Mr. Speaker, the motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition is very important. The big fuss made by the government this morning about the way we are proceeding shows how significant and important this motion is.
Later this afternoon we will see if the Prime Minister will vote against his own democratic philosophy. We will also see if Liberal members will disavow their own Prime Minister's statement by voting against the motion. Above all, we will know where the Prime Minister stands between his fine rhetoric and his concrete actions.
For us, democracy is sacred. It is one of the greatest political legacies we can leave to our children, and we will fight for this democracy, as our ancestors did in Quebec. That is why we are saying straight out that democracy has precedence over the law. The rule of law does not stand up to a democratic verdict.
When a people hands down a democratic decision, no government, no court, not even a constitution can stop this people. This kind of decision is so important that the federal government has intervened in both Quebec referendums. In 1980 and again in 1995, the federal government felt the need to intervene in Quebec's referendum debate because it knew that, in making a decision, the people of Quebec were showing how important the democratic action of casting a ballot was to them.
In 1980-I will not insist on this because I think we all know our history, but it is still worthwhile to remind the members across the way who seem to have forgotten-in 1980, democracy was so important, the referendum was such an important event that the federal government had to intervene. Seventy-four out of the 75 Liberal members at the time put their seats at stake and made promises to Quebecers. Why? Because democracy is important, because the referendum results were important.
In 1995-a very recent event in everyone's memory-the federal government intervened once again. Once again, it made promises to the people of Quebec, including three major promises: distinct society, a right of veto, and the decentralization of powers. Everyone in Quebec knows that what was said in November and in the days following the referendum is rubbish; they did not keep the promise they made, in October 1995 for example.
Democracy will judge this government as it did following the unilateral patriation of the Constitution in 1982. It is democracy that will judge this government. It is also democracy, at the level of the Quebec people, that will decide whether or not Quebec will become a sovereign country.
What this means, I guess, is that the federal government took these two referendums seriously. It was fully aware of the implications. Moreover, just days before the last referendum, the Prime Minister of Canada addressed the nation, saying: "The decision the people of Quebec are about to make will be irreversible". That is quite a statement.
Indeed, in a democracy, when the people have spoken, it must be acknowledged and taken seriously, without interpretation. You do not come out and say that the result is not valid, because the question was not clear or what have you. You speak up when it is time to speak up. In 1980 and in 1995 for instance, the members opposite were involved in the debate. They participated in it. They should acknowledge the result, as they will have to acknowledge the result of the next referendum, which, this time, the people of Quebec will win.
The Prime Minister knows it. In his 1985 book entitled Straight from the Heart , he clearly stated: ``If we don't win, I'll respect the wishes of Quebeckers and let them separate''. There is no room for interpretation in there. This is the same man and he will accept separation if that is what the people of Quebec wish.
Why would he change his tune? In Quebec, we are used to hearing the Prime Minister make contradictory statements. But this week, he really surpassed himself. He has one version for Quebec, another one for English Canada and we learned he has yet another for the international community. Interviewed on an American program rebroadcasted in Mexico and Australia, he held a totally
different view of democracy, a view which may be more in keeping with international law and with the statement he made in his book in 1985.
The Prime Minister's rhetoric changes depending on the circumstances: before or after a referendum. He does not give the same definition of democracy in the days leading to a Quebec referendum and in the days following a Quebec referendum. His rhetoric and his definition of democracy change when he is the one planning a unilateral move, as in the case of the patriation of the Constitution in 1982. As far as I know, he had not been given any democratic mandate to patriate the Constitution, but he did just the same.
Now, when a majority of Quebecers decide through a democratic referendum that they want a country called Quebec, the Prime Minister will say it is illegal, or that Quebec cannot unilaterally decide to become independent. This makes no sense.
It did not really surprise me to hear the Prime Minister tell Quebecers, on the eve of a referendum, that their choice would be irreversible. Nor was I surprised to then hear him say that Quebec could not unilaterally declare its independence, and to find out that there is another version for international affairs.
What surprises me though is the government's strategy to take Quebecers head on. This surprises me. I am also surprised to see the Prime Minister join forces with a character such as Mr. Bertrand. This surprises me, considering the declaration made by the Prime Minister about the motion moved by the Leader of the Official Opposition.
I would like to propose an amendment to the motion. I move:
.TPC Amendment
That the motion be amended by adding the following, immediately after the word "stated":
in Straight from the Heart ,
Why do I move this amendment? Simply because I want the government to know exactly where the quote comes from. When we make a claim, we can prove it. When the official opposition makes a claim, it can prove it. The declaration referred to in our motion is in the book Straight from the heart , which the Prime Minister may have written at a quieter and less emotional time, probably when he was getting ready to run against John Turner for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada.
This statement is undoubtedly a more accurate reflection of the democratic spirit of the Prime Minister. I do not doubt for one moment that the Prime Minister is a democrat and that he really means what he wrote in 1985 in Straight from the heart . Given the motion moved by the leader of the opposition and my amendment, members opposite have all the necessary information to make their decision.
I hope they will not disavow such an important statement from the Prime Minister. I hope the Prime Minister will not go back on his own word and will support the Bloc Quebecois motion, which reads:
That the House endorse the declaration of the Prime Minister of Canada, who stated in Straight from the heart , in 1985, ``If we don't win, I'll respect the wishes of Quebeckers and let them separate.''
This is what democracy is all about.
