Supply  Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the leader of the Bloc for giving me the opportunity to explain once again for the benefit of the Bloc the reasons why the Canadian government asked the supreme court for legal clarifications on a unilateral declaration of independence. However, let me deplore the totally uncalled for charges both spokespersons of the Bloc made against one of the most respected courts in the world, whose decisions have been quoted by the major judicial authorities in the whole world.

Reference To Supreme Court  Mr. Speaker, those who listened to Oral Question Period yesterday would have heard me say twice that the Government of Canada feels it has acted within the principles of international law in the so-called turbot war. Now, if the Bloc Quebecois wants to go on identifying its plans for secession with the only event in which the Canadian army was forced to fire on another vessel in peace time, that is its own decision, but it does not bode well for its plans.

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

International Law  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  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  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.

International Law  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.

Reference To Supreme Court  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  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.

Reference To Supreme Court  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.

Reference To Supreme Court  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.

Quebec's Future  Mr. Speaker, I will repeat once again what I wrote to just about every PQ minister without ever hearing back from them, and that is that the Government of Canada readily agrees and recognizes that it cannot force a people to stay in Canada against its will, as this would make Canada into something it is not.

Quebec's Future  Mr. Speaker, we never asked the judges to rule on the appropriateness of secession. It is up to the people to decide if they want to remain united or to break away. Whatever they decide, the people are entitled to legal protection. They have the right to know how extensive their rights are, which is what the Supreme Court has been asked to determine, without playing politics as the hon. member has just done.

Quebec's Future  Mr. Speaker, I indicated the points on which we agree with Mr. Ryan. He, however, believes the reference to the Supreme Court is ill-advised.