Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the Bloc motion that the House enjoin the government to recognize the legitimacy of the democratic process initiated by the Government of Quebec in order to allow Quebecers to chart their own political and constitutional future.
The motion raises two essential questions which I would like to deal with one at a time. The first question is: What is the so-called democratic process initiated by the Quebec government? According to the draft bill tabled by Mr. Parizeau in the Quebec assembly, the process consists of the following.
First, the publication of a draft bill, a bill which is clearly illegal in terms of the Canadian Constitution, followed by additional steps designed to legitimate this illegal act;
Second, a period of information and participation for the purposes of approving this illegal bill and drafting a declaration of sovereignty which will form part of its preamble;
Third, discussion of this illegal bill respecting the sovereignty of Quebec and its passage by the National Assembly; and
Fourth, approval of this illegal act by the population in a referendum.
In other words, what we have here is a process designed to attempt to give democratic legitimacy to an illegal act of the Quebec assembly. So far we note that the federal government has been extremely reluctant to point out the illegality of what is proposed. I was hoping the minister might do that today. I am convinced that if some other province such as the province of Alberta were today to table an act in its legislature completely out of its own jurisdiction such as, say, alternative gun control legislation and attempted to legitimize it by a process such as this, it would not take the federal government 30 seconds to make clear the illegality and unacceptability of what was being proposed.
I suggest that even within Quebec if a portion of that community, say the Mohawk Nation through its elected council, were to table such a bill and attempt to legitimize it by such a process, the Quebec government would be the first to declare such an act and such a process illegal and illegitimate.
The second question is the bigger question: What are the generally accepted tests of democratic legitimacy and how does the so-called democratic process initiated by the Quebec government stand up to those tests? The first test is the rule of law.
In free countries democratic legitimacy refers to the general acceptability of a process in the political community. A process is considered legitimate if it is supported by the constitution of a political community, in other words whether or not it conforms to the rule of law. In Canada this means that all proceedings relating to constitutional change, even an attempted secession, must take place within the rules established by the Constitution of Canada. That means that constitutional change of any kind should take place by the means of a formal amendment to the Canadian Constitution. Acts which are clearly unconstitutional are also clearly illegitimate.
In this case, virtually every clause of the act respecting the sovereignty of Quebec is clearly unconstitutional, notably the declaration of sovereignty in section 1, the undefined rules of constitution making in section 3, the territorial provisions in section 4, the citizenship rules in section 5, the treaty rights assumed in section 7, the alliance rights assumed in section 8, the assumption of the ability to overrule federal laws by the
provincial assembly claimed in section 10, the removal of the authority of the Supreme Court of Canada in section 12, and the assumption of the right to make appointments to federal bodies in section 13.
Each of these sections is therefore illegitimate, as is the act as a whole.
If the Government of Quebec wishes to proceed with constitutional changes, including one as drastic as secession, there is a way to do so. That is through a formal amendment to the Canadian Constitution. The Government of Quebec has not chosen that route. Both the route it has chosen and the process it employs do not meet the test of the rule of law.
The second test is direct questions on real options. To be legitimate direct democracy must ask direct questions. The question posed in the act respecting the sovereignty of Quebec is indirect and misleading. It does not ask the straight simple question: Should Quebec secede from Canada, yes or no? Instead it asks: Are you in favour of the act passed by the National Assembly declaring the sovereignty of Quebec? The key provisions of the act however do not go into force until after the referendum is approved.
Section 16 of the act states that section 2, to negotiate an economic association with Canada, section 3, to write a constitution for Quebec, and section 15, to negotiate a division of the assets and debts of Canada, do not go into effect until after it is too late for the voters to change their minds. This is clearly illegitimate from the standpoint of direct democracy. It is even illegitimate compared to Levesque's 1980 question which promised to provide a completed package which would then be submitted to voters for their further approval at a second referendum.
The draft act itself which is at the heart of the process is also filled with misconceptions and misrepresentations. There is the misconception that an economic association with Canada will automatically be attained and agreed to by Canada. There is the assumption that Quebec will retain the boundaries it has within the Canadian Confederation at the time the act comes into force. There is the assumption of dual citizenship which is entirely beyond the capacity of even a sovereign Quebec to grant and the assumption that Quebec shall assume the obligations and enjoy the rights arising out of treaties to which Canada is a part. All of these are misconceptions and misrepresentations which cannot be legitimately promised by any Quebec government, sovereign or not.
The draft bill is a hollow shell with the content to be provided only after the shell has been approved by the public. To use a more down to earth metaphor, the draft bill is a blank cheque which the Government of Quebec seeks to induce the Quebec electorate to sign.
For a process that claims to be democratic, to be legitimate it must also provide opportunity for all the options which might potentially gain majority support, including those that are repugnant to the proponents and managers of the process to be considered. Yet clearly all options for reform within federalism are precluded under the act respecting the sovereignty of Quebec. Only within the constitution of a sovereign Quebec will reforms be considered so everybody, including those who oppose secession, are forced to participate in the process of writing a declaration of independence even if they are not in favour of independence.
The referendum process itself, including the Quebec referendum law, does not provide for adequate consideration of all the options. In particular Quebecers will only be presented with a choice between status quo federalism and sovereignty. The principal alternative option, namely a complete rebuilding of the federal system from the bottom up, is not assured even a fair hearing let alone consideration.
The third test is of democratic legitimacy, inclusiveness and non-coercion. Democracy must be inclusive allowing all who are affected to vote, but the interests of the people in the rest of Canada in whether or not their country will be torn asunder are not even acknowledged. What is legitimate about declaring arbitrarily that democratic self-determination is the exclusive right of the people of Quebec constituted as a single arbitrarily defined collectivity?
The process defined in the draft bill in no way shape or form acknowledges that the people of Canada also have a right to choose their national future. Nor does it deal adequately with the democratic rights of the people of any region of Quebec, many of whom might choose to secede from Quebec and remain a part of Canada.
In addition to all this, the process proposed by the draft bill is essentially coercive. As I said, all options for reform within federalism are precluded under the act respecting the sovereignty of Quebec. Only within the constitution of a sovereign Quebec will reforms be considered.
Even groups that have no interest in broader constitutional questions will be forced to participate in the process of developing an act of secession for fear that if they do not their interests will be left out of the Quebec constitution. As each new group joins in, all those who are left out will feel increasing pressure to join in, thus driving the process toward the inevitable conclusion of separation. This is not democratic consent at all but forced consent which is a charade of democracy.
All the polls to date indicate that a majority of Quebecers do not want to secede from Canada if given a clear choice on that question. The separatist Government of Quebec obviously does not accept that opinion. It has put together a process designed not to give fair and legitimate recognition to majority opinion but to create majority support for a minority opinion.
In conclusion, the bottom line is that the process as proposed by the Quebec government and supported by the Bloc does not meet the great tests of democratic legitimacy. It is not in accordance with the rule of law. It does not ask direct questions on real options. It is not inclusive and it is coercive.
Obviously therefore the process should be rejected by all democrats in Canada whether in Quebec or outside it and regardless of their constitutional opinions and preferences. Obviously the House should defeat the motion.
The proposed bill and processes are also extremely revealing with respect to the character of the current Government of Quebec. All democratic governments, including the Government of Quebec, should be held accountable to respect the rule of law and the basic criteria of free democratic processes. If a government does not respect those processes and uses illegitimate processes to induce its own population to support illegal acts, how can any member of that society be assured that such a government will not do the same thing again at some future date, disregarding both the rule of law again and using illegitimate processes again, this time to manipulate its own people against their will?
The federal government as the government with responsibility for the peace, order, good government and economic well-being of all Canadians has a responsibility to make clear the illegality and illegitimacy of what the Government of Quebec proposes. The federal government has a responsibility as a bare minimum to refute the misconceptions concerning economic association, sovereignty association and dual citizenship which are at the heart of the Quebec government's bill and process. We assume that the federal government will be discharging these responsibilities in the course of this debate and in the days ahead.
The federal cabinet ministers make frequent reference to wanting to avoid playing Parizeau's game, but Parizeau's game is to take initiatives, including illegal initiatives, and assume that the federal government will do nothing but fume and sputter. It is time for the federal government to stop playing Parizeau's game and begin discharging its responsibilities for preserving the peace, order, good government and economic well-being of Canada and all Canadians.
