Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have my turn to speak to the Bloc Quebecois motion before the House today, which reaffirms, since the consensus is nothing new in Quebec, that it is for Quebeckers to decide freely their own future.
First of all, if I may, I shall make a brief comment on the words of the leader of the Conservative Party in which he rejoices at constitutional failures. Many conclude each time there is a failure that the system, at a certain point, is no longer changeable. That is what has led a growing number of Quebeckers to back sovereignty.
Many have done so because it strikes them as natural for a people to have all the tools necessary to manage and control its own future. Others came to that conclusion because of circumstances, when the inability of the present political system to meet their aspirations became evident, whether in accordance with the formula developed by Robert Bourassa around the distinct society or some other formula. They found themselves with the door shut in their faces, not only closed but locked as well.
We have moved from one constitutional failure to another. The difference between the hon. member for Sherbrooke and members over here is that we realize that, at some point, the thing must come to an end. Discussions cannot go on forever. I personally do not want to be here when I am 55, still talking about the latest constitutional failure, and about what ought to be done in the next round of negotiations in order to avoid another failure.
The hon. member for Joliette said that this has been going on for 30 years. I believe that 30 year point was reached 5 years ago. Now we are up to 35. We have been talking about it so long that we have stopped keeping track of the time.
In response to this federal strategy, what do we have in front of us now? What is comes down to, finally, is who is entitled to decide the future of Quebeckers and of the Quebec people. Ottawa's strategy, and the federal government's in particular, is clearly not unanimous. The Conservative Party clearly said it did not support them. For a number of reasons, we can believe that the New Democratic Party would not support them either, following the resolutions passed at its political conventions.
The future for the federal government has to be defined by others besides Quebeckers. By whom? By the justices of the supreme court? By people in the other provinces? Because in the end, the question they are putting to the supreme court is: if Quebeckers cannot do it, who can?
We can see clearly where they are leading us. Their traditional constitution amending formula involving provincial consensus. In the end, it means subjecting the future of the people of Quebec to the approval of a province, and I will let you decide on that. But you can clearly see that it would make no sense for the people of Prince Edward Island, and I have nothing against them, or the people of Newfoundland, Alberta or Saskatchewan, to have a veto over Quebec's future. It makes no sense. There is no basis for it, and on the very face of it, I think it should not even be considered.
What is Ottawa's strategy? They are playing both horses. On one hand there is the hard line of the minister, the one who told us during the last referendum campaign that Quebeckers had to be made to suffer to prevent the recurrence of such a situation, where we get a bit excited at expressing our deepest hopes. It is now implementing its plan, on the one hand toying with the concept of partition, and on the other asking the supreme court to rule the whole sovereignty issue illegal within the present constitutional framework; it keeps on making incendiary declarations right, left and centre.
Furthermore, the provinces are led to believe there might be a glimmer of hope for some changes. This is the kind of line the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party keeps on pushing, changes are possible. What does all this mean? Let us have a look. In Quebec, nobody is talking about the Calgary declaration. And yet, this is the great constitutional reform process Canada is currently promoting.
In about seven paragraphs, it sets out Quebec's uniqueness. A statement which is promptly watered down on four or five occasions by the fact that provinces are all said to be equal. These are profoundly contradictory pronouncements. If Quebec is truly distinct, meaning different, it should be given, through a formula yet to be determined, the tools to shape its own future. But the declaration is silent on this point. Quebeckers are told “You are unique, but you will be treated like everybody else”. So we are unique, period. End of story.
This is hard to sell. It is done in an underhanded way, on the Internet, and through a small questionnaire stuffed in an ad-bag so that nobody can see it. It is all hush-hush, but it will be passed by Parliament, possibly on a Friday afternoon, so that people do not talk too much about it.
In this way, they could say to Quebeckers, but not as loudly as during the referendum “See, we still love you”, to allow Daniel Johnson, the federalists leader in Quebec—officially, in any case—to campaign in Quebec and say that there is a willingness elsewhere to make changes.
Each time, they start again with a lower offer than the previous time. We are part of a distinct society, an interpretative clause in the Constitution, a different sharing of powers and the Meech Lake accord that included a number a things that were given to Quebec. Of course, that did not respond to the aspirations of all Quebeckers, but there were some elements in there.
No, it did not work, we started off with less the next time, Quebeckers were given less. Then there was the Charlottetown accord, rejected by all Quebeckers. Since this did not work, the federal government tried giving even less. Then they wonder why there are more and more sovereignists in Quebec or people who have drawn the conclusion that this system does not work. They want it both ways.
Now, our dear intergovernmental affairs minister has launched a philosophical debate in all this. He is a former university professor who wants to solve a deep academic issue, that is whether democracy exists within the law or the law exists within democracy. This is his pet subject and he wants to have his argument examined and validated by the supreme court.
The very foundations of democracy, and all of us here are products of democracy, provide that it is up to people to decide their future. It is not up to us to use all kinds of constraints, to put people in a straitjacket and tell them they cannot decide their future. What does a unilateral declaration of sovereignty imply? It implies that Quebeckers would, after an eminently democratic exercise—that is a successful referendum in which a majority of people would have supported sovereignty—decide to start the process to achieve sovereignty.
There is a stage in this process about which Ottawa is silent. We sovereignists have always said, in good faith, that we will negotiate with Ottawa. In fact, a period of one year was even provided for this in a draft bill tabled in the National Assembly. A transition mechanism was defined. Ottawa is assuming it will not work because the unilateral declaration of sovereignty will come at the end of the negotiations if an agreement is not reached. So, Ottawa starts from the premise that we will not be able to reach an agreement, that we will not want to negotiate, etc.. There is some bad faith here.
Ottawa admits it would not respect the democratic will of Quebeckers. Every now and then, the minister tries to tell us that he would recognize that will, provided it is expressed within the law. It is not true, because the minister would try to define how he would negotiate with Quebec. He would not be preparing the next stage, he would be preparing the first stage. I have no problems with Canadians discussing how negotiations should be conducted with Quebec, or who should represent them. I realize the Liberal Party has a problem, and I would be very surprised to see the current Prime Minister negotiate on behalf of Canada. They will not dare debate this issue.
The strategy is obvious: getting a Supreme Court decision stating that the Canadian constitution does not allow a unilateral declaration of independence on the part of Quebec, and that such a declaration would be illegal. We will then see the likes of Guy Bertrand come out in the open and tell us that we are thugs, armchair revolutionaries, and whatnot. Guy Bertrand has been the inspiration of all this. He is the one who launched this Ottawa strategy with the Reform leader breathing down his neck, and the intergovernmental affairs minister jumped on the bandwagon.
In conclusion, I would like to point out that the Bloc Quebecois is not the only one condemning this strategy. I will not have enough time to read all the quotations I have here, but let me give for the record the names of people who agree with us: Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte; Mr. Claude Ryan, the leader of the federalist no committee in 1980; Mr. Daniel Johnson, the leader of the no committee in 1995, and still the leader of the Quebec Liberal Party—he is therefore the current leader of the Quebec federalists; Mr. Lucien Bouchard; Mr. Alain Dubuc; the hon. member for Sherbrooke; the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois; Mr. Alain Pellet, chairman of the UN International Law Commission; Mr. Gordon Wilson, a constitutional adviser to the B.C. premier. There are many more. This consensus which is building up extends beyond Quebec borders at the international level.
The federal government should recognize the obvious. Its strategy of using the Supreme Court for its own purposes should be set aside. It should in good faith let Quebeckers decide freely their own future like everybody wants them to and let the discussions in the coming years deal with this issue.
