Debates of March 23rd, 2001

Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, the subject being debated today involves two great passions I have had since I was very young and since I entered politics specifically.

We are talking about the environment. There is no doubt that the environment means our future. There is no doubt that when we speak of the environment it is hard to oppose the bill, because it would appear to be opposing environmental protection when in my opinion we do not protect it enough.

This bill is a case in point on the subject of democracy. I want to take what my colleague, the member for Churchill, said a little further. She said, “When I arrived in parliament, I had illusions. I thought democracy reigned supreme in parliament. The further I go, the more I realize democracy is under threat”.

My mentor in reflection in the area of democracy or politics is René Lévesque. I had the opportunity to work with this great democrat, now recognized by one and all. Mr. Lévesque said “If there is one political value worth sacrificing one's life for, it is the value of democracy”.

When I see how the government is wearing democracy away and not using democracy—because democracy, as we know, is perhaps one of the sole values that may be worn away and is lost when not used—each time it is threatened, I see René Lévesque and I feel I must react.

This government's ever more closed administration is inexplicable and unforgivable. We can see what it is doing in its closed circuit as well. The only way it can enter an area of Quebec's jurisdiction is by creating foundations.

When it wants to duplicate what is being done in Quebec, it just establishes a foundation and goes ahead. If somebody objects, its answer is that it is just a foundation. However who is responsible for this foundation? To a large extent the Prime Minister is. A foundation obeys the Prime Minister and reports to him. It also gets its mandate from the Prime Minister, but the money still comes from the taxpayers. I take strong exception to this.

With respect to the environment, for example, my colleague has just explained that the Quebec government is putting in a big effort and is doing a great job.

The day before yesterday in committee I asked the agriculture minister a question about what Quebec is trying to do to make agriculture and the environment more compatible, to improve agriculture so that agriculture and the environment can go hand in hand. The agriculture minister congratulated the Quebec government on its efforts concerning the environment.

If this democratic parliament has more money to spend on the environment, it should go through the normal channels and spend it through the Quebec government. It is already there and it is doing a good job on the environment.

I cannot even support the principle underlying this bill because it is not democratic. The purpose of foundations should not be to divert money from provinces and to duplicate provincial programs.

Today is a very sad day for me and for my whole environment. I am the member for Champlain. My riding is located next to the riding of Saint-Maurice. The member for Saint-Maurice, my colleague in parliament, is the Prime Minister. Members know that we have been talking for months now about what occurred in the Prime Minister's riding and in the riding of Champlain.

The Prime Minister argues that nothing wrong happened, but he should turn his words into action and prove that nothing wrong occurred. I am shocked to see that my neighbour, the member for Saint-Maurice, is not even trying to quash the rumours when he could easily shed some light on this issue simply by tabling some documents. This is hurting the riding of Saint-Maurice, the riding of Champlain, the whole region and our democracy.

I think we should act quickly. Members know that people living in various ridings do talk to each other. People come to see me in my riding office and tell me: “Mr. Gagnon, when will this stop? It is starting to really hurt us”. Many of these people come from Shawinigan—

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is not the first time that the hon. member for Champlain has gone off track. I think that the bill is very clear. It deals with the Canada foundation for sustainable development technology. He should stick to that if he wants to keep going.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

This issue is often raised. We should perhaps give a lecture on chapter 13 of our procedure and practice relating to the relevancy of debate, because the same thing has happened several times today.

I would like to bring to the member's attention the relevancy issue because it is an issue that normally on Fridays is raised very often. Unless a member brings it to the attention of the Chair, the Chair cannot act on its own.

In many instances the Speaker has indicated that a question invokes the rule of relevancy by indicating to a member who has been called to order, as the secretary of state has done in this instance, the proper subject matter of the debate and how the member's remarks were irrelevant.

I would like us to continue the debate on the issue before the House. I do not wish to say that it is the hon. member's fault only. During debate, the Chair allows considerable leeway as far as the issues debated are concerned. It is not for me to judge the content, but I believe that we must also respect the procedures of the House.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank you and I thank my hon. colleague across the way for having raised the issue of relevancy. I thought my remarks were totally relevant, but I do want to come back to the bill.

The matter of the riding of Saint-Maurice I was talking about is a part of my immediate environment. When I speak about the economy in my area, that is part of my environment. When we speak about sustainable environment, I sense that certain people are about to see their reign come to an end.

I must say that I will always be in favour of bills that really favour the environment. I am against this bill, because it concerns not the environment but democracy, which is the basis of the life of this country.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate a great democrat who just took power in Quebec, Bernard Landry. I know that he will work for the sustainable development of Quebec.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I know I do not have much time as we have only five minutes left.

I rise once again to speak about the establishment of a foundation by this government. The least we can say is that the rules governing its establishment will not allow the public to know what is going on. Neither will these rules allow the best interests that are supposed to be served by this foundation to actually be served.

This is not because there is no environmental problem in Canada. This is not because Canada is not having trouble meeting the targets it agreed to in Kyoto; on the contrary. The stakes are extremely high.

With regard to the recommendation made to the federal government, instead of ensuring that the extremely necessary funding be provided in a timely fashion to advance these urgent projects to develop technologies to address climate change and pollution, the government is embarking on the creation of a foundation through a rather bizarre piece of legislation.

Essentially the bill has only one purpose, as stated in clause 5:

1. The objects and purpose of the Foundation are to provide funding to eligible recipients for eligible projects.

Its purpose is to provide funding for eligible projects. It would be given an insufficient amount of money for the sustainable development that is necessary. However the definition of eligible project reads as follows:

“eligible project“means a project carried on, or to be carried on, primarily in Canada by an eligible recipient to develop and demonstrate new technologies to promote sustainable development, including technologies to address climate change and air quality issues.

The only guideline to this foundation if this definition of eligible project. However, and this is also disturbing, with respect to the establishment of the board of directors, it is stipulated that there shall be seven members appointed by the governor in council, that is by the government, on the recommendation of the minister, and these seven members shall co-opt members in the other areas.

What do we see? We see a great danger that this would be a small group of friends whose task would be to fund eligible projects. These eligible projects are extremely wide reaching and we do not even know if this will go in the direction of the commitments—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I am sorry to interrupt, but the hon. member's time is up. I remind her, however, that she will have five minutes to conclude her comments when debate resumes.

It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Bélanger-Campeau Commission

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

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should recognize the conclusion of the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, which proposed, in 1991, that the National Assembly of Quebec adopt legislation on holding a referendum and the offer of a new partnership, and that no federal legislation or regulations should be incompatible with achieving this conclusion.

Madam Speaker, I want to say how proud I am to speak about the Bélanger-Campeau commission, since it will be 10 years on March 27 that the commission tabled its report.

Before getting to the heart of the matter, however, I wish to welcome a friend of mine who is taking a law course with me. Twice a week I attend lectures to be able to better understand the bills that are brought before us. I know that, Madam Speaker, you have a law degree.

I want to welcome one of my colleagues, Clément Bélanger, who wants to hear today's debate. I am glad he is here, even though I do not always share his views on Canada's future. I am very happy to see him here.

First, as members will recall, the Bélanger-Campeau commission was created as a result of the failure of the Meech Lake accord. Speaking about that as a Quebecer, it is hard to forget that this was the first time in the history of Quebec that a head of government, Robert Bourassa, asked for so little in terms of collective powers.

The 1987 Meech Lake accord, which the provinces had three years to ratify, was based on five main conditions. They were the minimum we could accept. Asking for less collective powers would have reduced us to the status of a municipality.

There were five main conditions in Meech: that Quebec be recognized as a distinct society and that this should be given an interpretative value in the preamble of an act; that provinces have a veto, especially with regard to changes to federal institutions; That Quebec could submit a list of judges who, more faithful to the civil law tradition, would be appointed to the supreme court on the recommendation of the national assembly; that spending power would be limited with regard to new shared cost programs; and that Quebec would have its fair share of immigration quotas, that is 23% or 24%.

As we can see, this was much less than what previous premiers had asked for. Members will remember that the Meech Lake accord was defeated by two provinces, namely Newfoundland and Manitoba. Why should we remember the Meech Lake accord? Why should we remember Bélanger-Campeau commission?

I felt rather happy last night to hear that the premier of Quebec wished to bring the various studies up to date. Fifty-five experts, of every persuasion, of every leaning, of every allegiance, tabled submissions before the Bélanger-Campeau commission.

I want to point one thing out. It is incredible that it has to be remembered, 10 years after the Meech Lake accord failed, that if Robert Bourassa were alive and still active in public life, he could not have held a referendum along the very terms of the Bélanger-Campeau commission.

I want to remind my hon. colleagues, particularly those from English Canada, that the Bélanger-Campeau commission is not a trivial fact of our history.

When the federal government through the federal-provincial relations office, run by the Privy Council, refers to the Bélanger-Campeau commission in its own documents, it refers to it as a constitutional commission, which represents a moment of the history of Quebec, the most intense moment of our collective history, when we came close to having something similar to a constituent assembly.

Thirty-six commissioners, 34 of whom are still alive, sat on the Bélanger-Campeau commission, and everything that is stirring in Quebec, everything that we love in Quebec, everything that thinks in Quebec, was represented, including municipalities, school boards, political movements, mostly from Quebec, and artists. Everything that is stirring in Quebec was represented on the Bélanger-Campeau commission.

In its conclusion the Bélanger-Campeau commission reminded us that there are two major options for Quebec's future. Let me quote in its entirety the main conclusion of the Bélanger-Campeau commission:

Only two solutions are open to Quebec in redefining its status: firstly, making a new, last, attempt to redefine its status within the federal system; and, secondly, achieving sovereignty.

Ten years after the Bélanger-Campeau commission, after the failure of the Meech Lake accord, after the failure of the Charlottetown accord and after the referral to the supreme court, I am telling the House that the evidence is now there: Canadian federalism cannot be renewed to further the legitimate aspirations of Quebecers, and the only relevant, valid, appropriate and credible conclusion is Quebec's sovereignty.

A number of elements support such a statement. I was a member of parliament in 1995; many members who are here now were not back then, but I was. The Prime Minister had a motion passed to recognize the distinct character of Quebec, a motion in which he even gave Quebec a veto. What happened since 1995?

Whenever it was time to recognize Quebec as a nation, this government always rejected what was passed in this House and what was asked by the Bélanger-Campeau commission. What is the point of adopting a motion saying that Quebec is a distinct society if we cannot even be recognized for who we are?

Let me give some examples. The review of the bill on immigration and citizenship was a complex issue, since francophones account for only 2% of immigrants in North America. Quebec has a citizenship policy. Whether we like it or not, from the moment people can take part in democratic institutions, citizenship becomes a reality.

During debates in committee and in this House, when we reviewed the issue of citizenship and immigration, we tabled an amendment requesting that Quebec hold its own citizenship ceremony because we all know the value of symbols. During the ceremony we would have given new immigrants choosing Quebec a copy of our charter of the French language, our Quebec charter of human rights and freedoms and our elections act.

How did the government reply to that motion? It spurned it. Through this lack of support for our request, once again, the government was showing that it does not seriously intend to recognize us as a nation.

What does Bill C-20 mean? Bill C-20 where the great democratic forces in Quebec isolated the government and reminded the government that it cannot legitimately expect to write the referendum question in lieu of the national assembly.

I remind members that if Robert Bourassa had wanted to hold a referendum on the Bélanger-Campeau commission's report, under Bill C-20, and more specifically clause 4, he would not have had the freedom to do so. I dare any member of parliament to prove to me that it would be possible to ask a two part referendum question under clause 4 of Bill C-20.

Worse yet, since the early 1990s we have seen an unprecedented attempt to deny Quebec's identity and reinforce the Canadian identity.

The House might recall that in 1995, the year of the referendum, the government did one of the most anti-democratic things that can be done politically.

I see that the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport is being very offhand about this. I ask him to remember that in 1995, the same year in which was held the referendum under the referendum act, René Lévesque's greatest legacy, this government did not even have the decency to respect the legislation in question. During the referendum campaign it spent five times more than the authorized ceiling in Quebec. Is that how it views democracy? It spent five times more than was allowed.

Worse yet, it used citizenship courts to promote its political option and to hand out vast numbers of citizenship certificates.

I believe in immigration because Quebec is condemned to be a land of immigration. When we look at which countries take in the most immigrants, Quebec is in fifth place. It is right after Australia, the United States and New Zealand. Quebecers' generosity and openness is well known.

Can there be any justification for a government not only failing to comply with the referendum act but also using citizenship courts to issue 43,000 citizenship certificates, 11,000 of them in one month? If that had been a lasting trend, we would have noticed it in 1996, 1997, and 1998. In 1996 citizenship certificate quotas dropped by 70%.

This is what is unacceptable in a democratic system. Instead of maintaining the separation of powers between the legislative, executive and judicial arms, instead of maintaining the historical perspective required in discussions of such matters, this government has breached one of the most time honoured principles of our democracy. It has used the judiciary to promote its political option. This is not acceptable.

In Quebec there are three issues on which everyone agrees, regardless of their political affiliations. Claude Ryan could call on the spirit of such a collective opinion and the Bélanger-Campeau commission has embodied them. What are these issues? Quebec is a nation, and all nations have the right to choose their destiny.

These last few years the federal government has put in place a formidable propaganda machine. Every year since 1996 the federal government has spent, on average, $100 million a year on initiatives promoting federalism, $100 million of which a part surely comes from taxes paid by Quebecers.

The intergovernmental affairs minister said yesterday, with his usual outraged tone, that the government is not legitimate. The government of Quebec, led by Robert Bourassa, held the first constituent assembly of our history, at which all the political forces were represented.

A certain amount of studies were made. It is the duty of the government to update those studies because we will not accept to be treated like a simple province because Quebec is not like Prince Edward Island. It is not like Saskatchewan. It is not like Alberta. With all the respect I have for their distinctiveness, but they are not like Quebec.

I see that my time has expired, but with the unanimous consent of the House I could complete my speech in five minutes.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The member will still have five minutes at the end because it is his motion.

However, is there unanimous consent of the House to allow the member to continue with his speech?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I have listened attentively to the hon. member and I want to say that I am quite pleased to be participating in the debate on Motion No. 220 which has been tabled by the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve and which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should recognize the conclusion of the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, which proposed, in 1991, that the National Assembly of Quebec adopt legislation on holding a referendum and the offer of a new partnership, and that no federal legislation or regulations should be incompatible with achieving this conclusion.

The motion at least has the merit of providing us with the opportunity to rectify certain facts and to set the record straight in this debate on Quebec secession. The motion is clearly designed to challenge the legitimacy of Bill C-20, which was passed last year by Canada's parliament.

It is therefore necessary to respond to the motion by turning again to the main arguments that were advanced in support of the clarity act. I would first like to address the portion of the hon. member's motion that reads as follows: “that no federal legislation or regulations should be incompatible with achieving this conclusion”.

I find the hon. member's wording of the motion extremely one-sided. It seems to imply for all practical purposes, and in a manner that is simplistic to say the least, that the current Government of Canada is trying to prevent the government of Quebec from holding an umpteenth referendum on Quebec secession, an option that it is attempting above all to camouflage through vague hints of an alleged will for association.

How many times will it have to be reiterated that the current Government of Canada is in no way seeking to prevent the national assembly from consulting Quebecers on any matter whatsoever?

It should be noted that a recent poll has confirmed that only a minuscule proportion, less than 10%, of Quebecers want such a referendum to be held during the current mandate, while 49% say they never want one to be held, and 76% of respondents, regardless of option preferred, want Quebec to remain in Canada.

I would urge the hon. member to use his inside contacts with the current government of Quebec and to remind Mr. Landry of these facts, since to date he still does not seem to get the message.

Regardless of these considerations, I can only remind the hon. member, who certainly cannot not have forgotten, that Bill C-20, passed last year by Canada's parliament, in no way sought to prevent Quebecers from deciding on their political future. As respected a personality as Mr. Claude Castonguay emphasized this point eloquently before the legislative committee studying Bill C-20 when he said about the bill:

I did not see anything in this bill that limits the jurisdiction of the Quebec National Assembly nor the right of Quebecers to decide their future.

Indeed, Bill C-20 in no way prevents the national assembly from wording the referendum question as it sees fit. A future referendum would have to be held in full compliance with provincial laws. The clarity act merely specifies that the federal government will not enter into negotiations unless a clear majority of Quebecers vote in favour of secession in response to a question as passed by the national assembly and do determine, through a resolution, whether the question is clear. It is very important that the question be clear.

I ask hon. members to remember that Bill C-20 was our response to the opinion of the supreme court in the Quebec secession reference which was issued in the summer of 1998. Like that opinion of the court, it emphasizes the need to ask a clear question—I emphasize again, a clear question—and to obtain an equally clear majority.

I understand that some members opposite do not particularly like the words clear question and clear majority. They find something radically wrong with a clear question and a clear majority.

Paragraph 87 of the opinion specified states:

The democratic principle—would demand that considerable weight be given to a clear expression by the people of Quebec of their will to secede from Canada, even though a referendum, in itself and without more, has no direct legal effect, and could not in itself bring about unilateral secession.

Further on in paragraphs 92 and 151 it states:

The continued existence and operation of the Canadian constitutional order could not be indifferent to a clear expression of a clear majority of Quebecers that they no longer wish to remain in Canada.

The opinion referred to a clear question on numerous occasions and the supreme court used the expression clear majority 13 times. Why put so much emphasis on clarity? The answer is obvious: the consequences of secession are so grave that it must be clear that the province's population does in fact want to cease to be a part of Canada. Let me say as well that of course secession has very grave consequences for other provinces and other people of Canada as well.

A question that refers to the possibility of a political or economic association is not clear, because if the response is favourable, how can it be known whether it applies to independence, to a new partnership or to a form of independence providing for some type of association?

A clear answer to a clear question: who can be opposed to this principle other than those who, not once but twice, have presented Quebecers with vague, misleading options, with the sole objective, as Mr. Parizeau boasted himself, of getting the lobsters into the pot? Mr. Parizeau boasted publicly that all they wanted to do was get the lobsters into the pot. We all know what happens to lobsters when we get them into the pot. They get cooked.

I can well imagine the objections the Bloc raises in this connection, just as I am hearing now from an hon. member opposite. The Bloc maintains that the questions asked during the 1980 and 1995 referenda were clear. On the contrary, they were nothing of the kind, because they referred to such vague, nebulous concepts as association and partnership which, as I just pointed out, tend to cloud and skew the issue.

To demonstrate the confusion generated by the question asked on the last referendum, I want to refer to the statement made by Professor Maurice Pinard before the parliamentary committee studying Bill C-20.

In Professor Pinard's own words:

In 1995, only about 50% of respondents realized that sovereignty did not necessarily mean partnership. The others believed that sovereignty would not be declared if partnership could not be achieved.

How can it be contested, in light of such figures, that the referendum question put to Quebecers in 1995 was ambiguous when its true significance escaped half the voters?

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I would remind members that all questions and comments must be put to other members though the Chair.

I would also ask members on both sides to be careful in their choice of words. We must show respect.

[Bill Matthews, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Madam Speaker, it seems that my remarks are striking a chord or a nerve with some members opposite. I do not know why that is. I guess it goes back to the point I just made that the referendum question put to Quebecers in 1995 was ambiguous.

The significance escaped half the voters. How can the government be reproached for requiring that in future such debate be held in a context of pure clarity? Is that too much to ask? No one on this side of the House thinks it is. We want clarity. We want a clear question and we want a clear majority.

In conclusion, I want to make one further criticism of the motion. It attempts to paint a false picture of what the Bélanger-Campeau Commission really proposed. One of the scenarios in the commission's recommendations was that a referendum on Quebec sovereignty should be held. One would have to conclude that this proposal runs counter to what is being touted these days by the leader of the Parti Quebecois, who talks about some form of confederative association without defining what it actually means.

The Bélanger-Campeau Commission also envisioned the possibility of an offer, originating from the Government of Canada, of a new constitutional partnership. Under such a scenario, Quebec could and would stay within Canada. That is the true nature of the partnership the Bélanger-Campeau Commission was talking about.

Needless to say, it in no way corresponds to the meaning the hon. member opposite wants to convey through his motion, which is every bit as vague and misleading as the question put to Quebecers in 1980 and 1995.

Quebecers already have an effective partnership, one that works very well. That partnership has a name, and that name is Canada. Quebecers want to keep it that way and they are absolutely right. The Government of Canada, and I cannot reiterate this strongly enough, does not want to prevent Quebecers from making their choice.

[Scott Reid, Canadian Alliance, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to say a few words about the Clarity Act.

The question of the clear majority was mentioned by the hon. parliamentary secretary. That provision of the law, it deserves to be said here, is very unclear. It is important to point that out because the law is often presented as a model of clarity. However that part of the law does not specify what a clear majority would be. It only says that we would hold hearings after a referendum has occurred and after 50% has been achieved in deciding whether a majority has been clear.

When I was a private citizen about this time last year, I came as an expert witness before the committee looking at Bill C-20. I made this observation and suggested that provision of the law be changed. I regret that my advice was not taken.

I suggest, however, that what the government has done is given more credibility to the 50% plus one model while taking away from that sense of validity. The government has, therefore, in passing this law, perhaps achieved the opposite of its objective.

I will also read the motion we are debating today, because I want to make a point with regard to it:

The motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should recognize the conclusion of the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, which proposed, in 1991, that the National Assembly of Quebec adopt legislation on holding a referendum and the offer of a new partnership, and that no federal legislation or regulations should be incompatible with achieving this conclusion.

That is not quite historically accurate. The last part of the motion which follows the last comma does not accurately reflect what was said by the Bélanger-Campeau commission in its report.

The Bélanger-Campeau commission made four pages of recommendations. The four pages were primarily in the form of a proposed law to be put before the National Assembly of Quebec. Part of the proposed law, which was adopted by the national assembly, called for the establishment of a parliamentary commission of the national assembly for the review of an offer.

I can find nothing in the recommendations that suggests no federal law or regulation ought to be adopted contrary to those recommendations or contrary to the offer to be made. We ought to be clear that we are not debating an historically accurate motion today.

The hon. parliamentary secretary had a good point when he said that the real function of the motion was to suggest that the clarity act was illegitimate. It is an awkward way of approaching it. If I were to regard it as illegitimate, I would attack some of the contents of the act, such as the part to which I just made reference. I find other parts of the act to be quite valuable, particularly the requirement that a clear question be asked.

The subtext of the motion makes reference to or hints at a proposal put forward by Jean-François Lisée in his book Sortie de Secours . He proposed to put forward one part of the supreme court's decision in its reference, Renvoi relatif à la sécession du Québec, and I will read the section:

A clear majority vote in Quebec on a clear question in favour of secession would confer democratic legitimacy on the secession initiative which all of the other participants in Confederation would have to recognize.

This has been read by Mr. Lisée as meaning that not only could a proposal on secession put forward and voted upon by the people of Quebec be taken to the Government of Canada as grounds for mandatory good faith negotiations, but so too could a proposal for some form of new partnership.

It is an interesting reading of the court's reference and not one the court intended. The court is always happy to make readings of the constitution that bear no resemblance to the meaning put there by the original writers of the constitution, so perhaps fair is fair.

It seems Mr. Lisée's intention is to have a referendum question on a new partnership put before the people of Quebec, one that would seem reasonable to the people of Quebec but would be worded in such a way that it would not appear reasonable to people in the rest of the country. It would create some form of negotiations that would be impossible to resolve, much like the negotiations that took place during the Meech-Charlottetown period in our history. This would cause the kind of crisis that the Parti Quebecois government is having so much trouble generating on its own, no matter how many comments about red rags are made by the premier of Quebec.

We must be aware that the subtext is in the motion. If it were a votable motion, we would have good grounds to vote against it and to reject its proposals. I also want to make reference to the fact that there is something legitimate in what is being said.

I will turn to another group that is proposing changes to the Canadian constitution. I am referring to the group led by Stephen Harper, Ken Boessenkool, Tom Flanagan and others known as the Alberta 6. In its open letter to Ralph Klein about two months ago, it proposed that Alberta:

Use Section 88 of the Supreme Court's decision on the Quebec Secession Reference to force Senate reform back on the national agenda. Our reading of that decision is that the federal government and other provinces must seriously consider our proposal for constitutional reform endorsed by “a clear majority on a clear question” in a provincial referendum.

Referring directly to the premier, the group said:

You acted decisively once before to hold a senatorial election. Now is time to drive the issue further.

It is saying that provinces need to have some sort of means to force on to the national agenda issues which are currently only on the provincial agenda but which are legitimate. That is a legitimate point they are making.

That point would be equally legitimate in the case of the concerns of Quebecers. Their concerns are unable to make it on to the national agenda, largely because they get tangled up in the whole question of separation versus remaining in Canada, and the partisan divide that exists in Quebec, as it does everywhere, because of our highly partisan political structure.

Referendums do break through that. We saw that demonstrated brilliantly when we in fact had a crisis in the country. It looked as if the crisis would drive the country apart. A referendum was held nationwide in October 1992, largely because of the Bélanger-Campeau commission recommendations.

Canadians realized that it was a great deal more complex than they had thought it was. The issue was not simply a matter of those rotten separatists, those rotten people in Ottawa or in the rest of the country who would not listen to us and give legitimacy to our positions.

We realized that the constitutional proposals offered were in a vast unworkable package deal. A majority of Quebecers voted against those proposals, as did a majority of people in a number of the other provinces. The issue itself faded away and the unity crisis that could have broken up the country also passed.

It is my own reading of that time. I was an active participant on the no side in that referendum. We were in greater danger as a country in 1992 than we were three years later in 1995 when the provincial referendum in Quebec was held.

While I am a supporter of direct democracy, I am probably the strongest supporter of direct democracy in the House, with the possible exception of my hon. colleague from Vancouver Island North. Nevertheless, I have some reservations about this sort of back door method of introducing the concept of direct democracy, and of putting regional concerns through a referendum on to the national stage.

I would suggest reasons for this kind of reservation by way of reference to one of the great constitutional thinkers in the British parliamentary tradition. I am referring to Albert Venn Dicey who wrote the brilliant work Law of the Constitution in the 1880s. It was then updated until his death in 1915.

He talked about the role of referendum and plebiscite in the British parliamentary system and whether it was compatible with the system. He suggested that the plebiscite, as practised in France, was incompatible with it. This is the kind of referendum we are talking about here. What he meant by plebiscite was: initiated by government usually on some vague proposal as opposed to specific legislation such as an order to negotiate.

By contrast, he suggested the Swiss model of citizen initiated referendum on a specific legislative means. That would be the most productive way of achieving the kind of goals that might unite us all, including my hon. colleague who suggested the motion.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure to speak to the motion brought forward by my brilliant colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.

The member has defended, with all the passion he is known for and all his ability, recognized by all I am sure, the need to acknowledge that Bill C-20 would have prevented Robert Bourassa from holding the referendum he wanted to hold right after the passage in Quebec of the act calling for a referendum in the fall of 1992.

This point has to be made. It is very enlightening. The members feel reassured when they hear the government's propaganda, when they hear the government saying again and again that there are no more problems in Quebec, that Quebecers do not want a referendum.

A few months before the 1995 referendum, however, Quebecers did not want a referendum. Yet they still went to vote, 94% of them, and we all know what the results almost were. Canada had to resort to those things that my colleague talked about to ensure that the referendum would not pass.

I would like to point out that all this is not a whim. I will not go as far back as 1760, but in passing I would like to remind members that, when Lord Durham arrived here in 1838, he made this now famous statement “I found two nations warring in the bosom of a single state”. It would appear nothing has changed since then.

What Durham had understood and what we are still struggling with, is that French Canadians had to be put in a minority situation before the colonies could have responsible government. Once they were in a minority situation, responsible government could be granted. That is in fact what happened. Durham wanted to go further; he wanted assimilation. He said it was for “the good of the French Canadians who would for ever be carriers of water”.

Yes, Quebecers were reduced to a minority. For a long time, Quebecers expressed their nationalism in various ways, including wanting Canada to sever its ties with England, while the good English Canadians were very attached, and many still are, to mother England.

In the sixties, following the independence of the former colonies in Africa, Asia, and the liberation of Cuba and South America, a more radical nationalist movement emerged.

Daniel Johnson whose father, an Irishman by birth and, a contributor to Sinn Fein, did not speak French, ran for his party saying “My platform is equality or independence”. This was in 1965. His own father did not speak French; he was Irish. Because of this, perhaps he had a better understanding of the fact that the situation of French Canadians deserved, if they could not achieve equality, that there be a national movement for independence. This was Daniel Johnson in 1965. I urge members to read his book again. It is excellent.

The movement that became the Parti Quebecois grew progressively: in 1966, 8% of the votes went to the indépendantistes; in 1970, it was 23%; in 1997, 30% and in 1976, 41%. For the 1980 referendum, Mr. Lévesque, who had really wanted this country, a country associated with Canada, had to leave, not without having entered into negotiations with Mr. Mulroney, who had just been elected. Why? To regain the powers Quebec had lost with the unilateral patriation of the constitution by Trudeau.

René Lévesque had to leave. Pierre-Marc Johnson was premier for a short time. Who took up the torch to try at least to regain the powers lost because of Trudeau? It was a good federalist, Robert Bourassa. It was Robert Bourassa who led this negotiation. It was Robert Bourassa who was premier when the Meech Lake accord failed in June 1990.

What has happened since? We had the Charlottetown accord, which was far from being clear. The Charlottetown accord did not solve anything. In 1995 there was a referendum and the outcome could not have been closer. One might think that everything is solved. Come on.

There is something incomprehensible in the blindness shown by the House of Commons and by the political class in Canada. There is something absolutely incredible. As I said, this is incomprehensible.

When we go abroad, what seems the most incomprehensible is the fact that, on Canada's side, nothing serious was done afterwards. Nothing serious was done in this House. There was a minor motion that, somewhere, contained the word people, and another motion that gave an extra veto to British Columbia, which would make it even harder for Quebec to use its veto.

What my young and brilliant colleague wants to bring back in this House is at least a first hour of debate on that substantive issue, because Quebec will never leave on the ocean. We will always remain neighbours with Ontario and the maritimes.

Bill C-20 did not settle anything. Do not be lulled by it. It does not settle anything because the desire for sovereignty, where attempts were made elsewhere to crush it, has grown stronger. It seems to me that this parliament should recognize—and this is what my colleague's motion is asking for—that this desire must be allowed to be expressed unimpeded. But Bill C-20 is an impediment.

However, impediments never stopped this desire from being expressed. My point is that parliament ought to realize that this desire, this will be expressed.

The sovereignist movement in Quebec has been exemplary, exemplary in terms of democracy. We should be regularly thanked for that. We owe much of it to René Lévesque who, at the time of the FLQ crisis, it must be remembered, said that as long as the battle could be won democratically, violence was unacceptable.

René Lévesque remained steadfast. Finally, the movement disappeared. In fact, when all the police forces investigating the FLQ pulled out, we realized that it no longer existed. But that is another story.

What my colleague is pointing out, and I want to point out also, is that Bill C-20 is designed to prevent the people from expressing its desire to be both sovereign and associated with Canada. I cannot see how an illegitimate law will prevent that from happening.

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

Through you, Madam Speaker, I want to thank all those who have taken part in this debate as well as the students who have listened to it. I do not know the name of their school but I am impressed with the fact that they are here on a Friday afternoon and I thank them for it.

What we have to remind ourselves this afternoon is that Quebec is in itself a nation which aspires to a different future than Saskatchewan, British Columbia or Prince Edward Island.

I am grateful to the member for Mercier, whose well-known knowledge of history has touched the member for Hull—Aylmer, for reminding us that the sovereignist movement is based first and foremost on a very strong attachment to democracy.

This attachment is so strong that three of the main leaders of the movement have created political parties to ensure that their option would be systematically submitted to an assessment and acceptance by the electorate.

Ever since the Bélanger-Campeau commission, it has been clear that one cannot be both a Canadian and a Quebecer. Why is it impossible? I must say that this has nothing to do with individual friendships because, on a personal level, I have nothing but friends here in the House. It is just simply impossible to live within a system of government where all the provinces are considered equal in fact and in law and, at the same time, to think that Quebec will be recognized as a nation.

We cannot live under a government which unilaterally patriated the Constitution, which forced upon us the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the charter that invalidated complete sections of our own Charter of the French Language, Bill 101, which is the main vehicle for securing public participation in our collective culture through the French language.

Sometimes, incompatibility runs very deep, and Quebecers will have to realize that. It is far from insignificant that, ever since its creation by the former government, under Kim Campbell at the beginning of the 1990s, the Department of Canadian Heritage has constantly sought to strengthen the Canadian identity. In the 1990s, the Department of Canadian Heritage commissioned three comprehensive studies that proved that we do not have in Canada any national symbol that strikes a chord with all Canadians from sea to sea.

Multiculturalism must be a partial explanation. We think that in our society all cultures should not be put on the same footing and that Quebec will keep its distinctive character.

In the coming years Quebecers will have to make their choices, with these issues and identity factors in mind. I am grateful that the premier of Quebec has reminded us that Quebec is a different province and that it constitutes a nation.

The government can use all its propaganda machine to sweep the national issue under the carpet. However, this issue will periodically re-emerge for as long as Quebec will not democratically choose to become independent. When we will have chosen to become independent, we will be able to speak to each other as equal partners, nation to nation, each controlling its own political space.

We know that the idea of partnership was always at the heart of the sovereignist project, from René Lévesque and Jacques Parizeau to Lucien Bouchard and now, of course, Bernard Landry. We do want to maintain our economic ties with our Canadian partner, but we want to do it within a political frame that will recognize what we are.

That is what the Bélanger-Campeau commission reminded us of. The commission said: “There are two options”. The first was to give Canada still another chance. Only Quebecers could believe federalism could still be reformed, even after the failure of the Meech Lake accord, even after our most basic demands were rejected, even after the Meech Lake accord was rejected.

The Bélanger-Campeau commission gave this option a chance. It has now become clear that the only fitting and democratic option left to Quebecers is sovereignty, and we are convinced that it will be achieved.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. Since the motion has not been made a votable item, it is dropped from the order paper.

It being 2.25 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2.25 p.m.)