Mr. Speaker, first, I want to say that I am opposed to the motion introduced by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois because it is not designed to broaden or advance the debate on the clarity bill. On the contrary, it is part of the Bloc Quebecois' strategy on this bill, which is more or less respectful of democracy.
The Bloc's motion before us today would have the House “instruct”, and I stress the word “instruct”, the legislative committee on Bill C-20 to hold public hearings in all regions of the country.
All of us in the House who sit on various committees are well aware of the standing orders of the House governing committees. We all know that the committees of the House can establish their own rules and restrictions, as long as they do not exceed the basic powers granted to them by the House.
We, on the legislative committee on Bill C-20, have availed ourselves of that prerogative and decided, by ballot, that the committee would sit only in Ottawa. We have also taken steps to ensure that a wide range of witnesses are heard and that committee hearings are broadcast so that the people interested in the clarity bill can watch the debate.
So far, the legislative committee on Bill C-20 has acted in accordance with the standing orders, but our colleagues from the Bloc would now have the House give orders to this committee.
Now, do I have to remind this House that our colleagues from the Bloc, after having tried everything they could to prevent the introduction of this bill, after having delayed and disrupted the second reading debate, tabled, on February 10, a motion that this House decline to give second reading to this bill.
So much for the respect our colleagues have for the legislative process which aims, as we all know, to allow open debates on bills.
All members of this House know that the Bloc resorts to these tactics and strategies because its members are opposed to this bill which they consider antidemocratic. I would like to use the time I have to go over a few basic notions of democracy and say a few words about how democracy is perceived by the members of the Bloc and their independentist mentors.
There is nothing like a definition to put things in their true perspective. Here are some simple definitions found in dictionaries. A democracy is “a country where the people choose their government by voting for it.” Also “a government in which the people hold the ruling power either directly or through elected representatives; rule by the ruled.”
As our colleague, the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs, said in a speech before students of the University of Montreal law school, and I quote:
The history of Canadian democracy, despite its failures and dark chapters, can be put up against democracy in any other countries.
He also quoted what an historian of the University of Edinburg said on the 150th anniversary of the responsible government in Canada:
With regards to the crucial combination of grassroots participation, human rights and self-government, the history of Canada is unequalled in the world.
Democracy does not boil down to simple mathematics or to a simple majority in a vote.
In the introduction of its opinion on the reference concerning the secession of Quebec, the Supreme Court of Canada warns against that danger:
Democracy is a fundamental value in our constitutional law and political culture. While it has both an institutional and an individual aspect, the democratic principle was also argued before us in the sense of the supremacy of the sovereign will of a people...Democracy is commonly understood as being a political system of majority rule. It is essential to be clear what this means. It would be a grave mistake to equate legitimacy with the “sovereign will” or majority rule alone, to the exclusion of other constitutional values.
In the January 29 issue of the prestigious magazine The Economist there was an editorial describing what could constitute secession rules and dealing namely with the majority issue in light of the underlying challenges posed by the secession project. After defining one of the problems at the very heart of any secession project, the author asked about those who are left behind and those who are dragged along against their will. He declared that any secession should be made only if a clear majority—of a lot more than 50% plus one—opted for it freely.
After reading that article, will the proponents of separation speak out against the editorial staff of The Economist ? Probably not. They know all too well that this 50% plus one rule, which they say is sacred, is arbitrary, as evidenced by the fact that, on November 24, 1996, the day after a vote of confidence in the leader of the Parti Quebecois and current Premier of Quebec, a headline in La Presse read “Bouchard shaken up after finding out he does not have the confidence of one delegate out of four”. The article said this:
Behind the scenes, it was mentioned that Mr. Bouchard, who was expecting a lot more support, was stunned when he heard the results in the presence of his closest advisers. Strategists had set the psychological threshold at 80%, assuming Mr. Bouchard would clearly get more.
The vice premier and finance minister of Quebec said, and again I quote from La Presse “Like him, we are stunned; we would have liked to get a lot more support”. Nobody said that Mr. Bouchard's attitude was undemocratic. Nobody said that. Everybody understood he wanted a clear mandate.
If, for our opponents, wanting to clarify something through legislation within the rules of our democratically established institutions is a breach of democracy, members will agree that we ourselves could easily question their good faith as democrats. Our opponents are pulling their holier-than-thou routine. Are they really above reproach as far as behaving as true democrats?
Philippe Séguin, the former president of the French national assembly, found it appropriate recently to point out that one must accept the result of a referendum even though it is different from what one expected.
On February 1, during an interview he gave on Radio-Canada's Téléjournal , he said:
—I was an opponent...of the Maastricht treaty...I know one cannot hold referendums on the same issues within a relatively short timeframe. I am an expert on lost referendums and I know that if today, eight years after Maastricht, I was to ask for another vote on Maastricht, my fellow countrymen would find it odd.
This person, who until very recently was a friend and ally of Jacques Parizeau, simply recognizes that, in democracy, once the people has expressed its will, one must accept the result.
Once voters have expressed their will, a political party must not try again and again to obtain a result that would be favourable to its position, hoping to wear voters down.
As far as the infamous rules governing referendums on secession to which the secessionist leaders are constantly referring to are concerned, we are being accused of doing a flip-flop and of suddenly refusing to abide by these rules for the wording of the question and the majority. However, it takes two to tango. We were never consulted when these rules were established and, moreover, contrary to some reports, we never accepted them complacently, as if they were untouchable principles which absolutely could not be questioned.
I wish to remind the House that before the 1980 referendum, the Prime Minister of Canada had very clearly said that if somebody knocked on the door of sovereignty association, there would be no answer.
What can be said of the leaders' refusal to recognise a role for the members representing the people they would leave behind and the others that they would drag along with them against their will? Refusing the right to speak in their name to the members of this House is, members will agree, a serious breach of democracy.
Accordingly, members will understand my refusal to support this motion which basically is only another example of the great liberties that our colleagues from the Bloc are taking with democracy. My refusal is even more categorical due to the fact that these same colleagues are trying to us how democracy should operate.
