Mr. Speaker, I will have to analyse the complexity of the question.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 54% of the vote.
National Unity May 15th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I will have to analyse the complexity of the question.
National Unity May 15th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, we voted on this in the House in December.
National Unity May 15th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the if the hon. member introduced a motion that a 50 per cent plus 1 vote would be enough to split Canada, I would vote against it. That is what he was arguing before.
My view is that at the moment there is no referendum. At the moment we are working to make sure there will be progress in the federation and that there will be no need for a referendum. This is exactly what I am trying to do and what I have been working on. I made it clear there will be a meeting in June to improve the federation.
The Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs has been travelling the land talking with premiers and ministers. I am also talking with them. There is goodwill in Canada to make progress on that, and with the collaboration of everybody we will make progress. However, it is quite evident the leader of the third party has no great interest in keeping Canada together.
National Unity May 15th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, if ever we have a referendum in any province, I hope there will be discussion beforehand to make sure the rules are known by both sides.
If someone like the leader of the third party comes to me and tells me 50 per cent plus 1 is enough to break up Canada, I will tell him to go back home.
National Unity May 15th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the member of the third party said that right now the national unity thing is coming back.
He was the one in the House in September who told me one vote was enough to split Canada. I heard him many times. I want to say to the House of Commons that the rule of law will prevail in Canada. Canadian laws will be respected and international laws will be respected as well.
Referendums May 15th, 1996
No, Mr. Speaker, because in my opinion today's debate arises out of the fact that the Government of Quebec has tabled a motion stating that, under certain circumstances, the Constitution of Canada would not apply. In this connection, the Minister of Justice was absolutely right. Not only was he right, but his mandate obliged him to come to the defence of the Constitution of Canada. We are not the ones who triggered the debate, the Government of Quebec did.
As for me, I have no intention of continuing it. My hope is to have a federal-provincial conference where we will be able to make a great deal of progress toward improved federalism. I hope to be able to meet with Mr. Bouchard as soon as possible, in order to discuss job creation and real problems, the real problems that exist in Montreal at this time. I was prepared to do so at his convenience, and still am, because the economic future of Quebecers is the issue closest to the heart of this government.
Referendums May 15th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I would like to see it clearly established that the rule of democracy must be respected. Two referendums were held in Quebec, and both were won by those who wish to remain within Canada.
Yesterday, in the National Assembly, Bloc Quebecois Central refused to vote in favour of an opposition resolution calling for recognition of the outcome of the last referendum. So who is it that is refusing to recognize democracy?
Referendums May 15th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I have spent weeks saying in this House that 50 per cent of the votes plus one was not enough. I think this is perfectly reasonable. The desire must be clear and the question clear, and the question must take the needs of the other partner into consideration as well. It is totally logical. That is what I said yesterday on the program.
However, when people try to come up with ways to say things that are not clear and say they are going to separate but remain Canadian, and keep Canadian passports and currency and maintain economic and political partnership with Canada and remain Canadian citizens for ever more-listen, you have to be clear.
These will be matters for negotiations, if there is ever another referendum, so we make sure everyone is very clear on the issue, the result and the consequences.
Referendums May 15th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I spoke with the program before I came to the House. There is no contradiction. Everything has to be done according to the international and national systems of law. I said that in Canada nobody wants to use violence to keep people in Canada.
I repeat what I said before. Everything has to be done according to the Canadian Constitution and international law. I hope the Bloc Quebecois is not advocating that it does not want to respect the law of the land.
Referendums May 15th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, we have gone to court for a very simple reason: the Quebec government lawyers, in the presentation they made before going to court, alleged in their documents that the Canadian Constitution would no longer apply to one of the provinces of Canada at a given point in time, thus forcing the attorney general for Canada to defend the Constitution.
I was very happy this morning to see in the newspapers that the Quebec government lawyer said before the courts yesterday that a referendum was nothing more than a popular vote and posed no risk of taking away anyone's rights.