Debates of Feb. 17th, 2000

Supply

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Finally, I looked at the question asked in a referendum held under the auspices of the federal government in the Lac-Saint-Jean region, for the Montagnais, I believe.

There are two questions, but only one possible answer. It is not possible to answer yes to the first and no to the second. There are two questions, but it is yes or no to both; it is not possible to answer yes to the one and no to the other, or vice versa. There are three paragraphs, some 250 words referring to a few pieces of legislation, to some regulations about an agreement that is not included.

The federal government talks to us about clarity. In this referendum, and I am thinking of the other point about this bill, there is a 50% plus one rule. In this referendum, they will accept 50% plus one of the votes, a clear majority, an absolute majority, as they say in the book.

That is exactly what we are saying. You know what an absolute majority is, Mr. Speaker. It is more than half of the votes, 50% plus one. That is what a majority is.

A majority was good enough in the Lac-Saint-Jean referendum for the Montagnais. A majority was good enough for Newfoundland in 1948. What was good enough for Newfoundlanders or the Montagnais is not good enough for Quebecers?

Yesterday, I listened to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. He should realize that his bill accords more importance to a federalist vote than a sovereignist one. The vote of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs would carry more weight than mine. Is not everyone equal before the law? Yesterday, when I heard him get upset and talk to my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry in a familiar tone, saying “How can one assume there would not be any negotiations?”

With the contempt he showed yesterday, talking to a colleague with such familiarity, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs reminded me of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, when he was the Minister of Justice here in Ottawa. At the time, he addressed the then Quebec Premier, Daniel Johnson senior as “the member from Bagot”. Daniel Johnson replied by calling him “the member from Mount Royal”. That is what it was, the same kind of slightly contemptuous attitude that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs displayed yesterday.

He said that we could not take for granted that he would not negotiate. But what are we to expect from someone who talks about clarity but is unable to set a threshold, which could be different from 50% plus one in his view? He wants clarity, but he says “Listen, let us first have a referendum, and then, in my greatness, I will tell you whether the result is acceptable or not”. It is rather disturbing for his students. I wonder if, as a professor, he used to tell his students “Write the exam first, I will decide if you made the grade later. I will let you know whether the passing mark was 60%, 75% or 80% and will determine if my question was clear enough”.

This is what he told us and is telling us. He talks about clarity, but it was quite extraordinary to see the attitude he displayed yesterday. Of course we have to assume that he does not want to negotiate when we know that he will not even tell us what the required percentage is. How can we trust anyone who acts as judge and jury? This is what the minister is doing, acting as judge and jury.

He used some arguments, when answering a question from my colleague and critic for the Conservative Party, the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabasca, who was asking “The Bloc members, are they not afraid of losing their pension?” Why, as members, would we would not be entitled to our pension if they are? He need not worry, when the federal members' pensions is the only thing left to negotiate, we already know who we will choose as our two negotiators: the Prime Minister of Canada and André Ouellet. They have a major interest in negotiating theirs. I can assure you of that, Mr. Speaker, and I trust them in terms of negotiating their pensions.

I think the minister is currently moving in circles where others have moved in the past. It is very easy, as a Quebecer, to become a very popular minister in English Canada, as he is currently. As for the two solitudes, he personifies both of them, and could be called a hero in English Canada in Quebec. He certainly does not represent the people of Quebec. Now this is easy, it is what is expected from Quebec politicians; they are very popular in English Canada when they are used to stifle Quebecers. This is what he is doing and it is shameful.

For all these reasons, it seems to me that it would be normal—and my colleague will get more specific—to let the committee travel in every region in Canada and Quebec to meet people. All the other opposition parties agree with that. We differ on the bill's content, but certainly not on the need to consult Canadians and Quebecers in order to bring some clarity in this confused legislation.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my leader for speaking out on this issue of the utmost importance for Quebec.

I would like to ask him a question regarding the fact that there are Liberal members from Quebec who are taking part in this attack on Quebec.

I would like to know what he thinks of members who were elected for the Liberal Party in Quebec and who support Bill C-20.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, they have the right to have an opinion that is different from ours, but they should have the courage of their convictions and come to Quebec to explain their position. That is what I think.

Some of them are here today. It would be interesting if they took part in this debate and asked questions, but it would appear that they are not going to do so.

I remember the patriation of the Constitution in 1982. Out of the 75 federalist members representing Quebec, at that time, only two expressed their opposition, namely Roch LaSalle, a Conservative, and Mr. Duclos, a Liberal, who had the courage of his convictions and told his party “No. I refuse to play the role English Canada is asking me to play in Ottawa. I represent Quebecers. I am not a pawn to be used by those who want to impose their will upon us”. We remember that the federal Liberals had the lesson of their life in the following election. Since then, they are a minority in Quebec. They paid for what they did.

I hope that, in the next election, voters in Canada will realize that the time has come to have people other than Liberals to represent them in Ottawa. I agree with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Prime Minister when they tell us that they will not negotiate after a yes victory in Quebec. They are right, because Canadians will send other people to negotiate on their behalf. The work of Liberals will be finished. They will have failed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank our leader, the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, for this fine sortie against Bill C-20.

I would like to know his impressions on one specific issue. If, in 1995, during the referendum debate in Quebec, the National Assembly had passed such a bill against the federalist vote, limiting it so that it would have less weight than the sovereignist vote, what would people have thought of the National Assembly and of its Parti Quebecois members?

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we did not, and would not, do such a thing, because of our respect for democracy. For us it is a matter of one person, one vote. Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.

It would have been most extraordinary, if we had said “Votes in sovereignist ridings hold more weight than those in federalist ridings. Let us weight them differently, arrange things so that it passes, and then we will let people know the outcome. Vote first and then we will tell you the outcome. We will concoct one”. That is what they are telling us.

This makes no sense. The same goes for clarity. If the question had been “Do you want Quebec to become a sovereign country?” and then the whole debate had centred on partnership, they would have said “Aha, there was a trick in it. You referred to a partnership. You did not dare put it in the question”. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't, as they say. We are used to that here.

Quebecers have wakened up. Let Canadians do the same, and open their eyes to the fact that the Liberals are misinforming them about Quebec. Let them send their own representatives to talk to Quebecers, equal to equal. Let them respect the fact that Quebecers are a people, just as they are. We are neither superior nor inferior. For once in this whole business, we want to speak together on an equal footing, with the same status, not inferior and not superior.

We will never be the first country in the world. There is no such thing. This is a ridiculous illusion.

We want to have our country, like the Canadians have theirs. Perhaps then we will be able to get along as friends, which we have trouble doing while under the same roof.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I also rise on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois to support this motion I will move an amendment to, at the end of my remarks, and to explain that Bloc Quebecois members really want Quebecers and other Canadians to have the opportunity to be heard on Bill C-20.

We have made this request repeatedly in the House. It has always been refused by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Leader of the Government in the House.

We tried again in the committee Bill C-20 was referred to. The Liberal majority rejected this proposal, which was supported by the three other opposition parties.

For the last time in this House, we would like to try to convince the government members that Canadians should be given the opportunity to air their views on this bill, whether they agree or disagree, in a place where it will be easier for them to do so, that is in their own town or city, in the town hall or community centre where they usually take an active part in the democratic process.

My remarks will deal with the undermining of democracy by Bill C-20, but also by the process by which the government wants to have it passed.

The architect of this bill, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, does not like it when we tell him about the undemocratic nature of his bill. Nor does he like it when we talk about the extremely undemocratic nature of the process, which is under way, whereby this bill will be considered and passed by the House of Commons.

I want to talk about the undemocratic nature of this. I am not shy to talk about it, and I believe a great majority of Quebecers share this view. In this respect, we, of the Bloc Quebecois, are very representative of what Quebecers think both about this bill and about the process by which the House wants to have it passed.

When we think of it, this bill is undemocratic because the democracy it is creating will disallow what the national assembly and the Quebec people decide. This is also democracy that gags the work of the House and the work of the committee considering Bill C-20. Let me explain.

This is a democracy of disallowance, a sick democracy because it wants to disallow the national assembly, to disallow a national assembly that always had the privilege and the authority to adopt a question, to decide what Quebecers would be consulted on, to frame a question which was debated by the national assembly for 35 hours, which was debated by majority and opposition parties, sovereignist and federalist parties, and which was finally adopted by the assembly, the seat of the sovereignty of the Quebec people, who must continue to freely decide its own future.

Bill C-20 would allow the House of Commons to disallow a question adopted by the national assembly. Despite all the rhetoric about the respect of the national assembly's right to determine the content and wording of the question, this bill confirms the right of the House of Commons to determine that a question adopted by the national assembly is not clear.

The House of Commons tells and, in a way, orders the national assembly not to ask a question dealing with a mandate to negotiate, or referring to an economic and political partnership that Quebec would generously offer Canada.

Such a democracy is a democracy that disallows the jurisdiction and prerogative of Quebec, its national assembly and its people when it comes to deciding its future and how to shape that future.

While a breach of the national assembly's prerogatives is very serious, a breach of the Quebec people's sovereignty is even more serious because under this bill the federal government could challenge a majority vote by which the Quebec people would have decided to have its own country.

Indeed, Bill C-20 is totally confusing in that respect, the very opposite of the principle of clarity it proclaims. For instance, clause 2(2) sets out a number of criteria that give no clear indication of what would constitute a real majority.

This democracy disallows the people of Quebec and the choice it would make in a referendum. As the Premier of Quebec said a few days ago, such a bill shows the will of the government to give this House a true power of disallowance and reservation regarding resolutions passed by the national assembly and decisions made by the Quebec people.

This is unacceptable, it is undemocratic and we will repeat it both in this House and in committee. We will have no reservation denouncing Bill C-20 as an undemocratic measure.

This democracy is also characterized by closure. The Leader of the Government in the House will not like to hear us say that, seeing as he introduced time allocation motions to end to the debate on the bill before the House after only a few hours of debate at second reading, when only seven members from the Bloc Quebecois had the opportunity to speak.

That gag order introduced by the government House leader is unacceptable and all opposition parties condemned it at the time of the vote. A democracy that gags debate on such an important bill for the future of Quebec people and in fact all Quebecers and other Canadians is a very troubled democracy indeed.

We can see the same kind of closure attitude and democracy in the committee that was set up to study the bill. At its very first sitting, members were informed that only 45 witnesses would be heard. Quotas were imposed on the parties. Each party is allowed to call in a certain number of witnesses: 15 for the Liberal Party, 12 for the Reform Party, 10 for the Bloc Quebecois and 4 for the Progressive Conservative Party and the NDP. We were even refused the right to inform the citizens of Canada and Quebec that hearings were being held and that the committee was prepared to hear their views and receive their briefs. The work of the committee was gagged.

Today, we know that the government is determined to move extremely quickly and to steamroller the opposition even though it represents 62% of Canadians in this House. The Bloc Quebecois represents a lot more Quebecers than the majority government party.

On behalf of my party, I want to move an amendment to the motion. I move:

That the motion be amended in the French version by adding after the word “nombre” the following:

“possible”

To conclude, I will cite the August 1998 opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada. In reference to democracy, the supreme court said:

No one has a monopoly on truth, and our system is predicated on the faith that in the marketplace of ideas, the best solutions to public problems will rise to the top. Inevitably, there will be dissenting voices. A democratic system of government is committed to considering those dissenting voices, and seeking to acknowledge and address those voices in the laws by which all in the community must live.

There are many dissenting voices concerning this bill. There is a clear majority of dissenting voices. The government should listen to these dissenting voices and withdraw Bill C-20.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The amendment is in order.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry for his speech and thank him for enlightening us on the underhanded dealings by the government in its efforts to deny the basic rights of the people of Quebec.

Subclause 3(2) of Bill C-20 contains an unacceptable threat to territorial integrity and a threat whose intent is to limit the right of the people of Quebec to freely choose its status and its political future.

I would like to ask my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry: in Quebec whose task it is to set the terms of its authority over all parts of its territory?

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when we realize that the bill talks of borders in the clause my colleague has cited, we truly understand that the issue of borders is raised not to enlighten Quebecers on what will happen, but to frighten them, to intimate that the territory of Quebec may likely or possibly be partitioned.

Although the minister has said—and he repeated it yesterday—that it is perhaps a matter of border correction as was the case in Slovakia or in other countries that achieved sovereignty, I am pleased to note that bill 99, currently being debated in the Quebec National Assembly, reaffirms the Quebec consensus on this matter, which involves all provincial political parties, be they the Parti Quebecois, the Quebec Liberal Party or the Action démocratique.

This bill reaffirms that Quebec's territorial integrity must be preserved and that all the political party leaders are unanimous in saying that, in the event of separation, Quebec must keep its borders.

I think that this is a healthy thing. In most, all—I should say—of the recent cases of declaration of independence, even those involving minorities or native populations, the new republics of the USSR, Yugoslavia or Slovakia, for example, kept their borders. This makes good common sense.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for covering all aspects of this bill, which flouts democracy in Quebec and in Canada. It is a disgraceful con job.

The member for Beauharnois—Salaberry also explained that there is another piece of trickery going on and that is the choice of date. We must remember the strategy used shortly before Christmas, and the impact this choice of date had on democracy.

The public was not consulted. They mention 45 groups. They seem to want to flaunt the fact that 45 groups will be appearing before the committee. They think that 45 groups will do, but there is also a need for the public to be made aware of the impact of this bill.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is giving me an opportunity to inform the House, if it is not already aware, that it is very difficult to interest witnesses in appearing before the committee on such short notice. Since it began its work, the committee has had great difficulty getting witnesses to appear.

There were supposed to be witnesses yesterday evening, and none appeared. Some were scheduled for 9.30 this morning, but the first were heard at 10.15 a.m. We have no agenda for this afternoon because no witnesses could be recruited. I do not know what is on the agenda for tomorrow or next week.

The haste with which the government wishes to proceed is an affront to Canadian democracy, which usually permits parliamentary committees to give citizens notice and invite them to appear and present briefs, which in many other instances has allowed committees to travel abroad, in Quebec and Canada to hear from witnesses.

The prognosis for democracy in Quebec and in Canada is not good. That is why we want this bill withdrawn.

Should Bill C-20 be passed anyway, it will not have any legitimacy because 60% and maybe more of federal members from Quebec will have voted against it.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's debate, even though, basically, it is sad to have such a debate.

It is sad because the Bloc Quebecois moved this motion for a somewhat artificial purpose, under the pretence of a procedural debate. However, as we just heard, on the substantive issue, they of course want to start the debate on Bill C-20 all over again, a debate they did not really participate in because they wasted the time of the House by wanting to table press clippings and old newspaper articles, and by resorting to other similar tactics.

Today's motion from the Bloc Quebecois reads as follows:

That this House instruct the Legislative Committee on 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, to hold public hearings in all the regions of Quebec and Canada—

Presumably, this means of Quebec and of the rest of Canada, but this is how the motion is worded.

—so as to hear as many witnesses having an interest in the Bill as possible.

The government is opposed to this motion which would instruct the legislative committee on the bill to hold public hearings outside Ottawa. Why? First, because the goal of the Bloc Quebecois is not to make the committee travel to hear more witnesses. Its objective is to cause unreasonable delays. We already have plenty of evidence to that effect.

Bloc Quebecois members tried to table in this House close to 300 press clippings, 300 articles from old newspapers. They preferred to do that instead of hearing themselves talk. One must conclude that what they had to say was not very important since, instead of making speeches, they resorted to such manoeuvres in a futile attempt to attract the attention of the media and of Canadians.

Second, one cannot say that the parliamentary committee is not doing its work properly. To start with, the members sitting on this committee are doing excellent work. They are all members who take this whole debate to heart.

Moreover, the witnesses appearing before the committee are of great quality. Of course, there are those who choose not to invite witnesses they want to be able to say that these witnesses could not be heard. For example, the committee is hearing today from Mr. Lebel and Mr. Castonguay. They are not just anybody. I am not saying that I will agree with all the witnesses who will appear before this parliamentary committee, but there are people who have something to say, important things to say, presumably, and who will appear before the committee.

I might add that the committee hearings will be televised and that all Canadians will be able to watch them.

All hon. members are aware of the real agenda behind this motion. It is not to enable more Canadians to testify before the legislative committee. Bloc members have admitted that they are not even using all the time slots available to them now to produce witnesses, so how can they claim that they need even more? It is not to hear from witnesses.

Finally, I have to mention something important. I heard some members of the Bloc say a few days ago that certain witnesses will not be able to appear before the committee in Ottawa. However, these very same witnesses, at least several of them, and many others came in Ottawa a week ago to insist on being heard by the parliamentary committee. Now they claim that they cannot come to Ottawa to be heard by the committee. It is absurd. It is still the same distance to come to Ottawa as it was last week. How can we take them seriously when they are saying that it will be impossible for these witnesses to be hear d?

No, the real agenda is to do anything but have an open democratic review of this bill. The real agenda is to stall Bill C-20. We have proof of that. Anyone who has watched the House of Commons over recent months will know. When members of parliament try at least 300 times to waste the time of the House by tabling old newspaper clippings instead of making speeches, it is quite obvious what is going on. The agenda is to kill the bill.

I pointed out to the House leader of the Bloc Quebecois that the way the legislative committee conducts its business depends, first, on the committee's recommendation and, second, on the House's decision. As I noted, regarding the selection of witnesses, Standing Order 113 says that the committee is empowered to examine the bill and to hear as witnesses people who have a technical expertise to offer.

The government wanted to be as flexible as possible by offering members of this House the opportunity to use a definition of these witnesses on technical matters that is broad enough to allow the people to participate fully in this process, as long as some members of this House do not, of course, use this as an excuse to slow down the work of the parliamentary committee.

I also noted that, because Bill C-20 affects all men and women in Canada, whether they live in Quebec or elsewhere, its proceedings should be televised so that all those who wish to do so, since 80% or 90% of Canadians who have access to cable services, can watch the witnesses appearing before this parliamentary committee.

I also responded to a letter from the leader of the Conservative Party who claimed that he wanted to propose a reasoned amendment to improve the bill. One does not need to be a student of parliamentary procedure for too long to know that a reasoned amendment does not amend the bill. A reasoned amendment amends the motion of the bill. It can only do one thing, kill the bill. This is from time immemorial. It is in all of our procedural documents. The bill would disappear after a reasoned amendment was carried which is what the leader of the Conservatives offered. The bill would disappear from the order paper. That is on page 640 of our procedural manual.

Nor does the government intend to do what the Conservative Party leader asked for.

The legislative committee agreed to hear witnesses from all over Canada, witnesses such as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs who yesterday made an excellent presentation before the parliamentary committee. Almost all Canadians, whether they live in Quebec or elsewhere, will be able to watch that presentation and many others on television. The media can also air excerpts in their news reports.

[An hon. member]

That's something new.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

The hon. member across the way says it is new. It is not something completely new, but it is nevertheless an exception for a parliamentary committee—

[An hon. member]

An exception?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

If the hon. member wants to hear the answer, he should listen. If a committee is televised, it is an exception, nevertheless, something that happens by order of the committee chairs in collaboration with the whips.

[An hon. member]

Several committees are televised.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

This does not happen with more than one committee at a time. Anyone who comes to parliament regularly knows how things work in parliament. In general, there can be only one parliamentary committee at a time with access to the room prepared for televising.

This matter has been in the public domain since the supreme court's opinion on the reference, in August 1998. The hon. members over the way cannot, therefore, claim that this is something new, something about which the Canadian public knew nothing. It will be remembered that even the premier of Quebec congratulated the supreme court at the time. He said he was delighted with the court's decision.

Let us remind ourselves of what the supreme court said in this decision. It said that it was up to the political actors, to the elected representatives, to determine what constituted a clear majority in the case of a referendum. The court chose to add the word clear, a question that should be clear or unambiguous. These then were the two criteria established since 1998.

When certain members claim, as one just has, that the contents of the bill introduced in the House on December 13 last were unknown until then, they are not acting very seriously. The supreme court opinion had been known of since 1998, so there was nothing new about it.

Furthermore, they are not acting very seriously either in claiming simultaneously that this bill was introduced on December 13 and that the House is pushing it through too quickly on February 17 of the following year. The members across the way are not acting very seriously, and they are well aware of this.

Members will remember that other bills have been passed in this House and elsewhere a lot faster.

I would like to remind the House why this government believes that we should pass Bill C-20. It is a vital issue for our country. The Government of Canada must play an important role to follow up on the requirement for clarity as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in its opinion dated August 20, 1998.

It is our duty and our obligation to say which factors will be considered when the time comes to decide if we must negotiate the separation of one province from Canada. Obviously, like most Canadians and Quebecers, I hope this will never happen.

The Bloc members accuse us of having no respect for the National Assembly of Quebec and the population of Quebec. Since when is it undemocratic to ask for clarity? The members opposite say that they respect democracy. Yet they refuse to accept the result of two democratic referendums. They say “Till next time. See you soon” or something to that effect.

The members opposite say “It is not a problem if the public does not share our views. We do not have to respect democracy when the answer is not the one we want. When it is the one we wish for, it is a different matter”. And they claim to be great democrats.

We are not the ones who launched this debate. It is not the Government of Canada. It is not the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs nor the Prime Minister of Canada nor the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. It is not the Government of Canada who is seeking to destroy the country.

However, we said that we would discuss the matter and give the House a role in the decision to undertake negotiations on the secession of a province in the unlikely event—an event I hope will never happen—that a province wanted to leave this beautiful country, which the United Nations has been determined is the best in the world.

We would like very much to put aside the debate concerning another referendum on secession, but the separatist leaders in Quebec refuse to do so.

[An hon. member]

We have to talk about the Americans, the French and the Germans.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I just heard a member on the other side talking about the United States, France and other countries. It is rather interesting, because the United States of America and France are both indivisible countries. And yet, the members opposite say that “other countries are indivisible, but Canada can be divided”, even if people say that Canada must stay together and have said so twice in Quebec. But they do not care about that.

Is the Bloc afraid of asking Quebecers whether or not they wish to separate from the rest of Canada and become an independent country? Yes, of course. The member opposite just said so.

[An hon. member]

We are not afraid.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

The members opposite have proven that they are afraid to ask a clear question and to obtain a clear answer. That is why we have always had ambiguous questions in the past. They were questions 70 and 120 words long to ask Quebecers “Do you want to separate, yes or no?”

[An hon. member]

In my riding, 94% of the voters said yes and you claim that they did not understand? This is really incredible.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I see that some members opposite are reacting. They are free to do so.

A province's separation is too serious and too irreversible for our government to undertake negotiations leading to secession without its being sure that this is what the people really want.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs spoke of this in his December 13 speech. The more serious the decision, the more it must have the unanimous support of society. This has been a principle of democracy from day one. It is so strongly entrenched that even people's organizations say that it takes a two thirds majority to change their bylaws.

The Prime Minister has spoken of this. He even referred to groups such as hunting and fishing clubs, unions or other organizations, which require substantial majorities before their bylaws can be amended.

[An hon. member]

The Montagnais too.