|
Notes for an address on Opposition Day
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
May 16, 1996
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.
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 in 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 Quebecers and let them separate'".
This quotation is taken out of context by the Official Opposition. It goes
back to 1970, and was repeated by Mr. Chrétien in 1985. In the same passage,
the current Prime Minister also said:
"We'll put our faith in democracy. We'll convince the people that they
should stay in Canada and we'll win".
We'll put our faith in democracy. This reliance on democracy is an invitation
to us to consider the meaning of the word, and to ponder the teachings of the
classics. 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
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:
"The more important and weighty the resolutions, the nearer should the
opinion which prevails approach unanimity".
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 accidentally 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".
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 USA intends 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 is 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 to enter 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. Separatist
leaders must get 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 of 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.
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:
"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."
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:
"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. 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
achieve reconciliation. 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 achieve
reconciliation, 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'".
Check against deliver.
|
