Mr. Speaker, on Monday, October 17 I put two sets of questions to the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs. The minister effectively declined to answer those questions at the time saying they were hypothetical. However, the exchange after question period between the leader of the Reform Party and the Speaker would indicate the questions as put were of course not hypothetical and were in order. The questions were in order because they dealt not with the government's political plans but with its competence, jurisdiction, and role in the matters of constitutional law and the possible separation of Quebec.
The first question was formed from a quotation from the Prime Minister of Canada. He said a Prime Minister of Canada has a constitution he must respect and there is no mechanism in the Constitution permitting the separation of any part of Canadian territory.
While that is very narrowly true in fact the Constitution does have provisions relating to amendment of various things that would be required in the event of the separation of a province. These are things as elementary as the transfer of the legitimate powers of the federal government to a province which would generally speaking require the consent of two-thirds of the provinces representing 50 per cent of the population. In other cases where it actually involves institutional change it would require unanimous consent. These clauses are laid out in part 5, sections 38 through 49 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
My question to the government was merely that it affirm that it is the position of the Government of Canada that the constitutional status of a province could only be changed legally and would be done through this amending formula. This would of course not apply simply with a separation scenario but to any constitutional change. I would maintain that it is the duty of the federal government which purports that national unity is its highest priority to recognize that it does have an obligation to uphold the Constitution.
I would also note that politically there would be considerable advantage for it to make clear to the people of Quebec that when they are being told that separation can be achieved unilaterally that this is legally untrue. In fact, it would also be political untrue, politically unfeasible to pursue in that manner.
We would also of course be interested to know what the position would be of the leader of the official opposition on such an illegal position as unilateral separation. However I do not expect the parliamentary secretary to comment on that particular question.
My second question concerned an article recently written in Canadian Parliamentary Review , Autumn 1994, by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. He held that today the federal government retains full constitutional options to allow or not to allow a referendum vote, to control the content and wording of any referendum question, to control the actual timing of any vote, and to launch its own pre-emptive nationwide referendum legally superseding any Quebec vote.
As you well know, the opinions of the member for Vancouver Quadra are of some interest not simply because he wrote the article but because he is a noted constitutional expert and also a member of the governing caucus. While I do not subscribe necessarily to all his constitutional views I would certainly think that the government would take note of them and would be prepared to comment on whether it believes these are in fact the constitutional powers of the federal government.
I would note that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs himself has previously commented that the federal government should consider the option of a national referendum. I believe this is an option our own party would suggest should be considered, not necessarily acted upon but certainly considered given that ultimately the unity of the country and its future constitutional status is the business of all Canadians.
I put that question and hope to receive more enlightenment than I did on Monday.
