Speech by Lucien Bouchard, Prime
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001 peech by Lucien Bouchard, Prime This change in vocabulary is not S Minister of Québec, presented before a semantic accident; rather, it the Québec National Assembly upon the reflects a change in perception. Québec society is perceived more passage of Bill 99, An Act respecting the and more clearly as being distinct exercise of the fundamental rights and and confronted by new landmark prerogatives of the Québec people and challenges. The idea that this the Québec State, December 7, 2000. society must be in control of the ••• major forces behind its development in order to survive and flourish is gaining ground. Increasingly, the [Translation] conclusion is that the Québec Mr. President. More than 200 years government is the best means ago, our ancestors decided to endow available to Quebecers for ensuring Québec—or what was then called Lower that they thrive and assert them- selves in accordance with who they Canada—with a legislative body. Since are as a people.” that time, our people’s elected represen- tatives, who have come from across The great collective movement of the Québec, have assembled there to debate Quiet Revolution sparked a bee-hive of key issues, sometimes bitterly, and to social and intellectual activity that affected adopt the laws that govern our lives as a all spheres of our society. It had a major society. Our parliament, which predates political impact. A new will to achieve the British North America Act, remains at autonomy spurred some Quebecers to mobi- the heart of who we are and at the centre lize and affirm loud and clear that the of the activities of our State. simple traditional demands were no longer […] enough. The sovereigntist movement, orig- Throughout the 20th century, our State inally a minority representing a minute asserted itself and our people repeatedly percentage of the electorate, began to spread reiterated its attachment to it. Not once did throughout Québec. Rapidly, in just two changes in government or the arrival of elections, one in three voters cast a ballot new political parties cause us to waver in in favour of sovereignty-association. In 1976, the firm conviction, shared by all, that this the public placed its trust in René Lévesque State is the only one which truly belongs to us and over which we have full control. and his party, giving them a majority government. At the start of the Quiet Revolution, when the time came to take into our own It was a groundbreaking election. For hands our lives as a society, and in partic- the first time, Quebecers were confronted ular our economy, our leaders naturally with a new choice: continue living under relied on the State. And Quebecers grad- the federal regime, inherited from the Act ually became more and more masters in of 1867, or make Québec into a sovereign their own house. state associated with its neighbours. At the beginning of the 80s, the Faced with this situation, Prime Minister Liberal Party’s political platform, known of Canada, Pierre Trudeau affirmed in as the "Beige Paper," accurately summa- February 1977: “We must have the courage rized the evolution in our history and in to ask ourselves the question… we must the Québec State, and I quote: not be afraid to lose or win the battle… I “It is becoming more and more com- have the feeling that we will win. But I mon to speak of the Québec State. must accept the rules of the game.” 202 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001 In 1980, Quebecers were asked to accordance with the rules of Québec make this fundamental choice. A spirited democracy. The organization of the referen- debate arose. Québec’s political parties dum, the rules for financing the two options criss-crossed our territory in an effort to and the oversight of the voting process meet as many people as possible. The were entrusted to the chief electoral officer federal government waded in, even invest- and subject to the Referendum Act. Not ing tremendous sums of money to defend once did the federal government at that its option. Quebecers went to the polls on time, although an ardent supporter of the June 20, 1980. As a result of this rendez- accord, call into question the ability of vous, the inalienable right of our people to Québec democracy to ensure that the voting decide their own future was recognized process would be carried out smoothly by all, both here and elsewhere. and that an indisputable result would be The outcome of the referendum marked obtained. a victory for the federalist side. Afterward, Then came 1995. After the failure of the federalist leaders promptly recognized Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords, the right of Quebecers to decide their the newly elected government of Jacques future. In 1991, 11 years after the refer- Parizeau called Quebecers to a third referen- endum, Jean Chrétien, then Leader of the dum. Their political future was again at Opposition in the House of Commons, reaf- issue. Our compatriots’ freedom of choice firmed this inalienable right of Quebecers, was not part of the debate and was not emphasizing that the federal government contested. Appropriately, each side concen- would never have become involved in trated its efforts on promoting its option. the 1980 referendum had it not recognized Throughout Québec, families, friends this right. and co-workers debated the issue. Every- The importance of the 1980 rendez- one in Québec felt directly involved, but vous was also acknowledged in 1997, by also knew that such an important decision the current Leader of the Opposition in would be made by Quebecers alone. the National Assembly, who affirmed, and Daniel Johnson, head of the NO side at the I quote: “Let us be clear about one thing: time, defended the federalist option without the right of Québec to decide its own once questioning this basic truth. As pre- future was settled in 1980. There is no mier, he recognized his fellow Quebecers’ question of going back on that.” right to freedom of choice: “It is extremely This right, our most fundamental as a clear to me that in Québec, we already people, has since been exercised twice. exercised the right to self-determination, First of all, you will remember that in in 1980.” 1992 Prime Minister of Québec, Robert The results of October 30, 1995 showed Bourassa, proposed to Quebecers—a free the world the strength and vigour of democ- society able to take charge of its destiny— racy in Québec. Nearly 94% of registered a draft political agreement known as the voters went to the polls. The YES side won Charlottetown Accord. The proposal was 49.4% of the vote, and 54 000 votes sepa- brought before the National Assembly, rated the two options. From the standpoint where it was debated and adopted. As of the current political reality, it is appro- everyone knows, the accord was rejected, priate to stress voter turnout: 94% of by the majority of votes cast. registered voters cast their ballots. It should also be remembered that But this democratic exercise, covered this second referendum was held in by media around the world, did not yield 203 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001 the results many expected. Some had hoped and created a veritable commotion in that such a close victory would spur the Ottawa. Many times over a number of years, federal government to actively look for a the federal government had implied that solution to the Québec problem. It was the sovereigntist plan was illegitimate. The reasonable to expect that an effort would Court affirmed the contrary. be made to put 1982 to rights or, at the In addition, because the results of the very least, that an attempt at openness third referendum, the one held in 1995, toward Québec would be made. Instead, it were so close, Ottawa began contesting the was the opposite. The day after the vote, wording of the question and the majority federal promises of a better tomorrow required for a YES victory. However, the swiftly gave way to the harsh reality of Supreme Court in no way challenged the disillusionment. A vague resolution of the right of the National Assembly to decide, federal Parliament recognizing Québec as on its own, both the question and the a distinct society was perceived for what it majority required. was—empty of meaning—and quickly But what bothered the extollers of a sank into oblivion. hard-line stance most was the Court’s Informed observers noted instead that position on the logical consequence of the the results forced Ottawa to reach an legitimacy of the sovereigntist plan—the unpleasant conclusion, namely, that the obligation to negotiate in good faith. Not federalist option could lose and had more only did the Court affirm that the rest of to lose in 1995. Even in their worst night- Canada was obliged to negotiate in the event mares, federal strategists had not imagined of a sovereigntist win, it further declared that a sovereigntist victory might be a that such negotiations were mandatory likely scenario. And then inspiration struck: under the Constitution. attack Québec democracy, attack Québec The federal government decided it institutions, attack the Québec people’s would not be dictated to, not even by its own freedom of choice. Thus, the die was cast. Court, all the judges of which it appoints. Wherever possible, Québec’s aspirations Instead of replacing the nine justices of were to be thwarted.