Debates of Feb. 10th, 2000

Division No. 667

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, there are a number of reasons I wished to take part in this debate on the bill 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. The possible secession of a province is something to which we cannot remain indifferent.

Our government believes that it must ensure that there are clear procedures in place for the conduct of any referendum having to do with the separation of a province. Our determination in this regard is justified by the very importance of what is at stake. Our government's position is based on the opinion released by the Supreme Court of Canada on August 20, 1998. This opinion urged us, as politicians, to assume our responsibilities. That is what our government is doing.

The principal points in the opinion were as follows: neither international nor Canadian law gives Quebec the right to secede unilaterally. Secession of Quebec from the rest of Canada cannot be achieved unilaterally, that is to say, without negotiations according to the Canadian constitution.

In international law there can be no right to secession by virtue of the principle of self-determination of a people except in the case of a people that is governed as part of a colonial empire, subject to foreign subjugation and domination. According to the court, “such exceptional circumstances are manifestly inapplicable to Quebec”.

The other political stakeholders would not be obliged to negotiate except if a clear majority in Quebec were to clearly express its desire to no longer be part of Canada.

It is up to all of the political stakeholders to determine what is a clear question and what is a clear majority in a vote on secession.

The purpose of the court opinion was not to contest the legitimacy of a referendum consultation, nor to prevent Quebecers from speaking out on their political future. Nor did it in any way question the right of Quebecers to decide their future. Its purpose was, instead, to obtain clarifications on certain matters of law.

We do not wish to deny Quebecers the right to make the choice to leave Canada. We do, however, believe that the process should be clear and should allow Quebecers to express their wishes in total clarity. The supreme court opinion contributes to this. The important element of the court's opinion concerns the requirement of a clear question and a clear majority. The expression clear question comes up no fewer than 18 times in the opinion, and clear majority 19 times.

The court makes the obligation to negotiate conditional on a clear majority having voted in the affirmative in response to a clear question on secession. It is the job of the political actors to determine the clarity required. This is why the federal government has a role to play in this matter.

The clarity of the question is essential to the functioning of a democratic referendum. Public consultation in the independence process elsewhere in the world has always involved a simple and clear question. There is in fact no example of successful secession based on a small majority in a referendum.

The potential consequences of Quebec's secession are such that they require the clearest possible referendum process. Quebecers must not lose their country on a misunderstanding, through ambiguity. We cannot ask them to sign a blank cheque. This is in fact what nearly happened in the last referendum campaign.

We must avoid this in the future. Quebecers are entitled to know the scope of the decision they will have to take in a future referendum. And it is the responsibility of the political actors, including the Government of Canada, to see to that.

The court confirmed that all political actors have the obligation to negotiate in good faith the terms of Quebec's secession, in the event of a clear question and a clear majority. This is in paragraph 88. But it is also very specific in paragraph 96 about the difficulties that such a scenario would create. I quote:

Of course, secession would give rise to many issues of great complexity and difficulty. These would have to be resolved within the overall framework of the rule of law, thereby assuring Canadians resident in Quebec and elsewhere a measure of stability in what would likely be a period of considerable upheaval and uncertainty.

This is paragraph 96. The court mentions that the negotiations that would follow a clear majority vote in favour of secession “would address the potential act of secession as well as its possible terms should in fact secession proceed”. This can be found in paragraph 151. These negotiations would therefore be on the process leading to secession, not on a hypothetical project of association, as claimed by some secessionist leaders. The reference makes no mention of association.

Rightly so, the court says there is no “assumption that an agreement reconciling all relevant rights and obligations would actually be reached”. This is paragraph 97.

The court's opinion suggests that everything would be on the table should there be negotiations on secession, including the division of the national debt, the protection of linguistic and cultural minorities, aboriginal peoples, et cetera. The bill confirms that view.

The opinion also alludes to territorial integrity, and I quote:

Nobody seriously suggests that our national existence, seamless in so many aspects, could be effortlessly separated along what are now the provincial boundaries of Quebec.

As we can see, a secession would have major and multiple consequences. To go that route by relying on ambiguity would be extremely irresponsible.

The supreme court opinion protects the legal and democratic rights of Canadians for the future. It defines the legal framework within which democratic decisions must be made. It clearly states the principles under which Canada has evolved and prospered, namely, federalism, democracy, constitutionalism, the rule of law and respect for minorities.

We care too much about our country to lose it because of a misunderstanding. The supreme court opinion has clarified certain points of law, but it cannot in and of itself create a framework for the responsibilities of the Government of Canada, should it have to, unfortunately, begin negotiations which could lead to the separation of a province.

Separatists criticize us for doing our duty. Yet, those who elected us are asking us to do our duty. This is what we are doing by introducing this bill.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, this bill is too important to let pass some of the observations made here since the debate first began.

The bill referred to so casually by the members opposite as the clarity bill is in fact a bill whose requirement is the docility of Quebecers, docility because the question in the next referendum will no longer be decided upon freely and democratically by representatives of Quebecers in the national assembly, but will be submitted under the terms of clause 1 to the House of Commons 30 days after it is decided upon in the national assembly.

If we go by what happened in 1995, this means that right in the middle of a referendum campaign, when Quebecers have agreed, through the national assembly, on a referendum question, and have begun to debate that question and what it means, the House of Commons, the majority of whose members represent the rest of Canada, and not Quebec, the English Canadian majority, will have decided that this question is not valid.

Quebecers are not being taken seriously. Their intelligence is being questioned. That too is the result.

This bill introduced by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, a Quebecer, tells us that Quebecers are not intelligent enough to decide whether or not a question is clear or to make an informed choice in any referendum debate concerning this issue.

This is one of the worst blows inflicted on Quebecers in the history of Canadian federalism and one of the worst threats to Quebec's freedom to decide its own future.

Under clause 2, the Quebecers' decision would have to be approved by the Canadian House of Commons, with an English Canadian majority. After the national assembly has adopted a question that it considered clear, and after Quebecers have had a clear debate on a clear issue, the House of Commons could determine, under clause 2, whether the majority in a positive referendum on sovereignty, according to particular criteria, is acceptable or not for the majority in the rest of Canada.

That is also another blow for freedom and democracy in Quebec.

There are all kinds of cloudy criteria. They call this a bill on clarity. It could be called a bill on variable cloudiness.

They talk about the size of the majority, the percentage of eligible voters voting for the referendum, and any other factor considered relevant. It is another way of saying that no majority of any size will ever be acceptable for parliament, for Liberals and for all other federalists in the House. For these people, the democratic rule of 50% plus one is not valid any more.

On top of that, the clause says that various views will be considered both on the clarity of the question and the results of the referendum. They will take into account views of political parties in the national assembly, of provincial and territorial governments throughout Canada, and of the Senate. Many people find this last point revolting.

They would ask the views of the Senate, an archaic institution which is undemocratic and even antidemocratic, on a fundamental issue of democracy concerning Quebecers and their freedom of choice. We have never seen the like in the short history of the Canadian parliament.

This is an all out attack against the national assembly. Bill C-20 is also an attack on the quality, the honesty and the intelligence of Quebec voters. It is a serious infringement of democracy.

Let me set out a scenario that could have happened in an imaginary world. If the Quebec National Assembly, under a Parti Quebecois government, had wanted to pass similar legislation to set the parameters for the federalist vote—as Bill C-20 is setting parameters for the sovereignist vote, but not for the federalist vote—to provide that the small majority of 50,000 federalist votes in Quebec that defeated the sovereignist proposal in 1995 had to be reviewed and monitored to be found acceptable, that would have been called racist.

There would have been outraged headlines everywhere in the media, first in the anglophone media and then in the others. Most of them, except for Le Devoir , have federalist owners and their columnists are often federalist too.

If the national assembly had decided to set parameters for the federalist vote and to question the majority vote of 50,000 against sovereignty in 1995, if it had reviewed the majority votes to see whether there was a clear enough opposition to the creation of the new country that Quebec would have become and if it had questioned the results and rejected them, I bet it would have made the front page and that the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois would have been called racists.

However, that is what Bill C-20 does, through a token Quebecer, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, and 25 other accomplices.

To present things this way is unacceptable. This bill is almost racist. It tells us that Quebecers are not intelligent enough to choose a question and to make decisions on the future of Quebec on their own.

It seems that the same definition of democracy does not apply to Quebecers and the rest of Canadians, because only the sovereignist vote, the vote on the future of the Quebec province, is being limited in such a way, not the federalist vote, and not a vote taken outside Quebec.

It is unfortunate because, throughout history, officials, members of conquered people, hastened to do the dirty work of the conquerors or their descendants. Here in the House of Commons, we have 26 Liberal members from Quebec, two of whom, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, are doing the dirty work of the majority of English Canada against Quebec.

It pays to spit on Quebec. It pays to stomp on Quebecers. During the last referendum campaign, when did the Reform Party start to gain popularity? When it began to stomp on Quebecers. And now, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, opposite, is turning into a hero in English Canada. Why? Because he stomps on Quebecers. He is a Quebecer, just like the Prime Minister of Canada. He does the dirty work against Quebec, stomps on Quebecers and he once said that to be forced to stay in Canada Quebecers had to be hurt economically.

Sadly, no Liberal member from Quebec has spoken in the House against such practices, against such an affront to Quebec democracy and such a breach to Canadian democracy.

Do not think that foreign observers have not done the same analysis I just did by reversing roles and saying “The national assembly is setting parameters for the federalist vote”, and this brings us back to the House of Commons. How is it that it is more acceptable in Canada, through the media, which are controlled mainly by federalist interests, to have a bill against Quebec, Quebec democracy and Quebecers' freedom of choice rather than the other way around?

Do people not believe that this sort of bill goes against the tradition of democracy in Canada?

I ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, since he is here—even if he does not seem to be listening because he is better off to do so—why does he not respond favourably to the request made by the Bloc Quebecois? If he will not withdraw this bill immediately—which we all wish he would, because it is an objectionable bill—at least will the legislative committee that will be struck to study the bill be allowed to begin its work by hearing from everybody in Quebec and in Canada who wants to address this issue? There are Canadians who do not agree and who came to tell us so, including a group of 90 intellectuals, and representatives from lobby groups. They said they do not agree with this undemocratic breach by the federal government. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs should allow this committee to hear from all witnesses across Quebec and Canada.

Second, this committee should travel across Quebec and Canada and, third, all these hearings should be televised to really inform the public about this breach of Canadian democracy and Quebecers' freedom of choice.

If the minister tells us, with his Prime Minister, that Quebec is behind him, he should stop being afraid and he should travel with us. We will then see if, at the end of the process, he will still be self-confident and as arrogant as he was this week, calling women's groups, unions, teachers' groups and writers' groups “mothball groups”.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

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.

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the constituents of Calgary East to participate in the debate on Bill C-20, the clarity act.

Frankly, I believe that the vast majority of Canadians would like to see a resolution of the unity debate one way or another. Since I arrived in this country, like thousands of other immigrants who now call Canada home, I have been mesmerized by this debate.

In many ways the debate on separation is unique to Canada. In other countries of the world, when a group of people threaten to separate, they are labelled as traitors. Many countries have the death penalty for that, but in Canada the debate has been held in a civil manner and the issues are on the table for discussion. This is a credit to the Canadian people and to this country.

It is impossible to deny the seriousness of the potential breakup of our country. That is precisely why it is absolutely necessary to have clarity on this issue, to have the pros and cons clearly set out so that Canadians and Quebecers both know the result of their decisions and that it is seen as a fair and equitable process. If in the end it is not seen as a fair and just process, it will not be viewed as legitimate and will lead to a negative and confrontational attitude which will further divide the country.

There has been no doubt in the minds of most Canadians that the last referendum question had a double meaning and did not adequately define what separation from Canada would mean.

The Reform Party said that there was a need for a clear question for legitimacy and a plan B approach should Quebecers express their will to separate from Canada. This was attacked by advocates of the soft approach to federalism. The PC Party and its leader Joe Clark are advocates of this soft approach.

Canadians view the soft approach as the main reason the 1995 referendum was as close as it was. The 1995 referendum was a wake-up call to the Prime Minister and to the Liberal government.

I remember that night. As most Canadians did, I watched the results at home with my family. I watched with tremendous apprehension not fully understanding what it would mean if Quebecers voted to leave Canada. I think pride in our country won that night but it was a dangerous point in our country's history and a wake-up call for the country.

We cannot deny the tremendous contributions Quebecers have made to this country since Confederation. We cannot deny that French Canadians are the proud builders of this nation. Their cultural and language diversity have enriched our nation and I hope they will continue to do so. But it is the belief of the official opposition that this can best be achieved by expanding provincial powers and not through federal government handouts and legislation.

Quebec has the right to constantly challenge the federal government on areas of jurisdiction but in the case of the clarity bill, I believe Canadians through parliament have the right to ask Quebecers for a clear question and to define what it means to have a clear majority should another referendum be held. The clarity bill does improve the chances that a referendum on secession by any province will be conducted fairly. That is why my colleagues and I have agreed to support the bill.

The official opposition has suggested what a possible question could be. I believe it is a reasonable question and that it should be inserted into the bill as an example. The question simply states: Should, insert the name of the province, separate from Canada and become an independent country with no special legal ties to Canada, yes or no?

On the issue of what constitutes a clear majority, the government owes Canadians an answer. The Prime Minister and the intergovernmental affairs minister are quick to say that a clear majority is a number greater than 50% plus one but they are not prepared to say what that number is. Again the official opposition is prepared to be clear on this issue and to put the number at 50% plus one of the ballots cast. Of course the flip side of this is simply that if 50% plus one of the vote can split the country, then 50% plus one could split the province as well.

Quebecers' aspirations must be met as must the aspirations of other provinces and the first nations. It is important for there to be measures in the bill to improve the federation. The official opposition and specifically the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Calgary Southwest, have done a tremendous amount of work on developing ideas on reforming the federation. These ideas are at the core of the Reform Party and of the new Canadian alliance.

Our plan for renewing the federation is contained in part A of the new Canada act. The fundamentals of the new Canada act are designed to treat all Canadians with fairness and equality, to promote equality of opportunity for all Canadians, to respect the equality rights and the dignity of all Canadians as well as their various needs, and to recognize that all provinces despite their differences have the same legal standing.

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

I believe along with my colleagues in the official opposition that these changes are required to improve the federation and to create conditions in this country that are not limited to separation or the status quo. They are changes that would improve the federation by placing more power in the hands of the provinces.

I personally think the federal government can do a great deal more to promote the benefits of remaining in Canada to Quebecers.

Clearly the economic benefits of being in Canada are already having a positive impact on the province of Quebec. Montreal is sharing in the economic boom of North America. Jobs are being created, investment dollars are pouring in and real estate prices are climbing. These are positive signs for federalism and working together to ensure a strong Canada for the future of our children and grandchildren.

To conclude, I with my colleagues will support Bill C-20 because it sets out clear and fair rules for a referendum.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have just set foot into the 21st century, and I would like to take this opportunity to speak to Bill C-20, which deals with the requirement of clarity in the event of a referendum on the secession of Quebec.

I would, moreover, invite all my colleagues here in the House to reflect seriously on this matter and to bring their reason and good judgment to bear in understanding the legitimacy of this bill and in putting an end to the troubling ambiguity of the sovereignist project.

Bill C-20 is a call for clarity, clarity in our individual and collective choices, clarity in our feelings, and clarity above all in the expression of our will to all Canadians, to remain united in order to face the economic, social and cultural challenges facing us.

I would like to remind all members of the House of Commons that, in bringing in this bill, the Government of Canada is acting responsibly and with the greatest respect for Canada's political institutions. This bill does not in any way represent a threat to the integrity of either the national assembly of Quebec or any other legislative assembly in the other provinces and the territories of our country.

In its opinion on the secession of Quebec, the Supreme Court of Canada stated, and I quote:

However, it will be for the political actors to determine what constitutes “a clear majority on a clear question” in the circumstances under which a future referendum vote may be taken.

The Government of Canada being one of those actors, it therefore has a responsibility to ensure that the integrity of our country is neither threatened nor, indeed, made to disintegrate as a result of political manipulation and semantics concealing the true intent and scope of the referendum choice.

In the throne speech of last October 12, our government reaffirmed its commitment to all Canadians in Quebec and all other Canadians to ensure that the principle of clarity set out by the Supreme Court of Canada is respected.

For our government, there is no doubt that the most sensible and reasonable way to meet its commitment is to include in an act of parliament the requirement for clarity set out by the Supreme Court of Canada with regard to both the referendum question and the result of the vote.

Therefore, the Government of Canada is just doing its duty to the people of Quebec and other Canadian provinces and territories by making sure that the spirit of the supreme court's decision is reflected in legislation designed to remove any ambiguity as to the choice that could be made by the people of part of its territory in a referendum.

The legitimacy of Canada's decision to embark on this path cannot be challenged. Need I remind the House that the court's task was to clarify the legal framework within which political decisions must be made under the constitution and not, as some would have us believe, to usurp the prerogatives of the political forces acting within that framework?

The Canadian government's approach does not threaten the integrity of provincial institutions, including the National Assembly of Quebec. On the contrary, it is aimed at preserving the integrity of the parliament and the government of all Canadians.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who is the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, has introduced a bill that concerns Quebec.

I see that the Liberal Party members are not interested in the minister's bill. They are absent.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The hon. member knows very well we do not comment on—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Order, please.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Order, please.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Order, please. That is enough. The hon. member who rose on a point of order knows full well that we do not comment in the House of Commons on the absence or presence of members. So we shall resume debate with the hon. member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I will continue with my remarks, Madam Speaker. Such a statement in support of clarity in a law voted on by the representatives of the people of Canada, who are all democratically elected and who, therefore, speak for the people, cannot but serve democracy and the rights and freedoms of all the citizens of our country.

In its opinion, the supreme court reminds us of the issues of a decision on the secession of a province or a territory of Canada, and I quote:

In the 131 years since Confederation, the people of the provinces and territories have created close ties of interdependence (economically, socially, politically and culturally) based on shared values that include federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and respect for minorities. A democratic decision of Quebecers in favour of secession would put those relationships at risk.

This statement reflects the true impact of a secession, which would affect not only the social, political, economic and cultural fabric of Quebec, but of all of Canada. It would be an irreversible decision which could not, for all intents and purposes, be reconsidered in any way, in spite of what the Bloc Quebecois leader may have said about this in the past.

When a portion of a country's population decides to separate from the rest of the population, it is because that group believes, rightly or wrongly, that it is impossible to continue to live in that country, that its living conditions and the full enjoyment of its rights and freedoms are in jeopardy. Is this currently the case in Quebec? I doubt it very much. Are the talents, skills and pride of Quebecers not drawn on, and are they not, as they should be, a fundamental component of our country's success and of its recognition around the world?

Our entry into the 21st century is marked by an economic, social and cultural interdependence that is essential to the development of our resources and to our quality of life. Is the success of each region of Canada, which are all so unique and distinctive, not a guarantee of our country's economic, social and cultural success?

Our country is a whole in which all the parts contribute to its identity and to the promotion of its values. Bill C-20 ensures that it will only be possible to alter our country's integrity if one of its regions were to decide unambiguously, through the expression of the will of a clear majority of its population on a clear question, to separate from the rest of the country and to assume the economic, social, cultural, political and financial responsibilities resulting from such a decision.

This is what we would call a clear choice, void of any ambiguity. It would be a choice based on reason, good judgement and intelligence. It would not be a choice made as a result of manipulation to get the public all confused about its deep convictions and its interests.

The Government of Canada sincerely believes that we must claim the right to preserve the integrity of all the institutions on our territory. We must also, and I say it again because this is critical, preserve the integrity of the rights and freedoms of all those who live in our country, regardless of their origin and beliefs.

All political actors agree that clarity is essential in a referendum about secession. A clear question is one which leaves no room for doubt in the mind of the person who must answer it.

All political actors also agree with the supreme court's opinion that the principle of clarity also applies to the result of a referendum vote on secession. A clear majority is the expression of a will that leaves politicians and all citizens in no doubt as to how results are to be interpreted and what the vote means. One does not half leave a country. One leaves it completely, forever, irrevocably.

One leaves because the decision taken by a large majority of the population prevails on any legitimate opposition to secession and because the government is accordingly justified in giving effect to that will, without irreducibly threatening social order.

Any negotiations that would end this union, that would destroy the links uniting us all, would certainly not be easy and would leave their share of wounds and bitterness.

With Bill C-20, however, our government wants to ensure that, in the event of secession, both the public and the so-called political actors will base their actions on reason, good judgment and common understanding.

Today our country is a world leader in its efforts to build a new economic order that will benefit us all.

Let us stop wallowing around in the murkiness of the Parti Quebecois' political project and unite forces to take up the major education, health and economic development challenges awaiting us in all communities in Canada.

Reason and common sense must prevail. Let us leave behind the ambiguity of the Parti Québécois' project. We all stand to gain.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take the floor, even on such a very sad day. In fact, to be perfectly honest, it is not so much the day that is very sad as the parliamentary record of the government over there.

I would never have believed I would be rising to speak to a bill like Bill C-20, boldly titled 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.

The contents of this bill are despotic in themselves, and its principle alone is sufficient to justify our vehement opposition. If the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs wants to talk of clarity, yes his bill is clear. There is not even any subtlety in it. The federal government wants to prevent the Quebec people from freely deciding its future. In my opinion, what is clear is that the bill is nothing less than a coup d'état aimed at Quebec democracy.

This bill questions the basic rules of democracy. In introducing Bill C-20, the Canadian government is trying to impose a veto on the decisions Quebecers will be taking democratically on their political future. Such a thing has never been seen.

Canada struts about on the international scene loudly proclaiming its democratic principles, while not even bothering to respect them at home. What a fine example.

Just about three years ago now, when I chose to get into politics, my purpose was of course to promote sovereignty, but also to come here to Ottawa in order to defend Quebec's interests.

I can remember how hopeful I was at that time. Yes, hopeful that we would manage, as people motivated by democratic principles, to exchange views and reach agreement that Quebecers had to be allowed to decide their own future according to their own will.

Democratically elected, a legitimate mandate in my hands, I never thought I would be participating one day in this sham of democracy.

May I remind the House that, as John F. Kennedy put it so well, the true politician hangs on to his ideals as he loses his illusions. Thanks to the government opposite, I have lost my illusions. However, I am keeping my ideal, which is independence for Quebec.

In 1997, I still thought that words like right, equality, respect and justice meant something to the people of Canada and their representatives.

I thought, naively perhaps, that these principles were worth something. Well, today, with Bill C-20, the government across from us is proving the opposite: in any case, certainly the Prime Minister and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Bill C-20 constitutes a serious and unprecedented attack against the democratic principles Quebecers have set for themselves and against the institutions they have created. It is an attack against Quebec's freedom of choice. And yet, for the past 30 years the political debate over the future of Quebec has been marked by a profound respect of the rules of democracy. Today the Liberal government is denying this democratic tradition.

But really, what else can we expect from a party governing with arrogance and disdain for so many years? What can we expect from a government that has no sense of justice? Should we really be surprised by the tactics of the Liberal government, since the current Prime Minister is behind all the attacks against Quebec and was more importantly one of the artisans of the night of the long knives? Can we expect anything else? This is a government that has proven its lack of any sense of democracy, preferring to manage the country's business without consultation, without transparency and without concern for the opinion of others.

This government is trying to make political gains in the rest of Canada on the backs of the people of Quebec and to the detriment of the most basic respect for democracy.

I remind the House that the sovereignist movement has great respect for democracy and for the state of law. There is a broad consensus in Quebec in this regard.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, would it be possible to ask the good member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges to be quiet, to listen and to learn something?

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

As always, I call on all members on both sides of the House to listen respectfully, along with me, to the member speaking.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Madam Speaker, not only do they wish to gag us but they are all but preventing us from speaking in this institution, which is very disagreeable. I continue.

No interest is more important than freedom, including freedom of speech. This freedom is the ability of Quebecers to decide their collective future, the freedom to elect a responsible government in Quebec—even if it is sovereignist—the freedom to have the Government of Quebec considered responsible and legitimate, the freedom to decide on the referendum question that suits us, the freedom not to be confined by an untenable status quo, the freedom to choose a country. These are the values to which I and my country, Quebec, subscribe.

No obstacle to this freedom can be accepted or imposed by anyone, particularly not by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. The Bloc Quebecois, all its members, all its supporters and all democrats in Quebec, intend to rise up against this assault on Quebec. There is no question of the people of Quebec agreeing to bow down to the shameless and disrespectful tactics of the Liberal government.

Agreeing to Bill C-20 would be agreeing to sell one's soul, to turn one's back on democracy.

I am deeply convinced that no one in Quebec wants to remain in a country that bears more of a resemblance to a dictatorship than a country that respects democratically elected institutions and the will of the people.

The true meaning of democracy for the young people of my generation, and what I wish for Quebec, what I wish for my country, Quebec, is different from what the people over there are proposing. Seeing just how far the federal government is prepared to go to deny the legitimate right of Quebec to decide on its own future and to deny the most basic rules of democracy, I am convinced that the Quebec people, with pride in their values, will soon choose—clarity law or no clarity law—to have their own country.

More than ever, I am convinced that sovereignty can truly change and improve things, for the foundations of our project are built on an affirmation of the democratic principle, although the same cannot be said about the people across the way.

To see how the federal government is acting, can my generation, or the population in general, really be faulted for no longer believing in the world of politics and its present institutions?

In referring this issue to the supreme court, in presenting Bill C-20, a bill that is against all international precedent, the federal government is merely making many members of my generation even more cynical about politics. Shame on the federal government.

Shame on the government for its refusal to listen to reason, for its refusal to respect democracy, for its rejection of the right of the Quebec people and its worthy representatives to be listened to and respected. By systematically denying the existence of the Quebec people, the federal government is denying the vital democratic principle of the right of peoples to decide their own future.

Democracy is meaningless without true representation and true debates. Democracy must not simply be a principle to which lip service is given. It must also be a principle which is respected. It must be present in actions as well. The federal government has no right to ignore democracy with impunity whenever it suits it to do so. And this is what it is doing with Bill C-20. In so doing, the government is giving the rest of Canada a new form of veto on the political and constitutional future of Quebec. Never.

With Bill C-20, the federal government is on the wrong track and there will be no turning back. What will there be left to do after Bill C-20? What is the next step for the Liberal government? To lock the doors of the national assembly to prevent Quebecers from being represented? To flood the whole province with Canadian flags carrying the message “Thou shalt honour Canada”? While the federal government is at it, why not ask members of the national assembly to sing O Canada at the beginning of their proceedings? No way.

What will happen after this show of force? The public can expect the worst from the government opposite.

We Quebecers still believe that democracy is what binds our society. If Canada no longer believes in democracy, it is its own business, but it is also a good reason for us Quebecers to become sovereign.

It is now clear that the federal framework is keeping us from truly thriving. To me, democracy is not a technical issue that only concerns a small elite, but the affirmation of a common will to live. It seems clear that if there is such a common will, it is in Quebec.

Quebec's sovereignty is above all an act of freedom. To long for sovereignty is to want Quebecers to have full control over their destiny through transparent institutions where their officials will debate the real issues.

Again, the federal government is on the wrong track with Bill C-20. There will be no turning back but, above all, the government is admitting that it has nothing to propose to Quebecers and that it is unable to meet their fundamental aspirations.

Quebec's sovereignty is a democratic, modern and unifying project.

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin with a statement made by a well-known politician, who said in 1992 that for a win by the yes side to be legitimate it must have at least 58% of the votes to take into account the votes of anglophones and allophones.

Before our friends opposite start criticizing this statement, I will tell them that it was made by none other than the present Deputy Premier of Quebec, Bernard Landry.

This statement should surprise no one in this House. In 1992 the referendum campaign on the Charlottetown accord was in full swing. The separatists were on the no side at that time and told anyone who would listen that a 50% plus one majority would not be enough. Why? Because, as Mr. Landry said, the votes of anglophones and allophones, which he already considered lost, had to be taken into account. According to him, a win by the yes side would have been justified in this case only if such a level of support was to be found among the francophone population.

This is not the first time we have the opportunity to ponder such statements which, members will admit, are somewhat cynical. To all intents and purposes, taking into account the votes of anglophones and allophones is tantamount to weighing the votes, meaning that the vote of a francophone is worth more than the vote of a Quebecer from a different cultural community.

Personally, I always believed that, from the moment they are granted Canadian citizenship, voters are all subject to the same rules and their votes all have the same political weight. To consider people according to their race, their language or their religion is to play a dangerous game with feelings that lead to intolerance.

This type of statement says a lot about the PQ's idea of democracy.

In the eyes of separatists, there will always be two kinds of Quebecers: the real ones, who are for the independence option, and the imposters, who consist, on the one hand, of the francophone group which rejects separation and, on the other, of Quebecers from all corners of the international community.

This is why they cannot identify with the independence project and refuse to listen to the siren call sent out with each passing referendum.

The bill before us, as its name indicates, seeks to clarify the rules that would guide the Government of Canada in its actions if a province proposed a secession project to its citizens. This bill is a necessity and that is why we are so determined to have it passed.

Statements such as those by Bernard Landry, which I have already cited, cannot fail to move those for whom democracy is truly important. In our view, it is unacceptable to say that 50% plus one is enough to separate, when a constitutional reform project would require, as Mr. Landry said, applying some sort of twisted logic, 58% of the vote.

This is a criticism levelled by separatists themselves. They criticize us for maintaining that the majority required for secession must be greater than that required to join a federation, to take one example.

In effect, that is our belief, and I will illustrate with an example that the separatists frequently trot out in support of their argument, the case of Newfoundland. In a nutshell, if 52% was good for Newfoundland, why is 50% plus one not enough for Quebec to secede?

Let us agree on one thing from the start. The two situations were very different. In 1949 Newfoundland was a colony of Great Britain. There was, so to speak, not the solid interdependence between Newfoundland and Great Britain that exists between Quebec and Canada. And so, Quebec's separation would be much more complex than was Newfoundland's joining Canada. The risks of injustice would therefore be much greater as well.

We must not confuse the 52% of Newfoundlanders already mentioned with the very great majority of those who voted in favour of breaking with the United Kingdom. In fact, the separatists never say that an initial referendum held on June 3, 1948 proposed three options to Newfoundlanders: extension of their dependence for an additional five years; independence without financial assistance from London or entry to the Canadian federation.

Barely 14% of the electorate voted to extend dependence. In other words, 86% of the electorate voted in favour of breaking colonial ties with London. That, it must be said, was quite clear.

Another referendum was then held on the two remaining options: independence without financial assistance from London or joining the Canadian Confederation. On July 22, 1948, 52% of Newfoundlanders chose one of the two radical changes—Canadian Confederation. Under the circumstances, the Canadian authorities decided to welcome Newfoundland and today still we know we made the right decision.

So, as we have just seen, the essential difference between Newfoundland in 1948 and the separatist option in Quebec today is that Newfoundland did not break up a country when it joined Canada. It terminated a temporary colonial link. Quebec's secession from Canada would break up Canada, permanently. This is one fundamental reason the same percentage cannot be sought in two such different cases.

Another reason has already been cited by a number of my colleagues on this side of the House—international precedent. Since 1945, in 13 cases of moves to independence in which a referendum was held, excluding colonial contexts, the average majority obtained was 92%. I did indeed say 92%. The lowest was 72%. This is a long way from the 50% that Messrs. Bouchard, Parizeau, Landry and company are so desperately clinging to.

Another reason I have not much time to spend on, but which precludes too quick a comparison between the cases of Newfoundland and Quebec: the questions put to Newfoundlanders were clear; those put to Quebecers in the last two referendums on sovereignty were not.

Quebecers are entitled to know that they will not lose Canada without clearly renouncing it. Secession could not be negotiated without the assurance that secession is really what Quebecers want. This is why the government must establish the rules to govern its conduct in order to ensure that Quebecers should have nothing less than a clear question to answer. Secession is unthinkable without clarity of the referendum result, clarity of the question and clarity of the support obtained.

That is why it would be far preferable, if not essential, for the question and the majority to be sufficiently clear to leave no doubt as to the meaning to be taken from any referendum that might be held. This is why we have this bill before us.

I have trouble understanding the separatists' argument. Do they really believe that we would wait with our arms folded for Canada to come to an end, without ensuring that this was what Quebecers wanted? We are on the side of democracy. We are in favour of clarity, not confusion. We are not ones to make use of all manner of strategies, with varying degrees of subtlety, to accomplish our ends, unlike some.

The Supreme Court opinion clearly specified that, as political actors, it was our duty to ensure that if there were a referendum it would be held in clarity and that the issues were very clear for everyone.

As we keep on saying, Canada is too wonderful a country to be lost on the basis of a misunderstanding. We are betting on clarity, and on democracy. We have no fear that, with clarity, Quebecers will resolutely choose to remain within Canada, the best country in the world.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words in this debate as I believe the debate on Bill C-20 is a very important one for the House. This is a very serious bill because it contemplates the potential breakup of our country. It is a very serious debate. Not too many years ago the House of Commons would not have even debated a bill of this sort without contemplating, in terms of legislation, the process of breaking up the country.

I remember very well back in 1981 when the constitution was patriated with the charter of rights. I was a member of the committee. A deliberate decision was made not to put a formula in it on amending process in order to have part of the country exit from Canada. There is no constitutional means to exit from the country in terms of the constitution. That was deliberate. In those days we would not have contemplated a bill like this one before the House of Commons. We are doing something here that is very serious in terms of the future of Canada.

I was disappointed today when the government brought in time allocation for one reason. I think we need a lot of time to have a proper debate, a proper consultation about this very serious issue before the House. Our party is in the process of consulting members and constituents across the country, chaired by the member for Palliser, about what probable amendments we could move to the bill to make it a better bill that is good for all of Canada.

The minister and the House know that we support the bill at second reading in principle, but it is our obligation as parliamentarians to make sure we have the best possible bill for the future of the country. I say that because we have had many potholes along the constitutional trail in the past. Members will recall that patriation was very divisive.

The prime minister of the day, Mr. Trudeau, came in with a bill originally supported by the provinces of Ontario and New Brunswick but opposed by the other eight provinces. After a great debate in the House of Commons and a special Senate-House of Commons committee, the bill ended up being challenged in the Supreme Court of Canada.

The supreme court deliberated on the bill for quite some time and came down with a decision that the bill, if I remember correctly, was legal in terms of the constitutional changes but did not follow proper convention or practice in terms of the constitution of the country.

That forced the prime minister of the day to come back to the House of Commons and introduce several amendments to the patriation act which had been suggested by people across the country. That could have been done before being forced to do so by the Supreme Court of Canada, but it happened only after the intervention of the supreme court. After about a year or so it got through the process. I think there is a danger here that this bill could be expedited too quickly through the whole process.

In terms of the alligators in the constitutional swamp, the Meech Lake accord also taught us quite a bit about the need for as much constitutional consultation with the people of the country as possible. That failure was very unfortunate back in June 1990 because it was the failure of the Meech Lake accord that sprung the birth officially of the Bloc Quebecois in terms of the disappointment of a lot of Quebecers to the accord not going through. It also set us back constitutionally a long time.

Eventually that led to the Charlottetown agreement. Again I think the House and the players at that time tried to put too much in the accord, and eventually of course it did not pass. It led to the spring of the Bloc Quebecois. It led to I suppose the first big jump in support across western Canada of the Reform Party in response to a backlash against what happened in Charlottetown.

If we look throughout history there are many examples of mistakes that were made, partly because there was too much haste and the lack of consultation along the way with the people of the country about proper amendments and a proper process that should be adhered to in any kind of serious constitutional change. This is in many ways the most serious of all. Even although it is not constitutional, it contemplates the potential road map to the breakup of our country, which indeed is extremely serious.

This bill is in response to the supreme court. That is what we are debating today. The bill tries to implement the supreme court decision about a clear question and a clear majority, but one should also say that one mistake that has been made in the past is that too many people have not, I suppose, adhered to what I think is the basic fundamental principle of the legitimate self-determination of the people of Quebec. There is the right of self-determination of a people in this country.

I do believe also that we have to recognize the uniqueness, the differences and the distinctiveness of the province of Quebec. There is some evolution in that direction, I know there is, but I think those things have to be said at the outset when we are debating a bill of this sort.

We should keep in mind that the bill tries to balance what I think are two very fundamental principles and tries to recognize the co-existence of those two fundamental principles. One principle is the right of the National Assembly of Quebec to ask any question any time it wants on any particular issue. This bill does not thwart the ability of the National Assembly of Quebec to ask any question it wants at any time and in any wording it wants on any particular issue. It can do that.

On the other side, the bill says that the Parliament of Canada also has an obligation on behalf of all of Canada before the parliament contemplates a negotiation that may lead to the secession of our country and the separation of our country to determine whether or not that question has been clear vis-à-vis secession and whether or not that question has had a clear majority in terms of the expression of the people of the province of Quebec. These two fundamental principles co-exist and it is important to acknowledge that.

I do not have much time this afternoon so I want to raise four questions which I think we should look at very carefully as we consult our constituents and people across the country and move into the committee phase.

First, the way the bill is worded, does it suffice in terms of a clear question? In my opinion it does. Others may not agree, but I think that is a question we have to look at. Is the question clear in terms of how the bill is worded? Is it the proper way of doing it?

Second, we must look at what the bill says in terms of what is a clear majority. Here I think the answer is more vague. It leaves it up to future parliaments to determine whether or not there is a clear majority. Maybe that parliament would make a wise decision. Maybe that parliament would not be responsible. I do not know. We should look at whether, within the confines of the supreme court decision and within the confines of fundamental democracy, we can more clearly define what a clear majority might be.

I will give hon. members an example of what I mean.

We could have a referendum question passed by 50% plus one, with a 90% turnout, meaning 45% of the people in Quebec said yes to a clear question on separation. We could also have 80% of the people say yes to a clear question but only 50% of the people turn out, which means 40% of the people voted for separation.

How do we decide which of those is the most clear expression? I do not know the answer to that question, but I think the committee has an obligation to see if we can define a bit more clearly what a clear majority should be for any future referendum that might be held in the province of Quebec.

In my remaining two minutes I want to make two more points. A fairly direct amendment could be made to this bill. I think the minister may agree to this one. The first nations people, the aboriginal people, should be given higher recognition in terms of the role they would play in a potential process of consultation. That is something we should do. Any division of the country will affect the aboriginal people, particularly those in the area that would be divided. I do not think their role is high enough and prominent enough in the consultation process. That is one amendment we should look at to make sure that they are properly and fully consulted.

The last point is that one institution the minister is to consult fully is the unelected Senate. In a democracy, for a question this important, this is giving an unelected body a role that is much too prominent. That should be changed.

In terms of trying to refine and define them in accordance to what is best for our country, these are four areas we should look at in committee.

[The Speaker]

It being nearly 2 p.m., the House will now proceed to Statements by Members.

Black History Month

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to acknowledge Black History Month and to congratulate Canadians from coast to coast celebrating in communities with a variety of cultural events.

In 1995 the Government of Canada declared February to be Black History Month. This gives us the opportunity to celebrate cultural, social, economic and political contributions of blacks and to celebrate the 166th anniversary of the abolition of slavery in British colonies.

I am pleased that in my riding of Kitchener Centre and in the surrounding area a number of special events are being planned. The Black History Association of the Waterloo—Wellington region are sponsoring lectures at Holy Trinity Anglican Church and Maranatha Evangelical Church in celebration of this month.

The Congress of Black Women are sponsoring a story telling evening and the Caribbean Canadian Cultural Association will be holding a who's who in the black community event to honour young people, especially those who are contributing significantly to the Kitchener community.

I encourage all members of the House to take some time to participate in black history events that are being hosted across the country.

Human Resources Development

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the HRDC mess developed with prime ministerial approval during the tenure of the member for Papineau—Saint-Denis. Now he is safely out of range as Minister for International Trade and the hapless member for Brant has been left to carry the can.

Like the Conservatives' unfortunate Kim Campbell, this poor soul is the chosen patsy for her predecessor and her party. All the time we thought that her ministerial appointment was a perk based on cronyism and nepotism when in fact it appears that she was actually set up by the Prime Minister.

Polish Combatants Association

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, 60 years ago more than 1.7 million Polish soldiers and citizens were arrested and deported simply because they were Polish. The men and women who were taken by the Soviet Secret Police were sent to the far reaches of the Soviet Union to work in forced labour camps or placed in political prisons where many were executed or died of hunger, cold, disease and exhaustion during the second world war.

Tonight at the Polish Combatants Association, the Toronto branch of the Alliance of the Polish Eastern Provinces and its president, Mr. Wladyslaw Dziemianczuk, as well as the Polish Canadian community of Parkdale—High Park, will commemorate this tragic event at a ceremony where a memorial plaque will be unveiled.

Dedicated to all those who made the ultimate sacrifice for freedom, it will serve to remind future generations of the horrors of war and the cost of the freedoms that others are able to enjoy today because of their sacrifice.

Atomic Energy Of Canada Limited

[Hec Clouthier, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour and a privilege to rise today to welcome all Canadians into the second century of the atomic age.

The atomic age was born in Canada 55 years ago when the first peacetime reactor in the world came into operation at Chalk River in my great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. In 1952 Atomic Energy of Canada Limited became a crown corporation to develop peaceful applications of nuclear energy for Canada and the world.

AECL built the town of Deep River, and feelings run deep about the benefits of AECL and CANDU technology. The proposed Canadian neutron facility, with support from the National Research Council, will provide much needed material research and development to ensure that Canada continues to dominate in the atomic age.

Our sagacious Prime Minister has stated: “As the millennium dawns, I remain convinced that the future of CANDU is bright indeed, both at home and abroad”.