Madam Speaker, no one will dispute the fact that everyone in this House was elected on the basis of a platform they presented to the public.
My own included the following: first, as a Quebecer I believe in Canada; second, as a Quebecer I believe in its democracy; third, as a Quebecer I believe in its future; fourth, I believe that in spite of all the flaws that our country may have, these flaws should not affect our future prospects.
These are the convictions that I expressed to the voters of Brossard—La Prairie, and they gave me the mandate to promote these convictions, because they share them. This is why day after day, if not hour after hour, I strive to fulfil my responsibilities with integrity, decency and fairness.
It is in that context that I rise today to support the clarity bill.
Let me briefly explain how I view the role of the Canadian parliament in this regard, a role in which parliament must respect the Quebec national assembly as much as it must respect itself.
The Quebec Referendum Act passed by the national assembly in December 1977 allows a government—in this case the Quebec national assembly—to consult the population on a specific issue. The national assembly has an indisputable and essential right in that regard.
It can, very legitimately, decide alone to hold a referendum. It can, very legitimately, decide alone which question it will ask. It can, very legitimately, note the results of that consultation. However, after that public consultation the Quebec national assembly must make a political decision.
After the consultation a political decision must be made. Under the circumstances, the issue for the Quebec government then becomes the following: on the basis of the public vote on the question that was asked, can we legitimately undertake negotiations on the secession of Quebec?
To illustrate my point, let me quote Robert Burns, who was a minister in the government of Mr. Lévesque in 1977. He said:
This is why, in the current situation, a referendum can only have a consultative value, even if this consultative value does not diminish in any way the moral value of a referendum with the government, which will not, I believe, override with impunity the clearly and widely expressed will of the people.
This is exactly what the Parliament of Canada is doing.
We, like Mr. Burns at the time, make a connection between the “clearly and widely expressed will of the people” to the legitimacy of our decision, as political actors, to enter into negotiations for Quebec secession.
Consequently, it is clear that this bill does not aim in any way at giving a framework to the national assembly. It aims at giving a framework to our role, as the federal parliament, in case these conditions on clarity are fulfilled.
Quebec has some institutions, laws and processes to allow it to fully assume its rights and responsibilities. These are exactly the same rights and responsibilities that I am claiming on behalf of the Parliament of Canada, the right to interpret the legitimacy of the political approach as a political actor having responsibility for Canada.
In Quebec, it is the same voters who elect Quebec members to the national assembly and to the House of Commons. Voters have given to all of their elected people different but complementary responsibilities.
Today I am taking the responsibilities given to me by my constituents. I am taking them by supporting a bill that is necessary today, but which I hope will never be used. Let us never again remain silent when myths are spread around. Let us never again remain silent in the face of what I perceive as manipulation. Let us never again remain silent in the face of what I perceive as exclusion policies.
As a Quebecer, to counter myths, I propose transparency. As a Quebecer, to counter manipulation, I propose clarity. As a Quebecer, to counter exclusion policies, I propose Canada.
