Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to inform you that I will share my time with the hon. member for Bourassa.
I welcome this opportunity today to respond to the speech from the throne pronounced by the governor general last February, on behalf of the government. How time flies: it has already been eight months since the speech was pronounced.
Nevertheless, today's debate is useful in that with the passing of time, we have a better picture of how the government has acted on its commitments.
As we read the speech from the throne, we notice, for instance, that the government officially set the scene for its post-referendum strategy in dealing with the Quebec government. This strategy, known by everyone as plan B, basically consists in a hardening of the government's position on the freedom of Quebecers to decide on their political future.
In this respect, the governor general said the following, and I quote: "But as long as the prospect of another Quebec referendum exists, the government will exercise its responsibility to ensure that the debate is conducted with all the facts on the table, that the rules of the process are fair, that the consequences are clear, and that Canadians, no matter where they live, will have their say in the future of their country".
Considering last year's quasi-victory of the sovereignists in the referendum on October 30 and the way every part of English Canada criticized the role played by the government during the referendum, the latter felt it would be politically more effective to take a hard line. But in fact, the government's strategy of resorting to plan B merely confirms the chronic inability of Canadian federalism to renew itself and to find durable solutions for dealing with Quebec's traditional demands.
A few days before the referendum, when the polls were leaning increasingly to the yes side, the Prime Minister had the fright of his life. He then shook himself out of his legendary torpor in Verdun and went so far as to promise to entrench the distinct identity of Quebec in the Constitution and to give Quebec a veto.
In an article entitled "The Secret Summit", published in the October 21 issue of Macleans and excerpted from the forthcoming book Double Vision by two journalists, we read that a few days after the referendum, the Prime Minister had become obsessed by the promise he had made in Verdun to have Quebec recognized as a distinct society.
In an attempt to trap Jacques Parizeau's successor, Lucien Bouchard, the Prime Minister developed an ultimately unsuccessful scenario that would allow him to enshrine the distinct society concept in the Constitution. He needed the support of 7 provinces representing at least 50 per cent of the population. In this regard, according to the article in Maclean's , the Prime Minister could count on the support of the premiers of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, but not of course, that of the then premier of Newfoundland, Clyde Wells.
Knowing that the Prime Minister could not count either on the premiers of Alberta and British Columbia, he had to get Ontario's Mike Harris on side. Maclean's also tells us that, three days after the referendum, the Prime Minister had a secret meeting with Mike Harris so he could explain to him his plan for entrenching the notion of distinct society in the Constitution.
Unfortunately for the Prime Minister, Mike Harris refused to support his post-referendum strategy. Make no mistake: the Prime Minister's main concern was to save the little credibility he had left in Quebec and force our hand so we would accept a meaningless concept.
If the Prime Minister's strategy had worked, that is to say, if Mike Harris had decided to support him, the blame would, of course, have been laid at Lucien Bouchard's door.
When his strategy failed, the Prime Minister tried to save face with regard to his last-minute referendum commitments in Verdun by passing, in December 1995, a simple parliamentary resolution stating-it was more like wishful thinking-that Quebec is a distinct society, and a bill giving Quebec and Canada's four other regions the right of veto with the effect of further reducing the likelihood that the Constitution will ever be amended.
Since then, the Prime Minister has repeated at every opportunity that he would like to enshrine these two measures in the Constitution, but is prevented from doing so by Quebec's sovereignist
government. We have since come to realize that the argument raised by the Prime Minister is nothing but a smoke screen.
In fact, two weeks ago, the Prime Minister, exasperated by all this, said on the French-language all-news channel that he had done enough in this area and now wanted to focus his efforts on economic issues.
After inflaming the situation, the Prime Minister would rather bury the whole constitutional issue, knowing full well that any amendment to the Constitution that would deal specifically with Quebec would not received the necessary support from the other provinces.
Consequently, this week, the Minister of Justice told us he was contemplating asking that the Supreme Court to define what would be involved if Quebec were considered a distinct society, if the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs cannot achieve a consensus on this issue in the next few months.
It is as though this government cannot make a move without seeking the opinion of the Supreme Court. In September, the matter of the legality of Quebec's sovereignty was referred to the Supreme Court. Now, they are considering asking the Supreme Court to define the concept of distinct society.
This going to the Supreme Court all the time to settle what are essentially political issues is cause for concern. By constantly referring matters to the Supreme Court, the government is simply shirking its responsibilities.
Need I remind the House that Confederation as we know it was a compromise between two founding peoples, the French speaking one being found mainly in Quebec. These two peoples entered into a confederal agreement where the various political entities, that is to say the provinces, have delegated certain powers to the central government.
This solemn agreement between the two peoples has always been perceived, at least in Quebec, as something that cannot be changed without the consent of both parties. This agreement was breached at the time of the patriation of the Constitution by the federal government in 1982.
On May 15, 1980, before the Quebec referendum on sovereignty-association, the Prime Minister of the day, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, had made it clear that voting no in the referendum would be interpreted as voting yes to renewing Canadian federalism.
Instead, two years later, the Constitution was patriated and a charter of rights incorporated in the Constitution, all without the consent of Quebec. The principle whereby all Canadians from coast to coast are equal, a right guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, precludes the specific recognition of Quebec as a society in the Constitution. Similarly, the principle of multiculturalism has been entrenched in the Constitution, while Canada's duality and Quebec's distinctiveness were not. The 1982 constitutional changes, which were implemented despite Quebec's persistent opposition, reflect the contempt in which the government of the day held Quebec.
It is obvious from the constitutional debates over the past three decades, and more recently, the failure of Meech and Charlottetown, that there is no hope of the renewal of federalism being in line with the best interests of Quebec. The five conditions set out in the Meech Lake accord, the least ever requested by a Quebec government, were already enough to make English Canada shudder, and there is every indication that Ottawa-Quebec City relations are going nowhere.
Whether we like it or not, Quebec is still in a catch 22 situation in the federation. Will we realize once and for all that it would be a sheer waste of time, energy and public funds to go down the road of constitutional negotiations again, when these are doomed to fail?
Under the circumstances, it is in the interests of the peoples of Quebec and Canada that all these issues be resolved once and for all. The only solution that will allow our two peoples to thrive is for Quebec to achieve independence. As equal and sovereign partners, they will be able to move on and develop side by side in the best interests of both.
