Stéphane Dion

[Reference To Supreme Court, February 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, because Quebeckers are entitled not to lose Canada through confusion, trickery and unclear procedures. Nobody wants to force Quebeckers to stay in Canada against their will, should they ever clearly express their desire to leave, and Quebeckers are entitled to go on being Canadians as long as that is what they wish to do.

[International Law, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I explained that, in our view, as regards the turbot issue, we acted in compliance with the principles of international law.

As for the Constitution of Canada, it is recognized as being legal everywhere in the country. In fact the PQ government just used it for the purpose of making an amendment.

[International Law, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, what can I say to such a question? Sometimes governments do things that are challenged in law by other governments, and that generally leads to difficulties. Things are obviously much easier when the people concerned are separated by an ocean.

But if an attempt is made to do something as unforeseen and without precedent as seceding within a democratic framework with no legally recognized framework for doing so, people will be placed in a very difficult situation.

[International Law, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is too perfect. In no time at all, they are back to their old form, burlesque.

[International Law, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader of the Bloc Quebecois for his question and I am going to answer it very calmly.

I find it very interesting that the leader of the Bloc Quebecois is admitting that his party now espouses the theory of effectivity, when before that it was self-determination. He has probably been coached by his colleague who specializes in international law and he knows what the theory of effectivity is all about.

I cannot defend in this House something that is before the court, but we could debate the political implications of a government trying to take effective control of territory outside the law. That would be a very interesting debate.

[International Law, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, given the alarming decline in turbot stocks, we believe that what Canada did was consistent with the principles of international law that allow it to take emergency action to prevent the complete destruction of this essential resource.

If the Bloc Quebecois wants, at all costs, to link its attempt to secede with the turbot war, then there is no hope. First Mr. Parizeau compared Quebeckers to lobsters, and now the Bloc Quebecois is confusing them with fish.

[Reference To Supreme Court, February 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, many Quebeckers think that the last question was unclear, that the procedure was unclear. We even know that it was fraudulent, that the Quebec government wanted to use our savings as Quebeckers, up to $17 billion of our savings, to try to prop up markets shaken by secession.

We have nothing to learn about democracy from people who have lied to Quebeckers.

[Reference To Supreme Court, February 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the National Assembly obviously has the right to put whatever questions it wishes. The Government of Canada, in Mr. Ryan's opinion, has the power to determine whether it believes that Quebeckers wish to cease being Canadians.

Mr. Ryan says we have the power, we say we have the obligation, and the court will tell us whether we have the right.

[Reference To Supreme Court, February 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister who was in office in 1995, and whom we are pleased to still see in that position, said in this House, before the then Leader of the Opposition—who is now the premier of Quebec and who did a great deal of ranting and raving—that we had to comply with the Constitution and that it was out of the question for Quebeckers to lose Canada as a result of confusion. The Prime Minister even said “If you in the BQ and the PQ ask a clear question, you will take quite a beating”.

[Reference To Supreme Court, February 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that I do not have with me the speech made by the former Prime Minister, but I would invite the hon. member to read it to the end. The Prime Minister of the time made it clear that he had no intention of negotiating anything resembling a secession based on such a confusing question.

I would also ask the hon. member to read the Quebec Referendum Act, which clearly states that referendums are consultative in nature. It is for this reason that, according to the person who drafted the legislation, Mr. Burns, no rules are set in terms of the majority required, given the importance of what is at stake. The fact is that referendums are only consultative in nature. They carry more or less political weight, depending on the clarity of the question and of the answer.