National Assembly adopts motion condemning Ottawa
Unanimous vote after federal government tried to invalidate Quebec’s Bill 99
QUEBEC — All parties in the Quebec National Assembly have unanimously adopted a motion condemning the “intrusion of the government of Canada into Quebec democracy” by seeking to invalidate Bill 99, a law adopted by the Quebec assembly in 2000, stating a referendum on sovereignty would be decided by 50-per-cent-plus-one vote.
Last week, lawyers representing the federal government filed a brief in Quebec Superior Court supporting a challenge of the constitutionality of Bill 99. The challenge was launched in 2001 by Keith Henderson, leader of the now-defunct Equality Party.
Alexandre Cloutier, Quebec’s intergovernmental affairs minister, who said he was surprised by Ottawa’s intervention, summoned reporters to a rare Sunday news conference to say government lawyers were working through the weekend on Quebec’s response and served notice he would present a motion seeking the support of all parties in the assembly.
While the Quebec Liberal opposition voted with the government, Liberal house leader Pierre Moreau distanced himself from the PQ motion, explaining the Liberals were not consulted on its wording.
But he did recall that Jean Charest, Liberal opposition leader at the time Bill 99 was adopted, had warned Bill 99 could be challenged in the courts, saying this would weaken Quebec.
“Our vote on this motion should not be interpreted in any other way than our reaffirmation of the principle that the Quebec National Assembly alone can determine the conditions surrounding the referendum process on the constitutional future of Quebec, respecting democratic rights and particularly the rule of 50 per cent plus one, consistent with the Supreme Court decision,” Moreau said, referring to an Aug. 20, 1998, decision.
The Supreme Court ruled then that if Quebecers decided in a clear vote on a clear question in favour of sovereignty, the rest of Canada would have to negotiate the outcome.
Moreau began and ended his speech in favour of the PQ motion, quoting the late Liberal premier Robert Bourassa in 1990 after the Meech Lake Accord failed. Meech would have recognized Quebec as a “distinct society” within Canada.
Bourassa told the assembly then: “Whatever we say, whatever we do, Quebec is today and forever a distinct society, free and capable of assuming its destiny and its development.”
Moreau added, “We are free Quebecers, and with this liberty we choose to be Quebecers and Canadians.”
Speaking on the motion, Cloutier called the federal intervention “a worrying assault by the federal govern-
“With this liberty we choose to be Quebecers and Canadians.”
LIBERAL HOUSE LEADER PIERRE MOREAU
ment against the freedom of political expression of Quebecers.”
“They have chosen on to associate themselves to a cause that denies even the existence of the Quebec nation,” Cloutier said.
The 50-per-cent-plus-one rule is “universally recognized and applied, among others, by the United Nations,” he said, adding that it applied to Quebec’s 1980 and 1995 sovereignty referendums, as well as the 1992 referendum on the Charlotte- town accord, a proposal for changes to the federal system.
Françoise David, of Québec solidaire, noted that Quebec is “not better, not worse than others, just different.”
“This society is built around a French-speaking majority, but also, a historic anglophone minority and all those from the four corners of the planet who choose Quebec and want to live here in peace,” David said, as well as 11 aboriginal nations.
Voting for the motion was an expression of love for Quebec, its people and “its liberty to choose it political future,” David said.
Éric Caire, of the Coalition Avenir Québec, said there is room for debate in the assembly but this was an occasion for a unanimous vote.
“If we are divided, how can we ask another parliament to respect our authority?” Caire said.
In a statement, federal Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Denis Lebel noted that Ottawa did not initiate the court challenge.
“No one wants another referendum,” he added. “It is completely normal for the federal government to defend Canadian law. As this case is before the courts, we will make no further comment.”