Mr. Speaker, in fact I congratulated both parties, the Reform and the Bloc Quebecois, on having so many members in the House.
I do not think that anyone in the House can be a more committed federalist than I am. I very much appreciate the contribution that Bloc Quebecois members have made in the Chamber over the years that I have known them. Nevertheless, I am very much a federalist.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take you back to 1995 and the so-called referendum crisis, from our side, and what occurred at that time leading up to that question, to the actual referendum. We in the backbenches of the Liberal Party were assured that it looked as though it would be an easy win for the no side, which was the federalist side. What happened was, it was a very narrow, close race. Members will remember that there was a margin of only 50,000 votes on the no side that rejected the proposed question put by the Parti Quebecois.
In the aftermath—and I tell this to my Bloc colleagues—in the Liberal caucus of which I was a part, we were in shock. We were absolutely devastated because it appeared that we had nearly lost our side. No matter what the Bloc says, it was a terribly emotional experience to feel that we may have lost our country based on what turned out to be a terribly ambiguous question, from my point of view. It turned out to be a very narrow margin. Indeed, being 50% plus one, we could have lost the entire country.
I remind members, just in passing, of the actual text of that question. That question which we agonized over read: “Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?”
We were appalled that our government could have taken us that close to the abyss without ensuring that a clearer question, a real question, had been on the table. In caucus government members constantly talked about how narrow an experience it had been for Canada and how Canada would have had to negotiate and if we had lost by a margin of 60,000 votes Canada would have had to negotiate the separation of Quebec.
I got up in my national caucus and I said in front of the Prime Minister “Do not talk about Canada having to negotiate on a question like this”, if we had lost that referendum, “talk about the government having to negotiate because”, I said in national caucus at that time, “if my government ever lost a referendum on such an unclear question, the first thing that would happen is there would be a vote of confidence”, because I would never agree, as a Canadian, as an MP, to negotiate the breakup of a country based on such an unclear question. There would have been a vote of confidence. We could not have accepted it. There would have been a free vote.
I was very much behind getting a clear question and very much behind the clarity bill as we see it now, because what the clarity bill does, what it simply does, is it binds future governments to be responsible for ensuring that before they even begin negotiating they have to consult parliament and parliament has to decide whether the question is clear. The reason I believe my Bloc Quebecois colleagues should support Bill C-20 is because, in the end, if there ever were a clear question that was agreed upon by this parliament, I, in the interests of civil society, would have to go along with negotiations. But so long as there is an unclear question I could never abide by it. I would always be opposed.
We have to have a clear question. We have to have a majority that I, as a federalist, accept.
The problem became this. As it was realized in the years that followed, at least realized by some on the back bench, the real problem was not with the federal Liberals, because by that time it was very clear in our caucus that it had to be a clear question and it had to be a decent or clear majority. What became clear was that if in the event the Conservatives came to power or the Reform Party came to power, we know that Joe Clark would have accepted an unclear question and begun negotiations and we know from his own mouth that the Leader of the Opposition would accept a thin majority and carry on to negotiations to break up the country. The question is how to confine future governments that are willing to trade off this great nation on such a thin margin; how to confine them to the will of parliament.
Bill C-20 does that. It does not set conditions on the questions. It does not set conditions on the majority. What it says simply in clause 1(6) and clause 2(4) is that before any of the governments of the future can negotiate the breakup of the this country parliament has to approve by free vote—one vote, one MP—the nature of the question and the nature of the majority.
It is clearly a situation where it is parliament restraining the power of future governments. This issue is between parliament and governments. It is not between the provinces. It is not between all the special interest groups out there.
This is why, if I had had my way, I would not have had witnesses before the committee at all. There was no need to have witnesses, because this is between the entire 301 MPs and future governments of this land.
I think the government was right in putting it to a legislative committee, because clearly there was no other standing committee that could possibly have the jurisdiction over a question like this. It cannot be sent to government operations, the justice committee, or any other committee. There is only one committee, and it had to be a committee of these MPs, and so it is before that committee now.
I cannot understand why Reform Party members are standing up and saying “We have to bring in the provinces. We have to bring in all these special interests groups”, when this is entirely an issue, and I stress this, between the House of Commons, all the MPs assembled, and the government of the future.
I think that if ever the day comes, and I hope it never does come, that the Bloc Quebecois can mobilize enough support in the House with a free vote on a question that it thinks contributes to secession, I would have to support it, but only if it is a clear question, and I have a free vote, and I can act on behalf of the Canadians I represent.
