Reference To Supreme Court  Mr. Speaker, there are numerous legal implications to secession. There are the Aboriginal people, to whom the Government of Canada has a fiduciary responsibility. There is the issue of the territories. There is the issue of the charter of rights. And the list goes on. The Government of Canada asked what it felt were the most fundamental questions regarding the legality of a unilateral declaration of independence, and that is what we have asked the court to rule on.

Reference To Supreme Court  Mr. Speaker, I will repeat the words of the former leader of the Bloc Quebecois, the Quebec premier. He said: “I consider the justices of the Supreme Court to be honest magistrates, who have at heart one of the essential values underlying the operation of a court of law, judicial independence”.

Reference To Supreme Court  Mr. Speaker, the court will give an opinion, which will be available for examination by all legal experts in Canada and around the world. I am sure that the aim of the court is to give an opinion that meets all the criteria of judicial jurisdiction.

Reference To Supreme Court  Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the Bloc Quebecois is again asking a question I answered last week. At any rate, Mr. Fortier is now pleading his case before the court. The court is listening to his case, and that is where the situation stands as of today.

Reference To Supreme Court  Mr. Speaker, for the response to that question, I would refer the Bloc Quebecois to the record of last week's question period.

Reference To Supreme Court  Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the Quebec premier stated that he considered the justices of the supreme court to be honest magistrates, who have at heart one of the essential values underlying the operation of a court of law, that is to say judicial independence. So, the Bloc should respect judicial independence.

Reference To Supreme Court  Mr. Speaker, Alain Pellet has written and said many things, most of which would greatly embarrass the Bloc Quebecois. I will just ask that the Bloc show respect for the work being done by the court. The court has work to do this week. Both sides will argue their case and all the noise and political uproar the Bloc can muster will not change a thing.

Yves Fortier  Mr. Speaker, if this is a trick question it is not very difficult. International law permits the unilateral elimination of any colonial vestige. However, Quebeckers in Canada today are not colonized, except in the heads of a few separatist leaders.

Yves Fortier  Mr. Speaker, the member should have listened to the answer before posing his second question. That would have saved my repeating the fact that international law permits the unilateral elimination of traces of colonial relations, but Quebeckers in Canada are not colonized, except in the heads of members of a party which denies the rule of law and democracy for all.

1982 Constitution Act  Mr. Speaker, Mr. Fortier was an ardent defender of the Meech Lake accord. His remarks, if they are to be quoted fairly, should be quoted in full. Mr. Fortier described the 1982 Constitution as “an unfinished work” and he added: “As a jurist, I view 1982 as a turning point in Canada's constitutional history.

Jacques Chirac's Statement  Mr. Speaker, here is what the French president said: France is one country indivisible. It is indeed made up of regions and provinces each different from the other, each with its own population, customs, history and sometimes language. This is especially true of Corsica, whose identity and uniqueness are recognized by all.

Supply  Madam Speaker, I believe I answered the hon. member by quoting the words of his leader, the Premier of Quebec, who recognized the quality, in fact the great quality, of the Canadian justice system, including the supreme court. Yes, we have a court renowned throughout the world and one of the most often quoted.

Supply  Madam Speaker, we must comply with the provisions of the Quebec referendum act. That is the bottom line. It provides that a referendum is consultation and that, after the consultation, the results are assessed. The issue is whether the government of all Canadians can fully assess the results.

Supply  Madam Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent to have the amendment ruled admissible anyway.

Supply  I therefore ask the unanimous consent of the House to move the following amendment to the amendment: That the motion be amended by adding the following after the word “future”: “while respecting the rule of law and the principle of democracy for all”.