberals continue to wound the man who has preserved stability in Quebec. As he has done on many occasions in the past, the Prime Minister has directly undercut Mr. Charest.

Provincial premiers will wait to see how this plays out but there is certainly unease. No real discussion or consultation took place, just perfunctory calls informing them of the legislation. They were not given the opportunity for input or opinion. Instead, they were dictated to. The responses from the premiers have been less than enthusiastic. We have seen from the provinces of Ontario, Alberta and certainly New Brunswick that there is increasing discomfort with the Prime Minister's pre-emptive move.

Lukewarm support is not going to help the country at this time. All parts of the country will be affected. My home area of the maritimes is certainly very much in jeopardy as a result of what has occurred. It will not be clarity. There will be a profound negative effect if the government continues on this line.

The legislation is silent on the issue of 50% plus one. We know that 50% plus one in this House will defeat a bill or will defeat a government. The Prime Minister himself received the electoral support of only 38% of the Canadian population, so he is very unclear on this particular aspect of the legislation. It is contrary to democracy to suggest that anything other than 50% plus one is to be accepted. This is a hasty and poorly drafted piece of legislation.

The Progressive Conservative Party has always endorsed the approach of co-operative federalism. We have often liberated the country from the straitjacket of false federalism of the Liberal Party of Canada. Currently, we are involved in national grassroots policy consultation to best determine how Canadians would make this legislation acceptable.

In the season of goodwill and reconciliation, the Prime Minister has chosen the opposite direction. He has undermined the historic partnership and widened the two solitudes. We hope to be able to introduce some useful amendments that would at least enhance the legislation. We will wait to see, with anxious hearts, how the Liberal government will react to those legislative changes.