Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak.
Unfortunately, my French is not good enough for me to make a speech in that language on an issue as important as the clarity bill.
My riding of Scarborough East is home to more than 100,000 people, 40% of whom have neither English nor French as their first language.
My constituents are very confused. They came to Canada from other countries because Canada is the best country in the world. They cannot understand the problem.
Many of us who have lived here for generations share that confusion and also do not understand the problem. Endless referenda on vague questions about what?
The confusion of the people of Scarborough East is understandable. In fact I note that even Mario Dumont was confused, one of those who signed the so-called deal referred to in the question. He now says that he has not nor has he ever been a sovereignist. If he is confused, one can imagine what the people of Scarborough East feel like. Are they going or are they staying? Are they merely voting for strategic purposes? For my entire lifetime as a Canadian, this debate has gone on and frankly, in our neck of the woods people keep asking what will make Quebec happy.
There is a malaise in the land. There is a desire to bring some finality to the debate. I for one welcome the resolution and therefore see the introduction of this bill as a welcome first step in moving the debate forward.
Madam Speaker, I do not know if you have had an opportunity to read the book Reflections of a Siamese Twin by John Ralston Saul. One particular quotation struck me as unique:
We are gripped by a fear of non-conformity. We are overcome by a desperate desire to present ourselves as a natural and completed experiment, monolithic, normal, just another one of the standard nation-states. It is as if we were Siamese twins, with one body, two heads and two separate but interrelated personalities. Together they are very interesting. But in some way most people want them to be separated or deny the importance of one or the other. They want us to be normalized. Banalized. We are unable to accept the remarkable originality of the Canadian experiment—to accept that Canada's central characteristic—its greatest strength—is its complexity.
Therein summarizes some of the frustrations that make Canada what it is today. It is a unique country in that it has two founding races, two founding cultures and two founding languages.
I also take the opportunity to quote from the minister in his introduction of the bill:
This bill is reasonable, and is in everybody's interest, including that of my fellow Quebecers who desire Quebec independence. They can and must acknowledge that their plan for political independence can only be realized in clarity and legality. To act otherwise, to reach independence through ambiguity, with no legal safety net, is to show disrespect for Quebecers and to doom the independence initiative to failure, to an impasse that would be disappointing and costly for everyone.
I always find it useful to read the bill, a strange concept I realize, and review the preamble as it provides guidance to those of us who wish to debate it and to try to understand what is in the mind of the mover and ultimately of parliament. I refer to three of the whereas clauses:
Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that there is no right, under international law or under the Constitution of Canada, for the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally;
Whereas any proposal relating to the break-up of a democratic state is a matter of the utmost gravity and is of fundamental importance to all of its citizens;
I would emphasize all of its citizens and as I represent the riding of Scarborough East, the people of Scarborough East, because any breakup of our country would have a significant impact on all of Canada and its citizens.
Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has determined that the result of a referendum on the secession of a province from Canada must be free of ambiguity both in terms of the question asked and in terms of the support it achieves if that result is to be taken as an expression of the democratic will that would give rise to an obligation to enter into negotiations that might lead to secession;
What is the problem? Can anyone really be against clarity? Apparently they can.
In my view, the bill is profoundly democratic. It sets out a process without predetermining a result. It allows for the constituent assemblies to express themselves. By the constituent assemblies I mean all of the democratic institutions that we have in this country. We have had 150 years of democratic government. If we decide we are going to break up, then all of its constituent assemblies need to decide that. It avoids the limitations of referenda which are necessarily simple questions and simple answers. It recognizes that breaking up a country is a very serious business. It gives all Canadians a voice in the process through their members of parliament.
I know it is heresy among some members opposite that other Canadians should have an opinion, that they should have a say, that they should have a vote in the breakup of their country which they and their ancestors worked so hard to make work and built together as a unique country, one well worth saving. In our own strange way if we choose to break up, surely the process should be clear and free of ambiguity.
Therefore, I find myself in support of the bill and have a great deal of support from the constituents of my riding. I congratulate the minister for bringing forth this bill. Hopefully it will bring us one step closer to a resolution on this issue.