Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Justice has provided a summary of some of the highlights of the Quebec Secession Reference. I would like to make a few comments about the political implications of this discussion. This decision essentially says that negotiations will be required if Quebec gets a clear yes vote on a clear question, in a referendum on separation. The decision also stresses that things will get very complicated in the event of a yes vote. But we are not on the brink of a referendum at this time. The Premier of Quebec, Mr. Bouchard, still must call an election. The outcome of the next provincial election in Quebec will be a very important indicator of what we can expect in the coming years. If Mr. Bouchard cannot produce a convincing win, including a substantial majority of the popular vote, the likelihood of a referendum in the near future is not great.
The decision in the reference case is not likely to end the national unity debate. I think it is safe to say that the PQ will try to do things indirectly, if they cannot do them directly. The social policy reform talks, for example, provide Quebec and other provinces, with an opportunity to reduce federal influence in their jurisdictions. Quebec can be expected to incrementally increase its autonomy and bide its time. At the moment Mr. Bouchard has picked a fight with the Prime Minister to try to increase Canada's influence in international affairs. In his foreign travels he often adopts the vocabulary of statehood as though Quebec were already an independent country.
On the other hand, if the conditions for a yes vote do materialize in Quebec in the near future, the fact that northern Quebec is the homeland of aboriginal peoples, with constitutionally protected rights, will be a very important factor in any negotiations. Aboriginal peoples in northern Quebec have consistently and overwhelmingly voted against separation. They want to stay in Canada. There will probably be strong forces at work to keep these areas within Canada.
On the issue of aboriginal rights the Supreme Court said:
"The promise of s.35 of the constitution...recognized not only the ancient occupation of land by aboriginal peoples, but their contribution to the building of Canada, and the special commitments made to them by successive governments. The protection of these rights, so recently and arduously achieved, whether looked at in their own right or as part of the larger concern with minorities, reflects an important underlying constitutional value."
The court clearly stated that aboriginal interests would have to be taken into account in any negotiations concerning separation. The constitution guarantees the rights of aboriginal peoples and they cannot be ignored by Quebec or Canada.
When the GNWT intervened in the reference and raised the issue of Quebec attempting to annex certain islands, some people asked what all the fuss was about over a few isolated islands. More than a few islands are at stake. The area in question is quite extensive. To put it bluntly, Quebec believes these islands would give it a better claim to potentially resource-rich marine areas such as Hudson Bay, James Bay and Ungava Bay. Quebec separatists want these islands because of the very important role they could play in drawing maritime boundaries in international law. I wrote to the federal minister and the Quebec government in 1995 to say that it would not be in the interest of northerners or Canadians generally to let these islands be spirited away by a separatist Quebec.
Many commentators, including some political leaders, have stated repeatedly that the federal government was wrong to take this reference to the Supreme Court. They argued that the matter was purely political. But all politics must operate within the limits of the law and that is one of the basic conclusions the court reached.
Along with our colleagues in the other provinces and territories, and the national and regional aboriginal organizations, we will have to take a careful look at this decision and its political ramifications in the weeks and months ahead.
Some obvious questions are:
- What constitutes a clear referendum question:
- What constitutes a clear majority?
- If there is a yes vote, who negotiates for the north and for aboriginal peoples?
- What process is used to make that decision?
- How will any deal be ratified by the Canadian people?
In closing, I believe it was important for the GNWT to intervene in this case and to bring to the attention of Canadians some of the issues which have been on the margins but which affect the north in very important ways. We must now be prepared to make sure that these unique interests are not forgotten or traded away with out our consent, in any dealings or negotiations surrounding Quebec separation. Thank you.