Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Davenport.
I wish to speak on this bill, which proposes to give effect to the requirement of clarity expressed by the supreme court in the reference on the secession of Quebec, because I believe that a referendum process leading to something as serious as the separation of a province must be characterized by clarity.
On November 23, Mr. Lucien Bouchard responding to our government's decision to enshrine in a federal act that he could embark into negotiations that might lead to secession only after asking a clear question and obtaining a clear majority in favour of such a proposal, said, and I quote:
I believe this decision is indicative of the bad faith in which the federal government will deal with a Quebec government willing to negotiate after a yes vote. —The federal government's bad faith opens the door to a unilateral declaration of sovereignty.
Answering an English-speaking journalist he gave the following elaboration:
I quote: “The doors will be wide open for a unilateral declaration of independence with the authority of the supreme court”.
In his comments, the Quebec premier also said, again on the basis of the supreme court's opinion, that our government's decision could strengthen the likelihood of a Quebec having unilaterally declared its independence being recognized by the international community.
These statements were of course welcomed by Mr. Jacques Parizeau who, a few days later, at a meeting of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste at Laval University, was very quick to congratulate his successor, praising him to the high heavens, which was most unusual for the former premier of Quebec, who never missed a chance to criticize his successor.
No matter what some people might say, including the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry who, on November 23 attempted to mitigate the effects of Mr. Bouchard's comments by stating on CBC radio,
I quote: “I don't think it was threatening a unilateral declaration of independence”.
The premier of Quebec did threaten a unilateral declaration of sovereignty or independence, to use the English phrase, depending on whether he is talking to French speaking or English speaking reporters, which says a lot about the meaning the PQ gives to the term sovereignty, in spite of all its complicated attempts to distinguish between sovereignty and independence.
The premier of Quebec uses the words of the supreme court which suit his purpose. Let us come back to certain elements of this reference to see if it supports a unilateral declaration of sovereignty or independence or if it recognizes that international law confers legitimacy to a unilateral declaration of independence such as the one the present government of Quebec is threatening to make.
The first question the supreme court was asked read as follows, and I quote:
Under the Constitution of Canada, can the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?
To this question, the opinion of the court was very clear: any unilateral secession attempt would be illegal. The Court wrote, and I quote:
Any attempt to effect the secession of a province from Canada must be undertaken pursuant to the Constitution of Canada, or else violate the Canadian legal order.
The secession of a province requires an amendment to the constitution and I quote, “which per force requires negotiation”.
What the decision of the supreme court establishes clearly is that the Quebec government should negotiate in a provincial government capacity, under the terms of the Canadian constitution, from which it draws its powers, and that it would not be entitled to proclaim itself the governing body of a sovereign or independent state.
The court also has to deal with the question of international law and the right to self-determination. In this regard, the court established that a unilateral secession would not likely be accepted in international law if it were not compatible with the constitution of an existing state, as it is in Canada. Let me quote the relevant excerpt:
A state whose government represents the whole of the people or peoples resident within its territory, on a basis of equality and without discrimination, and respects the principles of self-determination in its internal arrangements, is entitled to maintain its territorial integrity under international law and to have that territorial integrity recognized by other states.
Following the publication of the supreme court decision, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada said, and I quote:
The government of Canada will respect this decision and abide by it.
Our government's decision to try and ensure the clarity of the question and of the results of a referendum before initiating negotiations on the secession of a province is totally in line with the decision of the court.
The court stipulated, and I quote “There are legal grounds for refusing to negotiate when there is a lack of clarity.”
Moreover, beyond these legal issues, one should bear in mind that a unilateral secession is also unworkable. This is not a simple process, as suggested by minister Jacques Brassard on October 12, 1997, when he said that his government would only have to have effective authority on the Quebec territory, following a unilateral declaration of independence, for international recognition to follow.
Let me remind the House of the thrust of a speech given by the intergovernmental affairs minister before members of the Canadian Bar Association in Montreal on March 23, 1998.
After pointing out that, in the last 30 years, the debate had dealt with the why of the independence, the minister dealt with how Quebec could go from the status of a Canadian province to that of a sovereign state, following a unilateral declaration of independence.
Would the Quebec government really have the means to fulfill its claims? Could it assume all the functions currently performed by the government of Canada? As examples, the minister outlined some important issues. I will enumerate them.
Following a unilateral declaration of secession, which passport and which embassy services Quebecers preparing to travel abroad would use?
What would happen to the many citizens who work for the Canadian government? In the absence of agreements with the Canadian government, would they leave their jobs to work for the Quebec government? What would happen to their pension plans?
Would the RCMP members renounce to assume the responsibilities conferred to them by many laws such as investigations into drug offences and money laundering infractions?
In a commercial dispute between a Quebecer and an American competitor, would the Quebec government, which is not a member of NAFTA, have access to the dispute settlement mechanisms provided in this agreement?
In the absence of a close co-operation with the Canadian government, could the Quebec government retrieve source deductions such as tax deductions, employment insurance premiums, excise taxes and custom duties, to name but a few?
How would the Quebec government keep citizens of this province from benefiting of services provided them by the Canadian government, especially since it does not itself have the means, the expertise or the human resources to offer them the same services?
We can hardly predict the future but we can foresee it in the light of a recent transfer of the manpower training. This transfer was done in conditions that could be called ideal—