Debates of Feb. 7th, 2000

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

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

That was a nice try, but I will not even go to Beauchesne's on that one.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the atmosphere seems to be highly charged. People are not paying too much attention to what is going on.

So that this debate can begin on a solid footing, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to adjourn the business of the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. whip of the Bloc Quebecois has asked for the unanimous consent of the House to adjourn the debate. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I intend to preface my comments not with a quote from the executive director of an NPO or other community organization but with one from the International Monetary Fund managing director Michel Camdessus. He urged northern countries as well as Southern countries to think about the fight against poverty, which he feels must become the priority of all governments.

When we look at what has been going on here, in this country, in the past few days, with the government tabling a bill that is essentially a duplication of the supreme court decision, we have the right to wonder what the government is really trying to achieve. It talks about a clear question without defining it very much. I think a question can be clear without being trivial or trite.

It talks about a substantial majority and a qualitative majority. Note that this is not specified either. There is nothing we can do about that as democratic parliamentarians. In the European common market, the Maastricht treaty was passed with a majority of 50% plus one.

This is totally incredible. We are coming back from a parliamentary recess. If there is one member of the House who met people who told him it is important to discuss the constitutional issue, I would like to have a chat with him tomorrow morning in my office.

We know that Canadians are facing huge difficulties. I believe that, in the last 30 years, the problem in Canada, in Quebec and in all the regions of the country, had to do much more with the demagogical attitudes of some politicians, and not of all Canadians.

An analysis of Canada's history in the recent past shows who was elected from 1968 to 1984. There was always provocation to crush Quebec's profound aspirations.

[Some hon. members]

That is right.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

I will skip the years 1984 to 1993, because I am not at all ashamed to be a member of the Progressive Conservative Party. Our predecessors drove the debt from $18 to $200 billion. They have managed to increase it elevenfold in nine or ten years. We only doubled it.

The constitutional issue was another mess. Had the Meech Lake accord not been a failure, we would not be here discussing this issue.

The failure of this agreement was not co-ordinated by the Canadian people; it was the doing, once again, of a few politicians.

At the time, polls were conducted across the country, not only in Quebec, and 92% of Canadians supported the agreement. But some politicians, and they were not members of the Progressive Conservative Party, made the whole thing fail.

[An hon. member]

Wells, McKenna and Chrétien.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

I am proud to be a Progressive Conservative because my party has always drawn on the noblest feelings of Canadians, including reconciliation. I am happy to quote our present leader, the Right Honourable Joe Clark, who said that the Prime Minister has been playing a dangerous game for the past 30 years and that he will never be able to hold Quebec back.

Whatever applies to Quebec also applies to Alberta and British Columbia. Whether in a family, a region, a province or a country, it is impossible to force people to remain within an institution against their will. Unfortunately, we underestimate the impact of this bill on the subconscious of all Canadians, starting with that of Quebecers, but also that of our English speaking counterparts, because this will leave a mark.

Canadians have a number of concerns, not only down to earth ones, but also profoundly existential ones. It is not right to monopolize the energies of all politicians in the country, particularly those in this House and in the national assembly, to discuss an issue that does not interest our fellow citizens at this time.

My feeling is that this is pure provocation motivated by political gain because they cannot, in earnest, copy the supreme court decision and make us believe this is in the best interest of Canada.

This is my guess—I could be wrong and, if I am mistaken, my colleagues will let me know: the present government got 38% of the votes and, for it to maintain its current status, there has to be at least four or five opposition parties. There has to be some forty members of the Bloc, the Reform Party, the NDP and the PC Party, and the best way to achieve that is to play that chord.

The chord still elicits a response, but I am not sure that the government will make it to the next election with the 1997 scenario, two weeks before the election, when the Prime Minister said that 50% plus one was not enough. We remember what happened in election terms. I am sure that this government will not be able to draw on the same sentiments, Canadians' strongest.

What I fear at the moment is that, when most of the considerations and concerns of our fellow citizens have been improved—the concerns of our fellow citizens must be considered. Imagine people at home without a job, with young children, who have a hard time meeting the basic needs and who see us debating a matter of clarity and significant majority. It is crazy.

It is totally embarrassing for parliamentarians who are supposedly responsible to agree to this debate when we realize that the real clarity our fellow citizens want us to debate, want us to take a stand on, pertains, among other things, to health care. It is totally dramatic, and not only in Quebec.

And all this time the government is busy talking about home care when we know very well the source of all the surpluses it is currently using to create new programs, prepare its platform and play wildly partisan politics.

They were eked out of measures put in place by the Progressive Conservatives. With respect to the free trade agreement, which enabled us to increase our exports in a few years from $90 billion to $250 billion, have you considered the net profit from these trading activities?

I notice my colleague from Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, who does not have a selective memory. He remembers very clearly the matter of the GST. We have paid dearly for the matter of the GST. Some members beat us because they promised to do away with it.

[An hon. member]

Hypocrites.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

This year, tax revenues from the GST, which was supposed to be abolished, will be $24 billion. The House should be reminded without demagoguery that the purpose of the GST was supposed to be to reduce taxes. Unfortunately, we did not remain in office long enough to complete the tax reform. Taxes have never been reduced.

Concerning the poverty issue, our party, through a committee that is co-chaired by my colleague for Shefford, and with the co-operation of the Bloc Quebecois—we should give credit where credit is due—has undertaken to examine seriously the issue of a guaranteed minimum income. The current situation is not normal, and we will not be content with 2%, 3%, 4% or 5% increases in certain small programs in the next budget.

We want the government to consider, as it is being done in Europe and in many other countries, the issue of the citizens' right to an income, commonly called the guaranteed minimum income. We are ready to co-operate with the government, because our dozens of programs are totally inefficient. We should fight poverty, not the poor. We are ready to co-operate on issues such as this one, but do not count on us to wholeheartedly endorse Bill C-20, which is making use of the supreme court decision as a means to win the next election. I could go on and on.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. Membe a question. I think I can say on behalf of all my colleagues from the Bloc without exception that we appreciate his solidarity with Quebec's interests.

In politics, one can respect individuals. I have always considered it a duty not to make debates personal. I want to ask our colleague whether he does not find this situation unacceptable for Quebec. Quebec is a nation that has a tradition of democracy, which goes a long way back and which is clearly superior to the level of democracy of our colleagues across the way. Throughout Quebec history, all the important changes were sanctioned by consultations. René Lévesque, a great democrat, respected the results in 1980. And we respected the results in 1995.

Would the hon. member agree that if one was looking for an example of lack of respect for the rights of Quebec, the best candidate would be the current Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs?

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the least I can say is that I invite the minister to give second thought to the strategy adopted by his government in the last 30 years. The figures are clear. The sovereignist vote in Quebec went from 20% to 49.4%. What will it be next time?

I ask the government to focus less on the needs of professional hockey teams and on those of our banking system, which is closing branch after branch our regions. I ask the government to focus on the real issues that concern people and every family tonight, instead of proposing a bill which is simply redundant and which shows a lack of respect for the national assembly and for every legislative assembly in Canada.

I am sure that, in order to do productive work, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs will have to work closely with the provinces.

We heard a lot about social union. Nobody understands it. If social union can be instrumental in establishing a guaranteed minimum income for the poorest in our society, it could be a very interesting initiative for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, and I can assure him of our support and our willingness to analyze this issue, which is presently being looked at all over the world.

Even in the United States, the Americans established an inquiry which decided that this was probably the way to go. They did not implement the report, but it does not mean it was not good.

I ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to put aside for a while his constitutional obsession, to work on real issues and to find solutions that will get the big and small regions of our country out of poverty.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a short and rather simple question to ask my colleague who just spoke brilliantly and courageously. I congratulate him because it is not easy in a party like his to take such a firm position against such an unnecessary and divisive bill.

My question is very simple. I remember sitting with my colleague as a member of the Progressive Conservative Party when that party had many members from Quebec, and I remember that each time the members from Quebec took a stand within the Conservative Party, there was a debate. For example, I remember the debates on constitutional reform, on official languages reform, and Conservative members from Quebec courageously took a stand within their party to bring about some changes.

Can the member explain to me why members of the Liberal Party who come from Quebec have nothing better to do but than to try to crush Quebec instead of giving it its rightful place, as Conservative members from Quebec did when they were in office and as members of the Bloc Quebecois are doing right now?

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that the hon. member saw things in their true perspective and that he has a good grasp of history.

The member has an accurate recollection of what happened and, as a matter of fact, positions which received the support of the Quebec caucus usually dealt with the future.

I invite those from the other side to reflect on the consequences of this bill because I am convinced that, not necessarily in the short run but in few years from now if there is another referendum, this bill will be an asset for those campaigning for the yes side, and I am convinced that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs will bitterly regret what he has done.

I therefore ask him, in a very friendly way, to withdraw this bill. It would be the best proof of goodwill and I ask unanimous consent to do so.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Maybe you were not vigilant enough. The previous speaker asked for unanimous consent, which we believe we have, to withdraw Bill C-20. The House could do so at 6.05 p.m. this evening.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I believe I put the question regarding unanimous consent but that it was not given.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

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—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Quebec had been wanting for a long time that the Canadian government—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. There are limits to saying silly things in this House.

According to the standing orders of the House, the debate must remain relevant. I cannot see the relevance of these remarks to the current debate. Moreover, I would even say that they have made impertinent remarks in so far as they are in no position to criticize the Government of Quebec, considering the $1 billion plus mess at the Department of Human Resources Development.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

With respect, I listened very carefully. Members know I have to do so through the translation. Through the translation, which in my experience is very accurate, the words of the hon. member were appropriate. I did not hear anything at all through translation that was inappropriate.