CLAR Committee Meeting

LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON BILL C-20, AN ACT TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR CLARITY AS SET OUT IN THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA IN THE QUEBEC SECESSION REFERENCE

COMITÉ LÉGISLATIF CHARGÉ D'ÉTUDIER LE PROJET DE LOI C-20, LOI DONNANT EFFET À L'EXIGENCE DE CLARTÉ FORMULÉE PAR LA COUR SUPRÊME DU CANADA DANS SON AVIS SUR LE RENVOI SUR LA SÉCESSION DU QUÉBEC

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, February 23, 2000

• 1935

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)): Order, please. We now have a quorum for the purposes of hearing witnesses.

[English]

The first witness group tonight is the Equality Party, represented by Keith Henderson.

Mr. Henderson, thank you very much for taking the time to appear. You have Stephen Scott with you. We welcome you to the committee, we thank you for your assistance, and we look forward to your remarks.

Under the rules, you have 10 minutes to make your presentation. At the conclusion of that, there will be up to 35 minutes of questions from members.

[Translation]

Please proceed.

Mr. Keith Henderson (Leader, Equality Party)): Thank you very much.

[English]

Thanks, folks, for the invitation. We very much appreciate it.

I'd like to say, at the outset, congratulations, basically, to both the government and the opposition parties that are in support of the clarity act. This is something the Equality Party has for a long time been calling for. We feel it's long overdue. We're very happy this is being debated and presented in the House.

Having said that, we have five areas of concern. I'd like to highlight them briefly, and then we hope there will be some questions we can answer.

Our first concern is with the majority that's required. What is a clear majority? We find the legislation doesn't specify it, and we think it should.

Our view is that something so fundamental as beginning negotiations on the breakup of a country should require a large consensus. The standard consensus, in our view, is two-thirds. We go into some detail about this, but I'm sure you know that with regard to some of the legislation, even in Quebec, if you want to dissolve an association—a golf club, for instance—two-thirds of the members are required. We'd like to make sure that two-thirds of the people in any province would really like to leave before negotiations on so fundamental a question were begun.

We think that should be specified. Otherwise, we're left with the question of how much is a majority. Is it 52%? Is it 55%? This is of particular concern to us in Quebec. After all, we want to know when our federal government is going to begin negotiating away our rights. So we think a number should be there.

Our second point is with regard to the question. We understand that the federal government's position is that it's for the province to decide its own question, that provinces have autonomy.

We say, look, in such a serious thing as the breakup of a country, the federal government ought to have a say in the question that's posed. Why? Because you risk, if you don't have a say, divisions.

It's possible for a federalist provincial leadership to accept a question when the federal government says, no, the question is not clear. What does that lead to? It leads, conceivably, to a boycott on the part of the federal government of that referendum process. This hasn't occurred before, but it might.

Imagine the confusion in the province of Quebec or any other province if the federal government boycotts the referendum process. That would incur... It would have to. It couldn't participate in a referendum where it didn't agree with the question.

What would citizens do? How would they vote? Would they boycott? What kind of a result would we have under those conditions? We think a question that everybody agrees to is fundamental.

Three, the clarity act leads to a divisible Canada. It's one of the few democracies I am aware of that officially declares itself divisible and sets out some mechanisms for dismemberment. This is a question we have never debated as Canadians—never. The federal government has no mandate to declare Canada divisible. No other mature western democracy allows this, and we say Canadians should debate this issue.

I'll raise one other question that I think is important. Remember, this legislation is not just for Quebec; it's for any province. I know some members of the House of Commons believe we wouldn't ever want to keep any province in Canada if it didn't consent to be there.

I don't want to pick on Manitoba, but I have to pick on somebody. Imagine this. Let's say Manitobans decide they want to leave Confederation and they want to join the States. They have a referendum. It's all clear. They have a substantial majority.

• 1940

The argument I'm hearing is that they have the right, 1.5. million of them, to bust up the country right in the middle. Manitobans can do that and Canadians can't say no.

Well, our opinion is that Canadians can say no and should say no. The other 28.5 million people ought to be able to say no to that.

So the divisibility of this country is an issue we should discuss.

Fourth is a question of territory in any province, but notably in Quebec. We, as loyal Canadians, want the assurance of our federal government that our rights as Canadians will never be negotiated away, that we will have the right, where we form practical majorities in the province of Quebec, to remain with Canada. Municipalities have already declared their interest to do so. They wish to remain Canadian if ever there's a yes vote.

We want the clarity act to state that we will have that right and that negotiators for the federal government will guarantee that right. We'd like to see that included. It's fundamental.

Last but not least is the maintenance of the rule of law. We know there's a separatist government in Quebec. Lucien Bouchard and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs have already said that if they get a yes vote, they're going to proceed with a UDI. That's what they've said. Jacques Parizeau said in 1995 that 10 days after a yes vote, he would proceed with a UDI. He said it. This is not hypothetical. This is a real possibility.

We want our federal government to state what they would do in the event of a UDI. How would they maintain the rule of law and our Constitution should this ever occur?

This is the time to do so. We know the clarity act was produced by the threat of a UDI. That's why this was referred to the Supreme Court. So we're not talking hypotheticals, we're talking something real.

The Quebec government has jurisdiction over the administration of justice. If there's a UDI, how can we be assured that justice will be served in the province of Quebec or any other province if there is an illegal attempt at secession? That's what provoked these debates, and to duck that issue and not address it is, we think, a mistake.

We have some amendments that Stephen here wants to talk about very briefly. I'll just turn the floor over to him.

Mr. Stephen Scott (President, Special Committee for Canadian Unity, Equality Party): Mr. Chairman, could I have these circulated by the clerk, please?

The Chair: Are they in both official languages, Mr. Scott?

Mr. Stephen Scott: No, they are proposals that I did not have time...

The Chair: In that case, you'll have to distribute them yourself, unfortunately.

Mr. Stephen Scott: Okay.

The Chair: Our rules prohibit distribution by the clerk unless it's in both official languages. If you choose to do it, that's out of our hands.

Have you something to say about these, Mr. Scott?

Mr. Stephen Scott: Yes. The larger issues are addressed in the brief, but I thought that within the framework of the existing bill, and without doing major surgery to it, a few items could be proposed to tighten up the bill.

First of all, for subclause 1(2) I have perhaps a minor housekeeping proposal to allow the House to extend the 30-day period for reviewing a referendum question. Otherwise, one is virtually inviting a filibuster and inviting closure. So the House would from time to time be able to extend the 30 days.

The second proposal arises from the fact that one of the chief problems in the last referendum was the question of the fairness of the referendum process. Recently members will have seen reports of the decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal reviewing, in rather harsh terms, the abuses of ballot counting but deciding that convictions could not be entered.

In subclause 2(2), then, we propose that the fairness and regularity in all respects of the referendum process should be itemized as one of the matters to be reviewed by the House when considering the referendum process, when reviewing the fairness of a referendum outcome.

• 1945

We detail this in particular as regards“without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing”—eligibility to vote, enumeration of voters, and all the other matters. However, if it just said “the fairness and regularity in all respects of the referendum process”, that would be a major improvement.

With regard to subclause 3(2)—that is to say, the provision about ministers of the crown not proposing constitutional amendments unless certain matters have been the subject of a negotiation—we wish to remove the word “any” before “changes to the borders of the province” to make it very clear that this will be considered.

We would then add, in parentheses, the following:

(removing portions of its territory not forming part of the province at the time of its entry into the Canadian federal Union, and also removing so much of its territory as may, in the opinion of the House of Commons, be required in order to achieve justice to Canada as a whole or to any part of the population of the province in question).

In other words, there would be a tightening up of the reference to territory in subclause 3(2).

Those, Mr. Chairman, are my proposed amendments.

Have all members of the committee now received one of these?

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): According to the rules, they have to be in both languages. So they cannot be distributed.

Mr. Stephen Scott: I understand, but a package was taken by the clerk and...

Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Chairman, he does not have the right to do that. He is giving documents to the witnesses even though they are not in both official languages.

The Chairman: I can't control the witnesses, Mr. Turp.

Mr. Daniel Turp: No, but you are allowing something to be done indirectly that cannot be done directly, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Stephen Scott: Have all the documents presented... For example, was my colleague's text in both languages? If you accept briefs...

Mr. Daniel Turp: Yes, that one was. You provided it in French. So, we have that one. But the other documents must also be in French.

The Chairman: Mr. Turp, you are right, but in this case, it is not the Committee distributing the documents. If someone comes here and gives out documents, I have no control over that.

I know that while the Committee has been sitting, some documents have not been distributed by the Committee Clerk because they were not available in both languages. Someone put them on the table before the meeting began and the others were distributed to the media. The other documents here are not available in both languages. As Chairman, I have no control over that. Unfortunately, that is the ways things are.

We adopted a rule whereby the Chairman and Clerk are not to distribute documents which are not available in both languages. But if another person in the room does so, there is nothing I can do about it. My role is not to exercise total control over everything that is going on here. I am only the Chairman of a small committee and I shall continue to fulfill the duties assigned to me.

Mr. Turp.

Mr. Daniel Turp: A motion was passed. As guardian of the motion, your responsibility is to ensure compliance with that motion. If you see that a witness wants to distribute a document that should not be distributed because it isn't available in both languages, I believe you should tell that witness that he is not allowed to do that. I believe that your fundamental duty is to ensure that people comply with the motion.

The Chairman: I already indicated that, Mr. Turp.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Could you indicate that to the witness?

The Chairman: Yes. I can tell the witness that we passed a motion stating that documents would not be distributed unless they are available in both languages.

Mr. Stephen Scott: Mr. Chairman, this is part of my testimony. I am now speaking French. I am giving testimony in French. I believe that I've just as much right to provide testimony in French as I do in English. So, the simple fact is that this is part of my testimony.

• 1950

Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Chairman, out of respect for the Francophone members of this Committee, it seems to me Mr. Scott might have prepared a French translation of his amendments.

Mr. Stephen Scott: Last night, when I found out I would be appearing...

Mr. Daniel Turp: Yes, but...

Mr. Stephen Scott: I am perfectly prepared to translate them for the Member if he would like...

The Chairman: The best thing...

Hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Order, please.

I think the best thing now would be to start the question period. That will put an end to this problem.

Mr. Hill.

[English]

Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate your being here tonight to give us your words.

I just heard an unusual thing. I've been invited to Quebec to make a presentation to the Quebec assembly on the issue of Bill 99, and I heard your organization tried to present its position on Bill 99 and was turned down. I would like you to confirm that. Could that be true?

Mr. Keith Henderson: We weren't turned down; we were told we'd be put off for another time. But I find it interesting that the Marxist-Leninists got the chance to testify about Bill 99 and the Equality Party, which of course opposes Bill 99, did not. Interesting.

Various individuals got the chance, but this Equality Party, which had four seats, of course, in the assembly during the nineties, was ignored. I find that interesting.

Mr. Grant Hill: Might I also digress to say that the provinces were all invited to attend these meetings, feeling that this was a very important part. For various reasons, only one province is coming here, at the official opposition's request. It's a paradox, almost.

You have expressed concern about UDI, and what in fact they would do. The Supreme Court reference made pretty specific reference to UDI. It's obvious that a UDI is illegal under Canadian law now “unless”—and there is an unless.

I wonder if you would comment on that. The Supreme Court reference has made it very plain that a UDI is not acceptable in Canada.

Mr. Keith Henderson: I don't know of any “unless”, Grant. It's illegal. The process of secession has to take place within the context of the Canadian Constitution. It requires an amendment to the Canadian Constitution, pure and simple. That's what they said.

It's possible that the Quebec government could proceed illegally and try to get international recognition. They may, and that's the reason for our concern, because the Quebec government has stated it will do precisely that, as Mr. Parizeau said he would do it.

Our concern, of course, is what happens to the Constitution of Canada if they proceed illegally. Does our federal government step in and assure us that the Constitution we now have will be upheld? How will it do so?

Remember, it's the province that has the authority to administer justice. If it administers justice illegally, what does the federal government do in such a situation?

These are profound concerns to us who live in Quebec, and I don't see how this bill addresses that question.

Mr. Grant Hill: Correct me if I'm wrong, but the “unless” is unless the federal government does not negotiate in good faith. That, in my view, is where the unless comes in. The Supreme Court has said that specifically.

Mr. Stephen Scott: No, they didn't. What they said was that other states might then, if the process were not fair, recognize a revolutionary Quebec, but not that it would then become a lawful secession. It is not a lawful secession under Canadian law unless there's a constitutional amendment—period, full stop.

In addition, there's no right of secession under international law but revolutionary regimes may obtain recognition, and in certain conditions, foreign states might be disposed to recognize a revolutionary regime. But there is no right of secession from Quebec under the Canadian Constitution unless there is a constitutional amendment, period.

Mr. Grant Hill: That is fair.

You started off by saying you gave this bill support in broad principle and then talked about some questions that aren't addressed in the amendments—or at least all of them aren't addressed in these amendments. I would have difficulty seeing that this bill would survive your amending if you went through all the things you have brought up as issues.

• 1955

Mr. Keith Henderson: Let me say this: I know we'd go further. We're happy with how far the government has gone. We think it's long overdue. We think it's excellent. We're happy with that. We'd like it to go further, and we've outlined our areas of concern.

The amendments we did draw up are narrow in the hope it won't destroy the process, but our concerns are broad. I think they're legitimate concerns. In the best of all possible worlds, full amendments would be introduced to address those concerns. We've decided to take the narrow and perhaps more prudent approach in terms of actual amendments.

But in terms of ideas and concerns, our brief, I think, raises legitimate questions that the government, and hopefully the opposition, may want to consider raising during the course of debate.

The Acting Chair (Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Turp.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Now that I think about it, Mr. Chairman, I have no questions.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andy Scott): Mr. Blaikie?

Mrs. Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You've experienced two referenda in Quebec. In your opinion, were the questions posed at those referenda clear questions? If they were not, what impact did that have on the outcome?

Mr. Keith Henderson: I don't think they were clear questions. They were very long questions, over 100 words in some cases, with all sorts of conditions attached to them. And I'm not the only one who says this. A lot of federalists and even some separatists have suggested that they are not really all that clear.

The impact, I think, is that you had a strong number of people who voted yes in those referendums who thought that Quebec would remain part of Canada and send MPs to Ottawa, even though they had voted yes. I'm talking percentages now. Over a quarter of the yes voters, a substantial number of yes voters, were confused about the impact of their own decision.

That's a measure of the confusion that's possible if the question isn't clear.

I repeat, we think the federal government ought to be involved in the setting of the question. They do have a role to play so that we don't have the situation I described, where the federal government feels compelled to boycott a referendum that it doesn't agree with because the question isn't clear and yet the federalist opposition in Quebec feels it is clear.

That is a recipe for disaster. What signal will it send to voters in our province? Do they boycott or do they vote? Do they participate? Do they stand aside? It's a catastrophe in the making if we allow this to occur.

So I would strongly suggest that the federal government should work out some way to get involved in it.

Mr. Stephen Scott: Perhaps I can add one point to that.

If you look at the legislative record, you will see a very striking thing. The Liberal opposition in the last referendum tried to insert the word pays, or “country”, into the question so that the question would be “Do you want un pays souverain?”

The government rejected that. They would not allow the word pays to be in the question. Why? Because it would make it too clear. Imagine something so elementary as the word pays to make it clear to the voters that they were going to choose whether to establish a new country.

If you want a prime example of deliberate obfuscation, it is very difficult to find anything clearer than that.

Mrs. Karen Redman: You've raised the question of a unilateral declaration of independence. Clearly it is nothing more than a declaration. It would have no legal import, and as such would not be dealt with. That's one of the reasons why the clarity act brings not only clarity to the question but also qualitative... the nuances in terms of how the question is formed and the kind of majority that would express its wish, whether it would be a yes or no to a clear question.

You also said that Quebeckers have the right to stay Canadian with respect to partition. Isn't this clarity bill actually saying exactly that, that Quebeckers have the right to stay Canadian until they tell us clearly that they no longer want to be Canadian?

Mr. Keith Henderson: Two things you're raising. Let me deal with the UDI first.

• 2000

It's true that the court has said a UDI is illegal. What you're saying is that if they make that declaration, it's a piece of paper. It has no effect. But remember, a government that has done such a thing may try to give it force and effect. They may. They may decide they have a legitimate reason. They have won a referendum. However angry this might make others, they have won a referendum and they feel they have the right now to give force and effect to their unilateral declaration of independence.

They also have, under the Canadian Constitution, constitutional authority over the administration of justice. They have the police force. They have the court system. It's not inconceivable to imagine a separatist government, a Parizeau, having won his referendum, saying, all right, I now declare independence unilaterally and I will give it force and effect. You are now compelled, under Quebec law, to remit all your taxes to Quebec City. If you don't, you will be in violation of Quebec law and you may face penalties for doing so.

That's administration of justice. What we want to know from our federal government is not, oh, we will continue to operate the post office and everything will be hunky-dory. We want to know what you will do if this happens. It's a unilateral declaration of independence. It's not playing Monopoly. It's serious, and people will do serious things based on that decision. We're concerned about what those things might be.

What will you do to protect us against that eventuality? To me, that is a very legitimate question. I know the minister has said the federal government will continue to operate regardless, but that isn't enough for precisely the reason I'm raising. If the police are used by our provincial government to enforce illegal laws, where are we? What happens?

That, ladies and gentlemen, is what we are facing with a UDI.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andy Scott): Thank you very much, Mrs. Redman.

I have to go to Monsieur Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de- Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Henderson, Mr. Scott, I listened very carefully and attentively to your comments. I'm sure you must have noticed, as I did, that out of eight Liberal Committee members, only two actually listened to your presentation, since six of them weren't even interested in asking you questions. I will pass; I have no questions.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andy Scott): We go to Mr. Cotler.

Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): I have two questions for you. The first continues where my colleague, Ms. Redman, left off.

You made a statement that the federal government should be involved in the setting of a referendum question re: secession, and that any referendum question on secession adopted by the Quebec National Assembly should be referred to the courts.

My specific question on that point is, has not the Supreme Court stated that it will not exercise a supervisory function to determine the clarity of the question, that this is a role for the political actors to determine, as Professor Hogg put it yesterday in his submission before us? The Supreme Court has signed off on this issue, but you are revisiting that issue, it appears.

Mr. Keith Henderson: I would say we are. You know, I don't know the limits of federal reference, but I'm hopeful that the federal government has the right to ask the Supreme Court whatever question it wishes for legal clarity. If it wanted to ask the Supreme Court whether a yes to this question would require constitutional amendment, it would seem to me that the Supreme Court would answer.

Mr. Irwin Cotler: But the federal government has taken the position that the formulation and determination of the referendum question is within the exclusive prerogative of the Quebec National Assembly.

Mr. Keith Henderson: Well, I know it's taken that position, but we're saying it's not the right position. Don't sign off on some federal involvement in the question, for the reasons we've just put forward. It's very important that if we can secure some type of agreement about what that question is, we will avoid the kind of debacle I talked about.

So I'm not sure that... I understand that the Supreme Court doesn't want to do a supervisory thing, but we're saying submit that question to a court to find out if a yes vote would require constitutional amendment. That's what we're saying.

• 2005

If it does, we're saying the federal government should actively pursue an attempt to get involved in the setting of that question so that we don't have the kind of disagreement...

I'm not sure if Stephen has anything to add to that.

Mr. Stephen Scott: I would add just this. The court has indicated that there is this implied duty to negotiate, and they won't supervise its operation, and they will not stop the government of the province from asking what questions it likes. They did not say they would not answer any questions connected with the process. They did not say that if you ask them whether certain steps would be legal or illegal, they won't answer.

The Quebec Court of Appeal, certainly, and on appeal the Supreme Court of Canada, has the right to answer questions as to whether certain proposals would or would not involve constitutional change. That is not setting the referendum question. That is not supervising the negotiation process. That's what the court said it won't do. They didn't say that no questions connected with any of this can ever be referred to the courts.

Mr. Irwin Cotler: You mentioned that the clarity act leads to, as you put it, a “divisible Canada”, but has not, in effect, the Supreme Court made a determination that negotiations on secession can be triggered if there's a clear majority in favour of a clear question on secession?

In a word, has not the Supreme Court already given legitimacy, albeit within a certain legal framework, to the secessionist enterprise? Is not Bill C-20 simply an attempt to create that legal framework within which that secessionist enterprise can be negotiated?

Mr. Keith Henderson: Two things. Yes, it has, but within that legal framework. I want us to be very clear about what that legal framework is. I'm going to quote from the August judgment:

It lies within the power of the people of Canada, acting through their various governments duly elected and recognized under the Constitution, to effect whatever constitutional arrangements are desired within Canadian territory, including, should it be so desired, the secession of Quebec from Canada.

But it is also within the power of the Canadian people, acting through their various legislatures, to say no to secession, regardless of the majority that secession might have achieved in a referendum.

It is, in other words, our right as Canadians to say that we don't want our country broken up. I return to my example from Manitoba, that 1.5 million Manitobans might say they want to join the States, but 28.5 million other Canadians might say they don't want that, and they have the right to say no to that proposal.

So we negotiate, yes, but it's a constitutional amendment that has to be determining. That's the fundamental difference.

Mr. Stephen Scott: Perhaps I can add that of course this is a valid act, and will be a valid act under section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, as a constitutional amendment relating to the executive government or the House of Commons and how it functions. It would also be valid under the residuary power as was established in Jones v. AG Canada in about 1975.

Of course Parliament has the right to set this framework, but bear in mind that the negotiation process the court said would be undertaken does not need to lead to an agreement, necessarily, and still less to the necessary constitutional amendment to effect secession.

It also is the case that they stated in very general terms that the duty to negotiate is a duty to address any legitimate initiative to change the constitutional order so that this House or the Senate or any house of any province can make a counterproposal to, for example, declare the country indissoluble, and every province, including Quebec, then has the duty to negotiate that.

The duty to negotiate is stated in perfectly general terms, and this House has the perfect power to force a negotiation upon Quebec on any proposal it chooses to make, whether consistent or not with an expressed desire in a referendum for independence.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andy Scott): Thank you very much, Mr. Cotler. I have to go to Mr. Hill.

Mr. Grant Hill: Thank you.

On the issue of the question, and everyone agreeing on the question, that's thumbs up. I would love to see that happen. But that doesn't seem practical when under the Quebec referendum law they have the ability to ask any question they want of their citizens. It would be difficult to force them into asking a specific question.

It's idealistic to say “Let's all agree.” I hope, with this bill, there will never be a fuzzy question again, but there's no guarantee of that. How would you force a clear question?

• 2010

Mr. Keith Henderson: The federal government ultimately has the power to effect its will in this federation. Why do I say that? Because it has the power of disallowance. If it doesn't want a referendum to proceed because the question is fuzzy, it has the power to make sure it doesn't happen. It has other powers as well.

So I think it's important, first, to set the framework. We can't have questions that are going to lead to division and confusion. It's absurd to run a federation that way. There has to be some way—and I've taken the extreme example, but there may be other powers the federal government has—to say, look, we have to sit down and agree to a question before we go through this wrenching exercise for the third time.

Mr. Grant Hill: Finally, I think you'll admit that there has been a strategic change in the federal government's position from not talking about the reality of secession, which would stir up a hornet's nest, to actually laying some of it out on the table. Although I find some of the provisions not perfectly satisfactory, they're moving us down a road that I think...

And I have listened to this over and over again: Quebeckers, if asked a clear question, with all the issues on the table, would find another way to fix this federation. Do you agree with that overall statement?

Mr. Keith Henderson: Listen, Grant, I'm going to tell you honestly, I like Canada the way it is. I think it's a good country. I don't think we need to tinker with the Constitution any more. I'd like to put that beside us. Canada's fine. It's a good place. Let's solve real problems and not deal with constitutional powers and rebalancing and giving more powers to the provinces and this and that. I don't think it's necessary.

I don't think the issue here is how we fix the country. We can talk about that, but this is another issue. This is UDI. That's what we're talking about. This is a referendum victory and what the Government of Quebec, or another province, might do. That should be the chief concern, in my view, at this point.

So we can debate about what we need to fix the federation and all of that, but I'd like to focus on this one issue. We have a government in Quebec that seems to be quite determined that it wants to get out. We had a premier in 1994 who would go quite far to get out. He would have just declared UDI, and he said so.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andy Scott): Thank you very much, Mr. Hill.

Mrs. Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Henderson, when you were talking earlier about UDI and the rule of law, my good friend opposite was looking incredulous and shaking his head.

I have to tell you, it seems somewhat extreme, but perhaps I can quote for you from Le Soleil of February 15, 1996. It states:

I just want to point out a basic truth. In a society governed by the rule of law, a state has a certain number of tools and institutions at its disposal to ensure its authority over the territory. First of all, there are laws passed by a democratically elected Parliament, then there is a legal system, and then there is the police.

We, the government, have rejected violence or the threat of violence as an option. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about Jacques Brassard, the author of that statement.

For the record, I would ask that the Bloc disavow in statements, as strongly as possible, that they, too, would disavow violence.

Mr. Keith Henderson: If I may comment on that, I would love to see this, of course. It's long overdue.

Perhaps there are members of the Quebec government who've made these statements. It's possible. But I would like hear them make them more often and more clearly, absolutely.

What I have heard in recent days, and what I see in Bill 99, is that a mini unilateral declaration of independence is currently being debated. That's what they're talking about. It's illegal. It's unconstitutional. They have learned nothing from the August decision of the Supreme Court.

They are the Government of Quebec, and actions speak louder than words. If you're going to present that kind of legislation, then we're concerned. We live in Quebec. We're concerned. We want to know what our federal government will do if that passes, as it may well do, in the next weeks and months.

• 2015

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andy Scott): Thank you very much.

Mr. Henderson and Mr. Scott, I see it's time to move forward. Thank you very much for your appearance.

We'll suspend for five minutes so that the next witnesses have the opportunity to find their places.

• 2015

• 2022

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andy Scott): I'd like to “un-suspend” now.

Again, we're hearing witnesses on Bill C-20. Our next witnesses

[Translation]

appearing on behalf of the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec. They are Mr. Gratien D'Amours, Vice-President, and Mr. Jean Larose, General Manager. You have ten minutes for your presentation, which will be followed by a period of debate with Committee members.

Mr. Gratien D'Amours (Vice-President, Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec): Thank you.

We are very pleased to have an opportunity this evening to present the views of the Union des producteurs agricoles (UPA). The Union des producteurs agricoles was founded 75 years ago. Our General Manager, Mr. Larose, is with me here tonight.

Throughout its history, the UPA has worked hard to achieve a number of things: farm credit, the development of the farm press in Quebec (with its newspaper La Terre de chez nous), the cooperative movement in agriculture, rural electrification, educational development in the rural areas, joint marketing and, of course, the introduction of sustainable agriculture.

The 46,000 Quebec farmers who are members of the UPA invest some $500 million in both the Quebec and Canadian economies. Their 35,000 farming operations, most of them family-owned, provide employment for some 70,000 people.

Each year, the agricultural sector in Quebec spends over $3 billion to maintain the operations of its farm businesses. This money helps to turn the wheels of the economy and ensure the prosperity of rural Quebec and Canada.

On December 10 of last year, Bill C-20 was tabled in the House of Commons under the title An Act to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference.

Clause 1(1) of the bill provides the following:

1. (1) The House of Commons shall, within 30 days after the government of a province tables in its legislative assembly or otherwise officially releases the question that it intends to submit to its voters in a referendum relating to the proposed secession of the province from Canada, consider the question and, by resolution, set out its determination on whether the question is clear.

• 2025

Shortly after that, on December 15, Bill 99 was tabled in the National Assembly of Quebec; it concerns the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the people of Quebec and the Quebec State. The first paragraph of Section 10 of the bill provides the following:

As regards as the exercise of the fundamental and inalienable right of the Quebec people to decide on its own destiny, the State of Quebec and the National Assembly are bound only by the provisions of this act and other acts applying to the National Assembly.

These two provisions reflect the deeply opposing views of the current governments of the two jurisdictions on the question of the possible secession of Quebec following a referendum.

While the two options clearly show the political stripe of the parties involved in this dual legislative exercise, it must be recognized that the issues at stake certainly go beyond purely partisan views and call for the kind of debate a society looks closely at itself, the values on which it is based and the principles by which it lives.

It is in this context that the Union des producteurs agricoles is now being asked to express its views before the Parliamentary Committee examining Bill C-20.

This short paper begins by describing the role historically played by the UPA in major societal debates. It then goes on to state the UPA's views on federal-provincial relations and on the national question, concluding the UPA's position in the debate surrounding Bill C-20.

The UPA has never sat on the sidelines during major debates involving Quebec society. That approach is clearly described in the following passage from the minutes of the General Council of the UPA (its highest decision-making forum after the General Congress) on the issue of a possible referendum debate (September 1992):

The UPA has a duty to act, as it has in other major debates, by distributing information on the issues, restating its demands, closely following the debate and setting the record straight where necessary [...] The General Council does not agree that the UPA should take part in the debate in a partisan manner, but we cannot afford not to express our views on the issues.

The UPA, which is apolitical by tradition, has nevertheless been involved in the major debates marking the modern history of Quebec. It played a dynamic role in the Quiet Revolution, supporting the nationalization of the electricity industry and promoting the establishment of a Department of Education. It was in favour of the adoption of the Charter of the French Language, and remained neutral but informed during the referendum debate in 1980, as it did twelve years later in the debate on the Charlottetown Accord and, later still, in the 1995 referendum debate.

Other examples, albeit not quite as current, saw the UPA becoming engaged at various times in its history in a number of other debates. Our general congresses in 1939, 1940 and 1941 passed resolutions against conscription. We also appeared before several royal commissions of inquiry that were so common during the 1950s and 1960s.

A single principle emerges with remarkable consistency from all these actions: we have always made use of all available forums to ensure that the voice of our farm operators and of those who make a living through farming would be heard and to change the course of history, however slightly, to better reflect the demands of the agricultural industry.

The aim of the UPA is accordingly to shed light on the debate by presenting the views of a union organization that defends the interests of its members. Its concerns are wide-ranging: social, economic and political, in the very broadest sense of the terms.

The UPA, the national question and federal-provincial relations: The UPA's interest in the national question and in federal-provincial relations has roots in the distant past. Without harking back to every one of the positions it has adopted in the past, it should be pointed out that the UPA has always been reluctant to endorse federal interference with the prerogatives of provincial governments, and that it has always expressed strong support for autonomy for the provinces in their respective areas of jurisdiction, especially in the case of Quebec.

Since the situation as regards the national question became exacerbated in the mid-1980s, primarily as a result of the failure of the Meech Lake Accord, we think it is appropriate to dwell to a certain extent, albeit succinctly as always, on the successive positions we have adopted since that time.

• 2030

In May 1986, we prepared a brief entitled Les municipalités de demain [Tomorrow's Municipalities] in which we stated the following:

In Quebec, it is a well-known fact that power rests first and foremost with Quebec and its National Assembly—a fact that forms a part of our history and our culture, a fact that it may never be possible to change...

We have taken the following passages from our May 1987 brief on the Meech Lake Accord:

When we, as agricultural producers, are the source of close to $14 billion in investment and 400,000 direct and indirect jobs, it goes without saying that the constitutional framework that will govern our society and the people of Quebec requires special attention...

We would repeat that in order for the agricultural industry to avoid being put in a straight jacket, Canada must recognize our right to set our own priorities. This is possible in constitutional terms only if we secure the right to withdraw unconditionally with full financial compensation, not only from those areas of jurisdiction that are strictly provincial, but also from those that are shared. If these two conditions cannot be met, the statu quo is less dangerous than signing the Meech Lake Accord.

During 1990, the UPA's General Council, Executive Council and General Congress held extensive discussions on the national question. The Congress passed two resolutions on the subject, and the UPA came out in favour of sovereignty for Quebec. It is appropriate at this point to note that this was in a sense the only breach in our organization's apolitical approach, albeit tempered by the fact that all of Quebec was at the time experiencing a rare upsurge of nationalist feeling following the collapse of the Meech Lake Accord, in the wake of the Bélanger-Campeau Commission. If the UPA took sides at the time, it clearly took the side of Quebec.

We thought it appropriate to reproduce the following passages from the brief submitted to that Commission:

The UPA is keenly interested in any question that relates to the future of Quebec. The UPA's involvement in the major debates of the past and the present with respect to not only the industry it represents, but matters that relate in a general way to the people of Quebec, testifies to its total commitment in this regard.

The political history of Quebec, from Confederation to the present time, has been one of unending battles to acquire the powers that are essential for its economic development. It has also been a history of direct encroachments on areas of jurisdiction that we thought already belonged to Quebec, a history of overlapping structures and policies and a host of federal-provincial squabbles in a bid to gain respect for Quebec's specificity, its policies and its democratic choices.

Aside from the minor exception of 1990, the UPA has always remained on the sidelines when it comes to choosing political options. Yet it has always been involved in societal debates and its positions have at no time been contradictory. In essence, it has always claimed its fair share of federal monies and asked that the power to make decisions with respect to the development of its industry be a prerogative of Quebec. In the vast majority of cases where it has taken part in societal debates, it has highlighted the potential impacts on our agricultural sector, as well as on the men and women for whom farming is a profession.

For the UPA, Quebeckers alone have the right to choose.

In tabling Bill C-20, the federal government has revived hostilities on the constitutional front, as many observers have already acknowledged. This initiative is something of a surprise, they note, coming as it does from a government that has always claimed that Canadians are sick and tired of hearing about the Constitution.

In fact, draping oneself in the Supreme Court opinion on the Quebec secession reference will not be enough to make this whole process appear to be less of a tactic on the part of the federal government. In practical terms, as the indignation this has caused in Quebec clearly shows, such action has only added fuel to the fire and revived old antagonisms that had been put to rest.

No one in Quebec has been fooled by this manoeuver, which people were quick to see as strong-arm tactics on the part of the federal government. Even many die-hard federalists believe "it must be made perfectly clear to the rest of the country that there are certain things we simply cannot ignore", as Claude Ryan pointed out in a recent television interview on the subject, following the government's announcement that the legislation would be tabled and, of course, when he appeared before this Committee several days ago.

In fact, it is quite evident that the general feeling can be summed up as follows: the people of Quebec are the only ones who can decide on their own future.

• 2035

The leaders of our main political parties in Quebec quite rightly agreed—at least as far as the substance is concerned—that only the National Assembly of Quebec is in a position to decide on the conditions that would govern any potential referendum process on the political and constitutional future of Quebec.

The UPA resolutely supports this view, especially since the people of Quebec have in the past displayed an exemplary degree of political maturity, no matter what view of Quebec they happen to hold.

That observation alone requires that we respect their autonomy, no matter how that autonomy happens to be exercised in relation to our rights, policies, culture, language and destiny, especially when we exercise those rights in a manner that is completely democratic. The men and women of Quebec have shown on more than one occasion that they are mature enough for that. We have only to think about the 1980, 1982 and 1995 referendum debates.

Throughout the 75 years of its history, the UPA, as we have already pointed out, has always refrained from taking partisan political positions. At the same time, as we have also pointed out, never has it remained on the sidelines during major societal debates, having always seen itself as the custodian of a serious social responsibility based on the principles of justice and fairness. It is in the name of that responsibility that we now take a position.

It is this sense of responsibility that informs our actions and that should prompt all those involved to act in a restrained, reasonable manner. We believe the people of Quebec had no need for such a debate. However, the course of events being what it is, our position is that not only are Quebeckers the only ones who can choose their destiny—indeed that is precisely the reason that they are—but they also have a duty to stand united and close ranks behind Section 10 of Bill 99, which states:

As regards the exercise of the fundamental and inalienable right of the Quebec people to decide its own destiny, the State of Quebec and the National Assembly are bound only by the provisions of this act and by other acts applying to the National Assembly.

It is clear to us—and the same conclusions should be clear to all Quebeckers—that only the people of Quebec, through their own institutions, have the right to decide on the nature and extent of and the conditions for exercising their right to self- determination, and no other Parliament or government may in any way whatsoever limit the powers, authority, sovereignty and legitimacy of the National Assembly, nor violate the integrity of its territory.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Action Chairman (Mr. Andy Scott): Mr. Hill, you have five minutes.

Mr. Grant Hill: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Many people have come before this Committee saying that Bill C-20 violates the rights of the Quebec National Assembly, whereas other witnesses have told us that is not the case and that this legislation would in fact allow Quebec to implement its plan for secession, provided it meets the specific conditions set out in the bill. You do not seem to support that latter view.

Mr. Gratien D'Amours: I believe what concerns us most about this bill is that the government is trying to set rules for the process before the question has even been asked. As a result, we see this as removing our ability to clearly decide for ourselves. We are being asked to accept, as stated in the Clarity Bill, which we have read, that the House of Commons will ultimately decide whether the question is clear. There is no doubt that a party in power that decided the question wasn't clear could also decide to say no to a province. That is the fundamental aspect of this legislation that we cannot accept.

Mr. Grant Hill: Are you of the view that the question asked in the last referendum was unambiguous and in no way led to confusion?

• 2040

Mr. Gratien D'Amours: Our view is that Quebec's political history has demonstrated Quebeckers' profound respect for democracy. We are counting on people's ability to respect democracy. We believe that they are the ones that should make the decision. As far as we're concerned, that is absolutely clear. Our view is that the past is a guarantor of the future.

Mr. Grant Hill: You did not really answer my question. I asked you whether you felt the question asked in the last referendum was clear. Do you feel it was an unambiguous question that resulted in no confusion?

Mr. Gratien D'Amours: My view is that the last question was clear, and that Quebeckers voted with full knowledge of the facts. That is our position.

Mr. Grant Hill: What problem might arise if an absolutely clear question dealing solely with Quebec secession was asked?

Mr. Gratien D'Amours: That is not the issue. Our position is that it is up to the National Assembly to make that decision and we simply cannot accept the idea that an entity other than the National Assembly should have that authority. That is the priority; it has to go through that body.

Mr. Grant Hill: This legislation provides that the National Assembly has the right to ask a question on any subject, except secession. In such cases, it would be up to the House of Commons to determine whether the question is clear or not. This is not a question directed only at Quebeckers; it is a question that all of us here have to answer. That is the difference. Why don't you agree with that?

Mr. Gratien D'Amours: At the risk of repeating what I have already said, this legislation doesn't prevent the National Assembly from asking questions, but the fact remains that the House of Commons will be given the task of determining whether the question is clear. Because the majority of the Members represented in the House of Commons belong to the party in power, we have a concern that the party in question could, for partisan reasons, decide that the question wasn't clear and thus prevent democracy from taking its course. That is the real issue here.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Andy Scott): Thank you very much, Mr. Hill.

[Translation]

Mr. Guimond.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Larose and Mr. D'Amours, on behalf of my 44 fellow Members representing the Bloc Québécois, I would first like to sincerely commend the UPA on its presentation.

Once again, the UPA has made a presentation that is highly professional. Even though one sometimes sensed a certain indignation about the substance of Bill C-20, you nevertheless made your points with dignity and professionalism. That is very much the UPA's trademark. I would also ask you to extend my best wishes to your President, Mr. Laurent Pellerin, who I'm sure would have liked to be with you this evening.

Tonight we've heard the UPA address the federal Parliament about something other than the WTO negotiations, the Kroeger Report on Western Grain Transportation and genetically modified foods. The UPA has come tonight to talk about the very foundations of democracy. I think this is a great credit to the agricultural producers you represent.

• 2045

There are some UPA producers in my riding of Île d'Orléans and on the Beaupré coast, and my colleague, Daniel Turp, also has some in Salaberry, Huntingdon and other parts of his riding.

Mr. Daniel Turp: In Sainte-Martine.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Your presentation before the Committee this evening was a breath of fresh air.

The consensus currently emerging in Quebec includes, among others, the three parties represented in the National Assembly, 60 per cent of Quebec Members of Parliament represented here in the House of Commons, and the three large central labour bodies that together represent more than one million workers. I guess we can now add your voice—the UPA—and Claude Ryan, Leader of the Official Opposition in the National Assembly in 1980 and Leader of the NO side during the 1980 referendum. I would just like to know whether you support the idea of simply opting out of Bill C-20 and would ask that you give your reasons.

Mr. Gratien D'Amours: I believe our presentation made that clear. In fact, we supported Bill 99 in that respect. That was the message we were trying to get across to you in our presentation.

I would just like to apologize for our President, Mr. Pellerin, who has been held up in Quebec City at the Youth Summit and therefore asked me to replace him. Forgive me for not extending those apologies earlier.

Mr. Michel Guimond: You agreed to come and appear before this Committee in Ottawa. I am not really familiar with the UPA's union structure, but I have no doubt that the various grassroots unions that are affiliated with the UPA would have appreciated having an opportunity to meet with the Committee in each of the regions of Quebec. I'm sure that your grassroots unions would have like to see the Committee travel to the Lower St. Lawrence area, the Gaspé, the North Shore, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, the Laurentians—Lanaudière area and Saint-Hyacinthe to hear their views on Bill C-20.

Mr. Daniel Turp: And Rimouski. They wanted us to go to Rimouski.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I already mentioned the Lower St. Lawrence-Gaspé region, which includes Rimouski.

We could also have gone to meet directly with agricultural producers in Winnipeg, because I know you maintain links with the democratic leaders of farm union organizations in the other provinces.

In your view, did legislation such as this justify the Committee travelling across Quebec and Canada to hear the views of ordinary people, rather than big corporations with their lobbyists, who are paid $5,000 a day to prepare their briefs?

An Hon. Member: How much?

Mr. Michel Guimond: Five thousand dollars a day.

Mr. Gratien D'Amours: It probably would have been very worthwhile for your Committee to come and discuss this legislation with people, so that they could gain a thorough understanding of the issues. Indeed, it might have been an opportunity to discuss the issues directly with the people—people who clearly cannot take part in the kind of discussion we're having here tonight. The UPA would have had no objection to that, if the Committee had so desired. By getting closer to the people, we would have had an opportunity to democratize this debate. And we are certainly not opposed to that.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Blaikie, you have five minutes.

[English]

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I want to welcome our witnesses from the UPA and say that I did have an opportunity to work just a little with representatives of the UPA back in the 1980s, when, I believe, there was a concern about acid rain and the effect that acid rain was having on Quebec. I was on a special committee on acid rain at the time and I remember working with the UPA representatives about that concern, particularly for the sugar maple, but also for other aspects of agriculture in Quebec.

• 2050

At that time we found ourselves having the same concerns, but tonight, I think, I have a little bit of a different take on Bill C-20. I just want to explore that with you.

First of all, it's common not just for you but for many others, particularly my Bloc colleagues, to refer to the consensus that exists in Quebec with respect to Bill C-20. It's certainly the case that there are a lot of people in Quebec who are opposed to Bill C-20. I don't argue with that.

On the other hand, I think it's also fair to say—my Bloc colleagues already know this, but just in case you don't—that we have had a number of Quebeckers come before this committee who have supported Bill C-20. Some of them have been quite prominent, in the past, in defence of the interests of Quebec. For instance, Monsieur Rémillard, Monsieur Castonguay, and a number of Quebec professors from Quebec universities have been appearing before this committee in order to defend Bill C-20.

So I just don't think it's completely fair to give the impression that everybody in Quebec is lined up 100% against this thing, because there are people that are otherwise. Some of the polling shows that at a sort of a demographic level, there might even be more support for the bill than is normally claimed here.

I heard you say that a federal government, for purely partisan reasons, could use this bill to strike down or to override—I forget exactly what word you used—a majority vote in favour of secession. I think that's true in the sense that I think the possibility exists for a federal government to try to abuse or override or not take seriously the clearly expressed will of the Quebec people—and that would have to be dealt with at the time—but I don't think they would be operating pursuant to this bill if they did so.

I don't think the bill creates that opportunity. I think it's something that happens anyway in the course of human nature. Isn't it also true that a Quebec government acting for purely partisan reasons could misinterpret or over-interpret or give a wrong interpretation to a particular vote on a particular question?

A lot of the argument we get against Bill C-20 seems to assume that somehow Quebec governments exist—to use sort of a theological metaphor, if you like, or a biblical one—in some dimension out of time, before the Fall, in a state of innocence, and that no Quebec government would ever do the kinds of things that are regularly attributed to the federal government.

Now, having dealt with the federal government for 20 years, I can see why people might have these kinds of suspicions. On the other hand, I can't bring myself, as a theologian, to believe that the Quebec government is somehow pre-Adam-and-Eve or pre-Fall, so that they would never, God forbid—if you'll forgive that particular expression—engage in this kind of political exercise, Mr. Chairman.

Your comments sort of triggered that response in me, and I apologize. I probably should have delivered this to someone else at some point.

The fact is, both levels of government can act irresponsibly and both levels of government can exploit situations. What this does is to try to say that the Parliament of Canada has a responsibility to take that into account, that the Parliament of Canada can't say, whatever the question, whatever the majority, whatever the situation, that we will negotiate secession if the Quebec government tells us to, because of course they exist before the Fall and whatever they do is right.

• 2055

The Chair: Mr. Blaikie, I gather you've been going for the full five minutes. I'm impressed.

Voices: Oh, oh!

[Translation]

The Chairman: Perhaps we could now get an answer from our witnesses. Is that okay with everyone? Let's move on to the answer now.

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

An Hon. Member: —

The Chairman: I am no theologian.

Mr. Gratien D'Amours: I will try to answer. You raised a number of points. First of all, I want to say that I have a very clear recollection of the fight against acid rain. The UPA had organized an international conference for the very purpose of convincing our American neighbours who, it must be said, are the primary source of this problem, to take action. At the time, we worked closely with other people equally concerned about this issue.

As to your comment to the effect that 100 per cent of the people support the views we expressed this evening, we did not in fact say that. Nor do I believe that to be true. In any case, at the very least Mr. Dion does not support that view.

But seriously, I think it would be quite difficult, looking back on the history of Quebec, to find an example of a situation where the people had not respected democracy, their democratic institutions and the verdicts they were presented with. Perhaps you'll say we are overly confident in our institutions, but we have not seen any examples to suggest that in Quebec, whatever the party in power, those principles were not abided by. And that is exactly what we are relying on. That's why we say power has to be returned to those institutions, because in the final analysis, whether we like it or not, that power is being given back to the House of Commons, when our own institutions have already clearly demonstrated that they can properly perform that role.

Of course, it is an act of faith, but we do have evidence; that is precisely what we are relying on, which is perfectly legitimate, in our view.

The Chairman: Mr. Bachand.

Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Unlike my colleague, Mr. Blaikie, I will not attempt to ascertain who existed before Adam and Eve, because I think that would probably generate quite a lengthy debate. I may well speak as long as Mr. Blaikie did.

I would like to thank Mr. D'Amours and Mr. Larose for being with us this evening. I should say that we have had an opportunity on both sides to hear witnesses chosen from among the most eminent professors, constitutional experts, constitutional lawyers and politicians the country has ever had, and yet I want to thank you for taking us back to basics. This is, as they say, a return to basics—not to basics in the sense of grassroots union activists, but to basics in the sense of what you represent. I have to remind you that in my area, the Eastern Townships, I have close daily contact with UPA members. I am fortunate to know Mr. Jacques Proulx, who lives ten minutes from my home in Saint-Camille. I just want you to know how close we are to the UPA.

Having said that, your message to us tonight is the same one we have heard from other witnesses, who came before the Committee to tell us to trust Quebeckers; we're not talking about blind trust, but trust in the institutions that we have put in place of our own volition.

Mr. Ryan told me that nobody is in a position to give Quebec any advice about democracy. On the contrary, it could well pass on some ideas to others within this federation. And that is not a sovereignist speaking. I am not a sovereignist, I am a federalist. It's not always easy.

• 2100

Mr. Michel Guimond: Not yet.

Mr. André Bachand: It's not always easy.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Not yet.

Mr. André Bachand: Not always easy.

Mr. Michel Guimond: You're going to wear yourself out.

Mr. André Bachand: If we can convince Jean-François Lisée, we can certainly convince Michel Guimond. But joking aside...

Mr. Michel Guimond: You're going to wear yourself out, like Léon Dion did.

Mr. André Bachand: Mr. D'Amours, I want to ask you whether it appears that the government is trying to pull a fast one when it comes to democracy. We're starting to get tired. Indeed, even Geoffroi is having a laugh with us tonight. That's just an indication of how tired everyone is. It feels good, doesn't it Geoffroi, to joke around once in a while because it's pretty tough.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to put a question to the UPA, which has just given us a lesson in common sense—not legal or legalistic arguments or politics, but just plain old common sense.

I would like to hear your views with respect to the following. As you know, Mr. D'Amours, outside Quebec, Bill C-20 will provide some comfort to the rest of Canada, because it states, among other things, that it is normal for there to be a clear question and a clear majority. They assume that through this legislation, if Quebeckers are faced with a clear question and have to obtain a clear majority in order to secede, it is quite likely they will not choose an option that would have devastating consequences for Canada.

If you had one message for the people living outside Quebec—you often work closely with them—with respect to the Quebec reality, what would it be?

Mr. Gratien D'Amours: As a matter of fact, we have fairly frequent contact with people from outside Quebec, because we work with an organization called the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, of which UPA is a member.

I believe that our message is one of respect. We're calling for respect for a society and its institutions. I think that is our message to the rest of Canada. And I would remind them that you need to have faith.

In fact, those are exactly the kinds of things we should be saying. That is our message to them. It's short, but that is what I really think.

Mr. André Bachand: Thank you, Mr. D'Amours.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Alcock.

Light Mr. Alcock up.

A voice: Do you want me to light him up?

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Well, I must confess the testimony of your leader today lifted my spirits.

I must confess in some sense I have mixed feelings in listening to your testimony today. I spend a great deal of my time with farmers in the west in particular. We're having some difficulty there, as you know. So it was with some interest that I saw your names on the list of witnesses.

In a sense I'd like to be talking with you right now about the problems with falling international commodity prices, because this is a big problem for farmers. It's something we're struggling with in the west, and you know this through the Canadian Federation. So when you appear here as an association of farmers, I'm a little surprised, not that you appeared to talk, but at the position.

• 2105

In 1995 the then premier of the province, in Bill 1, said the government only had to offer, not conclude, a partnership agreement with the rest of Canada if the referendum passed. Mr. Parizeau clearly stated that he would give a maximum of 365 days for an answer and that at any time within those 365 days he could declare unilaterally the independence of Quebec. That's fact.

When we start to deal with issues in that way—with a unilateral action such as that, which leaves all sorts of questions unanswered, creates a system certainly of questionable legality, and leads us into more debate, argument, and confusion—what does that do to your members? What does a unilateral declaration do to your members, who have been partners within the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and all of a sudden find themselves competitors with that same organization? What does it do to positions you might want to take with the WTO if you're not recognized?

Yes, it's true we couldn't leave a situation like that, and those things would get sorted out over time. But isn't there a better process for that? Isn't there a better method of sorting those out? In many ways what this bill does is try to prevent that kind of chaos if we ever hit that point in our relationship. Wouldn't that chaos have a terrible impact on the people you represent?

[Translation]

Mr. Gratien D'Amours: In answer to your question, certain assertions have been made. Of course, members support various political options and probably react on the basis of those options. And at the UPA, we respect that. We have always said that the people of Quebec have to decide collectively based on their own individual choices. That's how we have always seen things. So, people have reacted in accordance with their political options.

If that were to happen—and your question is obviously a hypothetical one—we do not believe that overnight, UPA would cease to collaborate with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, because on both sides, we're going to have to keep going. Life will go on. Of course, it may have some impact, but agreements are currently in place, and I believe those agreements would continue to apply. These are agreements governing the marketing of certain products, and goods do travel across the country.

In our view, people on both sides of the issue would do well to maintain their relations and continue to trade, because goods circulate freely and everyone benefits from that. We think life would go on. But the situation you referred to is so hypothetical that we would have to look at it if it seemed likely to arise. But for the time being, that is our analysis of how things would work.

With respect to the World Trade Organization, there are, of course, agreements in place, but at first glance, it would not appear that they would be impacted much.

The Chairman: Mr. Alcock. Please be brief.

[English]

Mr. Reg Alcock: I would simply ask you to reflect on that. You keep saying it's a hypothetical situation. It is very nearly the situation we were in in 1995, according to the then premier, who took us into that referendum saying he was prepared to make that declaration.

• 2110

It's fine to say life would go on, and I certainly hope it would, but why take that risk? If you want to achieve that end, why not do it within a context that provides an orderly way of ensuring your members are not subject to that? That's really what this bill is to do.

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. André Bachand: —

Mr. Reg Alcock: Oh, as opposed to changing the subject or hiding your head in the sand, because we'll just forget about the damn thing.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Let's get on with the answer.

[Translation]

Of course, there is disagreement within the Committee, but not as far as witnesses are concerned. Witnesses are given an opportunity to respond.

Order, please.

Mr. Gratien D'Amours: I think it's important to judge institutions or individuals based on the specific role they have to fulfill. If Mr. Parizeau said that elsewhere, in another forum, when he was no longer Premier, the question becomes even more hypothetical. What is important is that people respect the mandate they are given by the democratic institutions that elected them. As an organization, if the party in power, whatever party it may be, did not respect the mandate it had been democratically entrusted with by democratic institutions, we would be the first to react.

We want our institutions to act in the same way they always have, with due respect for the democratic process. We are probably lucky to have that ability here.

[English]

Mr. Reg Alcock: It's too late. It may be too late. That's the problem.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Guimond, you have the floor.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say, Mr. D'Amours, that I think you gave a very good answer and that you can't be held responsible for everything that was written or said by people whose opinion you have no control over. We asked you to appear to hear the UPA's views on Bill C-20. You obviously can't possibly comment on everything that has been said.

For example, I'm sure you would not agree with what Lord Durham said about us in 1839:

This is a race of men accustomed to the unrelenting work associated with a crude and primitive agriculture, generally inclined towards society's pleasures, living together in rural communities, possessing portions of a vast unoccupied land large enough to provide for every family...

Lord Durham wrote those words in 1839. There is no point in my coming along and asking you today whether that still jibes with agriculture as practised in Quebec in the year 2000. I felt I had no choice but to illustrate how ridiculous Mr. Alcock's comment was.

Mr. Gratien D'Amours: Do you want my reaction?

Mr. Michel Guimond: Yes, I would.

Mr. Gratien D'Amours: We don't think they are all like that. We have worked with some of them, and we are on the same wavelength. I do understand your comments, though, and the context in which you are making them.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Do you know how much Alberta beef Quebec buys? Do you have those figures? I have them, but I want to see whether yours jibe with my own.

Mr. Gratien D'Amours: Well, they are recent, but to my knowledge, Alberta beef imports represent an expenditure of approximately $700 to $800 million a year for Quebec.

Mr. Michel Guimond: And what is that as a percentage of overall consumption in Quebec?

Mr. Gratien D'Amours: Domestic production represents approximately 10 per cent of total consumption.

Mr. Michel Guimond: It's too bad Mr. Alcock is on the phone with his mentor, Stéphane Dion, because I'm sure he would like to hear what we're saying. Unfortunately, he has only one ear available to listen to our discussion. I'm sure that if Quebec became sovereign, Alberta beef producers would want to continue to sell their beef to Quebec. And if, after Quebec became sovereign, Alberta beef producers wanted to stop selling their beef to Quebec, as a protest measure, or out of discontent or spite, I have no doubt the Argentine, Chilean and other world producers would be pleased to sell us their beef. If Quebec becomes sovereign, we are not all of a sudden going to be on a steady diet of rice. We will continue to eat hamburgers at McDonald's, and steaks and brochettes on the BBQ. Do you think we're going to continue to eat beef if Quebec becomes sovereign?

• 2115

The Chairman: That will probably be the end of our question period.

Mr. D'Amours, do you have anything to add about beef? Do you wish to respond to that question?

Mr. Gratien D'Amours: The answer I gave earlier made it clear that at the present time, Quebec agriculture includes a very significant dairy industry: in fact, we supply the other provinces.

Given the current situation, we buy other goods, and beef is a good example of that. It is pretty clear that the production dynamic that has developed in the West is yielding good results, which means that we buy beef from them. There are undoubtedly mutual benefits in such a system.

We believe that under normal circumstances, the process would continue to work the same way it does now, whatever decisions were made following a political decision to secede from Quebec. But that is all very hypothetical, and it is important to point out that the main reason we are here tonight is to address the substance of Bill C-20.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. D'Amours et Mr. Larose.

That concludes our 45-minute question period. I know that other colleagues would like to ask questions, but we have already gone beyond the allotted time. I think we should now conclude our discussions with the witnesses. Allow me to thank you for appearing. I want to apologize for not being here when you began your presentation, but I certainly had a chance to hear all your answers. Thank you for your assistance and good evening.

An Hon. Member: Mr. Chairman, do we have any other witnesses?

The Chairman: Yes, yes, just a moment.

Mr. Michel Guimond: No, there are no more witnesses.

The Chairman: Just a moment.

• 2120

• 2121

The Chairman: Order, please. We can get started again. Mr. Guimond, you again have the floor.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chairman, if you feel the need to say "again", that must mean you are trying to drive home the point that since Monday afternoon at 2:30 PM—whereas it's now Wednesday evening at 9:20 PM—I have once again been given the floor to discuss a motion introduced by my colleague, the Member for Winnipeg, Mr. Alcock—a colleague I respect...

No, no... this time, we'll just forget the part about the Parliamentary Secretary.

So, I have tremendous respect for my colleague whom I assume to be—for the benefit of all those people listening to us tonight—a great democrat who will be able to remain attentive during my presentation even though I may sometimes have to be rather blunt. So, as a member of the Opposition wishing to offer his views in good faith on behalf of his party, I would have to describe the motion presently before us as completely unacceptable, however legitimate it may be under the British-based parliamentary system that governs us here in the Parliament of Canada.

I believe this motion is unacceptable because given the seriousness of this legislation, it is important to hear witnesses, and also because, as Members of the opposition, we will not allow ourselves to be guillotined. And this time, the guillotine has two parts to it. What we are dealing with here, Mr. Chairman, is a two- headed guillotine—a bicephalous guillotine. It is bicephalous in the sense that it was suggested here by the legal person that is the Parliamentary Secretary, representing the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, but now another part has been added, which is certainly giving me a lot of headaches. I have trouble sleeping now, Mr. Chairman. I hope that when this exercise is completed, I will not end up with hydrocephaly.

[English]

Mr. Reg Alcock: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, please—

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: And the second gag came about...

The Chairman: There is a point of order.

[English]

Mr. Reg Alcock: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I would simply like to make a positive suggestion to my honourable friend. I am enjoying, as I always enjoy, his remarks. I have found this to be most instructive, and I have learned a great deal through listening to him. If he could reduce the volume slightly and slow the speed down a little, it would aid my comprehension. If he would do that, it would be possible for me to sit and listen to this.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chairman, I think it's a great offer. I will try to accept if you accept to listen to me until 9.30 tomorrow morning.

It's not easy for me—

Mr. Reg Alcock: Just say yes.

An hon. member: Until the cows come home—

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chairman, I should point out that when I referred earlier to a bicephalous guillotine, I was thinking of the motion forced on us by the government leader today, Wednesday, February 23, at 5:31 PM.

But in order to understand why a party like ours... I'm sure that the colleagues present tonight can be divided into two groups. Some would like to hear my presentation, to have an idea of where it's heading—colleagues like Mr. Cotler, who has always been attentive and who is just dying to hear the conclusion of my presentation; and other colleagues on this side of the table, such as Mr. Blaikie and Mr. Turp, who are first and foremost great democrats...

• 2125

The Chairman: André.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I had forgotten about Mr. Bachand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Those colleagues are in the opposition for the time being. Perhaps they hope that their party—I'm thinking in particular of my colleagues in the NDP and the Conservative Party—will one day take the reins of power and form the government, in which case they won't dare use the guillotine on the Liberals, because I have no doubt they will consider it to be undemocratic.

So, there are a lot of people here. There is you, Mr. Chairman, the staff helping us, the clerk, our very capable interpreters who almost had to translate my words from German into French and English—although we would have needed another booth for that.

You know, the system here is complicated. My colleague, Mr. Turp, even made a presentation in Cree once. I can tell you that shook the pillars of the temple, Mr. Chairman. We're not used to hearing Bloc Québécois Members speak Cree here, but that's exactly what my colleague, Mr. Turp, did.

So, I was telling you, Mr. Cotler, and colleagues about what Mr. Claude Ryan said with respect to the Supreme Court Reference. These were his comments:

The Reference calls, first and foremost, for clarification of what is meant by "Quebec". According to the federal government's factum, Quebec is a province of Canada, nothing more.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a comment. The saloon door over there that distracts us as we're trying to make a serious presentation reminds me of the very best westerns—the spaghetti westerns made by Sergio Leone where there's always someone coming through a door like that. It really looks like a saloon door.

Yesterday, when my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary, left the room through that door, I was literally traumatized. I was quite concerned, colleague, when I saw you leave. The Chairman was also traumatized. I hope we can get a requisition in triplicate—one copy for the Chairman, one for Mr. Marleau, one for the Whip, and a copy for the Leader as well—signed in order to get that door repaired, because it really distracts us when we're trying to make a serious presentation.

The Chairman: The clerk can repair anything.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Yes. Getting back to more serious matters, Mr. Ryan said, with respect to the Supreme Court Reference:

It's a very short step from there to the proposition that Quebec is a province like any other. Yet this simplistic notion has never been accepted in Quebec. In the present state of our law, Quebec is ranked as a province, but within the Canadian federation as a whole, it forms a distinct society by the language...

I just want to say goodbye to Minister Dion's henchmen. The bags and attaché cases are leaving, Mr. Chairman. We're going to lose all our questions. The attaché cases on wheels are leaving.

Here is what Mr. Ryan said:

In the present state of our law, Quebec is ranked as a province, but within the Canadian federation as a whole, it forms a distinct society by the language and culture of the vast majority of its citizens, its civil law system and its institutions. Quebec's distinctiveness is at the very heart of the constitutional debate. Various terms have been used to define Quebec, including a community, a people, a nation, a society. [...] For over half a century, successive governments in Quebec, whether they were federalist or sovereignist leaning, insisted that this distinct character be explicitly affirmed and recognized. In the federal government's factum, Quebec is compared to ethnic, religious or minority language groups living within duly constituted states whose right to independence would not be recognized under international law. By presenting things in this fashion, we are becoming dangerously far removed from the concept of two equal founding peoples formerly recognized by the federal government.

• 2130

A little further on, Mr. Ryan states:

With respect to the right to self-determination, interpreted as involving, among other options, a decision in favour of sovereignty, there is a broad and deep consensus in Quebec among the main political parties and the vast majority of political players who are active in Quebec. They are unanimous in recognizing that Quebec's political future, whatever option is retained, is in the final analysis a matter to be decided through the expression of the sovereign will of the Quebec people.

The opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada, while it does contain a number of answers the federal government was seeking, also includes some arguments the federal government probably wasn't expecting, such as recognition by the Court of the legitimacy of the Quebec process and the duty to consider the expression of Quebeckers' democratic will.

The reference states:

The clearly expressed rejection by the people of Quebec of the existing constitutional order would clearly lend legitimacy to secessionist claims, and impose a duty on the other provinces and the federal government to both consider and respect that expression of Quebeckers' democratic will by entering into negotiations and pursuing those negotiations in accordance with underlying constitutional principles...

Let us now move on to the discussion that I wished to have with you regarding the framework agreement on the Canadian social union, a matter of some pride within the federal government. As we saw, that agreement was not very well received in Quebec, even by the Liberal opposition in the National Assembly.

Similar to post-referendum initiatives more directly linked to the Quebec question, such as the Calgary Declaration and the Supreme Court Reference, another major issue affected the current Canadian federation in a significant way, as regards the evolution of the relationship between the federation and Quebec.

It has to do with the roles and responsibilities of the two orders of government in the area of social policy. Constitutionally, social policy is primarily a provincial responsibility. This is an area where the federal government has nonetheless been heavily involved, primarily through the use of its spending power.

In Canada, the division of tax revenues between the two orders of government is not proportionate to the monies they are required to expend in keeping with their respective constitutional responsibilities. The provinces pay most of the cost of social programs, yet it is the federal government that has access to most of the tax monies needed to finance them.

This will become amply clear, Mr. Chairman, on February 28 next, when the Minister of Finance, Paul Martin, tables his budget and announces that the federal government will have an accumulated surplus of $95 billion over the next five years. That is totally unacceptable, Mr. Chairman.

If the federal government has a $95 billion surplus, it is mainly because it has made cuts to provincial transfers, cuts to employment insurance programs, helped itself to monies in the Employment Insurance Fund, to the detriment of workers in Canada, and because taxes are too high, Mr. Chairman.

If the federal government were not so greedy, if it weren't such an ogre, and if it were reasonable, there would be no surplus. Before becoming a Member of Parliament, I was on the town council of the Municipality of Boischatel, on the Beaupré coast where the Montmorency Falls are located. A municipal government has an obligation to present a balanced budget every year, which means that we have an obligation to levy taxes and raise revenues on the basis of our expenditures.

When the municipality you live in, Mr. Chairman, Kingston, pats itself on the back for having a surplus, that simply confirms that the taxes paid by its residents are too high. A government should ordinarily levy taxes based on its requirements.

That is why, Mr. Chairman, I am telling you in advance that if the Minister of Finance, as is expected, announces a $95 billion surplus over the next five years, that is not necessarily an example of good management. It is simply a sign that Canadians are paying too much tax. Let him give that money back to the workers of Canada—to ordinary people, like fishermen, or farmers in Western Canada, and particularly Saskatchewan, who need that money. So, this will only be evidence that the current government is too greedy. We will be reminding the Minister of Finance of that fact next Monday.

• 2135

In the 1990s, the federal government significantly cut transfer payments to the provinces which are used to fund social programs. It simply made unilateral cuts. And I would emphasize the word “unilateral”, Mr. Chairman. Let's take a look at the etymology of the word “unilateral”. “Uni” means on one side, Mr. Chairman. That means that the federal government... And there are other words that have been used to described federalism: cooperative, domineering. That's what Robert Bourassa... The federal government claimed that we were part of a system of cooperative federalism.

But let us not forget what Mr. Bourassa said the day after the Beaudoin-Dobbie Committee Report was tabled. He said that it was an example of domineering federalism. When I say that unilateral cuts will lead to...

[English]

Mr. Reg Alcock: A point of order, Mr. Chairman, please.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and President of the Queen's Privy Council has a point of order.

[English]

Mr. Reg Alcock: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do want to raise a point of order, and in doing so, I do want to make one very serious comment. This has been a difficult process, a very difficult process. I must say that I've gained a great deal of respect for Mr. Guimond in the way that he has conducted this debate.

Having said that, I'm sorry that he has not been able to hold the audience, but I would ask, Mr. Chairman, if you would see if there's a quorum.

[Translation]

The Chairman: No, we do not have a quorum.

[English]

Mr. André Bachand: How many members?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Quorum is eight, and there are seven of us.

[English]

Mr. Reg Alcock: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned until tomorrow morning at 9:30 AM.