Madam Speaker, the bill that has been tabled in the House is a crucial issue for Canada, which is why I wish to speak to it today.
Some members opposite, like members of the current Quebec government, are reproaching us for wanting to clarify the referendum process. They say that the Government of Canada wants to take the place of the legislative assembly of a province.
In the time given to me, I will explain why I believe the Government of Canada has a role to play, as stated in the bill, in giving effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the supreme court on August 20, 1998.
It is important to bear in mind what the separatists never wish to speak about. By playing its appropriate role in the referendum debate, the Government of Canada is in no way encroaching on the prerogatives of the legislative assembly of a province. Any province can ask any question it wants. No one is challenging its right to do so.
The bill reiterates that:
...the government of any province has the authority to consult its voters by referendum on any issue and the right to formulate the wording of its referendum question.
Furthermore, the supreme court's opinion stipulates that the obligation to negotiate secession is closely linked to another obligation, that of obtaining a clear majority in support of secession and in response to a clear question.
Paragraph 100 of the opinion reads:
A right and a corresponding duty to negotiate secession cannot be built on an alleged expression of democratic will if the expression of democratic will is, itself, fraught with ambiguities.
That applies “both in terms of the question asked and the support it achieves”.
In paragraph 153, the court also specifies:
...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 take place.
These two sections of the opinion are highly significant and are more than sufficient to justify the role the federal government intends to play in clarifying the referendum issue. In fact, it obliges the Government of Canada.
Asking for a clear question and a clear majority does not violate the prerogatives of the national assembly.
The Government of Canada is one of the political actors the court referred to in its opinion. How can the separatists speak or ask us to shirk our constitutional responsibilities when the future of our country is at stake?
Our opponents accuse us of flouting Quebec democracy. We have heard a number of politically inspired accusations against us over time but this particular one raises the bar. Since when is it undemocratic to call for clarity? Our shared democratic heritage demands that citizens really have a say through their votes. All we are asking for is a clear question and a clear majority. Otherwise, how can we determine whether the citizens of a province truly want their province to leave Canada and become an independent state?
What is really undemocratic is asking citizens to vote on a deliberately ambiguous question.
The question must allow the people to clearly state whether or not they want their province to leave Canada and become an independent state.
A question on a mandate to negotiate that does not ask the people to state whether they want their province to cease to be a part of Canada or a question for secession mixed with another option would not allow the people to express their will that their province cease to be part of Canada.
For instance, the 1995 referendum question referred to a new economic and political partnership with Canada, an ill-defined, unrealistic partnership that Mr. Bouchard would later describe as “bare bones”. That question posed as a question on secession is patently undemocratic. It was not exactly a masterpiece of clarity.
I am sure our opponents will not accept my judgment on this. Maybe they will believe the polls conducted at the time of the referendum. I note specifically the poll that revealed that one in four yes voters believed they were voting for an option that proposed that Quebec would remain a Canadian province. One sovereignist voter in four.
To give rise to such confusion, the 1995 question certainly did not permit voters to clearly express their will for their province to cease to be a part of Canada.
When we look at facts like that, we get a better appreciation of why the federal government—to use the language of the supreme court decision—is an “actor” in ensuring that a referendum on separation, if we were ever to come to such a sorry state of affairs, would have to be held in an atmosphere of clarity.
There are other reasons for setting out the circumstances under which the Government of Canada would negotiate around a referendum result.
Premier Bouchard has never renounced holding another referendum during his mandate, so we need to be prepared. We need to clarify these issues, not when the referendum campaign is in full swing but well beforehand.
This referendum obsession is still a clear and present danger. Premier Bouchard said so on November 9. Quebec's intergovernmental affairs minister, Mr. Facal, has suggested that the Quebec government may override the supreme court opinion. Mr. Bouchard has also said that the Government of Canada's willingness to have the supreme court's requirement for clarity respected is a sign of bad faith on our part and opens the door to a unilateral declaration of independence.
In all likelihood, it was the former Quebec premier, Jacques Parizeau, who got it right when he pointed out on November 30 how important the allusion was to a unilateral declaration of independence. The translation reads “He's really opened the door. You have to understand how important Mr. Bouchard's statement really is on that. It's really something, that statement”. He added that he himself had never been that clear. Not only is there a real threat of another referendum, there is also the real possibility of a unilateral declaration of independence.
If there was ever an issue that we on this side would gladly stop speaking about it is the prospect of another referendum for the secession of a province. The Quebec separatist leaders will not let it die. It is the first article on their political platform. They are obsessed by it. That is why they rejected the Prime Minister's proposal to stop talking referendum.
We would like to address other priorities but we are duty bound to ensure that the supreme court's requirement for clarity does not fall by the wayside. Our respect for Quebecers requires us to assume our responsibility in that regard.
We did not start the fire and we are not the ones perpetuating this sad state of affairs. We are not the ones trying to break up the country. The separatists leaders are doing that. As long as we have to argue with them to ensure the unity and the progress of the country, we will continue to promote the democratic tradition that is one of the great achievements of Quebec and of all Canadians.
With regard to the bill itself, to those who say “not now”, I say “if not now, when?”