GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Translation]

SUPPLY

ALLOTTED DAY-DECLARATION BY PRIME MINISTER CONCERNING QUEBEC

That the House endorse the declaration of the Prime Minister of Canada, who stated in 1985, ``If we don't win, I'll respect the wishes of Quebeckers and let them separate''.

Now, to explain the context of this motion before the House, let us say that, recently, the Prime Minister has acquired the bad habit,

if I dare describe it as that, of going back on his word about certain things he has said, explaining to the public that, of necessity, in political life sometimes commitments cannot be met, and that politicians must not be required to keep their word.

We have seen that in the GST matter, where the PM had promised to scrap the GST and where, finally, the government's decision was quite different. It was the opposite, in fact: to expand the GST. Since the federal government is digging itself further and further into a constitutional hole by cosying up to Guy Bertrand in contesting the legitimacy of a Quebec referendum, we thought it worthwhile to review the statements the Prime Minister has made.

For this reason, we are submitting the matter to the House, and are asking our hon. colleagues, both those in the Reform Party and more particularly those in the Liberal Party, to join with us in ensuring that the House deals with a statement made by the Prime Minister, when he said in 1985 that ``If we don't win, I'll respect the wishes of Quebeckers and let them separate''.

This is a quote from Straight from the Heart, written by the Prime Minister himself. In 1985, the Prime Minister waxed most eloquent, saying: ``We'll put our faith in democracy. We'll convince the people that they should stay in Canada and we'll win''. It is normal for a politician to believe in what he is proposing, normal for him to think that he can win in his political undertakings. But he ends up saying: ``If we don't win, I'll respect the wishes of Quebeckers and let them separate''.

That is the quote, and the book, behind today's motion. The question being asked of our colleagues across the way is this: Are we going to take steps to ensure that the House in its entirety, through a majority vote or, who knows, even by a unanimous vote, endorses these words by the Prime Minister? Is what the Prime Minister promised, stated, in 1985, still endorsed, first of all, by himself-something we might well wonder-and then by his ministerial colleagues, of whom solidarity is required, and his caucus colleagues, who are also supposed to be in solidarity with their Prime Minister on a matter as basic as this?

To facilitate the decision, I shall be making use of some more quotes by the Prime Minister, for this is not the first time the Prime Minister has made a statement on this matter. Doing so may perhaps help them see that this was not just an unfortunate slip of the tongue that got past the Prime Minister in an angry moment, or in some speech or other, but indeed something that he felt profoundly, or at the very least, something he wanted to get across to his fellow citizens by writing it down and repeating it in a variety of ways.

(1020)

During the proceedings of the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, on December 17 1990, which is even more recent, the Prime Minister declared, and I quote: ``I am a democrat. I said in numerous speeches in 1980 that if we had not recognized that Quebec had the right to opt for separation, we would have acted differently. There were powers we could have used but we decided not to''.

Therefore the hon. members across will appreciate that the Prime Minister formally recognized for a second time that Quebec has the right to separate. By saying that there are powers which could have been used but were not, he also excluded resorting to legal guerilla warfare as a means to challenge the referendum.

We feel concerned because unfortunately the Prime Minister went back on his word, on this point. We all know that this government decided to team up with Guy Bertrand in a legal war which could result in denying Quebecers the right to make a decision on their future. In 1990, the Prime Minister repeated his statement of 1985 according to which Quebec has the right to separate.

Even more recently, on October 24 1995, the Prime Minister declared in the speech he delivered in Verdun on the eve of the referendum: ``Next Monday we will have to decide if we are ready to abandon a country which personifies them better than any other country. Think twice before voting''. This means that the Prime Minister explicitly recognized that the referendum vote was decisive. Indeed, he declared: ``Think twice before voting. Next Monday we will have to decide if we are ready to break away from our country''. Therefore, on the eve of the referendum, on October 24 1995, the Prime Minister repeated what he had written in 1985 and reiterated in 1990.

On October 25 1995, in his address to the nation, the Prime Minister said: ``The vote on Monday will determine the future not only of Quebec but also of Canada as a whole. This is a serious and irreversible decision''. Once more he recognized what he had already admitted in 1980, 1985, 1990 and on the previous day, on October 24 1995: ``Canada, our country and heritage, are in danger. Breaking Canada apart or building this country, remaining Canadian or becoming foreigners, staying or leaving, those are the issues at stake in the referendum. When we make our choice, we all have the responsibility and the duty to understand the impact of our decision''.

In the mind of the Prime Minister, therefore, a referendum in Quebec is legitimate and its results are binding. The outcome of the referendum must be respected.

The Prime Minister has the support of one of his colleagues in cabinet, the super minister of the Quebec referendum, the present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who said: ``We have always said that Quebecers were entitled to have their say on Quebec's future inside or outside Canada. Ours is a democratic country, and we will respect the outcome of the vote''. So the minister supports the Prime Minister.

In closing, since my time is running out, any doubts the Liberals may have had as to a vote in favour of this motion calling for the House's endorsement of the Prime Minister's declaration: ``If we don't win, I'll respect the wishes of Quebecers and let them separate'', are fading.

I will close by saying that, if it might reinforce their conviction that they must support what the Prime Minister has said, I will quote his speech to the nation on October 25, 1995.

(1025)

In this last quote, the Prime Minister said, and I suggest they think about it: ``My friends, we are facing a decisive moment in the history of our country. And people all across Canada know that decision lies in the hands of their fellow Canadians in Quebec''.

In all that he has said since 1980, in 1985, 1990 and 1995, he has been consistent repeatedly. He has always said that Quebecers had the right to decide their future themselves and that a referendum would be decisive, binding and would change the nature of things in Canada.

Accordingly, there is no reason for the Liberal members to think the House will not endorse the statement he made in 1985. We could have taken all the ones he has made since then, but we chose 1985: ``If we don't win, I'll respect the wishes of Quebecers and let them separate''. We will see whether the GST is the only issue where the Prime Minister reversed himself or whether, in the constitutional matter as well, he will suddenly deny all he has said on different occasions over a very long period of time.

[English]

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask the Chair to rule on an issue which was brought to our attention a few moments ago, whether it is either customary or even procedurally acceptable that members share their time on the original motion.

It has been customary in the past for the length of speeches of all members to be 20 minutes. Later on, for subsequent speakers, in particular during the second round, the whip can rise, and I believe under the rules only the whip can do it, to invoke Standing Order 43, by which he or she will then state members can from that point on share their time.

What occurred this morning was irregular in two ways. I would like the Chair to consider this and rule on it later. The initial speaker indicated to the Chair that he wished for all Liberal members to have their time shared. I believe that proposition is in itself irregular and that it must be done by the whip.

Occasionally members have between themselves agreed to share their time, but that was not the proposition advanced this morning. That proposition was put forward by an MP who is not the whip. He asked that all members of his party be allowed to share their time. I do not believe that is provided for in Standing Order 43.

The second point is that I do not believe the Speaker has entertained that proposition in the past at the request of the initial speaker on any particular motion. It has always been done with subsequent speakers.

In any case, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you consider the two points I have brought to the attention of the Chair and to rule whether the suggestion by the hon. leader of the opposition is acceptable under our rules. I contend it is not and I ask the Chair to rule on that issue.

[Translation]

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, speaking of custom, I will not go back to times immemorial in this House but simply to March 20, 1996, which is not so far back. The same thing happened then. The hon. member for Medicine Hat shared his time. He was the first speaker, and the issue was the GST. Imagine that. He shared his time with the member for Capilano-Howe Sound who moved an amendment. This was on March 20, 1996.

(1030)

The Chair did not see anything irregular in that. That time, our Liberal friends did not rise to protest. I understand that they may have regretted it afterward. They had some problems with the GST, but this was on March 20, 1996. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this double standard is unacceptable. Even a triple standard, a rule for the third party, a rule for the party in power and another one for the Bloc Quebecois.

On March 20, 1996, everything was clear. Unless there is an error in Hansard, nobody spoke up. I note that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons was present. He made no objection. The member shares his time, the member with whom he shares it amends the motion. This was on March 20, 1996, not so long ago.

Beauchesne did not deal with this issue, he did not have the time. I suppose that if he had, people on the other side would have risen to protest that it did not make sense. Let us not try, by devious means, to prevent the opposition from holding a political debate of great importance.

[English]

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, there are a few points I want to bring to your attention.

First, it is well-known that one case does not make a precedent. The Speaker has not ruled and so no jurisprudence can be invoked. If Mr. Speaker does not rule on the previous case no one can claim that it is good precedence.

I would argue the following and invite you, Mr. Speaker, to consider this. If this-

[Translation]

Mr. Plamondon: Your French is very good.

Mr. Boudria: I want to tell the member opposite that I have no reason to be ashamed of the chance, the honour and the privilege I have, in this country, to speak both official languages. I do not have to apologize to him. I think I am competent in both languages and I am free to choose the one that pleases me. As a Canadian, it is my privilege and my right, a concept-

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I ask all those who want to speak to this matter to be co-operative and to stick to the point of order.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Chair to consider this proposal: if what was just done is allowed under our rules, it could-and I invite the Chair to think about this carefully-make it impossible to amend this motion or any other opposition motion in future. The first speaker could table his motion and the following one, from the same party, could ask the previous question, which would preclude all amendments.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to do whatever is necessary to invalidate what the opposition leader asked for this morning. Otherwise, it would completely change the rules of the House of Commons.

Mr. Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, since this concerns me primarily, I would like to make a few points for your consideration. First, our Standing Orders are full of provisions which, when used properly by the House, shorten debates or prevent the taking of a vote, make it compulsory to have a debate or prevent debate.

The Standing Orders are full of provisions which, when used properly by parliamentarians, as is usually the case here, have an impact on the nature and the course of the proceedings.

(1035)

Therefore, it is not justified to strike this particular provision from the Standing Orders or overturn the ruling already made, otherwise the Standing Orders would have to be reviewed entirely and many provisions amended. If the hon. whip wants to embark on such an operation, he should consult his House leader, and we will see. But for the time being, this cannot be taken into account, otherwise it would also apply to a lot of other provisions.

Second, I would like to respectfully point out to the hon. government whip that, before going ahead in this manner, mindful as I always am to follow not only the spirit but also the letter of our Standing Orders, I consulted the Chair and the Principal Clerk of the House, and they both confirmed, rightly I must say-they could just as easily have ruled otherwise-that the ruling already rendered and the practice of the House allowed me to ask that we all share our time.

Therefore, I followed the directive of the House, on the recommendation of its principal officer and on your recommendation, Mr. Speaker, and therefore I do not know why-

Mr. Bellehumeur: The Liberals had no objection.

Mr. Gauthier: Indeed, there was no objection from anyone when I did it. Moreover, the hon. whip raised his point after I had finished speaking. If he had any objection, some of his colleagues were there across the way when you agreed to my request and everybody thought it was all right.

Why all of a sudden, once I have finished my speech, would I no longer be allowed to do it? Mr. Speaker, I am asking you to take these elements into consideration in your ruling.

[English]

Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while I understand the comments made by my hon. friend, it is important to mention that it was out of respect for the fact that he was in the middle of making his speech that no one rose at that time. It was a courtesy to the hon. member. We felt that it was important not to get up in the middle of his speech over one comment. Otherwise, we would be always standing.

While I accept the point that my hon. colleague made, I do not think that the Chair should take it too seriously. The points that the chief government whip made amply demonstrate some of the difficulties that we would endure if the Chair were to rule in a different way.

My hon. friend, the opposition House leader, has talked about a recent decision, but there was no decision of the Chair. It was a practice; not a decision of the Chair. It is only one practice. It does not make a ruling. There has been no ruling of the Chair.

There is no ruling and the chief government Whip has made that point. There is no precedent. If there were a precedent, then I would suggest that the chief government whip would not have risen at all.

I believe respectfully that the Chair should consider this matter in due course and we should be given an opportunity to hear what the Chair's ruling might be in this matter.

[Translation]

Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I think you authorized it by allowing the Leader of the Opposition to split his time. It is done regularly by members of the House. The whips do not always say: ``Our members will be doing that''. The members just rise and say: ``I will share my time with my colleague''. Liberals do it regularly.

If the member is so courteous today, I imagine it is only because, as a former leader of the rat pack, he experienced a special surge of politeness.

Nobody objected. They could have done so before the beginning of the speech and they did not. They realized later on that, since nobody had offered any opposition, a second member would speak. This member has the right to present amendments or not, just as much as any other member in this House.

(1040)

I repeat there should not be two sets of rules, one for the party in office and one for the opposition. Next time, be prepared; that is all I can say.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I will take the question under advisement and the Chair will rule on it later today.

[English]

I want to thank the chief government whip and the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader on the government side for their interventions on this point of order.

[Translation]

I would also like to thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition and the House leader of the official opposition for their statements on this very important issue. The Chair will study those statements very carefully.

An hon. member: We should suspend our proceedings.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I do not think there is reason to suspend the proceedings of the House at this time. I do not have a crystal ball, but if the scenario suggested by the chief whip occurs and the second member to speak does present an amendment to the amendment, I will then take that new amendment under advisement, just as I will do so for the statements, as I said before. The Chair will then come back to the House with its final ruling as soon as possible.

Resuming debate. We were at questions and comments following the first statement of the Leader of the Opposition.

[English]

Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have had the opportunity to ask a question of the leader of the Bloc. This is a major problem which at some point has to be addressed.

Within Quebec there are aboriginal peoples: Abenakis, Montagnais, Cree, Innu, Algonquin, Mohawk, Huron, Micmac, Malecite. According to Mr. Turp, the former adviser to the Bloc, they have the superior right to self-determination. Everyone knows about the outcome of the referendum taken by the Montagnais, Cree and Innu. They are Quebecois. They are aboriginal people living in Quebec.

Within Montreal, for instance, there are 450,000 Italian Canadians. These are Canadian citizens living in Quebec. Twenty-three of the 30 ridings in Montreal voted no. The people in Hull, the Pontiac and eastern townships want to remain part of Canada.

How does the Leader of the Opposition intend to deal with this? Is he saying that 50 per cent plus 1 takes away the rights of all these people who want to remain Canadian citizens? It is a very difficult question.

[Translation]

Mr. Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to get a question from the minister of Indian affairs because, for once in an exchange between the two of us, an answer will be given.

It is unacceptable for a politician, all the more so one invested with ministerial responsibilities, to continually disrupt major political debates with remarks which do not make any sense. Let me explain.

First of all, Quebec is an entity, Quebec is a territory, and Canada is made up, as far as I know, of ten provinces and two territories. When Canada was founded, it was not by the reunion of pieces of land to form Canada, leaving the rest to form a separate country. Recognized territories in their own right, provinces joined together to form the Canadian confederation. The last example is Newfoundland. Newfoundland joined as one, not as separate pieces, even though it had to go through a second and third referendum which passed with a majority of only 52 per cent.

(1045)

When the Minister brings up the concept of partition, he knows full well that, should he venture on such grounds, what is true for Quebec would also be true for the rest of Canada. Canada is a collection of entities, Quebec being indivisible, just like Newfoundland and Ontario are indivisible. These complete entities constitute a whole, they are not the amalgam of small pieces of regions which form Canada.

When Newfoundland held a recent referendum to put an end to denominational schools, did the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, with his wonderful logic, rise to say that we should not take religion out of all Newfoundland schools? Some regions voted for it, some massively against it, and others where almost evenly divided. Did he rise to say: There is a problem in Newfoundland, we cannot take religion out of all schools, because there was not a majority everywhere?

He should understand that, in Quebec, the same logic applies. The people of Quebec, as his leader said on several occasions, has the right to decide its future. Should it decide to separate, so be it. Besides, what we are asking him to support is what his own leader said: ``That the House endorse the declaration of the Prime Minister of Canada, who stated in 1985: 'If we don't win, I'll

respect the wishes of Quebeckers and let them separate''. The Prime Minister did not say: ``I will accept the separation of small parts of Quebec'', he said ``I will-let them separate.

I quoted that statement on several occasions, and the Prime Minister always said the same thing. If the Indian affairs minister has difficulties with his leader's statements, that is his problem, but I would simply remind him that, on October 25, 1995, not long ago, his leader said: ``Dear friends, Canada is now at a decisive moment in its history and people throughout Canada know this decision is in the hands of their fellow citizens in Quebec''. The Prime Minister never used the logic of the minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and he never said Canada's future was in the hands of some citizens in some small parts of Canada that will go. Never. This is only the minister's logic.

The referendum that brought Newfoundland into the Confederation brought the whole province into it. The last referendum in Newfoundland to make schools non-denominational will bring about measures throughout the province of Newfoundland, even though there are some places where people did not vote in favour of that.

And the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development would want it to apply to only bits and pieces. That does not make any sense.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition is very important. The big fuss made by the government this morning about the way we are proceeding shows how significant and important this motion is.

Later this afternoon we will see if the Prime Minister will vote against his own democratic philosophy. We will also see if Liberal members will disavow their own Prime Minister's statement by voting against the motion. Above all, we will know where the Prime Minister stands between his fine rhetoric and his concrete actions.

For us, democracy is sacred. It is one of the greatest political legacies we can leave to our children, and we will fight for this democracy, as our ancestors did in Quebec. That is why we are saying straight out that democracy has precedence over the law. The rule of law does not stand up to a democratic verdict.

(1050)

When a people hands down a democratic decision, no government, no court, not even a constitution can stop this people. This kind of decision is so important that the federal government has intervened in both Quebec referendums. In 1980 and again in 1995, the federal government felt the need to intervene in Quebec's referendum debate because it knew that, in making a decision, the people of Quebec were showing how important the democratic action of casting a ballot was to them.

In 1980-I will not insist on this because I think we all know our history, but it is still worthwhile to remind the members across the way who seem to have forgotten-in 1980, democracy was so important, the referendum was such an important event that the federal government had to intervene. Seventy-four out of the 75 Liberal members at the time put their seats at stake and made promises to Quebecers. Why? Because democracy is important, because the referendum results were important.

In 1995-a very recent event in everyone's memory-the federal government intervened once again. Once again, it made promises to the people of Quebec, including three major promises: distinct society, a right of veto, and the decentralization of powers. Everyone in Quebec knows that what was said in November and in the days following the referendum is rubbish; they did not keep the promise they made, in October 1995 for example.

Democracy will judge this government as it did following the unilateral patriation of the Constitution in 1982. It is democracy that will judge this government. It is also democracy, at the level of the Quebec people, that will decide whether or not Quebec will become a sovereign country.

What this means, I guess, is that the federal government took these two referendums seriously. It was fully aware of the implications. Moreover, just days before the last referendum, the Prime Minister of Canada addressed the nation, saying: ``The decision the people of Quebec are about to make will be irreversible''. That is quite a statement.

Indeed, in a democracy, when the people have spoken, it must be acknowledged and taken seriously, without interpretation. You do not come out and say that the result is not valid, because the question was not clear or what have you. You speak up when it is time to speak up. In 1980 and in 1995 for instance, the members opposite were involved in the debate. They participated in it. They should acknowledge the result, as they will have to acknowledge the result of the next referendum, which, this time, the people of Quebec will win.

The Prime Minister knows it. In his 1985 book entitled Straight from the Heart, he clearly stated: ``If we don't win, I'll respect the wishes of Quebeckers and let them separate''. There is no room for interpretation in there. This is the same man and he will accept separation if that is what the people of Quebec wish.

Why would he change his tune? In Quebec, we are used to hearing the Prime Minister make contradictory statements. But this week, he really surpassed himself. He has one version for Quebec, another one for English Canada and we learned he has yet another for the international community. Interviewed on an American program rebroadcasted in Mexico and Australia, he held a totally

different view of democracy, a view which may be more in keeping with international law and with the statement he made in his book in 1985.

The Prime Minister's rhetoric changes depending on the circumstances: before or after a referendum. He does not give the same definition of democracy in the days leading to a Quebec referendum and in the days following a Quebec referendum. His rhetoric and his definition of democracy change when he is the one planning a unilateral move, as in the case of the patriation of the Constitution in 1982. As far as I know, he had not been given any democratic mandate to patriate the Constitution, but he did just the same.

(1055)

Now, when a majority of Quebecers decide through a democratic referendum that they want a country called Quebec, the Prime Minister will say it is illegal, or that Quebec cannot unilaterally decide to become independent. This makes no sense.

It did not really surprise me to hear the Prime Minister tell Quebecers, on the eve of a referendum, that their choice would be irreversible. Nor was I surprised to then hear him say that Quebec could not unilaterally declare its independence, and to find out that there is another version for international affairs.

What surprises me though is the government's strategy to take Quebecers head on. This surprises me. I am also surprised to see the Prime Minister join forces with a character such as Mr. Bertrand. This surprises me, considering the declaration made by the Prime Minister about the motion moved by the Leader of the Official Opposition.

I would like to propose an amendment to the motion. I move:

.TPC Amendment

That the motion be amended by adding the following, immediately after the word ``stated'':

in Straight from the Heart,

This statement is undoubtedly a more accurate reflection of the democratic spirit of the Prime Minister. I do not doubt for one moment that the Prime Minister is a democrat and that he really means what he wrote in 1985 in Straight from the heart. Given the motion moved by the leader of the opposition and my amendment, members opposite have all the necessary information to make their decision.

I hope they will not disavow such an important statement from the Prime Minister. I hope the Prime Minister will not go back on his own word and will support the Bloc Quebecois motion, which reads:

That the House endorse the declaration of the Prime Minister of Canada, who stated in Straight from the heart, in 1985, ``If we don't win, I'll respect the wishes of Quebeckers and let them separate.''

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The Speaker takes this amendment under advisement and will inform the House of its decision as soon as possible.

[English]

Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what my hon. colleague said, as I always do. In his view the Prime Minister has three different speeches for three different audiences.

Did his former leader, the now premier of Quebec, Mr. Bouchard, not have a different speech or a different commentary when he was in California trying to explain the concept of sovereignty to the American audience? In describing the concept of sovereignty in the United States he was trying to liken it to the sovereign state of California, and the Americans could not quite understand that.

(1100 )

I am wondering whether my colleague wishes to comment on the confusion which occurs. Perhaps it is planned with crooked questions that are being put to people, with questions that are confusing, with questions that in fact supplant democracy. We believe in democracy, as my hon. colleague knows. However, when my colleague talks about different kinds of speeches he might want to reflect in the mirror or have his leader reflect in the mirror about the kinds of speeches his leader is giving to the ethnic communities and business communities in Quebec City and Montreal, the Toronto business community or to the California community.

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's comments regarding Quebecers are quite scornful. Quebecers have made the distinction and they have no trouble understanding the words of the present Quebec premier, Mr. Lucien Bouchard.

The hon. member referred to Mr. Bouchard's visit to California. What the premier said there was consistent, for it was exactly what he said in Quebec, which is: ``Yes, we must separate from Canada

to become a sovereign country.'' A sovereign country is never tied to another country.

Quebec does not wish to be more sovereign than France or England. To become a country, it must separate, of course. It is obvious from the speech of the member opposite that history keeps repeating itself: as they do not know history, Reform members have no idea of what is really at stake or, rather, they did not follow the referendum debate in Quebec.

I remember the hon. member in the Jacob case. Here again, Reform members do not know the background. They are unaware of the Referendum Act and of the tripartite agreement. They do not know what the question was, and now they criticize us.

No part of Mr. Bouchard's speech can be compared with the contradictory and inconsistent speeches made by the Prime Minister who, within one week, on the same subject, on an extremely important issue concerning democracy, said three totally different things. The hon. member would benefit from reading his leader's speeches to see how different they are.

[English]

Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am going to begin my speech by noting that the government has passed up its own first slot in terms of speaking in this debate. Obviously it wants to gauge what all the parties are going to do before it has a position. This is fairly typical of the government and on this particular question it is totally irresponsible. Let me make that absolutely clear.

The motion states that the House recognize or adopt as its own the statement by the Prime Minister in 1985: ``If we do not win, I will respect the wishes of Quebecers and let them separate''. I draw the attention of the House to the French version which reads ``will accept separation''.

I am rising today on behalf of my party to oppose this motion. However I do want to thank the official opposition for bringing this motion before the House for a couple of reasons. It will allow some frank discussion of what is an important subject. There should be a clear communication between Quebecers and other Canadians on this. I also thank the official opposition for drawing the attention of the House to the inconsistencies of many Quebec federalists on these matters, particularly the inconsistencies of the Prime Minister.

(1105 )

The Prime Minister's position on these kinds of issues over the year has been an absolute mishmash of confusion. During the referendum itself he said, as has been pointed out, that the referendum result would be irreversible and that it would lead to separation. Then he also insisted that separation could never actually happen. He even suggested it would never be tolerated.

The Prime Minister has said recently that he opposes a unilateral declaration of independence. Then of course there is the aforementioned quote and others which suggest he would be open to accepting it. There is a pattern by the Prime Minister in particular of very dangerous vagueness, of a lack of clarity and outright contradiction on a subject that probably more than any other subject before the House requires absolute precision.

Instead, over the years, when it comes to relations between Quebec and the rest of Canada, between English Canadians and French Canadians, we have seen from many traditional federalists dishonesty, vagueness and the outright manipulation of political and ethnic symbols. Probably the best example of that is the entire debate on the distinct society clause, which I hope to address in my remarks today.

The history of contradiction and mixed messages reached a dangerous crescendo in the last referendum. The Prime Minister was asked by the leader of the Reform Party at the beginning of the campaign whether he would take the results of the referendum seriously, whether he would recognize that the vote would be either yes or no, one way or the other. The term was 50 per cent plus one. The leader of the Reform Party also asked if the Prime Minister would recognize that the vote had important and lasting consequences.

The Prime Minister, who only days before had said the vote was irreversible, in a sudden about face refused to give a straight answer to that question. Instead he attacked the leader of the Reform Party saying that it would be irresponsible to break up the country on a single vote, et cetera. He went on to suggest that he would not even recognize a vote to separate under any circumstances, although of course he was vague on that.

That was a very interesting response. It set the tone for the entire referendum campaign. It is so typical of the way the Quebec Liberals have handled this debate. In making that kind of an answer he was, as he always is, deliberately sending mixed messages to an English speaking audience and to a French speaking audience.

In English speaking Canada he was taking the position that the country was indivisible, that it was certainly not divisible by this tiny vote and that he would stand up against it. He would stand up against the Bloc and the Reform Party to ensure that the country stayed together. However, in French Canada he sent a very different message. The message was that voting for separation really would have no consequences. It was a message that undermined the entire federalist campaign. As we know, every street corner in Montreal had a sign that said ``separation''. All of a sudden they could vote yes and there would not be separation.

It ultimately led to the Prime Minister's complete about face at the end of the campaign. Far from waging a campaign simply against separation in Verdun, he began to make all kinds of promises about constitutional and other changes. Actually, he did

not promise constitutional change, as he has pointed out. He sort of hinted at it. He was actually just promising change, but he wanted people to think it was constitutional change. Then he tried to get out of that after the referendum. That is his pattern of behaviour.

More important and something the Prime Minister still does not seem to realize is that he sent a mixed message on both sides of the question. It is impossible for him to get up and say that he does not recognize 50 per cent plus one, without sending the message that he does not recognize it either way. When in the end, the result was a very small victory for the no side, the Prime Minister's message that small votes do not count meant that he had snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. It is not surprising that no one accepts the result of the referendum as final. He himself said it was not, especially when it was by a small majority.

(1110)

The contradictions do not end there. Since the last referendum the Prime Minister has made a statement to the Government of Quebec which does reflect the views of Canadians both inside Quebec and outside Quebec. He said that the Government of Quebec should forget about sovereignty, get on with the economy and respect the results of two referendums which have rejected sovereignty. I would agree with that.

However, the Prime Minister himself insists on resurrecting elements of his own constitutional agenda which have been twice rejected. The distinct society clause was rejected in Quebec and outside of Quebec in a national referendum on the Charlottetown accord. In the case of the Meech Lake accord, it was rejected without a referendum vote because nobody in the Conservative government would even dare put that to a referendum. It is important to note it was rejected in the Liberal leadership race by the Prime Minister himself who ran against it and got elected by being against it. He now wants to resurrect it. It is absolutely incredible. And we wonder why there is mistrust among Canadians on subjects like this one.

The government has intervened in the Bertrand decision, the case that brought this matter to the fore. My party and I have said that we support the intervention on the narrow issue that the Minister of Justice is intervening on. That is the issue that the Constitution and Canadian law must be respected and do have a role to play in any process of secession by a province. Even here there are contradictions.

I asked the Minister of Justice, what is the precise role laid out by the Constitution? What is the process of separation which they are defending? He said that he did not know. Experts have different opinions, the government has none. There is a role for the Constitution although we do not know what it is.

It is even more contradictory than that. I asked the government this very question in October 1994. I posed questions to the then Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who is now President of the Treasury Board, on October 17, 1994. On October 19, 1994 during the adjournment debate, I received an answer from the then parliamentary secretary which contained this statement: ``The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, for whom I am answering, believes that the Constitution acts do not provide any rules or procedures for secession of one of the provinces''.

In other words, the government then had a position which was almost identical to the position of the Government of Quebec: that the Constitution is silent on these matters, and it is a political question. If we read the rest of the answer that is precisely what the government stated, although now it has changed its position. It has changed its position to the correct position, nevertheless it has changed its position once again.

Yesterday the leader of the Reform Party moved a motion in the House to assert that this House will not recognize a unilateral declaration of independence. Unbelievably, I was asked by members of the press why we would possibly want this motion moved and voted on. It is for the simple reason that this government and the Prime Minister cannot stick to a line on this issue for more than a month. That is why. Let us get it on the record.

My view reflects the fact that I believe there is a serious split in cabinet on the entire issue. It is not a split only between soft liners and hard liners. It is a split between certain ministers from Quebec and certain ministers from the rest of Canada who I will not name.

(1115)

It is a dangerous game. We have had this problem from the Quebec Liberals, not only federally but provincially, for some years. They want to take a position that is federalist and pan-Canadian, but only from Quebec's perspective. It is the dangerous game of being very unsure whether we defend the rights of Canada as a country and as a nation.

That is why we have, as we see once again this week, Mr. Johnson in Quebec City and the Quebec Liberal Party constantly being led into position where they are parroting the constitutional framework of the Parti Quebec, the framework of self-determination.

This has led particularly to the Quebec Liberals and traditional federalists in Quebec putting all their eggs in the basket of the distinct society clause. This in itself is a perfect example of why we have misunderstanding and distrust in this country.

It is a nationalist slogan. What would be the purpose of putting the distinct society clause in the Constitution? The purposes are unspecified. When we say it means special status, the government

says it does not mean special status. When we amend it to make it clear that it does not mean special status, the government says it would have no legal weight. We ask would it unify the country. Yes, but it would be a first step. A first step to what?

The basic reality is, as we have seen so many times with this issue, that when we are speaking in French in Quebec, the distinct society clause means everything. When we are speaking in English outside Quebec, the distinct society clause means nothing.

In the process Quebec federalists repeat in effect the very assertions of the separatist movement that Quebec's language, culture and civil code have never been recognized in Canada. That is absolute nonsense. Nevertheless it is the very basis on which the proposal for the distinct society clause is made.

Let me move to our position. It is clear. As Reformers, we would not accept simple separation on a simple majority vote. We voted on this issue in the House in December 1994 when we voted on the concept of self-determination. Only a few months ago we had a debate on whether Quebecers constituted a people under international law and therefore possessed the right to self-determination.

In both cases we took the position that Quebec does not have a unilateral right to separate on its own terms. This has always been our position. We took that position consistently.

At that time the government in those votes and debates also took that position. It is important for English Canadians to understand that the Progressive Conservative Party has not taken that position. It has taken the opposite position. It has consistently skipped debates and votes whenever that issue has arisen.

Although we do not accept a referendum result in Quebec as a mandate to separate, we accept it as a mandate to negotiate separation. We would expect the federal government to respond in good faith. We would go farther. Canadians, including Quebecers, are fooling themselves if they believe a yes vote would lead to anything other than separation.

It would begin an inexorable path that would lead to separation in one form or another. We would maintain one probably not satisfactory to either Quebec or to the rest of Canada. It would probably damage our interest. Nevertheless it would lead in that direction.

We have also made clear that we would accept majority rule as the basis for that mandate to negotiate. No other position will really be tenable as a practical political matter.

Let me make some reference to the last referendum. I would qualify it to this degree. In the last referendum the Government of Quebec was measuring 50 per cent plus one. It was measuring a majority as a majority of the valid votes cast.

(1120 )

We say a majority should be measured as a majority of all votes cast. In other words, a majority cannot be attained through the elimination of ballots or through invalidating ballots. That must never be allowed to happen. The majority must be absolutely clear in the sense that it must be a majority of all votes.

Let us recognize the political realities. We know the demo../graphics in the province of Quebec. The majority of votes cast for a sovereignty mandate should be the majority of the population, which represents not only the majority of the people and the majority of the Government of Quebec but a majority of the ridings and, I know this is heresy, a majority of the ethnic base of the francophone Quebec voter.

Not that I consider that any more legitimate than anybody else's vote, but we have to face facts here. No matter what the Bloc Quebecois says, we are dealing with an ethnic nationalist movement and it is seeking an ethnic nationalist mandate. That is a political reality.

I also point out for those federalists who accuse me or the Reform Party of being weak on Canada by accepting a majority vote, it is not Canada which suffers from this position. It is the government and the people of Quebec who suffer from this position, as I pointed out during the referendum debate.

If the Government of Quebec chooses to go into a negotiation in which it has 51 per cent or 52 per cent support, it puts itself into an extremely weak bargaining position with the rest of the country. The rest of the country does not want separation. Many people, if not most, are extremely hostile to Quebec's separation. Therefore Quebec will face the rest of Canada which is united. It will bring Quebec to the table in a position where Quebecers are extremely weak and divided.

The final deal would have to be ratified by all partners to the Constitution. Our preference is that it would be through a referendum. However, let me be clear this is not to stop Quebec from leaving. It is my opinion that if Quebec ever voted to leave the rest of Canada would want Quebec gone. That would be the attitude that would take hold after a few weeks.

What the rest of Canada would insist on is a settlement that respected its interests. The rest of Canada has lots of bargaining chips if it would choose to go to the table and would receive a settlement that would reflect its interests. Ultimately Quebec would be in a far worse position than it would be if it simply stayed in Canada and negotiated a renewed federalism.

Canadians and Quebecers should back away from extreme positions on this. One extreme position is that we can respect

democracy without respecting the rule of law. Some sovereignists say that. Some federalists say we can respect the rule of law and somehow work around the democratic will. That is also a dangerous position and the thinking of some Liberals.

The only position if we ever get into this secession thing deeper is to proceed by respecting both. Even Mr. Lévesque in 1980 insisted there had to be a mandate to negotiate and there would have to be a second referendum. I ask the sovereignists to look at their own history on this matter.

[Translation]

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member opposite has just said worries me. I wonder if he has seriously considered the implications.

The hon. member told us that if an unspecified majority of Quebecers were to vote yes in a referendum, he would prefer Quebec to leave Canada as quickly as possible, or something of the kind.

Has the hon. member seriously considered the implications of what he has just said? Does he not think those are irresponsible comments, especially on the part of someone who claims to be a federalist, and that comments such as these are almost as difficult to swallow and as contemptuous as those made by the Bloc Quebecois? Would it not be appropriate for the hon. member to reconsider his remarks to the effect that, in a matter of weeks after a referendum, Canadians in the rest of the country would like to get rid of Quebec as a member of the Canadian federation?

(1125)

Does he not think a close association that lasted more than 130 years is worth more than a few weeks before we decide to get out of it? Does he not think, after reconsidering, that his remarks should at least be left out of the Debates of the House of Commons?

Mr. Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the Chair the fact that the whip has used the word ``contemptuous'' about the Bloc Quebecois, and therefore about members in this House. Could he please withdraw these words?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): With all due respect, I think the hon. member for Richelieu is on a point of debate.

Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, this position is in no way different from the one I have expressed in the past, even on national television. I am saying that we have to abide by the rule of law and the democratic will. If a majority of Quebecers vote for separation, it will be impossible to ignore that reality.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Harper (Calgary West): But the same thing holds true for Quebec. Even if separatists are applauding, it is just the same for Quebec. If a large proportion, if millions of Quebecers vote no, that political reality cannot be ignored in the separation process, and that is why there is a partitionist movement. That is a reality.

[English]

I am surprised the member finds this shocking. Of course Canadians want to keep their country together. They do so on the assumption that all Canadians want to be a part of this country. We have been told for years, and I think the majority of Canadians believe it, that in spite of the separatist movement and its power the majority of Quebecers want to remain Canadians.

However, if the majority of Quebecers express themselves in a democratic referendum and make it absolutely clear they do not want to be Canadian, it will change the attitudes in the rest of the country.

If we have intelligent leadership that cares about the interests of the rest of the country, we will then negotiate sovereignty in a way that is quick, peaceful and in the best interests hopefully on both sides but particularly in the best interests of Canada.

We will not go to the barricades and have civil strife and unrest so that we can keep a bunch of Liberals sitting in power in Ottawa.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the speech made by the hon. member for Calgary West reminded me why the referendum results went from 40 per cent in 1980 to 49.4 per cent in 1995. Why is it that Canada has not been able to adapt to this change?

Does the hon. member think that the results were affected somewhat by the message the current Prime Minister has been sending for some time now, when he says that there is no constitutional issue to be resolved in Canada, and that the problems between Quebec and Canada will solve themselves if we have a good government?

Is it not also the result of trying to hide the fact that the Canadian Constitution is outdated and needs to be changed, from a federalist point of view-need I remind you that I am a sovereignist-but from a federalist point of view, after 16 years of inaction on the part of the federal government?

Is it not the best message that could be sent to Quebecers to let them know that the system cannot be changed from the inside, but more importantly, outside Quebec, in the rest of Canada, does the message sent by the current Prime Minister not lead Canadians to believe that there is no problem, when in fact we are still faced with a problem and all we see are the Prime Minister's efforts to create a diversion?

Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as a federalist reformer, I have said several times that we do recognize the need to overhaul the federal system.

(1130)

That, by itself, cannot explain the influence of the sovereignty movement, because there is also dissatisfaction with the federal system in Western Canada, although there is no sovereignty movement. Of course, the situation is different over there.

I agree that the message the Prime Minister sent during the referendum campaign was a factor in the increased support for sovereignty. What I am saying is that if Quebecers had voted No, they would have obtained nothing. It would have meant the status quo, of course, the end of everything, but no reform and no promises.

In his speech in Verdun, the Prime Minister said that if Quebecers were to vote No, they would get some constitutional concessions, and that a Yes vote would not be dangerous since separation would never occur.

With messages such as these, we can easily explain, I think, why the undecided voted Yes. I hope we can change things around, but it will not be easy. We will try to convince Quebecers of two things: first, that the federal system can be significantly changed for all Canadians, and second, that sovereignty will not change the important stuff and will not be in the best interest of the province of Quebec.

Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): I want to thank the hon. member for Calgary West who at least understands and is honest enough to say that he does not agree with referendums that lead to separation but that he would accept that kind of outcome. If Quebecers really vote for Quebec sovereignty, he will respect their decision. What is important to him is not simply a fistful of money or his own job as a member of Parliament but the will of the Quebec people, and I want to thank him for this.

However, he has encouraged us to continue negotiating. I want to remind him that we have been trying to change the federal system since 1763, since 1838. Only recently, as he said himself a moment ago, the Prime Minister promised real changes during the referendum campaign. Everything was recorded but we did not get anything.

Does the hon. member really believe that it is possible to change the federal system? I do not.

Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, this is not an easy question. We suggested reforms to the federal system and I note two things. The Prime Minister made commitments for reform during the referendum campaign but he did not have a mandate from the rest of Canada to do so. Moreover, do not forget that it was Lucien Bouchard himself who spoke about a partnership with the rest of Canada. This was his basic platform during the last referendum campaign.

To have a partnership you need partners. A partnership is negotiated among partners. It is impossible even for the sovereignist movement to go on with its own plan without negotiating or getting the consent of the rest of Canada.

Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, having had the honour of being elected by the citizens of Saint-Laurent is particularly relevant to what I am about to say in my maiden speech in the House of Commons.

(1135)

I will never be able to express my gratitude sufficiently to the constituents of Saint-Laurent-Cartierville for having chosen me to represent them. This diverse and harmonious community inhabited by over 50 different nationalities fully integrated into Quebec society intends to exercise its right to remain in Canada.

I dedicate what I am about to say to all the young people I met during my election campaign last March. Sometimes speaking in French, sometimes in English, and often in one or two other languages, a sign of how well equipped they are for the next century, these young people sadly told me that they were not sure their future lay in either Saint-Laurent or Montreal. They belong in Montreal and to the surrounding area, that is their home.

And rather than leave, they must convince their fellow Quebecers that belonging to more than one group is a source of strength, not a contradiction. They must convince their fellow Canadians in other provinces that recognizing the distinct nature of Quebec is not a threat to Canadian unity, but, on the contrary, a wonderful way to celebrate one of Canada's fundamental characteristics.

The theme of this first speech will be democracy, which the opposition invites us to consider this May 16, 1996, by presenting the following motion:

That the House endorse the declaration of the Prime Minister of Canada, who stated in Straight from the Heart, in 1985, ``If we don't win, I'll respect the wishes of Quebeckers and let them separate''.

Let us begin with that great prophet of democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville, and I quote: ``I consider unjust and ungodly the maxim that, in matters of government, a majority of the people

have the right to impose their will''. De Tocqueville is saying that democracy cannot be limited to the rule of the majority, because it also includes the rights of minorities, and of the smallest minority of all, the individual, the flesh and blood citizen.

The second classical author I call on is Jean-Jacques Rousseau. I will quote him in English.

[English]

The more important and serious the decisions, the closer the prevailing opinion should be to unanimity.

[Translation]

What Rousseau is setting out here is not obviously the rule of unanimity, which clearly is impracticable. What he is showing us is that the more a decision threatens the rights of individuals, the more irreversible it is and the more it involves future generations, the more stringent must be the procedure democracy selects for the adoption of this decision.

This brings me to the fine quote of Montesquieu linking democracy tightly with universal solidarity. And I quote: ``If I knew of something that could serve my nation but would ruin another, I would not propose it to my prince, for I am first a man and only then a Frenchman-because I am necessarily a man, and only accidently am I French.

Tocqueville, Rousseau, Montesquieu. With these three French authors, no one can accuse me of distancing myself from francophone tradition. In fact, however, the principles these three set out are universal and have guided constitutional democracies in establishing their rules of law. These principles are the reason that the supremacy of law is a vital component of democracy.

Let us apply these principles to the issue dividing us in Canada: secession. It is defined as a break in solidarity among the citizens of a common country. This is why international law in its great wisdom extends the right of self-determination in its extreme form, that is the right of secession, only in situations where a break in solidarity appears de facto to be incontrovertible.

Let us quote, in this regard, the five experts who testified before the Bélanger-Campeau Commission. I quote: ``Legally, Quebec's eventual declaration of sovereignty cannot be based on the principle of the equality in law of peoples or their right to self-determination, which permits independence only to colonial peoples or to those whose territory is under foreign occupation''.

(1140)

The secessions that have taken place to date have always arisen out of decolonization or the troubled times that follow the end of totalitarian or authoritarian regimes. It is not simply a matter of chance that no well established democracy with a minimum of ten years of universal suffrage has ever faced secession. Such a break in solidarity appears very hard to justify in a democracy. International law and democratic principles encourage the people to remain united, not to break up.

While democracy infers that a group of people cannot be forced to remain within a country against their will, it also sets strict rules, which, under the law, maximize the guarantees of justice for all. That is what we learned from near-secessions that have taken place in stable democracies. It may be a good idea to review the procedure by which Switzerland, a fine example of democracy, managed to separate the Jura from the canton of Berne while being fair to all. We could also look at how the U.S.A. intend to consult the Puerto Ricans on their political future. Closer to home, we might consider the approach taken recently by Canada to transfer title, in all fairness, on lands in the north.

Now it the time to calmly set, under the law, mutually acceptable secession rules. Not two weeks before a referendum. The Government of Canada does not deny in any way the right of Quebecers to pull out of Canada, if such is their explicit wish. However, the Government of Canada does object to the Quebec government's plans to unilaterally set and change as it pleases the procedure according to which this right will be exercised and expressed. A unilateral declaration of independence would fly in the face of democracy and the rule of law.

What is not known is whether the secessionist leaders are able of entering into a calm, level-headed and reasoned discussion process. The coarse language used recently by the Premier of Quebec, who compared Canada to a prison, or Quebec's Minister of Finance, who compared the Canadian government to former totalitarian communist governments, is an insult to the memory of the East German and North Korean people who were killed trying to escape totalitarian prisons. Independentist leaders must take a grip on themselves and make responsible statements. Otherwise, they should be prepared to call every constitutional democracy a prison, as well as the separate entity they want to make of Quebec, whose territory they consider indivisible and sacred.

With mutually consented rules in place, Quebecers could then examine with some clarity the argumentation used by secessionist leaders to try to convince them to break their ties of solidarity with their fellows citizens of the maritimes, Ontario and western Canada. It is my belief that Quebec will find this secessionist argumentation very shaky.

Exploitation cannot be used as an argument to justify secession, when the Canadian federation is one the most generous for have-not regions. Neither can self-determination, or the lack of it, be used as an argument, as few other federal components in the world benefit from as much autonomy as Quebec does within the Canadian federation.

The only argument secessionist leaders could put forth is the fact that, according to several established criteria, Quebecers could be considered as a people and that each people must have its own state. This idea that any group of people that is different from the others must have its own state is terribly untrue.

(1145)

The flawed equation ``one people, one country'' would blow up the planet. Experts have estimated at around 3,000 the number of human groups with a recognized collective identity. But there are fewer than 200 states in the world.

Quebecers and other Canadians should reflect on this fine statement by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and I quote:

[English]

If every ethnic region or linguistic group claimed statehood there would be no limit to fragmentation, and peace, security and well-being for all would become even more difficult to achieve.

[Translation]

Canada is the last place in the world where identity-based fragmentation should be allowed to prevail. In the eyes of the world, this country symbolizes better than any other the ideal of how different people can live together in harmony in a single state. In this regard, let us listen to President Clinton, who said, and I quote: ``In a world darkened by ethnic conflicts that literally tear nations apart, Canada has stood for all of us as a model of how people of different cultures can live and work together in peace, prosperity and understanding. Canada has shown the world how to balance freedom with compassion''.

Many others have said the same thing about Canada. I will give just one other quotation:

[English]

Canada is a land of promise and Canadians are people of hope. It is a country celebrated for its generosity of spirit, where tolerance is ingrained in the national character.

[Translation]

``A society in which all citizens and all groups can assert and express themselves and realize their aspirations''. These words, which have the ring of truth and could have come from Sir Wilfrid Laurier or Pierre Trudeau, were pronounced on July 1, 1988, by the then Secretary of State, the Hon. Lucien Bouchard.

The Canadian government's priority is to help Quebecers and other Canadians reconcile. They must speak to one another, stay in closer contact, clear up misunderstandings, find ways to make their federation work better, and celebrate Quebec's distinctiveness within Canada. They must reconcile, not only as fellow citizens but also as inhabitants of this poor planet. Let us bet on democracy.

Therefore, if the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm is deemed to be in order, I, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North, move:

That the motion be amended by deleting the words ``in 1985'' and by substituting for those words the following:

``in the 1970s and in 1985 as outlined on page 150 of his book Straight from the Heart: ``We'll put our faith in democracy. We'll convince the people that they should stay in Canada and we'll win''.

(1150)

It is under advisement and as long as you have not ruled on the original amendment, the only thing one can do is to move an amendment to the amendment by the member for Berthier-Montcalm. In this sense, you have to rule on that matter.

Should you decide-and I do not think that your ruling will be along this line-but should you decide that the amendment is out of order, another amendment could then be moved by a member. This is very clear when you look at citation 581 which deals with amendments to amendments; it says that you cannot move an amendment when there is already one that has not been disposed of. This is the case now, and the issue is under advisement.

You must make a ruling. Once this is done, the whole series of amendments and amendments to amendments will start over again.

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I agree that there can be only one amendment. However, must I remind the Chair and the House that the Speaker has not yet ruled on the amendment? If the amendment is out of order, which it is not at this very moment, the minister is certainly allowed to propose another amendment.

The Chair, with the help of the Table officers, is considering whether the first amendment is in order, for two reasons: first, with regard to the substance of the amendment and, second, with regard to the point of order I raised as to whether the member had the right to propose an amendment when he did. Once the Chair rules that the first amendment is in order, if this is indeed the case, then the minister's amendment will clearly be out of order.

But until the Chair rules on the first amendment, there is no amendment before the House and, therefore, the minister has the right to propose an amendment as he did.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Once again, I thank the House leader of the official opposition, the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie, and the chief government whip, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.

First of all, I want to address the amendment brought forward by the official opposition. I believe it is in order in terms of substance. As for its timeliness, that issue is being considered as we speak. Therefore, there is no amendment before the House at this moment.

As for the amendment proposed by the minister, I will take it under advisement based on the ruling I will give in the first case and also on whether it is in order.

I will read to you the text of the amendment proposed by the minister: ``That the motion be amended by deleting the words ``in 1985'' and by substituting for those words the following: 'in the 1970s and in 1985 as outlined on page 150 of his book Straight from the Heart: ``We'll put our faith in democracy. We'll convince the people that they should stay in Canada and we'll win''. The whole matter is being considered, and the Speaker will give his ruling to the House as soon as possible.

(1155)

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the minister and the House that the Prime Minister's answer followed a question which reads as follows: ``At a town meeting-a-Liberal got up and said 'Chrétien, when will you tell the separatists that there will never be independence, that the federal government will never allow it to happen?'.'' And the answer was: ``But I did not agree-it is Mr. Chrétien who is speaking-. 'We'll put our faith in democracy,' I said. 'We'll convince the people that they should stay in Canada and we'll win. If we don't win, I'll respect the wishes of Quebeckers and let them separate''.

Can the minister explain to us why, in the amendment which he proposed and which may be in order, he deleted the part of the quote which appears in the Prime Minister's book: ``If we don't win, I'll respect the wishes of Quebeckers and let them separate''.

Why did the minister delete that part of the quote? In that quote, there are two parts: if we win, we will do this; if we lose, we will do that. That is how democracy works, it is making a choice between the two.

That is the question I am asking the minister, but I have one last comment to make.

In his speech, he said that Canada is practically the best country in the world. I would like to submit to him, for his consideration, a few examples of what Quebecers and French speaking Canadians experienced in Canada.

The first example is the assimilation process in Manitoba, where the French language was forbidden for many years, with the acceptance of the rest of Canada for a very long time.

The second one is conscription, which was imposed on Quebecers despite their decision not to take part.

The third one is that, ever since unemployment rates have been calculated, unemployment in Quebec has always been 2, 3 or 4 per cent higher that the national average. Is that an interesting economic result? Is that acceptable?

For the fourth example, I will ask why, since 1982, all the successive governments in Quebec, whether federalist or sovereignist, never accepted to sign the Constitution that was patriated without Quebec's consent? Do you really think that this makes for an interesting country for Quebecers?

Mr. Dion: Mr. Speaker, the moment you mention the possibility of winning, it infers the possibility of losing.

As I said before, what is at issue here is not the right of Quebecers to leave Canada if they so desire and clearly state it, but the Quebec government's claim to unilaterally choose and change at will the process through which this right will be exercised.

Let the official opposition name one constitutional democracy that would accept a unilateral process of this kind.

As far as the examples mentioned by the hon. member, countries have their problems, but it is no reason to split. If you want to go to the UN and explain why you want to secede, you will have to come up with more serious reasons than this. You will not get anybody to shed any tears over the problems we have had with the 1982 Constitution. As a matter of fact, other countries will be very surprised to hear your objections, since Quebec representatives in the federal government supported the new Constitution, since we can produce polls showing that at the time Quebecers tended to support Mr. Trudeau rather than Mr. Lévesque, since Mr. Lévesque, instead of calling a referendum, appeased his own party, since in the following elections the separatist party got only 2 per cent of the votes; if you add up all this, you will not get anybody in the UN to shed any tears with your arguments.

All they will say is that Canada is a normal country, a democracy where there are disagreements, and that these disagreements must be settled through mutual consent and within the law.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before continuing with questions and comments, I would like to remind all the members that they are to address their comments to the Chair.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I first want to say that I am outraged at the lack of respect shown by the

Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to 49.4 per cent of Quebecers who voted yes, when he said that it would not make anyone cry.

To exercise a democratic right is not to try to make people cry.

(1200)

But to try to sell an idea such as that of secession is more serious. Still, I should thank the minister for his excellent ``Politics 101'' lecture and for referring to three great classics: Tocqueville, Rousseau and Montesquieu. His speech took me back to my university years. I want to quote someone whom the minister probably considers to be a great classic too, the current Prime Minister.

Let us put things in their proper context with this more recent statement from the Prime Minister: ``I am a democrat. I said it in 1980 in many speeches to that effect. If we had not recognized that Quebec could make the decision to separate, we would have acted differently. We could have used some powers. We did not use them''. This is from the Bélanger-Campeau report, December 17, 1990, page 1515.

I have a question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Is he now telling us, after two referendums, after saying twice that the rules were fair and legal, after recognizing that we were democrats, that this is no longer the case and that the federal government will use the other powers alluded to in 1990? If so, what are these powers?

Mr. Dion: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's ideology makes him incredibly touchy. It is an ideology based on paranoia, an ideology that makes people feel constantly insulted, humi-

Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister, who just recently arrived in this House, should not only learn its rules, but also the basic rules of politeness and respect for others. It is unacceptable on his part to use such words, first because he is insulting a colleague and, second, because he is insulting those who suffer from this disorder. It is unacceptable and the minister should retract himself and show that he was well brought up.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I did not hear anything that would lead me to ask the minister to retract. However, I will take a look at the blues and deal with the issue if need be. I think we are engaged in a very important debate.

Both sides of the House stressed the importance of being respectful of each other. It may be even more important in the case of debates such as this one, on the official opposition's motion.

I am giving the floor back to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Mr. Dion: Mr. Speaker, I talked about an ideology based on paranoia. I would never say that the people themselves were paranoid and I do not want the hon. member to believe that I was talking about him personally. I just wanted to say that the ideology he supports makes people feel constantly insulted and under attack. I would say that the members' reaction and their request to have me gagged and to make me apologize show that I am right to point out how paranoid their ideology is.

(1205)

Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the minister explained what he meant by ``an ideology based on paranoia'' by saying: ``Your ideology makes you feel paranoid'', so that refers more-

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Again, this is more a matter for debate than a point of order. I would remind the House that when some expressions or words are aimed at a group, they are deemed acceptable. However, when they are directly aimed at another parliamentarian, that is, as we say in Cornwall, a horse of a different colour. So, with due respect for this debate being held in the House of Commons during the 35th Parliament, I would ask the minister to resume his speech.

Mr. Dion: Mr. Speaker, to say that some part of my speech was insulting to Quebecers is really paranoid, because, the 49.4 per cent of Quebecers who voted Yes did express their views. What was unfortunate during the last referendum is that we did not know exactly what a Yes vote would mean, because the rules of the game were not quite clear, as evidenced by the fact that the leader of the Yes side, Mr. Parizeau, on the night he lost the referendum, said that the 49.4 per cent was the result of the indépendantiste vote, an expression he never had the fortitude to use during the campaign itself. Rest assured that the Government of Canada is very worried about such a process that any constitutional democracy would find irresponsible.

As regards the quotes the opposition likes to use, which are in essence its only argument, I would like to point out that all the quotes the opposition have come up with show that Canada is quite ready to respect democracy but would never accept what any constitutional democracy would also find unacceptable, which is the violation of the law and a unilateral declaration of independence.

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister can test the theory he has just described on the public to find out if they see it the same way. I put my seat on the line and invite him to try and get elected in my riding with its francophone majority. In order to get elected, the minister had to go through the side door. But let him face the people, let him try his luck in my riding. I wager my seat against his theories. He will see just what the public thinks of his wonderful philosophy. Democracy is a majority vote, the desire of a people to become sovereign or

remain in a federation. When the Russian federation broke up, the first government in the world to recognize all the small sovereign countries was the Canadian government. But when the same thing happens at home, it is a different story? Come on. What sort of respect for democracy is that?

(1210)

Mr. Dion: Mr. Speaker, the first government in the world to recognize the new republics created after the fall of the soviet empire was the Russian government. If I were happy with the state of opinion in Quebec and in Canada, I would be at the university today.

I am well aware that numerous francophones in Quebec believe that it is a contradiction to identify themselves both as Quebecers and as Canadians, and that they must resolve this contradiction by leaving Canada.

I intend to do everything in my power to convince my fellow Quebecers that they must not give up on Canada. If ever I fail, after rules expressing clearly and unambiguously what the people of Quebec want, we should take steps in a manner that is fair to everyone to bring about what for me would be a very sad thing, the secession of Quebec.

Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville just made an interesting speech in some respects, even though parts of it were rather shocking. It was interesting because this man, who has his own vision of Canada, concluded his speech by saying that if he cannot convince Canadians that his vision is the right one, he will be sad.

The problem is that, since 1960, Quebec's premiers of all political stripes have repeatedly tried to find a real place for Quebec through negotiations with the rest of Canada. And they have repeatedly failed to obtain satisfactory results.

The Deputy Speaker: I am told the member for Mercier will have the floor to resume debate after questions and comments. The minister has 30 seconds to respond and I will then give the floor to the member for Mercier.

Mr. Dion: Mr. Speaker, from what I understood, the member just said that Quebecers and Canadians have had an ongoing dialogue for 30 years, which is normal in any federation, and that, according to her, this dialogue would justify the break-up of Canada.

Well, I will repeat what I have been saying since the beginning. We are talking about Canada, one of the most decentralized federations in the world. In my mind Canada is the most decentralized. Experts recognize that it is one of the most decentralized federations.

When we talk about one of the most independent federations in the world, if Quebecers let themselves be persuaded that it is not enough and that they have to separate from the rest of Canada, one of the problems they would face is that they would have to explain to their own minority that they refused one of the most generous independent status in the world without even being able to give them the same status. It would be sad and very difficult to swallow. A reconciliation within Canada would be so much better.

Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville is not the first to enter politics and to think that, because he is a politician, he will convince Canadians. I also have a great perception of Canada.

I came to the conclusion that the best way for this country to continue to give an example it has often given is to recognize, given its nature, that it cannot and does not want to give Quebecers the place they believe is necessary and, consequently, that it is better at this time, as many authorities in English Canada are starting to say, to make preparations to recognize that Quebec can become sovereign, and to negotiate an agreement with it. This agreement is called a partnership in Quebec and can be called otherwise elsewhere. This is where the real solution, the real hope lies. Not in plan B which the minister himself has flirted with.

(1215)

Not in plan B that, unfortunately-and I was extremely sad about this because I know many colleagues opposite-the Liberal caucus discussed in Vancouver. The latest episode in plan B is the government's involvement, I do not know on whose advice, in lawyer Guy Bertrand's case.

I would like to point this out: for all lovers of democracy, what is Mr. Bertrand's logic? It is that Quebecers, who are a people, used their right to self-determination in 1867? So much for democracy. What referendum took place in 1867?

Guy Bertrand is saying: ``Quebec used its right to self-determination once, when members of Parliament voted for Confederation'', but we know that Confederation was a colonial act, the British North American Act. This Constitution was only patriated in 1982 and Quebec parliamentarians unanimously voted against it.

When Guy Bertrand says Quebec used its right to self-determination, when only members of Parliament voted for Confederation, he is leading the government down a road it may not wish to take, as it has spoken of letting Quebec clearly express its will.

This issue of democracy is central to the evolution of the sovereignist movement in Quebec. And I can even tell you that, over several years, I heard Guy Bertrand say repeatedly and eloquently that the 1982 Constitution was loathsome and that the National Assembly of Quebec could declare independence alone, without a referendum.

On the contrary, the sovereignist movement is the full embodiment of democracy. Over the years, it has, to quote a prominent French politician ``accepted that its progression is the progression of the slowest''. This was said by Michel Rocard, who, at that time, confessed that he had great respect for our way of doing things. Yes, Quebec's sovereignist movement accepts all the demands of democracy. And its behaviour has been exemplary in that regard.

Quebecers are becoming increasingly aware that they have no future for them unless they become masters of their own destiny, because they cannot take it any more, as many Canadians are tired of constantly discussing the basic conditions required for Quebec's recognition. Canadians are fed up, Quebecers are fed up, but this situation must be resolved once and for all.

We are a people and a nation. This is an inescapable fact. This is a historical fact. This is a fact the hon. member recognizes when he says that, sadly, it must be acknowledged that sovereignty is desirable, because the people of Quebec are the ones who will choose to become sovereign. The inescapable fact is that we are a pluralistic people and nation, which accepts and includes everyone living on its territory.

We equate sovereignty with the quest for the majority's approval, an approval that has been sought long and hard, with all the difficulties we went through.

(1220)

To come out with statements to the effect that Quebecers would not make anybody cry is to ignore the emotions felt worldwide during the last referendum, where, I would say, the world admired the open and honest debate that went on and the way people accepted the result. Even if it was extremely close, there was no expression of indignation from the many Quebecers, not only francophones but also people of other origins with whom I have worked for a long time, from all those people who, for years and years, have dedicated their life to this cause in which they strongly believe.

The government has to stop trying to prevent Quebecers from proposing to Canada the ideal image that the minister should commit to, and that is to ensure that Quebec and Canada, once sovereignty is achieved, negotiate a partnership that will allow everybody, both Canadians and Quebecers, to address the most pressing issues that we have to set aside until this situation is resolved.

I have a series of amendments. If the Bloc amendment is rejected, I propose the following amendment to the amendment proposed by the member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville:

That the following be added after the word ``win'':

``adding that he would recognize the independence of Quebec if he lost''.

That the amendment be amended by adding the words ``the book'' between the words ``in'' and ``Straight from the Heart''.

That the motion be amended by adding the following immediately after the word ``stated'':

``in his book, Straight from the Heart, on page 150''.

(1225)

Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member quoted a well known French political figure, Michel Rocard, to support her argument. I am always pleased to hear the extraordinary variety of points of view that come to us from that great pluralistic democracy, the Fifth French Republic, which proclaims itself an indivisible whole, and whose Prime Minister was recently quoted as finding the very idea of holding a referendum in Corsica on the future of Corsica ridiculous.

The truth is that the Canadian government's position on the right to secede is more conciliatory than that of many other western democracies. It is not saying that secession is always forbidden, but rather that a decision such a secession by one province cannot be made unilaterally. It must be done with the consent of the parties concerned and within the law. That was the position of the Government of Quebec and of the Government of Canada in 1980, and it is still the position of the Government of Canada.

Mr. Bouchard needs to get hold of himself. Instead of insulting the East Germans and the North Koreans who lost their lives in escaping totalitarian regimes, instead of saying that Canada is not a real country, he ought to keep in mind that, in free societies, in democratic and peaceful societies, the usual way to arbitrate disagreements and to settle conflicts is to plead one's case before the courts and to recognize the right of one's adversaries to do likewise.

Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. minister, who no doubt is much more aware of this than I, having taught political science for a long time, that facts come before laws, and that before there were constitutions there were peoples who constituted themselves before creating constitutions.

The people of Quebec are a people and a nation, one which, I repeat, has never subscribed to the Constitution. The Constitution began by being colonial, and when it was brought to Canada through the good graces of Trudeau, the National Assembly in its

entirety rejected the 1982 Constitution. Since that time, in Canada, in Canada outside Quebec, there has been a debate on how Quebec will, or will not, be allowed to rejoin the ranks of the Constitution.

During his term, Prime Minister Mulroney, regardless of what other qualities or shortcomings we ascribe to him, tried to make room for Quebec in the 1982 Constitution. This gave rise to Meech, this gave rise to Charlottetown.

This is the truth, a fact, not just a notion. What needs doing is not to convince Quebecers that Canada is an ideal country, but to find a concrete solution so that Quebec will at last have the powers it requires to develop as it is entitled to develop.

Mr. Dion: Mr. Speaker, the whole basis is there. What law is the hon. member speaking of? It is not international law, which extends the right of secession only in cases of decolonialization or manifest exploitation. It is not Canadian law, which does not give a province the right to secede unilaterally.

So, if she is not speaking about a formal law, she should recognize that it is high time we talked calmly about rules that would be acceptable to everyone in order to ensure that Canadians are treated fairly in all circumstances.

Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, never in this fairly long stretch separating us from the two referendums has the Government of Canada said such things. It always distinguished between politics and the Constitution.

Why, when we almost won the latest referendum, did it change its opinion? I hope with all my heart that my colleague opposite is not the person advising this government to change its attitude, which was the right one in a democracy.

(1230)

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, to start with I would like to recall the thrust of the opposition motion. In the seventies the Prime Minister of Canada said, as reported in his book Straight from the Heart, ``We'll put our faith in democracy. We'll convince the people that they should stay in Canada and we'll win. If we don't win, I'll respect the wishes of Quebeckers and let them separate''. The aim of the opposition motion is to have the whole House repeat this statement. It is to have the Prime Minister confirm that the rules he believed in in the seventies, and stated in his book, will still apply tomorrow. This is the objective of the motion.

We can safely say that when the present Prime Minister made that statement in the seventies, he probably had data telling him that the sovereignist side would never win a referendum. This is probably what he had in mind, given the numbers he had. But the inability of the federal system to reform itself has resulted in the sovereignist vote increasing from 22 per cent in 1970, during a Quebec election, to 40 per cent in the 1980 referendum to 49.4 per cent last year. Each time we make progress because federalists make promises they do not keep.

Obviously I understand the fear of the present government when it says that it cannot change the structure and come up with a proposal that will please Quebecers. If the present government were to say that it was going to negotiate between peoples, that it was going to enshrine in the Canadian Constitution the recognition of the two founding peoples of Canada, and that it would allow Quebec to develop-

Quebecers have been making these claims for a long time, but proposals never came to anything because they did not meet the needs of both peoples of Canada. We can understand this and there is a solution to it, which is what we are proposing. The aim of today's motion however is to make sure it will be done democratically.

I would like to clarify something the Prime Minister keeps on repeating. He says: ``You lost the referendum twice, now respect democracy''. Democracy does not mean we have to stop believing what we believe in when we lose an election, democracy is keeping on trying to convince people we are right and they are wrong. To do this, you need tenacity. Evolution of thought is important also. In Quebec, mainly at the suggestion of René Lévesque, we gambled on the profound belief that we would solve the issue democratically. We accepted the 40 per cent result of 1980 and the more recent 49.4 per cent.

The current premier of Quebec was the first to accept the results. We play according to the rules of democracy. We are sovereignists and we say so very clearly. We will call an election, we will win and we will prove to Quebecers that this is the right solution, because you cannot make a flower grow by pulling on it, you have to nurture it. We are ready to follow the pace of the people and to present arguments to convince them.

What we need now is for the government, and particularly the Prime Minister, to confirm their respect for democracy because, over the last few days, we have heard all sorts of contradictory statements saying that it cannot be done with just over 50 per cent, that other conditions will have to be met. The federal government and Quebec must agree on the question.

There is a paternalistic attitude now, just as there was in 1982. The rules of democracy were followed then. In 1982, the government said: ``We are legitimate, we have 74 federalist Libreal members out of 75 seats. Therefore, we have the right to do so. And we will put our seats on the line during the next election''. Democracy prevailed because after the following election, they were all gone. Since then, the movement has gathered momentum.

We went from nationalist members within the Conservative Party to the 53 sovereignists we now have, because of the Meech Lake accord demise.

There will be sovereignists until Canada solves the problem with Quebec and, for us, the solution is sovereignty. If the government has another solution to propose, it should put it on the table and let Quebecers judge its relevancy. At the present time, the game is not played on the rink. The federal government is trying to change the rules and the players' position on the rink. That is no solution. It does not solve anything. It is like negotiating a collective agreement, when, instead of agreeing at the negotiating table, people start negotiating the back-to-work protocol, the strike issue, etc. That is irrelevant.

(1235)

So, the objective of the opposition motion is to allow the Prime Minister, the current government, to reaffirm what he said in the 1970's and 1980's, that is, if they do not win, they will let Quebecers separate.

The current Prime Minister made that statement. When he says: ``I'll let Quebeckers separate'', which in his vocabulary is about the most terrible thing that could happen, there is a fundamental recognition that, if the results make sovereignty possible, it will have to be accepted by the Canadian government.

It is also important to let everyone see clearly that we do not live in a society that has always existed as such. Canadian Confederation is not timeless, it did not come into existence at the same time our planet did. It is the result of compromises that led British colonies to become allied in a kind of organization in 1867. It was finalized by a vote in their respective legislative assemblies. That is when it was decided to found Canada.

In a sense, Quebecers could be said to be overdoing it. They have developed an acute sense of democracy. After joining the Canadian confederation by a vote in the legislature, they saw fit, in light of the evolution of political thinking, to impose upon themselves as a requirement that a democratic vote be held in which more than 50 per cent of the population should vote in favour.

Come to think of it, the result in 1995 was fantastic. Ninety-three per cent of Quebecers voted in the referendum, a participation rate unsurpassed anywhere in the world. It was a tight vote. The verdict came in. And we said: ``We shall continue to be a part of Canada according to the wishes of the majority''. The majority expressed its wishes and we acknowledged the referendum results.

We also tolerated, without displaying any violence, having 20,000, 25,000 or 30,000 persons-the exact number was never determined- come to Montreal to tell us in an ultrapaternalistic way that they would decide in our place what we want. I think that we can be proud of our democratic process in Quebec. It is fair to say that this may be behind the largest consensus in Quebec.

While realizing there are differences of opinion, we are prepared to live with them and to defend them. We are even prepared to take up the fight once again and to accept what comes of it. We are asking the Liberal government to take our lead. It should simply respect whatever decision Quebecers make and stick to its guns.

In conclusion, I move as follows:

That the motion be amended by adding, immediately after the word ``stated'', the following:

``in his book entitled Straight from the Heart, on page 140''.

That the amendment moved by the hon. member for Mercier be amended by adding the word ``autobiographical'' immediately before the word ``book''.

I hope that members will rise in this House to tell us that, first and foremost, they are liberals and democrats and that they will respect whatever democratic decision is made. Being a democrat must take precedence over being a federalist or a sovereignist. In the decisions facing us, it is of paramount importance that the wishes of the people be respected.

I expect the current Prime Minister of Canada to do so and to reaffirm by voting in favour of this motion that he still holds the same views on the matter, that democracy will prevail in his decision and that he will accept the result of the next referendum, which will see Quebec become a sovereign state.

(1240)

The Deputy Speaker: We shall carefully consider the official opposition's latest initiatives. We will settle everything at the same time, and as quickly as possible.

Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief to compensate for the length of the official opposition's speeches and their repetitive, rhetorical arguments as they pretend not to realize they have lost this debate.

In this matter, the Government of Canada defends the right of Quebecers and other Canadian citizens to be treated fairly under the law whatever the circumstances. As I just said, the official opposition is pretending it does not realize it has lost the debate. They can quote the Prime Minister of Canada as much as they want; all this would do is show that, as a good democrat, the Prime Minister has no intention of keeping a people against its will once this people has clearly expressed its desire to leave Canada.

At the same time, it has been clearly demonstrated in this debate that a unilateral declaration of independence would violate the rule

of law and go against democratic principles and would not be recognized by any constitutional democracy on this planet.

Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, I have an interesting proposal for the minister. If, as he claims, the Prime Minister is indeed a good and great democrat, then let us hear him reassert his position. He simply has to vote in favour of the motion. The Prime Minister simply has to tell his government colleagues that he is not afraid of repeating what he said in 1970 and wrote in 1985. This is what we are asking him to do on this opposition day.

The minister also says that we lost the debate. The fact is that the democratic and political debate is not over in one day. This is not the society of a thousand years, as former Prime Minister Trudeau once said. We have a right to democratically discuss ideas. We had a good example of that last week. The debate on the issue of sexual orientation as a prohibited ground for discrimination lasted for over 25 years in Canada.

People maintained their position and, thanks to their tenacity, finally got what they wanted. This is how changes are brought about in the political process. This is what we were taught in the past by very democratic people, in Quebec and in Canada. We learned that political debates are the way to go, that battles are won by convincing people with good arguments.

Right now, new arguments come up every day and more and more people are in favour of Quebec's sovereignty. It is so because, in the days that preceded the October 30 referendum, the Prime Minister, speaking for the current federal government, said to us: ``We will make major changes''. It is the second time in 15 years that we are told major changes will take place, and this time again there are no changes. Each time, some people realize they made a mistake by voting no, and the next they will vote yes. This is the reality. This is the real political debate, and we will win it.

The people of Quebec has been forging ahead for a long time. The fact that sovereignists have been here for over two years is not a coincidence. For a long time, we believed that we could become sovereign by simply forming the government in Quebec City. We realized it was important to send a message to Canada and to make the country realize that sovereignty was not a folksy thing in Quebec, but a deeply rooted feeling. Such was the message sent by Quebecers to all federalists at the 1993 election.

Quebecers said: ``We want to be represented by a majority of sovereignists, and we want Canada to know that. We will make decisions accordingly and we will always do so in the respect of democracy''.

(1245)

Today, we are merely asking the Prime Minister to say that, yes, he will continue to respect the rules of democracy. The decision rests with him.

[English]

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member has used the pronoun nous or we many times: We in Quebec want this, we in Quebec want that. He and I both agree there is a lot of democracy going on here now and then.

When he uses the term ``we'' is he not also trying to speak for the majority of Quebecers who voted no in the last referendum? How is he able-

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup.

[Translation]

Mr. Crête: I can tell my hon. colleague that when I say ``we'' as democrats, I am referring to the vast majority of Quebecers. Last October's referendum, in which 93 per cent of the population went to the polls, shows very clearly that we Quebecers are democrats. I would add that Canadians, too, are democrats. What we are asking today is for the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada to reaffirm that they still stand for democracy and that they are always ready to accept the rules of the game, even though they are feeling the heat.

Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with my colleague, the hon. member for St. Boniface.

[English]

I am very pleased to take part in the debate today. I am glad the hon. member from Scarborough asked the hon. member from Kamouraska the question about to whom the term we refers. When I look at the quote in the original motion, I remind hon. members opposite that in 1985 we did win, just as we did win in 1995. As far as I am concerned we refers to all Canadians, whether you live in Quebec, British Columbia, or the Yukon, whether you speak French or English, the we includes all of us from sea to sea to sea.

The Bloc motion seeks to sow confusion once again among Canadians, then blame it on the federal government. I draw to the attention of the House and the attention of Quebecers in particular to the true intention behind the words of the secessionists. I will deal briefly with a number of myths that they enjoy circulating.

First, let me talk about transfers to the provinces, the first myth we have to deal with. Quebec's current finance minister said when he tabled his last budget that Quebec is the most indebted province. Indeed, its economy generates revenues for the provincial government which fall below the Canadian average.

It is precisely to remedy the inequalities this situation could cause over time that the federal government provides Quebec with generous and completely unconditional equalization payments every year. A federal system can afford to do that, unlike a separate and separated heavily indebted country.

Quebec is not the only province that receives federal transfer payments. My province of Nova Scotia does, as do Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and New Brunswick. It is because we are a federation, it is because as a federation we believe in assisting each other.

Mr. Speaker, you will remember there was a time when Quebecers and maritimers, eastern Canadians in general, paid $5 a barrel over the world price for oil in order to get the Alberta oil industry moving. That is what a federation is about, helping one part of the federation when it is needed.

Transfers to the provinces represent a substantial part of the federal government's program spending. We could therefore not reasonably streamline the spending in the last budget without touching those transfers, but they are still there and will continue to be there.

(1250 )

Nevertheless, the cuts in transfers to the provinces that were made are far from disproportionate. They will require from all the provinces an effort to adjust that is well below the one that the federal government is imposing on itself. Thus, in the next two years the federal government intends to reduce its own spending by 7.3 per cent while the main transfers to the provinces will be cut by only 4.4 per cent. In other words, the federal government is being much easier on the provinces, Quebec included, than it is on itself.

The Bloc is also trying to make people believe that cuts in federal transfers affect Quebec more than the other provinces. However, it has taken pains not to mention Le Hir study which stated that Quebec's share in that regard has remained stable for 15 years at around 30 per cent, which is clearly greater than Quebec's proportion of the Canadian population.

Moreover, the Bloc is also not mentioning that the reform announced in the last federal budget in this regard even gives additional protection to the seven less wealthy provinces, which include Quebec, because equalization payments to these provinces will continue to increase in the next four years. Equalization payments to Quebec will thus increase by around $200 million for a total of $4.05 billion in 1996-97. Yet another myth that just does not cut it.

The Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois refuse to respect the will of Quebecers, a majority of whom have twice chosen to stay in Canada and work to renew it.

However, the Bloc and the péquiste keep singing the same tune. For example, their unsubstantiated inflating of the cost of overlap and duplication to $3 billion is another deliberate attempt on their part to discredit Canadian federalism and to hoodwink the people in the province of Quebec. Yet they will never admit that.

In the vast majority of cases where the two orders of government are active in the same field of activity, their actions complement one another because they serve different clientele or provide different services to the same clientele. This federalism works and works well for the people of Quebec as it works and works well for the people of every province and territory in this great country.

Furthermore, they are very reluctant to tell people that the few serious analyses of the subject show that the savings achieved would be less than $1.7 billion and that those are gross savings which would be offset in the event of secession by the loss of economies of scale and by higher interest rates on government borrowing.

The overlap being described to Quebecers is much less than our friends across the aisle would have them believe. It certainly is not worth destroying a country for. We intend to minimize unnecessary overlap while ensuring that we effectively manage overlap that is inevitable.

There are other myths too. Our opponents across the aisle like to suggest that Canadian federalism is responsible for the high unemployment in Quebec. That has nothing to do with the Canadian system. Everyone, except it seems the Bloc, seems to know that unemployment is a problem for all western countries. Some unitary states have unemployment rates much higher than Canada. Canada is taking the necessary measures to implement the fullest employment policy possible.

The IMF forecast of a 2.9 per cent economic growth in 1997 is good news for all Canadians and for the Canadian government, whose main objective is to revitalize the economy and improve our economic union. The standard of living of all Canadians depends on it.

The secessionists may not like it but Canada actually works a whole lot better than their highly speculative smoke and mirrors. If federalism is so harmful to the economy and jobs in Quebec why do economists unanimously conclude that the job situation in Quebec would worsen considerably following separation?

The secessionists like to suggest that the Government of Canada gives Quebec money only for unemployment insurance, social assistance and seniors. Yet the federal government has always invested considerable sums of money in Quebec year after year in a large number of projects that are essential to its social, economic and cultural development. Furthermore, statistics show unequivocally that Quebec within Canada is very profitable for Quebecers. In fact, Quebec provides 21.7 per cent of the federal government's revenues and receives more than 24.5 per cent of federal spending.

(1255)

Let me give a few examples of that spending: 47.5 per cent of Canadian industrial milk quotas go to Quebec farmers; 32 per cent of Canada Council funding is distributed to Quebec, specifically in the literary and publishing field, Quebec receives 40 per cent of

council funding; more than 50 per cent of financial assistance from the Department of Canadian Heritage for publishing and distribution of publications goes to Quebec; 37 per cent of Telefilm Canada funding is distributed in Quebec; 33 per cent of federal funding for the reception and integration of immigrants goes to the Government of Quebec, even though Quebec receives less than 20 per cent of the immigrants who come to Canada each year; $204 million is earmarked for the economic development of the regions of Quebec by the Federal Office for Regional Development-Quebec.

How can the Bloc seriously claim that federalism is hurting Quebec's development and keeping it in a state of dependency? It is beyond understanding. It is smoke and mirrors. It is a sham and one that I do not think Quebecers believe any more than other Canadians do.

Canada is seen as the jailer of Quebec. That is the latest outrage, to compare Canada to a prison in which Quebec is being held against its will. Is this a strange sense of humour, or are the secessionists serious? Indeed, how can Quebec want to separate from their jailers today and yet want to reassociate with them tomorrow?

Belonging to an political and economic union brings with it the obligation of co-operation and consultation. In today's interdependent world, doing what I like is not the objective of any responsible government. It is not even feasible.

Quebecers have twice chosen with their hearts and with their heads not to mortgage their future and their children's future when they benefit from economic and political association with Canada and are part of the country with the best quality of life in the world.

If our friends across the aisle want to help Quebecers, they will have to do their part, abandon their completely unrealistic ideology and work with the majority of their fellow citizens who want and will help us all to build a better Canada.

[Translation]

Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the hon. member had to say. I can tell you that her speech will not go down in history since she constantly changed subjects and contradicted herself. Let me quote some of her comments. She talked about confusion. If there is someone who is confused in this House, it has to be the Prime Minister. We were given an example earlier. We were told that in 1970 he did not do the same thing as he did in 1985.

One day, he says something, the next he goes back on his word. Let me give you an example. Not so long ago, the Prime Minister said in this House that we would ``have to face the music'' at the next referendum. At the time, he was sure he was going to win. When you are sure to win, there are rights, no such considerations. He was sure to win, so he could say anything.

The situation has changed since then, with the growing popularity of the sovereignist movement, the results of the last referendum and the things yet to come. After the next referendum, it will be over. Why? Because the federal government has not been able since 1867 to deal with federalism as it should have. Initially, within the federal system, the federal government and the provinces were supposed to share Canada's sovereignty. Little by little however, the federal government got involved in areas of provincial jurisdiction, so much so that we now have a dominating and centralizing federal government.

As for the hon. member's conclusion, we will come back to that. I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are indicating I have only one minute left. I will not be able to say much, but let me sum up what I wanted to say. When we are told that we lost the last referendum, I always answer that federalism did not even exist in 1867.

(1300)

Everybody agreed more or less with what was put on the table. But in 1980 the results were 44 per cent and in 1995, 49.6 per cent. Quebecers are becoming aware that, within the current system, we are not progressing, we are moving backwards, and at the next referendum, I am convinced we will get between 55 per cent and 60 per cent of the votes.

I just wish people would understand one thing: the only way to put an end to the constitutional debate is for federalists to propose a real program if they have one, but unfortunately, they do not have any.

[English]

Ms. Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I understand our difficulty. The hon. member suggested that I was confused and contradicted myself. He did not give any examples, ergo I cannot refute his utterly ridiculous charge.

He said that we do not share. I gave eight examples of where the federal government not only shares but shares most generously in federal funds with the province of Quebec without even getting into the transfer payments.

Finally, our federation certainly has its problems as do other federations. I know we can overcome these problems because on this side of the House we have faith in the sense and sensibility and the good hearts of all Canadians whether they live in Quebec or anywhere else in the country. I am sorry the hon. member over there does not. However we will prevail.

[Translation]

Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my voice to those trying to describe the ties of affection that have long existed, and that still exist, between Canada and Quebec.

[English]

I am adding my voice in the House today to those of my colleagues in the government, first to set the record straight for

Canadians, especially Quebecers, and at the same time to respond to the disinformation that is continually being put forward by the Bloc Quebecois.

The Bloc would have Quebecers and other Canadians believe that Canada is a prison, that the federal government is a jailer keeping Quebec bound and gagged and thus preventing it from expressing itself on issues that are important to its future. Nothing could be further from the truth. That is the type of hysterical rhetoric we have become used to hearing from the Bloc as it defends its now secessionist position.

Let us look at the motion tabled by the Bloc today which is yet another example of that kind of disinformation. The Bloc would like the government of a country that has flourished for 129 years to remain mute, absolutely mute with regard to a unilateral declaration of independence that would flout the Canadian Constitution in the courts.

Accordingly, the Bloc would like to see the 23 million Canadians outside of Quebec stand idly by and give the secessionist government a blank cheque by abstaining from discussing this matter. It is now the secessionist government itself that has brought us to this point. The Government of Canada now has an obligation to respond even though a majority of Quebecers have expressed yet again their desire to remain within the Canadian Confederation.

As Mr. Daniel Johnson, the leader of the opposition in Quebec has said, this is a phoney problem. But because the PQ has instigated this legal debate, let us do it calmly and coolly. That is the position of the Canadian government. Anger and emotion must not win out over reason. Unfortunately that is how the BQ and the PQ are reacting.

[Translation]

Let us talk about some myths. I will read you a quotation: ``We must separate from Canada, this prison, and fly on our own. Once separated, we will re-establish our association with our good partners in Canada''. This is what is really behind the Bloc's motion. We are accused of hiding our true motives, while, for them, duplicity and camouflage are the order of the day.

The motion introduced by the Bloc Quebecois today is proof yet again. The public is not fooled. It is well aware that the official opposition enjoys in this House considerable freedom of expression that only a country as democratic as Canada would tolerate. It can also tell the difference between reality and the myths the Bloc Quebecois delights in spreading.

(1305)

I will now speak about the vitality of the federal system.

[English]

The Bloc is trying to make people believe that Canadian federalism is outmoded, that it has not changed at all, that it is keeping Quebec in a straitjacket. The truth is very different. Members opposite may not like it but the federal system is doing very well indeed.

The Fathers of Confederation who came from Quebec and three other provinces wisely chose for Canada in 1867 the model of a federal state in order to pool the assets and channel the energies that existed in our wide geographic space. Above all, they wanted as a population to be able to live and evolve within a political system that would be able to adapt, improve and renew itself over time and as needed. It was a system in which each part preserved its distinctiveness but the whole was more than the sum of its parts.

The evidence has been in for a long time that the flexibility of the Canadian federation has allowed and still allows all provinces to develop in accordance with their priorities and their specific characteristics while ensuring that they enjoy the benefits of belonging to this great country of Canada.

Throughout our history the sharing of powers, which has been revised on an ongoing basis, has yielded many benefits in the form of flexibility, innovation and initiative. For example, it has allowed the federal government to set national goals and standards which apply to all Canadians, while leaving it to the provinces to ensure that services best correspond to their own realities.

Quebec has been no exception to that rule, as evidenced by the tremendous progress it has made particularly in the past 30 years. The quiet revolution took place inside a united Canada, yet in all that time Quebec was indeed a part of that same Canadian federation the Bloc is now denouncing.

[Translation]

The distinct nature of Quebec. From its very beginnings, Canada has always striven to improve, to modernize and to secure for its citizens the best possible quality of life. Quebec's contribution to this process has been unflagging and unique, especially because of its French roots. But it has also derived benefit from belonging to Canada, through such things as the support of federal institutions in matters of culture, which has given it considerable influence on the world scene.

Quebec is an asset to Canada, a treasured part of our country. Canadians are attached to the distinct character of Quebec. It is recognized and encouraged by the Canadian government.

It is therefore in this spirit that the Prime Minister asked Parliament to make commitments regarding Quebec and to pass in this House a resolution recognizing Quebec as a distinct society. By

so doing, the Parliament of Canada made official one of the Prime Minister's commitments and, as the only body that can speak on behalf of all Canadians, gave a solemn undertaking. It thus recognized an obvious reality, the distinct character of Quebec, based on its language, its culture and its legal system.

This open-mindedness of the federal government with respect to the distinct character of Quebec is part of what distinguishes Canada from its neighbour to the south.

I would now like to look at the division of powers, because this is an area in which we differ greatly from a number of other federations.

[English]

In the wake of significant changes it initiated to modernize the federation, the government announced in the speech from the throne that it intended to open a new chapter in federal-provincial relations. From now on the watch words will be respect, dialogue, consensus and co-operation. We will be partners in serving Canadians.

Those are not just empty promises. The federal government's commitment has already been translated into tangible measures, such as the approval of detailed action plans to improve federal and provincial services, an action plan that has been rejected by the secessionist government whose avowed aims are to make people believe that the federal government serves no purpose and to break up Canada.

(1310 )

The same secessionist government wanted us to withdraw from labour market training. After investing $1.5 billion in that field in 1995-96 and $433 million this year, we agreed that we would withdraw from labour market training. We did not want to do that to make the secessionists happy. What was important to us at the end of the day was for the governments' actions to complement one another so that high quality services are delivered at the lowest cost to taxpayers by the government in the best position to do so.

The Canadian government has also indicated its firm intention to withdraw from other fields of activity, such as forestry, mining and recreation and to transfer its responsibilities to local or regional organizations or the private sector.

The federal government will respect provincial jurisdiction by limiting its own spending power with regard to co-financed or shared cost programs in fields of provincial responsibility. Together with the provinces, it is also seeking out new forms of consultation and joint management in certain areas, such as environmental management, social housing, food inspection, tourism and freshwater fish habitat. It is also actively pursuing the establishment of a Canadian securities commission.

[Translation]

I see that my time is up. In closing, I therefore invite my colleagues across the way to reconsider this federation, to look at what it has done for us and what it can still do if we work together with the goal of improving it.

Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first, what stands out from my hon. friend's intervention is that he regrets that Quebecers do not see Canada his way. Indeed, the 49.4 per cent of Quebecers who voted Yes in the referendum already knew what the hon. member wants them to be convinced of. This is not the issue.

When the hon. member talks about the distribution of powers, he should remember that the main power, which makes the constitutional power sharing illusive, is spending power. Spending power radically changed the distribution of powers originally negotiated by the Fathers of Confederation.

Finally, the hon. member should recognize that, when the Prime Minister wants to limit the use by Quebec, which is not just another province but a people and a nation in its own right, of its democratic right through a referendum, the 1867 Constitution was originally an act passed by Great Britain for its colonies, achieved through negotiations between politicians from each colony, mainly because, after the 1837-38 rebellion, in the so-called union of Canada, that is, a forced union of what is currently known as Ontario and Quebec, nothing worked any more.

Mr. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I feel that I have nothing to regret in what I have said. What is happening is that we have two totally different views. What I am calling for is a look at what a federation is. Twice, the majority of Quebecers have agreed with what I have said, every bit of it.

What I find regrettable is that I have heard nothing good said about this federation. I find it incredible that even an Opposition member cannot say ``Here are three or four very good aspects''.

Now, about the Prime Minister again, he has said: ``We will be democratic, we will respect Canadian law and international law''.

(1315)

As you know, in his 1985 book Straight from the Heart, on page 140, the Prime Minister says ``We'll put our faith in democracy. We'll convince the people that they should stay in Canada and we'll win''. That is what he says.

Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the floor, and I would like to ask my colleague opposite to explain, since he has been talking for a while now about the

beautiful great country Canada is, why their popularity in Canada has dropped by 7 per cent compared to last month, according to the polls.

Mr. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleague will admit that this is a beautiful great country, a country held in esteem by everyone on this planet. I trust that he did not want to indicate that it was anything other than that.

As for the polls, I would be prepared to compare our polls and yours across Canada, if that is what you want to do. We must pay some attention to polls, but we must not let ourselves be led by them. The most important poll of all is the one held on election day itself.

Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am both proud and sad to take part in today's debate on the motion moved by the official opposition, which reads as follows and quotes the prime minister: ``We'll put our faith in democracy. We'll convince the people that they should stay in Canada and we'll win. If we don't win, I'll respect the wishes of Quebeckers and let them separate.'' This is the subject of our motion based, you will have understood, on a quote from page 150 of a book written by the Prime Minister entitled Straight from the Heart.

I am proud because this is a very important debate, and sad because this debate is part of the constitutional debate, which today takes a threatening turn, as it has for some weeks now. Indeed, the situation is extremely serious and these are difficult times for the Canadian democracy.

Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice told us these past few days that, in the event of a yes vote in a democratically held Quebec referendum, the Canadian government would not recognize it because the present Constitution makes no provision for one part of Canada to secede.

What is important to remember is the underlying meaning of such statements. This means that, in the mind of the Prime Minister of Canada, the wishes expressed by Quebecers will be subject to an amending process requiring the unanimous consent of the provinces in order to be recognized. This means that the wishes of Quebecers will eventually be subject to the will of Canadians, and this supports the argument in favour of not recognizing the existence of a Quebec people on this planet.

This is in keeping with the evolving federalist thinking. Over the last 30 years, we have been a bit annoyed by the growing sovereignist movement which English-speaking Canadians have a hard time explaining and understanding; then there were different theories like cooperative federalism, flexible federalism, asymmetrical federalism, cost-effective federalism, the age-old renewed federalism, which the Prime Minister mentioned again recently, and now we have carping federalism. Carping federalism is based on confrontation, on the B plan we could now call the Bertrand plan.

(1320)

This confrontation is the antithesis of the other movement which briefly prevailed and which, after referendums in Quebec, could have created a momentum whereby English Canada would have found ways to implement the changes promised by Pierre Elliott Trudeau in 1980 and by the present Prime Minister in 1995. They would have come up with offers acceptable to the majority of Quebecers and would have made space for Quebec in the new 1982 Constitution. But that movement did not endure.

There were a few efforts, like the distinct society, but it was a distinct society without any content or powers. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said it himself after a conference in Vancouver where he almost whispered to his audience that the expression ``distinct society'' meant nothing. Maybe he forgot he was being filmed, but we saw him on TV in Quebec. This killed the rose in the bud because Quebecers quickly caught on that the distinct society concept was an empty shell.

There was also the term ``principal homeland'' which appeared, again through the initiative of the new minister, but it was short-lived. Right from the beginning, it sounded fishy.

Finally there was a vote on a veto, but giving a veto to each and every province meant essentially that they were refusing to acknowledge the specific characteristics of Quebec and to recognize Quebecers as a people.

It is very important to keep in mind the significance of plan B. With plan B, instead of encouraging Canadians to think, the federal government prefers to attack Quebec. It prefers to attempt to make Quebec smaller. It prefers to attack its institutions, its laws, its democratic traditions, its right to self-government, which is, once again according to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, only valid within Canada. We see he has studied the issue for a long time and is very generous toward Quebecers.

With plan B, the federal government prefers to go to court instead of going to the people of Quebec, especially to a court that does not fall under the Quebec government, but under the federal government, even though it is called the Superior Court of Quebec, a court where judges are appointed by the federal government. So, given the process by which judges are appointed, these people are part of the federal government and of the federal system. These judges will have to make a decision based on the Canadian Constitution, which was almost unilaterally repatriated by Ottawa without Quebec's consent, a Constitution Quebec does not recognize and which it did not sign. By this Constitution, these non elected and non accountable judges are being given, no doubt sometimes against their will, major political and decision-making powers.

Conversely, when a referendum is held democratically, the opposing forces, both from the yes side and the no side, have equal financial means, at least when Quebec law is respected. When it is violated, as the federal government did in October 1995, we get the results we have seen.

So, a referendum held democratically is called a consultation exercise, the will of the people being subjected to the colonialism of the courts.

It should be pointed out that, for Guy Bertrand, the new ally of the federalists, the mere idea of holding a referendum on Quebec's future would be illegitimate, undemocratic, abusive, immoral, fraudulent and anarchic. With such allies, who needs enemies. This is as quoted by Mrs. Lise Bissonnette.

(1325)

I will conclude by quoting an editorial writer with La Presse of Montreal, who is far from being a sovereignist. Mr. Alain Dubuc wrote on May 14, two days ago, in his last paragraph: ``Beyond their disagreement on Quebec's future, Quebecers agree on believing an honest referendum is not merely a consultation exercise and also, that Canada cannot legitimately prevent Quebec from leaving Canada if it chooses sovereignty. It is this consensus the federal government has attacked through its silences and contradictions.''

Given the attitude the government has taken by sanctioning plan B, the Bertrand plan, I dare hope the Liberal Party of Canada will pay the political price one day.

[English]

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to respond to the comments made by my hon. colleague from the Bloc.

I believe the majority of the constituents of Prince George-Peace River, whom I am pleased to represent in the House, want to see Canada remain united. They want to see Quebec stay a part of Canada.

However, from conversations I have had with them over the last couple of years, they are sick to death of this issue. It is dominating the agenda of the entire country and dominating the agenda of this place.

My constituents want Quebec to decide once and for all if it is in or out. They have a universal cynicism that the issue will never be settled or decided. The Reform Party, the constituents of Prince George-Peace River and I are in favour of referenda. We have demonstrated that.

However, the Prime Minister, the Liberal government and the separatists have fuelled the cynicism that exists. When the Prime Minister and the government say they will honour and respect 50 per cent plus one provided it is a no vote, and the separatists say they will honour and respect 50 per cent plus one if it is a yes vote, but neither side will respect the results if they do not go its way, what will be accomplished by holding a referendum? This is was asked last fall. What is the point? What does it solve?

Last fall's referendum proved there is a lot of confusion in the minds of Quebec voters. There is a lot of confusion in that province about what exactly people were voting on. The hon. member referred to an honest referendum, which is what we would all seek.

What result will it take? How many times do Quebecers have to say no before the separatists give up on their foolish agenda to try to destroy the country?

[Translation]

Mr. Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, some questions are made to seem basic but they mean nothing. The people of Quebec have always had respect for the democratic process. When a question is decided by a 50 per cent plus 1 vote, as it was just recently, we accept the referendum results.

What we hope and expect is for Canada to do the same, should a referendum result in a majority voting in favour of achieving sovereignty.

I also detect in the remarks made by my hon. colleague from out west a lack of understanding of how the sovereignist movement has developed. Sovereignty is nothing new in Quebec, it was being contemplated long before 1993. The movement emerged in the early 60s. In 1963, the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission, chaired by two distinguished Canadians, concluded that two solitudes coexisted. At that time, there were a few hundred Quebecers who advocated Quebec's sovereignty.

From a few hundred, our numbers have grown to thousands and now a few hundred thousands. When asked to vote on the matter, millions of Quebecers vote for sovereignty.

(1330)

It would be wise not to apply the Ostrich Principle and think that Quebec's will to become sovereign is something that sprang up overnight, a creation of the mind. Probably ever since the events on the Plains of Abraham, there has always been a desire in Quebec to self-govern and to take charge of our destiny, throw off our shackles, our British shackles in this case.

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, although I am extremely pleased to rise today to speak to this motion, I do so with some sadness.

I do so with some sadness because I cannot imagine how this debate can take place in this Parliament where sat Henri Bourassa, in this Parliament whose members, especially those on the government side, extol the merits of democracy in detail at every opportunity. What is democracy if not our collective ability to decide what we are?

Do you think that, if Henri Bourassa, Lionel Groulx, André Laurendeau, René Lévesque were taking part in this debate, they would not say that each of them worked in his own way, in accordance with his own philosophy and through his own contribution to political life, so that in the end we Quebecers can democratically-repeat, democratically-determine our own future?

I cannot imagine for a single moment, even during my most eccentric musings, that there are Quebecers in this House who, like us, received a public mandate under the election process and who do not fully agree with the underlying philosophy behind the motion put forward by the official opposition, which we are reiterating very clearly. The fact that the official opposition in this Parliament was democratically elected on the basis of a very clear program, which, as you know, is still to promote Quebec's interests and ultimately to achieve statehood, is quite meaningful.

I hope that all of us tonight will have a sense of history and agree with the current Prime Minister's diagnostic at a public meeting in Alma in the early 1970s, when he said: ``Let us be democratic''. He was right to say that. The intensity of constitutional options can never compete with what should be the purpose of communities, namely the ability to recognize a democracy freely expressed through its most legal forum, a referendum.

That is what the Prime Minister said in 1970 and that is what we want to see recognized. That is why, in our opinion and in the opinion of others-But I challenge any member of this House, including Quebec members, to find a single decision maker-be it an editorialist, a journalist or a member of the business community-who supports what the Canadian government is about to do by getting involved in the Bertrand court case.

No one supported this decision. Even La Presse, which is not known for its sovereignist sympathies, said, through some of its editorial writers, that this approach was stupid. Why is it stupid? Because we know full well that international treaties recognize the right to self-determination.

The people on the other side are proud to say that Canada contributes $200 million to the operations budget of the United Nations, they are proud to uphold international law along with its main supporters at the United Nations, and that reminds me of what the Secretary General of the United Nations, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, said when he came to Montreal. He said that the most accomplished type of collective organization, even though we are at the dawn of a new century, is still sovereignty.

(1335)

Here is what he said and what caught our attention. He said: ``Sovereignty is the basic principle of universal organization. It is the art of making equal powers that are not equal.'' That is what we have in Canada, two nations within the same political organization. There cannot be two nations within the same political organization, because one is then subordinate to the other.

In essence, with this motion today and with the message it has conveyed here for the last three years, the Bloc has remained loyal to these principles and to the principles of international law.

The principles of international law and international covenants stipulate two things concerning human rights, and especially the right to self-determination. When one reads about international law, it is interesting to see-and I have the privilege of sitting next to a legal expert-that it is always subject to human rights. This is so true that this issue is always discussed, year after year, at the International Conference on Human Rights in Geneva.

So there is a very important relationship between human rights, collective rights and the right to self-determination which, according to the UN charter, is the first attribute of peoples.

If we follow the government's logic, it means that, by the end of the day, unless the Liberals are hypocrites, which is always a possibility, they should, if they are logical with themselves, rise in this House and say that they do not believe Quebecers are a people. From the moment it is recognized that Quebecers are a people, it means that they have a right to self-determination even under major international law.

The right to self-determination is not always but often exercised through a referendum. But the law also says, and I think this should be our first consideration in this House, that the right to self-determination, in addition to the legal considerations, is first and foremost a matter of political legitmacy, which can be exercised under certain conditions.

Of course, you need to have a history. You need to control a territory. You need to have the will to live together collectively. You need to have a legal tradition and, once sovereignty is achieved-and this was said clearly by the Bélanger-Campeau Commission and was repeated many times during the referendum debate-you need to have effective control of a territory under the state continuity rules.

Which member will rise in this House, whether he is from Ontario, Newfoundland or the Magdalen Islands, and say that Quebec does not meet these conditions?

What interest does the government have in joining forces with the man who will no doubt go down in history as the greatest crank of our times?

I remember very well that in 1987, just to give you a few biographical details, I was responsible for running Francine Lalonde's campaign for the leadership of the Parti Quebecois, and I came into contact with Guy Bertrand, who had just been campaign-

ing all over Quebec telling us that we had the right to decide our own future.

This man ran for the leadership of the Parti Quebecois on a single theme, Quebec's right to decide its own future. He was so all over the map that, had we been in a different century, he would have been sent to see a doctor. But we are not in another century, and everyone has the freedom of expression.

That being said, there is something deeply offensive and hurtful in the action taken by the justice minister, who has always seemed a courteous man, and the approval given by this government, in trying through legal subterfuge, to deny Quebec's right to decide its own future. If the action by the Government of Canada is taken all the way, I can certainly promise you that something very serious will happen in our political society, both for Quebec and for Canada, and that will be the refusal to recognize the legitimacy of this decision.

(1340)

It is not true that since 1960-there are even people who trace the quest for sovereignty back to the 18th century-well, certainly for 30 years, Quebecers have been preparing themselves as they have, only to be denied the right to self-determination, now that they have democratically elected representatives to this House.

Still, it is sad that the government has been so lacking in judgement, perception and the most basic political tact, that it has failed to recognize that this is a profound question of political legitimacy. It is not by trying to transfer the debate to the legal arena that the government will achieve its ends.

You know, not more than two years ago, there was a declaratory judgment, because a member of the First Nations, Ovide Mercredi, not to name names, also tried to have a possible referendum declared unconstitutional. The judiciary was extremely clear on this subject, by virtue of what democracy is, but also by virtue of what should prevail in a society such as ours, that is the distinction between the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature.

So let us hear from these Liberal MPs with ridings in Quebec, in the coming days, in a public forum-they can choose the time, the date, the place-let them tell Quebecers they do not have the right to decide their own future. Let them come and say it in Montreal or in the regions. Let them for one moment tell Quebecers that they do not exist as a people, that what they have accomplished over the last 30 years is all in their heads, a political fantasy.

It takes a justice minister from Toronto, a Prime Minister like the one we have now with his own very personal view of history, to support a motion such as the one before us, which is profoundly irresponsible and profoundly disrespectful towards Quebec.

[English]

Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member talking about separation and self-government. Not long ago in this Chamber, I remember a vote supported by all Bloc members under aboriginal self-government and self-determination.

Will the hon. member respect a vote if the aboriginals in Quebec decide to deal with self-government and allow them to stay with whomever they choose democratically?

Another question I have for the hon. member is this. When he has a chance to go forward with this referendum, will he be looking at population? Is he more inclined to go poll by poll? This would make a big difference in how the rest of us would look at the situation.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I believe what the Bloc says is logical and consistent. Once we recognize the right to self-determination, we also recognize that this right can be exercised by any group having the characteristics of a people.

If we finally recognize that legally speaking native nations have the characteristics of a people, this means implicitly and explicitly that they also legally have the right to self-determination, within the legal territorial boundaries set for Quebec.

This being said, I am not sure I fully understood the second question.

(1345)

The hon. member wishes to add a supplementary because, as we know, there is a fair amount of excitement in the ranks of the Reform Party, these days. Does he want a supplementary, Mr. Speaker? I am always ready to answer.

This being said, it seems to me that my friend's second question creates some confusion because one thing is very clear and clearly affirmed by all leaders of Quebec: Quebec's right to self-determination will be exercised in a referendum. The rule of 50 plus one will apply. The hon. member was asking if we would proceed by way of a vote. I believe you understood the same thing. Of course, the referendum process requires that we count the votes and the final result will bring us victory or defeat.

Hon. members will recall, and I think this will be my most important moment today, the famous words of the current Prime Minister immediately after taking office. He said something I will never forget. He declared that for Quebec, a no means no. I would like to tell the Reform Party that if one day the answer is yes, it will mean yes.

[English]

Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise on debate on today's opposition motion. I to make a comment on behalf of all of my constituents. It refers to a comment made by the former leader of the Bloc Quebecois. He basically said Canada is not a real country.

On behalf of my constituents and I believe the vast majority of Canadians, I state clearly and unequivocally Canada is a country, Canada is a nation and will remain so, absolutely, not only in the months and weeks ahead but in the years, decades and centuries ahead. It will because we are a nation.

Despite what we hear from the other side, Canada is a nation. It is a nation because we share many things in common and we share this great land is Canada. We share a common geography from coast to coast. We share our natural resources such as mining, whether it takes place in Quebec or in Ontario, and the development of energy and the development of agriculture. These natural resources are things we share as a nation.

We have a common history on the north side of the North American continent where together Canadians of all stripes, of all ethnic origins, have built a strong distinct Canada, a distinct nation with values and beliefs unique to us as Canadians.

We share some very important concepts from one end of Canada to the other. We believe in the rule of law and we share this belief among all Canadians. We believe in social justice. We believe as a nation, as a government and as a people there are responsibilities we hold to each other. We believe as Canadians that below a certain level we will not allow people to fall.

When people walk into a hospital they are not asked how much money they have. They are simply asked how sick they are. People do not go hungry for a lack of food or shelter. We help those people. Those are values we share as Canadians from coast to coast whether one happens to live in the English speaking part of Canada or in the French speaking part.

We believe in certain freedoms. We believe in the freedom of thought, belief, expression and assembly. We share those core beliefs as Canadians and they make us a nation.

We have differences in Canada, but they are not differences that need divide us. They do not separate us one people from another people. They are differences which make this country unique among nations.

(1350)

Canada in its history, for 130 years, has shown the nations of the world what can be accomplished, what can be done with a nation of several peoples. We have shown the world our success. We have shown the world we are a nation that works and can sustain itself.

As a nation Canada recognizes that it has differences. The people of Canada recognize there are two founding peoples, the English speaking Canadians live in Quebec and francophone Canadians live outside of Quebec. We are an integrated nation, English and French from coast to coast. We have been joined by many peoples from around the world to make the fabric of Canada strong, a nation which is integrated, open to change, one which accepts and evolves over time.

As a nation, as a government, as Canadians we recognize we need to make accommodation for different peoples. We recognized and made the clear statement that Quebec is a distinct society. We have recognized the importance of regional variance and evolved a veto system. We have come to understand that different institutions work differently in different parts of the country. We understand there needs to be a division of power, that some things are done better at the provincial level as opposed to the federal level.

When Parliament as recently as December made these suggestions and showed we will evolve as a nation, that we will accommodate our differences, the Bloc voted against it. Members of the Bloc voted against the fact that Quebec was a distinct society. They stood in the House and said: ``No, Quebec is not a distinct society. No, Quebec should not have a veto. No, Quebec should not have its own institutions''. Those statements were made by their votes. That was terribly wrong.

What is at stake here? Canada. What is their base argument for wanting to destroy the country? Politics is a big part of it. They want to destroy the country over whether Mr. Bouchard is to be called a premier or a president. Those are grounds to break up the country? I think not. Those are not valid grounds for breaking up the country.

Members of the Bloc said we need to have a more efficient federation. Are we to break up the country because of the mathematical formula for transfer payments?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I assure the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka he will have the time remaining after question period to conclude his remarks.

The chair is now ready to rule on the point of order raised earlier today by the chief government whip relating to the interpretation of Standing Order 43(2), which provides for a 20 minute speech to be divided in two.

A cursory review of our practice shows that motions have been moved by both members sharing a 20 minute period. I refer members to cases that occurred on March 25, 1993 and April 19, 1993.

[Translation]

It has also been common practice for a period of time now for members to share the first speech on supply days. A quick check of our proceedings reveals that the first speech was shared on February 10, 1994 and subsequently on May 3, 1994, November

22, 1994, March 16, 1995, March 26, 1995, May 11, 1995, November 22, 1995 and, most recently, March 20, 1996.

(1355)

What has changed since March 20, 1996 is that the second speaker from the same party has proposed an amendment to the motion tabled by the first. This is the reason for the chief government whip's point of order. The question he raised with the Chair is whether, under the spirit of the Standing Orders, the main motion may be subject to an amendment from a second speaker in the same initial period of the debate.

[English]

I quote from Standing Order 81(22), which provides the time limit on speeches for supply days:

During proceedings on any item of business under the provisions of this standing order, no member may speak more than once or longer than twenty minutes. Following the speech of each member, a period not exceeding ten minutes shall be made available, if required, to allow members to ask questions and comment briefly on matters relevant to the speech and to allow responses thereto.

The whip of a party may indicate to the Speaker at any time during a debate governed by this standing order that one or more of the periods of debate limited pursuant to section (1) of this standing order and allotted to members of his or her party are to be divided in two.

It is clear from Standing Order 81(22), that the first speech on a supply day is limited to 20 minutes. If we apply the letter of Standing Order 43(2), we may logically conclude that the first speech on a supply day may in fact be divided in two.

[English]

The Chair has reviewed the standing orders and has been unable to find any other standing order which would imply the first speech of a supply day cannot or should not be divided in two.

Consequently, in light of the practice that an amendment may be moved when a 20 minute period is divided and in light of the well established practice that the first speech on a supply day has many times been divided, it is difficult to accept the argument advanced that it ought not be done today.

If the House considers this to be an anomaly, then the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has the means to address the review of the wording of the standing orders.

[Translation]

That said, the Chair allows the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm, Mr. Bellehumeur, and I will put it to the House. The other amendment proposals made earlier in anticipation of this ruling will not be put to the House.

[English]

I thank all hon. members who have made a contribution on this point.

[Translation]

The hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm, seconded by his colleague for Laval-Centre, moved that the motion be amended by adding the following, immediately after the word ``stated'': Straight from the Heart.

Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify the matter of the Chair's acceptance of the amendment by the member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville in the event the amendment by the member for Berthier-Montcalm was not allowed.

Is this indeed what happened? Logically, therefore, it seems to me that the amendment to the amendment by the member for Berthier-Montcalm is also allowable, since we said that, if one were not, the other would be. Since an amendment to an amendment was tabled, it seems to me that it-the one taken under advisement-is the logical conclusion of the amendment tabled, in the logic of the ruling we have just been given.

The Speaker: My dear colleague, I heard what you said. I will take the question under advisement and will return to the House with another ruling after question period.

It being two o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to statements by members pursuant to Standing Order 31.

_____________________________________________