Pierrette Venne

[Negotiation Terms Of Separation Act, September 26th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-230 introduced by the member for Okanagan-Shuswap is entitled An Act to provide for a national referendum to authorize the government to negotiate terms of separation with a province that has voted for separation from Canada. It proposes rules which would apply to a referendum on the separation of a province from the rest of Canada.

In spite of its neutral wording, it is obvious that this bill primarily seeks to impose on the province of Quebec rules for its next referendum on sovereignty.

What the member for Okanagan-Shuswap proposes is strangely similar to the secession act passed in 1990 by the Soviet regime, in the former USSR. I will remind the member of certain facts regarding the passing of this act. Unlike Canada's constitution, the constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialists Republic included a clause granting republics the right to freely separate from the USSR, without any procedures or conditions.

At the beginning of the nineties, following the crumbling of the Gorbachev regime and of the Berlin wall, some sovereignist parties took office in certain republics. Given this situation, president Gorbachev quickly had the Soviet government pass an act on secession.

The act, which was passed in April 1990, set the conditions for separation. In fact, it sought to make it impossible to exercise this right by the means proposed in Bill C-230. For example, the Soviet legislation defined the referendum procedure to be used by the republics, including the type of initiative allowed, the voting procedure and the number of ballots required for the decision to be valid.

The bill proposed by the member for Okanagan-Shuswap gives the House of Commons and the Senate the right to rule on the eligibility of the question and its wording, should the yes side win.

Indeed, should the yes side win, the Senate and the House of Commons will determine whether the question that was put was a simple and direct question; whether an affirmative vote was cast by a majority of at least fifty per cent plus one; whether the referendum was held in compliance with the laws of the separating province and whether its results were recorded on the basis of the electoral districts of the province; whether notice of the referendum appeared in the Canada Gazette and in at least one major newspaper in each riding of the province which, of course, means Quebec; whether the effect of a vote in favour of separation was clearly stated on the ballot including: the fact that the province will become a separate state, foreign to Canada; that it will cease to be a province of Canada; that it will cease to have representation in the Senate and House of Commons; that its residents will lose the right to be citizens of Canada; that they will lose the right to hold a Canadian passport; and, finally, that they will lose the right to unrestricted entry to and travel within Canada, and the unrestricted right to work in Canada.

By granting the House of Commons and the Senate the right to review the holding of a referendum, the bill proposed by the member for Okanagan-Shuswap gives the two houses a veto over a province seeking to achieve sovereignty. Indeed, this bill provides that the conditions I just listed can only be met if the House of Commons and the Senate render a favourable decision.

In the current context, it would be surprising, to say the least, to expect members of this House and the other place to make an objective decision. In addition, the bill gives the House of Commons and the Senate the authority to refer to the Supreme Court any question relating to the holding of a separation referendum.

In point of fact, this bill allows the process whereby a province wishes to become independent to be defined by the courts. Should the will of a people to decide on its own destiny be relegated to questions of a legal nature?

The referral to the Supreme Court must please the Minister of Justice, since he confirmed only today that he intends to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court by submitting to it, by way of a constitutional reference, the question of the legality of Quebec's sovereignty. In fact, any legal strategy intended to thwart the will of a people must be eclipsed by the freedom of that people to democratically decide on its political future.

Nonetheless, once the Senate and the House of Commons have determined that the sovereignty referendum is valid, the Governor

in Council shall hold a Canada-wide referendum that is binding on the Government of Canada within one year.

The question in this Canada-wide referendum will be whether or not the people of Canada authorize the federal government to negotiate the terms of separation of the province wishing to secede. The legislation on secession passed by the Supreme Soviet of the former USSR that I mentioned a little earlier provided for the same consultation mechanism.

In the event that a republic voted in favour of sovereignty, this legislation required the results to be submitted to all the other republics in the Union. Like Bill C-230, the Soviet legislation on secession also made provision for the right of partition of certain groups within the Republic. These groups were literally given the right to secede from another group that was seceding.

The right to self-determination is an attribute of peoples and of nations. Quebec being a nation within the Canadian federation, it follows that, should it become sovereign, its borders would be guaranteed against any challenge by Canada, the corollary of this right to independence being the respect of the territory associated with this people or this nation.

It is illogical to say that a riding within the province could take advantage of that right, just as francophone populations outside Quebec could not demand to be linked back to Quebec.

Finally, we all know what happened to president Gorbachev's plan; the independentist republics simply ignored it. Let us be straight with ourselves, however: Canada cannot be compared to the former USSR of 1990. The mere fact that Bill C-230 is oddly inspired by such an authoritarian model does, however, give one pause, even though this trend is not a great surprise to anyone.

The Bloc Quebecois has always defended the principle of sovereignty of the provinces and their respective legislatures on their own territory. Provincial governments, being the elected representatives of the population, have the authority to achieve sovereignty, provided they receive a democratic mandate from their population to do so.

As I said a while ago, this bill is aimed primarily at Quebec. Should there be another referendum in Quebec, the bill is aimed at not only submitting the provincial government to the authority of the federal government, but also at preventing Quebec from exercising its right to sovereignty. The Bloc Quebecois has always been opposed to any move by the federal government to hamstring the Government of Quebec by dictating the conditions for access to sovereignty.

[Referendums, September 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Minister of Justice did not understand my question. I referred to "the will of Quebecers clearly expressed". That was my question. He is talking about the will of Canadians. I think the minister missed the point completely.

I think it would be only fair and reasonable to give him a second chance. I will put my question to the minister again. Could he explain exactly what "the will of Quebecers clearly expressed" means?

[Referendums, September 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. During his minister's statement this morning, the Minister of Justice said, and I quote:

The leading political figures of all the provinces and indeed the Canadian public have long agreed that this country will not be held together against the will of Quebecers clearly expressed.

Could the minister explain exactly what "the will of Quebecers clearly expressed" means?

[Quebec, September 26th, 1996]

They will do so because it is the best option for them and for future generations.

The close results of the last referendum are probably behind the federal government's decision to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on the legality of Quebec's sovereignty.

This reference to the Supreme Court of Canada is in line with the federal strategy that subordinates the legitimate right of the people of Quebec to accede democratically to sovereignty to the rule of law.

Both the Bloc Quebecois and the Quebec government have always said that accession to sovereignty is above all a political matter and not one that should be decided by the courts.

Oddly enough, in August 1995, shortly before the last referendum held in Quebec, the Minister of Justice said in a public statement that it was important to respect the democratic vote of Quebecers on the matter of sovereignty. To him it was a political, not a legal question.

I think it is also surprising that last spring, the Minister of Justice said that the federal government's participation in the Bertrand case was basically motivated by the involvement of the provincial government.

Since the Quebec government has withdrawn from this case, why has he now decided not only to withdraw from the Bertrand case but to pursue the matter alone before the Supreme Court?

It is because of the close results of the last referendum that the federal government is now asking the Supreme Court for its opinion on the legality of Quebec sovereignty. Resorting to the Supreme Court is part of the federal government's plan B strategy

which involves making the legitimacy of Quebecers' democratic accession to sovereignty subordinate to the rule of law.

Now that it is afraid of losing, the federal government is trying to throw doubt on the entire Quebec referendum process and to impose its own referendum laws. The feds have lost the political battle and are turning to the courts in order to save face.

The federal government's justification for its reference to the Supreme Court is based essentially on the concept of the rule of law.

However, when referendums were called in 1980 and 1995, this did not meet with legal objections from the federal government, which was, in fact, a major participant.

We saw this as a political acknowledgment of the process initiated by Quebec for its accession to sovereignty. In fact, it also acknowledged the legitimacy of the exercise initiated by the Government of Quebec.

The federal government must realize that the rule of law should always be justified by a respect for the democratic values and principles that prevail in our society. The rule of law should never take precedence over the will and the legitimate right of the people of Quebec to accede democratically to sovereignty.

We have said many times, and I say it again today, that the exercise initiated by the province of Quebec needs no definition by the courts.

[Quebec, September 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we are told that the federal government intends to seek the Supreme Court's opinion on the legality of Quebec's eventual accession to sovereignty.

Unlike what the Minister of Justice said at the beginning of his speech, I am convinced, and so are my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, that the people of Quebec will vote in favour of a sovereign Quebec in the next referendum.

[The Wording Of The Referendum Question, September 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Justice tell us whether the federal government will seek to obtain a favourable decision from the Supreme Court as to the possibility of holding its own Canada-wide referendum?

[The Wording Of The Referendum Question, September 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, to say the least, some clarifications of the lengthy responses we have just been given by the government are in order.

My question is for the Minister of Justice. Does the government intend to go ahead before the Supreme Court to ask its judges for a ruling on the federal government's power over the wording of the referendum question, the percentage required in a referendum, and the use of the power of disallowance?

[The Internet, September 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, an increasing number of our fellow citizens are surfing the Net. It is the latest craze. In October 1995 in Saint-Hubert, André Cyr founded Martinternet, the first and only French-language daily in Quebec to be designed and produced exclusively on the Internet.

Martinternet is read by over 5,000 people every day and is one of the three most popular web sites in Quebec.

Every day, this new electronic medium transmits in excess of 80 news briefs on various topics of current interest, thanks to the support of the Radiomédia news service and of some 15 contributors.

The success of this venture, which is not subsidized in any way, is due to the commitment of volunteers. Like the other information media, this web site will have to rely on advertisers to survive.

We wish Martinternet continued success on the information highway for the greater enjoyment of all the Internet fans out there.

[Supply, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for the riding of Saint-Hubert and on behalf of my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois, I would like to say that we are opposed to the motion by the President of Treasury Board on Vote 1, in the amount of $40,713,000 under the heading Parliament-Senate being concurred in.

The Bloc has always maintained its opposition to the very existence of the upper House. We believe that it is not only an anachronism but useless. It is particularly outrageous in this day and age to ask taxpayers to sink millions in such an institution, when the economy is on the verge of collapse, unemployment is dangerously high, and services to the public are being drastically reduced.

In a time of budgetary restraint, when Canada's total debt is over $500 billion, and when the government is constantly asking people to tighten their belt, it is unacceptable to give 104 senators a $40 million budget.

Over and above a $64,000 annual salary, a $30,000 research allowance, a further $20,000 for their office expenses, and a tax free expense allowance of more than $10,000, senators enjoy other benefits very difficult to justify.

The main duty of the Senate is to study bills coming from the House of Commons and pass them. The role of the Senate duplicates that of House, nothing more, nothing less. Sir John A. Macdonald, when defining the role of the second House, called it a "House of reflection". I must admit that in times of budget cuts, I find that reflection to be very expensive.

Former senator Chaput-Rolland once said that this other House was simply a large dormitory. Please do not misunderstand me; I have nothing against the senators. It is the institution itself we must question. As far as we are concerned, this institution is nothing but a club of venerable old partisans whose only purpose is to reward friends of the party in power.

When we read the Confederation debates, we see that the Fathers of Confederation thought the other House was very important. Both Macdonald and Cartier wanted it to be a forum for reflection that would curtail what they called "the excesses of democracy". It is logical, a Senate which is not elected but appointed does not have to abide by the principles of democracy. On one of the walls in the upper House, we can see Cicero's maxim which states: "The role of nobility is to counter the instability of the people."

Therefore, members of the other House are supposed to control the elected members of Parliament. In fact, the very existence of the Senate is a remnant of elitism which, in a way, runs counter to legitimate democracy.

Since members of that House are appointed by the Prime Minister, it would be absurd to think they would add a reasonable and moderating influence to any legislation proposed by the House of Commons, without any kind of partisanship.

Seats in the Upper House have always been filled by friends of the party in power. It is a well-known fact, senators are chosen for their political allegiance and their long record of service.

When former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau was in office, 81 senators were appointed, 71 of whom were of Liberal persuasion. When former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney was in office, he appointed 42 senators, 41 of whom were Conservatives. Since September 15, 1994, the current Prime Minister has appointed 17 senators, of course all good Liberal supporters.

Consequently, the institution is in no way representative of Quebec and Canadian people. Members of that House are at the most representatives of the prime minister who appoints them. Even though the Upper House has impressive powers and the institution is protected in some way by the Constitution of Canada, it does not play a very significant role in the federal regime as we know it today.

As everyone knows, the Upper House of Parliament was created by the 1867 Constitution Act to defend regional interests in the country and to contribute to political stability by acting as a counterbalance to the House of Commons. However, it was realized very quickly that this mandate was incompatible with the objectives of a centralizing government. In fact, very early in our history, it became obvious that the provinces themselves were promoting their own interests.

Even Senator Peter Bosa said in an article that was published in the Canadian Parliamentary Review in 1982 that the Upper House did not really represent the regions. He said, and I quote: ``The belief that the Senate does not really represent the regions is, I think, justified''.

While the bicameral system still prevails at the federal level, all the provinces where this type of institution existed have considered it wise to simply abolish it. That was the case of the province of Quebec, which abolished the legislative council in 1968. Quebec is no worse off since abolishing this institution.

Countries such as New Zealand, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Spain, to name but a few, have a political system based on a single representative assembly, not two as in the case of Canada.

I realize that a constitutional amendment is required to abolish the Upper House. More specifically, under section 41 of the 1982 Constitution Act, such a change requires not only the unanimous approval of the House of Commons and of the provincial legislatures, but also the approval of the Upper House itself. Moreover, the current constitutional status quo plays in favour of maintaining this institution, even though polls show that the public supports its abolition.

According to a Gallup poll conducted in 1993, 54 per cent of Canadians are in favour of abolishing the Senate. In Quebec, the results are more conclusive since 68 per cent of Quebecers support such a measure. Quebecers and Canadians are very clear on this issue.

For the Bloc, which not only promotes the interests of Quebec but also the democratic values of Canadians, the contradiction between the arm's length relationship expected of a House of sober second thought and the partisanship actually displayed by that House is reason enough to oppose any funds that may be allocated to that institution.

Moreover, since the Upper House does not have to be accountable for its financial management, what are Canadians to do to get a clear idea of how the public funds allocated to the other place have been used? Quebec and Canadian taxpayers are entitled to know how public funds are used. After all, taxpayers are those providing the money allocated to that House.

Yet, we had to wait up till 1991 before a historical first audit of the administration of the other House was ever made. The Auditor General of Canada thus tabled a report in which we found that the Financial Administration Act and the accountability mechanisms do not apply to the other House. So, how can Quebec and Canadian taxpayers be satisfied that the expenditures of that Parliamentary institution are managed efficiently?

If my memory serves me well, my colleague for Terrebonne told us recently in the House of Commons about a senator who allowed himself the luxury of having his office renovated in order to get a better view, and this for a mere $100,000. In any case, the auditor general put forward in his report 27 recommendations to deal with the flaws in the administrative management of the other place. However, since the release of that report in March 1991, strangely enough, the Upper House has not been subjected to further audits.

In my opinion, it is high time this government understood that sound management of public administration must begin with a careful and above all efficient use of taxpayers' money.

Since the Upper House does not contribute at all to the working of our modern democracy, I find it useless to allocate $40 million every year to that institution.

[Wording Of The Referendum Question, September 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on February 28, 1996, the Deputy Prime Minister stated that the federal government did not intend to hold a country-wide referendum on the question of Quebec sovereignty.

Can the Minister of Justice tell us today whether the government has changed its mind and plans to hold a country-wide referendum on the future of Quebec?