Madam Speaker, this is indeed a very sad day in the parliamentary history of Canada, because we have before us a bill that is misleading even in its title, 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. Many observers have commented that this requirement is nowhere to be found in the opinion of the court.
This bill deals with clarity, but the bill itself does not provide for conditions, except one, to which I will come back later on. At all of its stages, exceptional rules have been applied to this bill. This bill, supposedly on clarity, will be passed through a process that can hardly be considered democratic.
This bill has been very well understood by David Jones, a former minister-counsellor to the U.S. embassy from 1992 to 1996. In an article published in a publication available to all diplomats in Ottawa and elsewhere, he wrote “In any case, this bill on clarity is a masterpiece of political ambiguity. It allows the Quebec government to hold a referendum on any question it wishes, but Ottawa reserves the right to evaluate afterwards whether the question was clear, and, by way of consequence, whether the federal government will negotiate or not on the basis of that question”.
This is still David Jones talking, a former minister-counsellor to the U.S. embassy in Ottawa from 1992 to 1996. He said “Without saying it in so many words, Ottawa rejects the questions of the 1980 and 1995 referendums”. We are not the ones saying that. He goes on “Surely, a majority government could declare unclear any question but this one: Quebec will secede immediately from Canada”. This is what David Jones said.
He also talks about the 50% plus one majority. Nowhere is it said in the bill that it is not enough, but the bill provides enough latitude to state, once it is over, that it is not enough and that any other majority would not be enough either.
What else does Mr. Jones say? He says “When it moves away from the basic political rule of 50% plus one, without proposing another percentage, any democracy is moving in unchartered waters”.
This bill only contains one clear provision and it is the one that says that what will not be considered as a clear question, and will consequently not commit the government to negotiate, is a referendum question that: a )—merely focuses on a mandate to negotiate without soliciting a direct expression of the will of the population of that province on whether the province should cease to be part of Canada
This is very serious. It comes back to the explanation given by David Jones. Moreover, a question will not be considered clear if it: b )—envisages other possibilities in addition to the secession of the province from Canada, such as economic or political arrangements with Canada—
With these two paragraphs, as the former political adviser of the United States embassy says once again, the government is retroactively stating that both referendum questions were not clear.
If, in the historic progress of the Quebec people, there is one thing that is clear, with respect to the movement that appeared with several small parties, but flourished with the Parti Quebecois and later with the Bloc Quebecois, it is that this movement is part of the ever-changing modern model that everyone here is applauding, that is the model of the European Union.
I again quote from a text written by René Lévesque that he presented to activist members in his riding of Laurier, before submitting it to the Liberal Party, which rejected it. He said “We believe that it is possible to avoid this joint stalemate of the Canadian federation”—joint stalemate where the government introduced Bill C-20 instead of talking about the situation of Western farmers—“by adapting to our situation the two major tendencies that dominate our era, one of which is the freedom of peoples and the other is political and economic groups freely negotiated”. This was in 1967.
How is it that no colleague from the other side tried to respond to our repeated claims that this bill is deceptive because it gives English Canadians the illusion that it will make the sovereign independent movement disappear in a jiffy?
This is an illusion and a danger because it implies that the process is an easy one, that they only have to say no and to pass a bill for the sovereignist movement to disappear. This is not so.
It is amazing, but no one talked about the will to negotiate. Having met an angel on his way, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs wrote “No, sovereignty partnership is not moderate because, between sovereignty partnership, the referendum and its conclusion, secession occurs”. That is it.
Instead of being an agent of what could be a renewal of the relations between Quebec and Canada, he says “No, no, no. The only possibility for you, my friends, is to vote for secession, period. We will decide if we will agree to negotiate with you”. He does not say that he will not have the means to object.
For example, in a referendum where the question is on the partnership option, if the results are 53.5%, given a strong vote like the last time, you will not be able to initiate any negotiation because those who pay down the debt will pressure you. You will not be able to resist the people's pressure. We are not the ones who are creating confusion, you are.
I sincerely regret all the time spent to try to thwart the sovereignist movement, or to convince Canadians that there is nothing to worry about, that the government will rid them of that gang, as the government House leader has said, speaking about us. Well, I have got news for you because there is a good chance that the Bloc will be even stronger next time.
In spite of this vote, in spite of this charade, this travesty of democracy that is the exceptional procedure used throughout consideration of this bill, I hope that our colleagues opposite will seriously think about the relations between Quebec and Canada. We have no choice because we are neighbours and we will remain neighbours for a very long time.