Daniel Turp
Member of the House of Commons
for Beauharnois-Salaberry
Critic of the Bloc Québécois for Foreign Affaires

Canada has always been a country proud of its foreign affairs record. As a middle power, Canada has played a significant role in the post-1945 period and has earned the reputation of a responsabile State actor. Building on the legacy of Nobel Prize winner Lester B. Pearson, Canada has been committed to the peace-keeping efforts of the United Nations and of other international organizations in which it continues to play a key-role. The active involvement of Canadian governemental departments and agencies in the processes of electoral monitoring and democratic development has also given Canada a enviable reputation. The most recent, and daring, intiative of the minister of Foreign Affairs, M. Lloyd Axwhorty, in the area of anti-personnel land mines has also proven the ability of the government of Canada to go beyond peace-keeping and to ensure that measures of peace-building become a priority within the international community. Canada's overseas development aid has been generous at times and the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) has assured Canada an outstanding «rayonnement» in the developing world.

This good record of Canada has never been challenged by Quebecers, including those who have promoted and continue to promote sovereignty for Québec. On the contrary, Quebecers have participated fully in the making of Canadian foreign policy and have played a influential role in the implementation of Canada's foreign aid policy. The values that underline the foreign policy of successive Canadian governments (peace, security, human rights and solidarity) are shared values and it would thus surprising that there be major collisions. Hence, during the 35th Legislature,the Bloc Québécois regularly gave the government of Canada its support and participated in a constructive fashion to the debates of the House of Commons and the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. There remains areas of disagreement. The Bloc Québécois has insisted that there
be a linkage between human rights, trade and aid and has strongly criticized the Chrétien governement for its inconsistent decisions in these matters. The Bloc Québécois has also opposed foreign policy initiatives dealing with education and culture which are matters of provincial jurisdiction and which have been used by the federal government justify an increasing involvment in these areas. The Bloc Québécois has also considered the position of the federal government on the inclusion of social and cultural exemption clauses in international trade agreements to be confusing.

The constructive attitude and legitimate opposition of the Bloc Québécois will continue to dictate the policy of the Bloc in these matters. But, the Liberal government and Bloc Opposition might soon be on a collision course if the federal government attempts to use, and abuse, its foreign policy to thwart the democratic drive of Québec towards sovereignty. If the means to promote national unity are seen to be illegitimate by sovereigntists, and the government's Plan B can be qualified as such, the collision might be very direct. Plan B relies heavily on legal argument and brings into play the Supreme of Canada which is called upon to affirm that Quebecers have no right to declare sovereignty without Canada'sconsent. Plan B emphazises the conditions of «secession» of Québec and puts into question the democratic rules that have governed the previous referendums on the future of Quebec. It also appears to caution the partition of Quebec along ethnic and linguistic lines.

This Plan B, which I believe will prove to be a fatal stategic error on the part of the federal government and those who favor such a plan, could be echoed in international circles by the foreign service of Canada, diplomats, members of Parliament and ministers alike. If such was the case, the Bloc Québécois will not hesitate to denounce Plan B in the same international milieu and affirm that such a plan is an unaccpetable attempt to hijack the democratic process in Québec. The Bloc Québécois will remind that Québec's own plan for sovereignty has always been democratically driven and that it is inclusive in outlook. The international community will also be told that the Bloc Québécois favors an authentic partnership with Canada and that it thus continues to argue for the preservation of an economic and monetary union following the accession of Québec to statehood.

In any case, the Bloc Québécois will launch an international offensive to promote sovereignty on the international scene and to obtain, at the appropriate time, international recognition. Meetings with foreign diplomats and of parliamentary associations have given the Bloc Québecois, its leader and foreign affairs critic as well as other parlementarians an audience and will continue to do so. Those forums shall be used extensively in the next coming months and will allow the Bloc Québécois to make its case for sovereingty and partnership. The case for Québec's independence will be made in a responsable and honest fashion and will not attempt to denigrate Canada. It will emphasise the need to put an end to the impasse which characterizes the relationship between Canada and Québec and to find innovative solutions to bind, albeit in a different fashion, the future of their peoples.

National unity of Canada and national sovereignty for Québec are two legitimate goals. The promotion of these goals in the international community is unescapable and it is in both Canada and Québec's interest that the debate, as it extends in international circles and becomes a foreign affairs issue, remains dignified. It is my hope that both federalists and sovereigntists overcome the temptation to disrespect the beliefs and ideals of their rivals and that they provide the international community with an example of a debate carried in a civilized fashion. The ideals of friendly relations between peoples and States, cherished by Quebecers and other Canadians alike, would be better served in this way. It would prove that even in the dramatic and emotional discussion on the future of Canada and Québec that the shared value of democratic expression can prevail.