Mr. Speaker, as a Quebec MP, I am pleased to take part in today's debate on the future of Quebec within Canada.
I find the motion before us significant on more than one account because it stresses our democratic values. It is not every day we parliamentarians have the opportunity to discuss such an issue; this is the reason why I find this debate so important.
Our government's position should another referendum be called in Quebec, the third one in less than 20 years, has always been clear. We do not want to deny Quebeckers the right to decide to separate from Canada if they believe it is the best thing to do.
What we have always maintained however is that the referendum process must be clear and allow Quebeckers to fully understand what is at stake. Whether we are for or against Quebec's secession, it would inevitably have a serious impact on every field of human activity, not only in Quebec, but also in the rest of Canada. This is the reason why the process must be clear. This is the reason why we are making sure it will be.
Bloc members accuse us at times of wanting to deny Quebeckers the right to decide their own future. Nothing is further from the truth. Canadians have always been known for their sense of freedom and democracy. This country was built on openness and tolerance. Respect for these ideals and their implementation give Canadians a very enviable reputation internationally. This legacy inherited from our forefathers is part of our identity and, as Quebeckers and Canadians, there is probably nothing we hold as dear as what sets us apart from the rest of the world.
As the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs so rightly said, Canada would no longer be Canada if was not based on the voluntary participation of all its constituent parts. Nobody is forced to be part of this country. Anybody who accuses our government of trying to exercise such force does not understand our position at all or does not want to understand it.
We respect democracy, but contrary to some of our friends opposite, we also believe in clarity. We do not want Quebeckers to lose their country over a misunderstanding.
We do not want the democratic experience to be turned into a bad joke. People have the right to understand what they stand to lose by opting for Quebec's separation. They will have to make their choice with full knowledge of the facts.
Bloc members will undoubtedly wonder why we are so prudent with them, since we have already taken part in two other referendum campaigns at the end of which Quebeckers still expressed the will to remain Canadians. The answer is simple: since 1995, several facts that were made public clearly demonstrated that the referendum process had not been followed with a concern for the respect of democracy.
Let us recall the controversial statements of Jacques Parizeau about a unilateral declaration of independence. Indeed, the three party agreement signed on June 12, 1995 between Mr. Parizeau, Mr. Bouchard and Mr. Dumont included dubious aspects. Concluded in mid-panic in the face of the probability of a bitter defeat, it had the effect of confusing Quebeckers by painting in glowing colours the possibility of an economic and political association with Canada, which Mr. Parizeau himself had never believed in.
Indeed, we have to see that the approach suggested by secessionist leaders—to use an euphemism—has not always been crystal clear. And how. For years opinion polls have been showing that a clear question on Quebec's independence gets less support than if vague and utopian concepts such as “association” and “partnership” are added to it.
Association and partnership scenarios are continually presented as certainties, when over the years all successive federal governments and those of the other provinces have always rejected the sovereignist option.
In this regard, results of the last referendum are most revealing. A few months before October 30, 1995, an opinion poll indicated that 80% of Quebeckers, including 61% of yes side supporters, said they were “proud to be both Quebeckers and Canadians”. Yet, 49% of Quebeckers voted in favour of sovereignty on that day.
Other results also enlighten us on the ambiguity that was knowingly fostered by secessionist leaders with regard to their option. According to a poll conducted at the very end of the referendum campaign, 80% of Quebeckers who intended to vote yes thought that, should the yes side win, Quebec would automatically continue to use the Canadian dollar as its currency. Close to 80% believed that economic ties with Canada would remain unchanged, while 50% thought they would continue to use the Canadian passport, and 25% believed Quebec would continue to elect federal members of Parliament. Another poll showed that close to 20% of yes voters thought that a sovereign Quebec could continue to be a Canadian province.
As you probably remember, the question asked in the referendum held on October 30, 1995 was based on the tripartite agreement of June 12, 1995. Unlike in 1980, when the question was made public five months before the referendum, the PQ government released the 1995 question only six weeks before the vote.
The agreement reached by Parizeau, Bouchard and Dumont was quite extraordinary in its own way. The government pledged that, once the secessionist plan was approved by a majority of people, it would wait one year before proclaiming sovereignty and would conduct negotiations on the infamous economic and political association project with the rest of Canada. However, as Mr. Parizeau would later say, nothing would have prevented Quebec from deciding that the negotiations were going nowhere, thus leaving it free to make a move whenever it deemed it appropriate to do so. This is sure a nice example of transparency and of respect toward Quebeckers.
I will not dwell on the remarkable unworkability of the 1995 sovereignist project. I simply want to stress the confusion that it generated among Quebeckers. A confusing and convoluted question almost resulted in the breakup of the country. We do not want the fate of our country to be dependent on tricks or semantics.
We want clarity, not confusion. The democratic process does not truly fulfil its purpose if we try to confuse voters instead of helping them make a decision. Voters must understand the consequences of their decision, and it is precisely the role of the government to make sure they do.
We are in favour of democracy, but we also trust Quebeckers' judgment. Quebeckers played a major role in the building of our country. They have left their mark throughout history, thanks to their determination and their drive. Canada provides them with even greater opportunities. Quebeckers excel in many areas.
What we inherited from my ancestors, yours and all those who came to settle in this beautiful country of ours is the strong will to build our future on a solid base made up of solidarity, compassion, freedom and respect for our differences.
These values come out for instance in our social programs and the assistance we provide to any part of the country that is hit by a natural disaster. These values are enshrined in our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is the kind of country I want to pass on to the next generations of Quebeckers and Canadians.
The right of Quebeckers to decide their own future is at the very heart of the initiatives the Government of Canada has taken to clarify the problems that could eventually arise from the separation of Quebec and the breakup of Canada. Yes, I believe in the future of Canada and I firmly believe that, in a democratic process that would respect all of the principles underlying our federation, Quebeckers will decide to remain in the country they have helped so much to build.
We cannot support this motion after seeing the Bloc Quebecois refuse to recognize the rule of law and the principle of democracy for all. Such a refusal cannot be approved by the people of Beauce, by Quebeckers and even by Canadians.
