The House met at 10 a.m.
First of all, I would like to thank the Leader of the Government
in the House of Commons, the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona,
the whip of the official opposition, the Parliamentary Secretary
to the Leader of the Government in the House as well as the hon.
member for Nanaimo—Alberni for their helpful contributions in
this matter.
In his presentation, the opposition House leader expressed
concern about the introduction of public bills in the Senate. He
went on to state that Bill S-3, which had been introduced and
passed in the Senate and was now on the order paper of the House,
should be considered a money bill and that, as such, it should
have originated in the House of Commons.
Before proceeding further I would like to make two points of
clarification. With regard to the introduction of bills in the
Senate, may I respectfully remind members of a ruling I delivered
on October 9, 1997, following the question of privilege raised by
the same honourable member on this very subject. At that time I
indicated that according to our practice, bills may originate in
the Senate or in the House.
Second, allow me to make a very small correction to a remark
made by the hon. House leader of the official opposition. He
reminded the House that Bill S-3 had been originally introduced
as Bill C-45 in the previous Parliament. In fact the similar
bill from the previous Parliament was Bill C-85 and not Bill
C-45.
I will now deal with the substantive procedural issue before the
Chair. The hon. member alleged that both bills were essentially
the same. Thus, he argued, since a royal recommendation had been
attached to Bill C-85, one should also be attached to Bill S-3.
In reply to this argument, the government House leader stated
that Bill S-3 does not—and should not—contain a royal
recommendation since it is not a money bill.
So-called money bills refer to those bills which raise taxes or
bills which appropriate money, whether based on annual supply
votes or on bills which authorize statutory expenditures. Bills
appropriating public funds must be accompanied by a royal
recommendation which establishes “the objects, purposes,
conditions and qualifications” as explained in citation 596,
page 183 of Beauchesne's sixth edition.
I have carefully examined Bill S-3 and find that there are four
components to this legislation, none of which in my opinion
either imposes a tax or appropriates money for any purpose.
In the 1987 legislation creating the Office of Superintendent of
Financial Institutions, responsibility for supervising federally
regulated private sector pension plans was provided for. It
seems fairly evident that the powers of the superintendent would
be extended by Bill S-3. It may well be that additional
expenditures would be incurred because of those enhanced powers
of the superintendent.
Should an increase in resources be necessary as a result of
these new powers, the necessary allocation of money would have to
be sought by means of an appropriation bill because I was unable
to find any provision for money in Bill S-3.
For these reasons I have determined that Bill S-3 does not
require a royal recommendation and does not contravene the
provisions of Standing Order 80(1). I rule therefore that Bill
S-3 is properly before the House.
In making this or any other ruling, the Chair examines the
arguments raised in light of the standing orders of the House and
our precedents and practice developed over time. Although I may
not always come to the same conclusion as a member raising a
point of order, I share with all of you the common objective of
having deliberations in this House unfold in a fair and orderly
fashion according to our rules and practice.
I do not rule for or against a member or a party. The Chair
rules to uphold the standing orders and the practice of this
House. In this task I continue to depend on the vigilance and
assistance of all hon. members and I wish to thank the hon.
opposition House leader for raising this particular matter in
defence of the privileges of the House.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to introduce a bill
entitled an act to amend the Income Tax Act, percentage of gifts
that may be deducted from tax. This bill will put charitable
donations on the same tax footing as political donations for the
first $1,150. Thereafter any tax credits for charitable
donations would remain the same.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that police officers and firefighters are required to place their
lives at risk in the discharge of their duties on a daily basis
and that the employment benefits of police officers and
firefighters are often insufficient to compensate families for
those police officers and firefighters who are killed in the line
of duty.
They also point out that the public mourns the loss of police
officers and firefighters who are killed in the line of duty.
They wish to support in a tangible way the surviving members of
their families in their time of need. The petitioners therefore
ask Parliament to establish a public safety officers compensation
fund to provide benefits to families of public safety officers
who are killed in the line of duty.
The first petition is signed by 124 Canadians from British
Columbia. The petitioners are concerned about the government's
handling of herbal remedies. They feel that these remedies have
been dealt with in a heavy handed manner.
The petitioners request that Parliament affirm the duty of
parents to responsibly raise their children according to their
own conscience and beliefs and to retain section 43 of Canada's
Criminal Code.
The first petition has to do with the multilateral agreement on
investment. The petitioners state that the MAI is fundamentally
flawed in so far as it seeks to protect the rights of investors
without seeking similar protection for workers through binding
core labour standards and that the MAI is anti-democratic in so
far as it would be binding for 20 years, thus tying the hands of
several Parliaments and future governments.
Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to reject the
current framework of MAI negotiations and instruct the government
to seek an entirely different agreement by which the world might
achieve a rules based global trading regime which protects
workers, the environment and the ability of governments to act in
the public interest.
Therefore the petitioners pray and request that Parliament
support the immediate initiation and conclusion by the year 2000
of an international convention which will set out a binding
timetable for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.
The first petition deals with amendments to the Criminal Code
and requests that the age of consent for sexual activity be
raised from 14 years to 18 years of age. This petition is signed
by 231 individuals from my riding and indeed from across Canada,
Ontario westward.
The petition is signed by citizens from the area of 100 Mile
House and Lac La Hache.
The first one concerns the abolition of nuclear weapons. It is
signed by citizens who are calling on Parliament to support the
immediate initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an
international convention which will set out a binding timetable
for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.
The petition also further calls on the House to institute a
national review for a retirement income system in Canada.
The petitioners call on Parliament to reject the current
framework of MAI negotiations and instruct the government to seek
an entirely different agreement by which the world might achieve
a rules based global trading regime that protects workers, the
environment and the ability of government to act in the public
interest.
Since inception of the GST ans with respect to outstanding
GST accounts as at the end of the last recorded fiscal year,
what has the government determined to be: (a) the total number
of outstanding accounts; (b) the total amount assessed to these
accounts; (c) the total number of litigation's against these
accounts including those in process now; (d) the court costs
and collection costs associated with these accounts; and (e)
the total number of seizures excercised by Revenue Canada in
collecting amounts owed on these accounts?
Since the inception of GST, all numbers are estimates based on
manual input from field offices: (c) number of litigations against
accounts—3,879, this figure includes the number of legal actions
taken, including those still outstanding; (d) court costs—$499,224,
collection costs—unavailable. Court costs include the cost
for legal agents and any other related outlays, such as
registration fees for writs.
With the passage of Bill C-2, Department of National Revenue
Act, royal assent May 12, 1994, the departments of taxation and
of customs and excise were consolidated, and GST operations have
been merged with those of other product lines. Accordingly, the
costs of collecting specifically GST as of 1995/96 are no longer
available on the same basis as in the past. The Department of
Justice also provides support to Revenue Canada. However, the
costs associated specifically with collection activites are not
tracked.
e) Number of seizures exercised—1,081.
Mr. Duceppe seconded by Mrs. Debien moves:
Colleagues, I am reading it in both languages because there is a
word missing in the English version of the motion that will be
corrected on the order paper.
Today we are debating an issue of the utmost importance for people
in Quebec and Canada: that the House of Commons recognize the right of
the Quebec people to decide their own future.
Last week, Quebec society reached a consensus, denouncing the
reference to the Supreme Court as an attempt by the federal government
to subjugate the democratic will of the people of Quebec to a decision
by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Quebeckers from every political stripe, both federalists and
sovereignists, agree with this.
As early as last December, the Pro-Démocratie group sent out a call to
mobilize against this direct attack aimed at Quebec's democratic
institutions.
This group is made up of influential people such as Jean-Claude
Rivest, a Conservative senator, André Tremblay, a former constitutional
adviser to Robert Bourassa, Pierre Paquette, the CSN general secretary,
Claude Corbo, a former rector of the University of Quebec, the author
Marco Miccone, and Monique Vézina, chair of the Mouvement national des
Québécoises et des Québécois and former federal minister.
This is a historical consensus. I choose the word “historical”
because, for more than 30 years, regardless of the political
debate, there has always been a broad consensus on this crucial
question within our society, a consensus that dates back to the
very birth of Canada, based on the concept of two founding peoples.
As far back as 1977, René Lévesque made a clear statement on
this right, in response to attacks from Prime Minister Trudeau:
“There is no question of the future of the Quebec people being
decided by anyone other than Quebeckers themselves”.
That statement was reflected in a National Assembly resolution
in response to a framework referendum act tabled by the federal
parliament in 1978.
That resolution, adopted in May 1978, read as follows: “That
the members of this Assembly unequivocally and firmly reiterate
that they subscribe to the principle that Quebeckers alone are
entitled to decide their own constitutional future, in accordance
with the dispositions and rules this Assembly sees fit to enact”.
This historical consensus has been expressed on more than
three occasions since that resolution: in 1980, at the time of the
first referendum on sovereignty; in 1992, during the referendum on
the Charlottetown Accord; and in 1995, during the last referendum.
On three occasions, the federal government recognized this Quebec
consensus by participating of its own free will in the referendum
campaigns and by even accepting Quebec's consultation of its people
in keeping with the Quebec referendum legislation at the time of
the Charlottetown accord.
But now today we find the federal government, led by its Prime
Minister, trying to deny this reality, this consensus shared in by
all of the key stakeholders of Quebec society.
That is why Claude Ryan and Daniel Johnson spoke out last week
against this historical backtracking. The two former leaders of
the no camp in the last two referendums on sovereignty merely
reiterated their support and deep attachment to Quebec and Canadian
democracy. For them, and for millions of Quebeckers, the debate on
the sovereignty of Quebec is not a legal question, but a political
one, a question of democracy.
For them, and for millions of Quebeckers, in the debate on
Quebec sovereignty the democratically expressed voice of the
Quebec people is what counts, not the decision by nine federal
government-appointed justices.
For them, as for millions of Quebeckers, the debate on
sovereignty goes far beyond a legal issue.
There is a huge
distance between the people of Quebec and the federal government,
which is trying to subjugate the sovereign will of a people to the
will of a court of law, to submit our will to a constitution, which
the National Assembly has never approved and which was imposed
unilaterally on us by Ottawa.
For democratic Quebeckers, the sovereign will of a people is
above a constitution. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is
doing his level best to subject the vote of Quebeckers to the
Constitution of 1982.
People who believe in democracy know that people decide on
constitutions; constitutions do not dominate people. If there were
no people, there would be no constitutions.
We place the democratic voice of the people of Quebec above the
Constitution of Canada, whereas the federal government and its
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs are trying to subject
Quebeckers to the Constitution, which never received the approval
of the National Assembly of Quebec.
And they chose the supreme court to attack Quebeckers'
fundamental right. The supreme court, their supreme court, their
rule of law, their outdated colonial pretensions.
As was pointed out by an international law expert, Alain
Pellet, the chair of the United Nations International Law
Commission, we are dealing with one of the worst attempts by a
government at political manipulation. The Prime Minister is trying
to use the supreme court as a political and partisan tool.
It is a frontal attack on the institutions of Quebec, on a
fundamental right of the people of Quebec and especially on the
principles of democracy dear to Canadians and Quebeckers both.
Today's motion will be very revealing. We will finally see whether
some members of this House are capable of backing their words with their
actions.
In 1991, the New Democratic Party said: “The New Democratic Party
recognizes the right of Quebeckers to self-determination. The New
Democrats will respect the result of the democratic expression of this
right.” If the New Democrats are willing to respect the result of a
referendum, it means that what matters to them is the ballot box and not
the opinion of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court.
In 1991 also, the annual meeting of the Progressive Conservative
Party of Canada passed the following resolution: “Be it resolved that
the right of Quebeckers to self-determination be confirmed.” Therefore
Conservatives also recognized that it is a political question, since
they acknowledged that it is the right of Quebeckers to decide their own
future, not the right of nine justices appointed by the federal
government. New Democrats and Conservatives will therefore have to
abide by the democratic will of their own rank-and-file members and
support the motion introduced by the Bloc Quebecois.
Finally, if Reform members vote against the motion it will not be
the first time that they target Quebec. Yesterday, they were denying
Quebeckers the right to be candidates.
Today, if they vote against the motion, they will deny Quebeckers the
right to freely choose their own future.
Even though the Liberals got involved in the referendum, they never
explicitly recognized the right of Quebec to democratically decide its
own future, but the Liberal Party of Quebec did so a number of times.
The message sent to the House of Commons through our motion is
intended for all parliamentarians, in Quebec and in Canada. It is an
unequivocal message that neither judges, the federal government or the
rest of Canada will decide the future of a whole nation.
In conclusion, I must recall what my father, Jean Duceppe, said on
June 25, 1990, in his last speech. He said, and I quote: “One thing is
for certain.
The future of Quebec will no longer be decided in Newfoundland, Manitoba
or elsewhere. It will be decided in Quebec by the Quebeckers
themselves”.
I would have liked to see how, for example, the leader of the
Reform Party would have reacted if, in 1982, the Constitution had been
patriated without Alberta's consent. Let us think about that for two
minutes. I am convinced that the leader of the Reform Party would have
denounced this unilateral action. Federalists have been coming here
since 1867 to support unilateral actions, always to Quebec's detriment.
We have seen them at work.
Now, today, I am being asked whether, in a new Quebec, the rule of
law would prevail. The answer is yes, and it will be a true rule of law,
not a hypocritical one, like the federalists who knowingly violated
Quebec's referendum law at their “love-in” on the eve of the referendum
on October 30, 1995.
They came and told us: “we love you”, while as the same time
violating the very principles of the referendum law. “We love
you” in
French, in English, in multicultural, in all languages. They cannot even
speak French in Nagano. We have had enough of this hypocritical
rhetoric, Mr. Speaker.
The goal of this motion is to obtain the acknowledgment of the
consensus reached in Quebec, according to which it is for Quebeckers to
decide freely their own future. Faced with this Liberal government,
which is trying to hijack democracy, we could not stand idly by. We
could not allow what they are doing to democracy.
Every party in this House has a civic and political responsibility
to rise against this dangerous political manoeuvering by Ottawa. As the
Leader of the Bloc Quebecois said earlier, other parties in this House
will have to make their position on this issue known.
Reformers, Conservatives and New Democrats alike will have to take a
stand on this most important issue, democracy. When the time comes to
vote, we will see on which side those parties stand. Will they be on the
government's side, which is trying to use the supreme court for
political ends?
If they vote against this principle, they will become accomplices
and players in this machiavellian plan of the government. Their hands
will be stained by their rejection of a democratic principle recognized
throughout the world.
However, Quebeckers have understood what is at stake. In the last
several weeks, we have seen and heard men and women from every political
background condemn the government for what it is trying to do.
Since I have little time left, I will name only a few of them. Claude
Ryan, chairman of the no committee during the 1980 referendum and former
Leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec; Daniel Johnson, leader of the no
committee in 1995 and present leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec;
some senators, and among them Jean-Claude Rivest; former Conservative
ministers, among them Monique Vézina; reporters who are not always on
our side but who have vigorously condemned what the federal government
is doing. There were also members of the church hierarchy, namely Mgr
Blanchette, bishop of Rimouski; Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte, who
delivered the same message, namely that it is for Quebeckers to decide
their own future.
Liberals, Conservatives, civilians, the secular clergy and members
of religious orders, former ministers, senators and even present
politicians, all have in common a sense of democracy. The consensus was
reached in Quebec and it is still there. The government must take note
of that.
As Claude Ryan rightfully proclaimed on February 4, 1998, “democracy is
more important than anything else”. The future of Quebec is not a legal
but a political issue. It is not a legal debate for lawyers or judges
but a democratic debate for the people of Quebec.
I find the actions of the federal government, the way they use the
Supreme Court of Canada, revolting and shocking. I am not the only one
to think so.
Let me just quote the Chairman of the International Law
Commission of the United Nations, who is not a sovereignist and who is
not beholden to Quebeckers.
I doubt anyone will question his credibility and expertise in
international law. In a brief to the Supreme Court of Canada, he said
that he was deeply disturbed and shocked by the partisan way the
questions were asked and suggested that it was the duty of a court of
justice to react to what clearly appears to be a blatant political
manipulation attempt. This is quite something.
However, if Mr. Pellet had gone over all the decisions made by the
Supreme Court of Canada throughout the years, he would have seen that
this is not the first time Ottawa has tried to manipulate the Supreme
Court judges on issues dealing with the Constitution and the division of
powers.
In Quebec, we have a saying: “Don't bite the hand that feeds
you.”
The Supreme Court judges probably feel like saying: “Do not argue with
the people who appoint and support you.”
It seems like the learned and distinguished judges sitting on the
Supreme Court of Canada, or rather the loyal servants of the central
power, have always been trying to distort the 1867 Constitution.
Ernest Lapointe, who was justice minister and attorney general of
Canada in 1925, a long time ago, once made the following statement, to
which, I think, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs should listen
carefully. He said that the federal power is a creation of the
provinces, and not the opposite. That is quite easy to understand.
However, through the years, we have noticed that the Supreme Court
judges, in collusion with the federal government, do not see things the
same way.
There is another consensus in Quebec about the legal impasse we
have reached. People feel that things have never been so bad, and it has
been like this for a long time.
The Supreme Court is like the Tower of Pisa, because it always
leans the same way. This is more than an image, it can be proven. You
only have to review the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada to get
the picture.
Quebeckers cannot expect anything from the Supreme Court of Canada.
It is biased when it comes to protecting Canada and centralizing powers.
Following the patriation of the Constitution, René Lévesque said,
in 1982: “What it does for Quebec is that it simply makes it virtually
impossible to resist centralization every time the federal government
wants to impose it”. Unfortunately, history has proven him right.
Since 1982, we have witnessed a systematic consolidation of federal
powers and prerogatives to the detriment of provincial constitutional
jurisdictions. This tendency is not only because of Ottawa's political
will, but mainly because of the many decisions of the Supreme Court of
Canada.
A statistical look at all the cases heard by the Supreme Court that
came from provincial appeal courts between 1987 and 1996 reveals a
pretty astonishing fact. Almost six out of ten judgements from Quebec
are reversed, whereas the national average for all the provinces is
about four out of ten. It must be, on the part of Supreme Court judges,
a special treatment for a distinct society.
The year 1981 was a very dark moment in Canadian history since it
is the year when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of the
federal government's decision to unilaterally patriate the Constitution.
That opened the door to the largest possible centralization of powers by
federalists.
In 1981, judges of the Supreme Court said that the federal
government had the right, despite the provinces' opposition, to ask
London for a patriation that would affect provincial powers, but that it
would violate a constitutional convention by doing so.
Therefore, the unilateral patriation of the Constitution by Trudeau and
by the present Prime Minister of Canada was viewed by the highest court
in the country as legal but illegitimate under a constitutional
convention.
Today, to render judgement on the three matters submitted them by
the federal government, the judges will not even have to examine
constitutional conventions because these questions are based solely on
the Canadian Constitution of 1982.
Time really flies. You are signalling me that I have only one
minute left. I will certainly have the opportunity at some later point
to say more on this subject and to refer to several judgements, dealing
with matters ranging from Hydro-Quebec to intergovernmental affairs, to
show that, more and more, centralization of powers by the federal
government is done with the blessing and the complicity of the Supreme
Court.
I would like to propose an amendment to the Bloc Quebecois'
motion on this allotted day:
In addition, a comparison of the French wording of the Bloc
Quebecois' motion with its English translation in today's order
paper reveals a number of what I hope are unintentional translation
errors. When reading it, it is obvious that the English and French
texts differ substantially.
In the interests of clarification, I have translated the
motion for the House and I would like to table it so that both
the English and French versions reflect our original intent.
The amendment is also in order.
Today is an historic occasion, as both speeches made very
clear. The appeal to representatives of other parties is important
because there was a very significant parting of the ways in Canada
in 1982, and there will be another even more obvious one today if
the other elected parties in the House decide to vote against the
motion and allow the Supreme Court's decision to take precedence
over that of the Quebec people.
This is why I would like the member for Berthier—Montcalm to
be able to make all Canadians and Quebeckers understand why
democracy must take priority.
What in particular should Quebeckers and Canadians understand about
our motion so that their decision is a clear one and so that the
Canadian public, which has seen three referendums since 1980, can
be sure that here in the House, which is a symbol of democracy, all
parties act with respect for this democracy?
Indeed the purpose of our motion is to have the House recognize the
existence in Quebec of a very broad consensus on a very critical issue,
that of democracy.
The mere fact that someone like Claude Ryan, a political opponent
who headed the no committee in 1980, is now recalling the first
referendum held on Quebec sovereignty and now speaking up to seek
recognition for the very important principle of democracy, and siding
with the likes of Lucien Bouchard and the leader of the Bloc Quebecois,
that is very important.
Also when someone like Daniel Johnson, the present leader of the
Quebec Liberal Party who will face the premier in a campaign debate in
a few weeks or months, takes a stand on the critical issue of democracy,
like he did this week, all the political parties in the House should
understand that, by rejecting the Bloc's motion they would be rejecting
a well-established consensus in the province. Moreover, for the
Conservative Party and the NDP, it would mean going against resolutions
duly adopted by their members during their convention.
It is for Quebeckers to decide their own future. It is not a legal
issue but a political one. It is not up to judges and lawyers, but to
the province's population that is of age to do so. Recent referendums
demonstrated how the Quebec people deals with such issues properly, in
an organized manner.
Answering this question gives me the opportunity to add a very
precise point. I could not mention it in my statement for lack of time.
Over the last few years, a new principle has become apparent in the
Supreme Court of Canada's authoritative judgments. Someone said earlier
that the questions raised by the Court created some fears. It is now
clear that those fears were justified since the new constitutional
jurisprudence does not simply deal with the division of powers; in some
cases, it clearly asserts the constitutional intention to create a
single country.
That notion is nowhere to be found in the Canadian Constitution.
That is the judges' interpretation. So much so that in her presentation
in response to the amicus curiae's presentation to the Court on Quebec's
right to secede, in a case now before the Supreme Court of Canada, the
Attorney General of Canada declares that it is clearly the intent of the
Constitution and the wish of the founding provinces to unite in a
federation to create a single united dominion.
I think that this is not the way Quebeckers see the situation. To
me, the real meaning of the concept of founding provinces and of two
founding peoples that existed at the time has been lost on the way.
However, let me deplore the totally uncalled for charges both
spokespersons of the Bloc made against one of the most respected courts
in the world, whose decisions have been quoted by the major judicial
authorities in the whole world.
I could give various quotations supporting the competence of the
highest court in the land. I will give you only one, and I quote
“I have
been practising law for 20 years.
I can testify that justice in Canada is in good hands and that we have
judges who are responsible and aware of their obligations”.
That was said on September 1, 1988, by a former federal minister
who is now the Premier of Quebec, that is, the Hon. Lucien Bouchard.
I could add this, and again I am quoting him “As for me, I am for
the rule of law in all cases. Rights must be respected. In a society
where the rule of law applies, it is totally unthinkable, in particular
for a first minister, to consider threatening brutal action against the
rule of law”.
That was said on September 21, 1996, by the current Premier of
Quebec.
I want to do him a favour and prevent him from continuing to claim that
he can, in fact, take dramatic action outside the rule of law, for this
is indeed the purpose of our reference to the supreme court.
We have never said the issue was to keep Quebeckers in Canada
against their will, but the opposite. Our country would not be the same
if it were not resting on the voluntary participation of all its
constituent parts.
What is at issue is the claim by the current Quebec government
that, under the international law—and they must stop telling us that
this is not a legal issue, as they are the ones who claim they have a
right—they have the right to proclaim themselves the government of an
independent state as a result of a referendum process they alone would
have defined and interpreted.
We believe there is no such right. When there is disagreement on a
legal issue, the thing to do is to go to the highest court or to some
court in order to get clarification, which everybody should welcome as
a needed clarification in democracy. I say it is undemocratic to refuse
to hear a legal clarification and ask people to make a decision without
knowing the legal consequences of their decision and the legal context
surrounding it.
If we say in Canada that we cannot keep part of our population
against its clearly expressed will, it is not because we are bound by
some international or Canadian legal requirement—at least that is
what we believe and we will see eventually what the court's opinion is
on this score—but because that is part of our political culture in
Canada, part of our values. We feel that our country would not be the
same, as I said earlier, if it did not resting on the voluntary
participation of all its constituent parts.
The issue in this debate does not concern peoples' will, but the
way peoples' will should be expressed. We think that this procedure
should be crystal clear and transparent, and express this will in such
a way that it will be obvious to all.
If a community in Canada does not want to be part of Canada any
more, which clears the way for separation, a most unfortunate
occurrence, this community would not proclaim itself to be a people and
bring along other peoples against their will. Because if that were the
case, I would ask Bloc members whether this is a purely political issue
which has nothing to do with the law. In that case, they would surely
agree with this motion: That this House recognize the Cree consensus
that it is for the Cree to decide freely their own future. Are the Cree
less of a people than Quebeckers?
You can see that they would be the first say: “Oh, no; the Cree do
not have this right. We have it, and, on top of that, the right to take
the Cree along with us. But no, they do not have this right”. This is a
double standard that has no moral basis and, in our opinion, no legal
basis. We will see what the court has to say about the legal basis.
The political culture Quebeckers and all Canadians share has been
summed up very ably by Ernest Renan, a French philosopher who said that
a country is based on the clearly expressed will of a community to live
together. We believe that Quebeckers, if the issue is clearly defined,
will always say that want to go on sharing this common life inside a
great federation they have contributed to, along with all the other
Canadians.
What I have just said should have been obvious and readily
acknowledged for a long time.
On September 26, 1996, in explaining why we were referring this matter
to the supreme court, the attorney general of the day, who is now the
health minister, said in the House, and I quote:
This position, which I just stated, as did my colleague in
September 1996, is not new. It was stated by the Prime Minister of
Canada a few days before the 1980 referendum, that is on May 14. The
Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau said: “This is what we have to
tell the yes side. If you want independence, if you want to vote yes,
you will not achieve independence, because you have made it conditional
on an association. If you want association, voting yes is meaningless,
because it does not bind the other provinces, which may refuse to
associate with you.
This is the impasse in which this vague and confusing question put
us”.
These comments were made just before the first referendum, on May 14,
1980.
What did the Prime Minister, who is still our Prime Minister, say
during the first referendum? This is what he said in this House on
September 19, 1995:
We could ask the Bloc Quebecois to comply with the Quebec
Referendum Act. Again, on September 19, the Prime Minister added:
If we accept that Canada can be broken up, it is not because
we are forced into it by law, it is because of a political culture
peculiar to us, one which other highly respectable democracies do
not share. The Australian constitution states that it is an
indissoluble federal Commonwealth. Is Australia a bad democracy?
Surely not, but according to the Bloc definition, it would be a
pariah among nations.
Article 167 of the Belgian constitution states that “No
devolution, no exchange, no adjunction of territory can take place
except by virtue of legislation”.
Denmark blocked the separation of the Faeroe Islands after a
50.7% yes referendum. Is Denmark a pariah among democratic nations?
No.
In the Czech Republic, “The territory of the Czech Republic
forms an indivisible entity, the borders of which may be modified
only by constitutional legislation”.
In Finland, another multicultural nation, “The territory of
the State of Finland is indivisible”.
I have a long list of democracies which have decided they were
indivisible.
In conclusion, let me say that it is absurd to state that the
decision can be made by one side alone. The amendment is therefore
absurd, because secession must be negotiable. Quebeckers cannot
decide the division of the debt on their own.
According to the rules of procedure, I must declare the minister's
amendment inadmissible.
If the House unanimously agreed to ask you to rule the amendment in
order, would it not be telling you you were wrong?
First I want to stress how important today's debate is. In any
case, I believe it to be consistent with the rules of this Parliament,
this democracy, this institution, to ask for unanimous consent on any
issue at any time.
It is not a matter of questioning the Chair's ruling but of asking
for unanimous consent, which in the present case has unfortunately been
refused. We have always respectfully abided by the decisions of the
Chair and of parliamentarians from all the parties represented in this
House.
I cannot conceive of a minister rising in this House to question
the quality of democratic life in Quebec. You will agree with me that it
takes some nerve to tell the Quebec people, who, not just once but twice
already have overwhelmingly expressed their willingness to be involved,
by reaching a consensus in a referendum process, in the process their
government was asking them to participate in. I will not stand idly by
while the minister rises in this House and questions the democratic
quality of the consultations that have taken place in Quebec.
One thing is crystal clear to the Quebec people and that is that
the minister is isolated, a lone wolf. His yearning for attacking the
deep-rooted democracy in Quebec is doomed to failure because the likes
of Claude Ryan and Claude Corbo, the former rector of UQAM, have stood
up to him. They contend that the Supreme Court cannot be the one to
decide because what this is about is the right of the Quebec people to
freely make an informed decision the only way it can be done and that is
through a referendum process initiated by the Quebec National Assembly.
All members of this House, and government members in particular,
who do not recognize this process violate Quebeckers' cherished right to
democracy.
I would like to know if the minister will have the honesty to
recognize that he is alone and isolated in his position and that the
dynamic forces of Quebec, everyone who took part in the various
referendum processes these past few years, said no, it is not up to the
Supreme Court to decide. Will this minister now rise in this House and
admit that he stands alone, that he was wrong and that Quebeckers have
the right to come to a decision through a referendum? That is what
democracy is all about.
The issue is whether the government of all Canadians can fully
assess the results. That is the issue. It seems that that is self
evident in any democracy in the world. It is a very basic
principle of democracy that Quebeckers are also Canadians and that
their possible loss of Canada can arise only from a decision that
is clearly expressed and recognized as one. It cannot be a
decision the provincial government takes because at that point in
time it has the option of withdrawing Quebec from Canada according
to a procedure it alone has established and interpreted.
I ask the member, who claims he believes in democracy, whether
there is one democracy in the world that supported this procedure
—I can hardly wait to hear—and whether there are many
political parties in democracies that oppose the constitutional
state and democracy for all.
We are now about to have two questions in a row from the Bloc
Quebecois. I think it should be spread around.
It is as if a couple had a difference in separation
proceedings and one of the spouses told the other that his or her
mother was going to settle the dispute. It is a bit like that.
Does he not think that his justices—appointed by him, paid
by him and in his service—are not likely to be biased in the
decision they are asked to give, a decision that should, if they
have understood their role, suit their minister?
That is what is upsetting the people of Quebec at the moment,
and he did not resolve the problem in his speech, earlier. I would
like him to be a little more explicit.
Yes, we have a court renowned throughout the world and one of the
most often quoted. The opinion it will give will be considered by
judicial experts and courts all over the world, because it will carry
weight in some other countries, something which will be considered as
very important.
I am confident that the justices really want to be honest and
competent.
The other thing that should be said is that we are not asking the
court whether it is right or wrong to secede. We are not asking the
court to declare that Quebeckers should stay in Canada against their
will.
We are asking the court to tell us whether or not the PQ government, the
present Quebec government, has any legitimacy when it argues that it has
the right to proclaim itself the government of an independent state
based on the results of a consultation of the people it alone
established and interpreted.
We should not confuse the issues for political reasons. They
are too important for that.
If the court renders a decision favourable to the position of the
Government of Canada, everybody will benefit from this information. We
are not going to make important decisions without that information.
If you are a union leader and you tell your members that you can
launch an illegal strike, you are not acting in a democratic way.
What the Government of Quebec is presently asking its citizens to
do is precisely that—
The official opposition is very concerned about the future of
Quebeckers. We want to do everything we can to make sure that this
future is as good as possible.
I suggest that the motion before us is only half a motion. The
motion is really referring to the rights of Quebeckers but it
does so without qualification. It appears to imply that the
right of Quebeckers to decide their own future is some absolute
right but in reality, there are no such things as absolute
rights.
Every right is subject to qualifications and limits. Rights are
limited by the rights of others. My right to extend my fist
stops at the end of your nose. So what we have before us is half
a motion. The missing words are subject to the rule of law and
the principle of democratic consent.
The official opposition maintains that Quebeckers have the right
to decide their own future but first of all in accordance with
the rule of law. In the case of Canada that means in accordance
with the Constitution of Canada which is the supreme law of our
country.
Whether or not the Bloc or the PQ like the Constitution of
Canada, it is the law of the land. That law contains no explicit
provision for the secession of a province. The only way a
province could lawfully secede would be to pass a constitutional
amendment which would then have to be carried in this House and
approved by the other provinces.
The point that the current law does not provide for a unilateral
secession seems patently self-evident to us, but if that point
will gain more authority by a ruling of the Supreme Court of
Canada, so be it. That is why we favour the reference to the
supreme court to get a determination on this matter.
Members of the Bloc will say that they do not intend to respect
the rule of law with respect to this point, the right of a
province to secede, but I would plead with the Bloc members to
tread very carefully on that ground.
Once you say—particularly once lawmakers say—that you respect
the rule of law except on this point or that, you are opening a
door which you may never be able to shut. And if you teach your
people that there are exceptions to the rule of law and that when
they disagree with the law they should feel free to break it with
impunity rather than to change it, you are starting down a very
dangerous road.
That is why I asked the hon. leader of the Bloc after his speech
whether he believed in the rule of law within a new Quebec. He
said yes. Yet if the Bloc teaches the people of Quebec that
there are exceptions to the rule of law, what will be the answers
of such members when some citizens of Quebec say to them down the
road “We do not like your law. We intend to break your law and
we declare that we have a right to unilaterally break it because
you taught us that this is permissible”.
Another qualification on the Quebeckers' right to decide their
own future is the principle of democratic consent. Reform has
been quite clear on this point. We want Quebeckers to remain in
Canada. We fervently desire to unite Canada for the 21st
century.
We believe that Canada can be united by reforming the federation
on the principle of equality and through a rebalancing of the
powers. But we have also stated that if a majority of Quebeckers
responding to a fair question in a fair referendum process were
to decide in favour of secession, the Government of Canada would
then have an obligation to enter into negotiations of terms and
conditions of secession, terms and conditions on which Canadians
would then have to pass judgment.
Before the Bloc Quebecois members rejoice too much at our
endorsation of this principle of democratic consent, let me make
clear that it is a two-edged sword. If we affirm that Quebeckers
have a right to decide their own future in a referendum, that
right should apply to every Quebecker including those who see
their future as part of Canada.
The ballot for a referendum on secession to be fair to all
concerned should bear two questions. And I do not mind saying
what the wording of those questions should be: Should Quebec
separate from Canada and become an independent country with no
special legal ties to Canada, yes or no? If Quebec separates
from Canada, should your community separate from Quebec and
remain part of Canada, yes or no?
If a majority vote on the first question on separation is
sufficient to trigger the negotiation of a secession, a majority
vote on the second question in a particular district or
municipality would trigger the partition of Quebec, a change in
the boundaries of Quebec in accordance with the right of
Quebeckers, in this case a minority of Quebeckers, to determine
their future. In other words if Canada is divisible, as long as
the process employed respects the rule of law and the principle
of democratic consent, then Quebec is divisible by the
application of the same processes and the same principles.
I conclude by saying it is because the secession of Quebec would
not only diminish Canada but would also diminish Quebec, it is
because both Canada as a whole and Quebec as an entity would
ultimately be injured by secession and partition, that we search
for a third way beyond separation and status quo federalism. We
earnestly plead with Quebeckers to consider that third way and to
generate a new consensus around that third option as the best
guarantee of a secure and a prosperous future.
I want to take the opportunity to ask a few questions of the
leader of the Reform Party to understand clearly where he stands
on some issues.
I would like to offer the opportunity today to the leader of the
Reform Party to clarify the position because I understand this is
the position of the Reform Party of Canada. And if it is not,
then the leader of the Reform Party has a choice. He can either
fire his principal adviser who is presenting this position and
has not backed down or it is the position of the Reform Party.
Let me quote what Mr. Levant says in the name of the Reform
Party on why they should vote yes in the referendum. His second
reason is to end bilingualism and multiculturalism. In paragraph
3 he states “If we kicked out Quebec, we might then have the
fortitude to tackle Canada's other ethnic separatists,
natives”—natives are ethnic separatists according to
him—“demanding their First Nations”. He then goes on to say
“Next would be the National Action Committee on the Status of
Women” and then radical environmentalist groups.
Mr. Levant in the name of the Reform Party goes on. In
paragraph 4 he states that we should “end the corruption of
Parliament. For decades, Quebec's largest export to Ottawa has
been politicians who bring old style patronage to Parliament. We
won't miss the politics of road paving”. I see the Reform
members agreeing with that. That is the attitude they have shown.
I have a second short question. The leader of the Reform Party
in 1990 at the opening of Reform's offices in Montreal said “If
Reform Party MPs were elected in Quebec, they would work for
separatism if that is what their constituents wanted”.
Could the Reform Party leader explain to us how he conciliates
his position of populism that says they represent strictly the
views of their MPs? How can he explain that he would accept that
there would be Reform MPs in Ottawa representing separatism?
Those are two straightforward questions for the leader of the
Reform Party.
The first one was written by Mr. Levant long before he worked
for us. These positions do not represent the position of the
Reform Party, as the hon. member knows. But it gives us an
opportunity to declare what our positions are.
I have made it abundantly clear that our principal position is
to want this country united like it has never been united before
and to put an end to the kind of division that has been brought
about by old line party politicians practising on this national
unity issue and making a career out of it for 30 years and
leaving us in the position where we are at.
Second, we believe that the key to uniting this country is to
find a new balance of powers between the federal and provincial
governments.
We have practical evidence from the pollsters and from our own
experience that it is the one concept for changing the federation
for which there is growing support inside Quebec and outside
Quebec.
This is the principle on which we believe the country can be
united. We are going to do everything in our power to
communicate the rebalancing of powers in which we believe inside
Quebec and outside Quebec and to provide a third option for
Quebeckers and not the status quo federalism that has been
represented by this party and that party for 30 years and not the
separation of the country advocated by that party, many of which
members were recruited into politics by that party.
As Tommy Douglas said in 1967 with respect to the first report
of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism:
Since our founding convention in 1961 the NDP has been very
clear in its support of the notion of Canada as two founding
peoples.
I remember in the debate on patriation—Madam Speaker, if this
is so important to members of the Bloc, maybe they could have
their caucus meeting outside the House so I can hear myself
think. I am talking about you, Bellehumeur.
I did not think there was any dispute about this. I do not
really understand Bloc members when they say there is a new
consensus in Quebec around this, that Claude Ryan has suddenly
done something new.
It seems to me that in all of Canada, in the referendums of 1980
and 1995 and in the debate that surrounded those referendums,
there was always the acknowledgement by the prime ministers of
the day and by other political leaders that in the final analysis
the future of Quebec within Canada was a political question, not
a legal question, and that it would be up to the people of Quebec
to decide their future within Canada. Any attempt to detract
from this principle is unacceptable.
The questions at issue, which unfortunately the Bloc did not try
to clarify in the language of its motion, are what is the role or
purpose of the supreme court in this matter and what is the role
of the rule of law in this matter. There are process questions
that need to be answered. The Bloc did itself a disservice by
not trying to address some of the process questions in the
motion. I heard some of the members address such concerns.
There was a reference to referendum and a clarity of process, et
cetera, but they are asking a lot of us and a lot of other
members of Parliament—and we may yet do it—to vote for a motion
that leaves questions of process up in the air.
This is our concern. It is not an anxiety about or an objection
to the principle that Quebeckers might freely decide their future
and someday might decide to leave the country. We think that
would be a tragedy of historic proportion, but we have never said
that Quebeckers should be kept in the country against their will.
However, just as Quebec entered the country by negotiation it is
not unreasonable to make the claim that Quebec, having chosen
freely in a clear and fair process to leave Canada, would have to
leave Canada by negotiation with the rest of Canada. The rest of
Canada would have some say in how that would happen, not whether
it would happen. That seems to me to be only fair, particularly
when we consider that there are outstanding questions with
respect to the self-determination of aboriginal people within
Quebec, a territory that was not a part of Quebec when it entered
Confederation.
These are reasonable questions. They are not raised as threats
or in any way to diminish the freedom of the people of Quebec to
decide their future. They are raised as reasonable questions of
fairness and process which any Bloc Quebecois member would raise
in any other context, were they not absolutely preoccupied with
making the political point about what is happening at the supreme
court.
I understand their objection to the way in which the referral to
the supreme court could be and sometimes appears to be used by
the federal government in an inappropriate way. When I say that
there are questions of process that need to be decided, it is not
a blanket approval of the way the Liberal government is dealing
with the issue.
I listened to the rant against the supreme court by the hon.
member from the Bloc. It made me regret all the more that we
were not able to get the Meech Lake accord through.
One of the objects of the Meech Lake accord was to change the
supreme court structurally so as not to have it subject to such
accusations, however inaccurate they may be, to change the
supreme court structurally by changing the way the supreme court
was chosen.
There would have been three judges chosen by Quebec and the rest
of the judges would have been chosen from provincial lists. All
the provinces, not just Quebec, could have had more of a feeling
that a court which finally decides federal-provincial matters
would be a court that all levels of government participated in
creating through the appointment process.
But that was not to be and because that was not to be along with
a lot of other things included in that accord, we have the
political situation we have today. We have my colleagues in the
Bloc, whose genesis is in the defeat of the Meech Lake accord.
I am inviting my colleagues in the Bloc to have more to say
throughout the day about process, about how they see the
principle which they have expressed in this motion with which we
agree being embodied in process and about how many of the
questions raised in terms of process will be addressed.
I believe the people of Canada feel they have some part to play
in this, not in instructing Quebec or in keeping Quebec within
the country against its own will. But, if Quebec makes a
decision to leave Canada, they want a role to play in determining
the nature of the separation, how it will happen and what the
relationship will be after separation.
That leads us to the topics of partnership, sovereignty
association and all the things in which presumably the rest of
Canada would be involved if it ever came to that.
First of all, are the members of the New Democratic Party and
members in the House generally—and I address Quebeckers across the
way—aware that this whole process denies the existence of the
Quebec people and instead identifies Quebec as just another
province?
Second, are they aware that the whole constitutional question,
which has dragged on for 30 years, now rests in the hands of nine
judges whose allegiance is to the Parliament of Canada and to
Canadian institutions, which appoint them and pay their salaries
without consulting the provinces, particularly Quebec, and that
these judges will soon be asked to rule on the future of Quebec and
its democratic institutions as they relate to a Constitution that
the Parliament of Quebec has never recognized and that it in fact
denounced in 1982?
What we are saying, and we would like to hear the New
Democratic Party's frank view on this, is that the people of Quebec
alone have the right to make this decision, because they are a
people. What is happening here is that the existence of the people
of Quebec is being denied. Do the people of Quebec alone have the
right to decide their future?
My understanding is that whatever is before the supreme court in
no way impinges upon the ultimate political freedom of Quebec to
determine its future. My understanding is that what is before
the supreme court has to do with process.
I think members of the federal government, and perhaps all of
us, are playing catch up. For the longest time there was
sloppiness on the federalist side with respect to what would
happen if there were a vote for separation. It was a bit of a
parlour game. We had a referendum. We had debates. We had
whatever. But there was a confidence on the federalist side that
the separatists would never win such a referendum.
That confidence bore a certain laziness with respect to asking
questions about what we would do if the separatists ever won the
referendum. It was always assumed that they would not.
In October 1995 when separation was that close, all of a sudden
the people on the federalist side woke up and said that it was
not a parlour game any more, that it was not just some kind of
ongoing Canadian amusement. It was real.
Perhaps we need to ask ourselves more fundamental questions than
we have asked ourselves in the past about how this would
transpire if in some future referendum there was a victory for
separation. I think that is in part the genesis of the supreme
court reference.
I just want to make it clear that in our minds it is a legal
thing. It has nothing to do with the ultimate political question
of how Quebec is either to be kept in Canada of its own free will
by arriving at new arrangements that satisfy the desire of
Quebeckers to feel they are being recognized and treated as a
distinct or unique society within Quebec or, having failed to do
so, Quebec leaving Canada.
Part of the answer for that from the point of view of the NDP is
to rebuild the social democratic consensus that once existed in
this country. Part of the problem is that for the past 10 or 15
years we have been governed from the right and we had a history
of being governed from the left of centre federally. That is
partly what kept the country together.
We have seen a diminution of our national institutions, of the
ties that bind us thanks to free trade. I always remember during
Meech Lake that the Tories were singing the praises of Canada
while they were destroying it with free trade, deregulation and
privatization. Had they given some thought to their other
policies, maybe they would have been able to achieve what they
set out to achieve. Instead they were destroying the country on
one hand and trying to save it on the other.
I first want to deal with this motion. The motion reads as follows:
This is an issue that my party has already dealt with several
times. It was the subject of two referenda in our recent history, in
1980 and 1995. Madam Speaker, I have no problem in telling you that my
party, my caucus, can support this motion.
It does not create a major problem for us. But I also want to be
very frank because, on this issue, the important thing is that the truth
be told. The problem in this debate is not what the motion says, but
what it does not say.
It is not the words in the motion that people might object to. It
is everything surrounding the motion, including its impact and how some
people would want to proceed in the event of a break-up. The real
problem is there. Yes, the motion is fine and we can support it. We do
not have any problem with it in principle. It does not create a major
problem for us.
But at the same time, it leads us to ask other questions and we can
say right away, because we do not want to give the wrong impression,
that we have few answers. This is part of the problem. And this also
must be said frankly. This is always in the spirit of portraying things
as they are. It is commonly known that we are opposed to a Supreme Court
reference as proposed by the federal government.
1150
First of all, it bears repeating that a reference to the Supreme
Court by the federal government, or to a court of appeal by provincial
governments, is always an exceptional measure. It is very seldom used,
and with great caution, by governments.
And for good reason. Dragging the courts into political debates is
not without consequences. There will be very real consequences for the
courts and for Canada if we privatize, if I may be a bit ironic about
this, if we privatize political issues by referring them to the Supreme
Court.
The reason why we never thought this is a good idea is that the
Supreme Court will not be in a position to tell us anything we do not
already know on the substance of the matter. Legally, since we are
always in a society that abides by the rule of law, the Canadian
constitution does not provide for the breaking-up of the country.
From the legal standpoint, if we ever have a scenario of
separation, we will be confronted with a legal vacuum, a kind of black
hole. I keep repeating this, and it bothers quite a few people. My
friends in the Bloc are already reacting to this. Whenever I talk about
this, people laugh, but it is just the plain truth.
Mr. René Laurin: Not again. You are funny.
Hon. Jean J. Charest: You find that funny, but Quebeckers have to
suffer the consequences and I do not think they find it as funny. That
is the problem.
In international law, we have to say things like they are. I cannot
help but laugh when I hear people right and left, people from both
sides, refer to the fundamental principles of international law. What I
would like to know is who is going to enforce the decisions made in
international law? Who are we going to refer to? On what authority will
we decide to implement those decisions?
In international law, there is no rule. I am sorry, but the way we
see it, I will try to be accurate—one cannot say that there is no rule,
because there are some, but the way we see it, where someone would say:
“Here in a legal principle, a decision, which we will
implement”, that
is not how things work. There is a sea of principles in which we could
swim for ever and ever.
There is another rule. Ultimately might is right, the strongest
wins out. That is the plain truth. I will not elaborate on that because,
needless to say, that is not a scenario anyone would wish for. It is
simply a question of common sense.
The Supreme Court could come back to us with that option.
What upsets me the most, however, is that with this kind of
reference to the Supreme Court we tend to recognize, to say publicly
that the breakup of our country is so likely that the head of the
Government of Canada and the government itself have come to the
conclusion that it is a possibility to be considered.
We have to be honest and realize that, in every type of
relationship, if we keep talking about a breakup, it will eventually
happen.
The same thing holds true for a country, spouses, or business
partners. I think that the current government is not keeping the
referendum commitments made in 1995 when it focuses on the breakup
scenario.
We have brought forward a number of ideas to help move the debate
along.
[English]
Since the 1995 referendum we have made it very clear that we
oppose this supreme court reference. We think it is a bad idea.
By the way, we certainly acknowledge that there are great number
of Canadians outside of Quebec who think this is a good idea and
I know that. However, I just think a lot of people are living
under the illusion that this is going to solve a problem when it
will not. It is a political problem.
There are a number of things we can do. I have written to the
prime minister and the premiers at least twice in the last year
making some constructive suggestions on behalf of my party and
the men and women in my party who believe there are solutions and
a consensus at hand.
In fact, we feel frustrated because we happen to know that there
is a very real will for change in the country. It is reflected in
all parts of the country, in Alberta, Ontario, the Atlantic and
Quebec. This will for change is compatible with what governments
in Quebec have also been seeking for the last 30 years.
It is within our reach if we have a leadership that is able to
understand it and seize that opportunity.
1155
Among the things I have written about to the premiers and the
prime minister are rebalancing the federation and limiting
federal spending power. I have recommended some institutional
changes. Our country has matured to the point where we can
change some of our institutions.
My party and I believe there should be a covenant, that we
should renew the social and economic union of Canada. Under a new
institution, a covenant, we could agree to national standards in
health care for example. We could make a commitment to delivery
of services to people. We could put the focus on the services we
are rendering rather than on the governments that deliver the
services. Through such an agreement we could install predictable
financing.
Health care is probably the most important example. Over the
last few years our health care system has been slashed in its
funding. It is broken and needs to be fixed. Here is a good
place to start for the sake of our parents, our grandparents and
our kids who deserve a good health care system.
Senate reform and the recognition of Quebec are among the ideas
we put forth. We have had the worst of debates on these issues.
The Reform Party has gone out there cynically and for 10 years it
has lived off of denouncing Quebec and the idea of distinct
society. It ran on that issue during the last election campaign.
Now the concept of unique character is on the table. The
minister and the Liberal government have said that unique
character and distinct society mean exactly the same thing. It
is intriguing to us how the Reform Party will swallow itself
whole on this issue.
An hon. member: How profound.
Hon. Jean J. Charest: The Reform member says how
profound. I can only regret that he and the people in his party
have been an instrument of division on this issue. I quoted an
article from the principal adviser of the Reform Party of Canada
and its leader.
Mr. Jim Gouk: He was a college student at the time and
did not work for the party.
Hon. Jean J. Charest: One of the members said that he was
a student at the time and did not work for the party, so we are
getting some denials which is important. Mr. Levant said:
Such a divorce would be painful. But after a year or so of
realignment, things would probably be better than they are today.
Here are 10 reasons why Alberta would be better off.
I will quote three of them:
Eliminate bilingualism and multiculturalism—.If we kicked out
Quebec, we might then have the fortitude to tackle Canada's other
ethnic separatists: Natives demanding their “First Nations”.
Next would be the National Action Committee on the Status of
Women. Then the radical environmentalist groups.
The fourth reason he gives to kick Quebec out is to end
corruption in Parliament. Is it any wonder that we are where we
are today.
In conclusion, we have no problem with this motion. It is the
consequences surrounding it and what is not said in the motion
that we have great difficulty with.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is with great
satisfaction that we heard the leader of the Conservative Party say that
he has no problem supporting the motion put forward by the Bloc
Quebecois. But he has questions about what the motion does not say. He
speaks about reality and truth.
I want to remind him of a reality that is still very present,
namely that of the constitutional deadlock. For thirty years all the
political parties in Quebec have been asking for radical changes to the
Canadian Constitution. Every single party was calling for it. At the
time, we were hoping to be able to stay within Canada, to live happily
under this constitution and to have the respect we deserve.
Unfortunately, English Canada was acting as if Quebec did not want to
lose Canada.
So far, Canada has never acted as if it did not want to lose
Quebec. The roles have always been reversed, we were never taken
seriously. Even the Charest report, the author of which just spoke in
this House, gave all powers to Ottawa.
The federal government did not listen to Quebec. It did not listen to
the people's demands. From what it said, it looked like it understood
us, but through its majority, it kept imposing its federalist and
centralizing designs on us.
1200
What happens in reality when a law is abusive or unfair? People
will not obey that law. We saw it with cigarette smuggling. Because
taxes were too high, very few people obeyed that law. The government did
not take too long to understand what was going on and changed it. It
lowered taxes so that people could be happy and proud to obey that law.
That was not done with the Constitution.
Quebeckers have been saying for 30 years that they are unhappy with
the Constitution and that they want changes. Each time Quebeckers said
yes to Canada, in the two referendums, they did so because they truly
hoped substantial changes would be made to the Constitution. But they
were duped. Such changes were never made.
Canada got a wake-up call when 49.4% of Quebeckers voted yes in the
last referendum. Canadians now realize, as the NDP member said, that it
is no longer a game. Quebeckers mean business. If it were to become
reality tomorrow, Canada might wonder whether it is prepared to lose
Quebec. As for Quebec, it has already done its thinking, and an
increasing number of Quebeckers realize that they are not happy to live
in this country under current conditions.
Does the rest of Canada want to force Quebec to stay, even if it is
not happy, to justify the notion of unity, as the leader of the Reform
Party said? Is this the case?
Do they want to force Quebec to stay against its will, because it is
important to look united? This is the reality.
Can the Conservative leader tell me whether he agrees that this is
the reality that makes us want to become a sovereign Quebec.
Hon. Jean J. Charest: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to reply to the
hon. member for Joliette and debate with him. First of all, not to
flatter him, I think I can detect in his remarks a cri du coeur from
someone who does not want Canada to break up.
Mr. René Laurin: That is right.
Hon. Jean J. Charest: He says that is right. He may well be
reflecting the views of many Quebeckers who want this country to work,
who want Canada to work.
Mr. René Laurin: The reality is that it does not work.
Hon. Jean J. Charest: They want it to work. The hon. member knows
as well as I do—and we are going to tell it like it is—that the
majority of constituents in his riding would like Canada to work. That
would be their first choice.
He knows it and I know it. It is important to point it out and it is
important for those outside Quebec to hear this because we do not want
to leave them with the impression that having a sovereignist government
in Quebec means that a majority of Quebeckers are in favour of Canada
breaking up. They are not.
Let us be more specific. The great majority of francophones in
Quebec, those who vote and are concerned in this debate, feel profoundly
attached to Canada and want the Canadian system to work.
I disagree with the hon. member for Joliette, however, in that I
do not assess my country on the simplistic basis of the
Constitution. I think of my country, Canada, with 300 years of
history behind it and 300 more ahead, as more than a bunch of
constitutional amendments. It is a partnership that was
established between English and French-speaking Canadians in the
early days of our country. That is how our language and culture
were able to live on. That is how the British Empire at the time
was able to keep this piece of land in North America. This is a
partnership that evolved into a federation, an economic and
social partnership reflecting the values shared by everyone who
live here, whether French-speaking or English-speaking. That is
the context in which I set my assessment of my country.
That being said, I will conclude by saying that, as I see it,
regardless of our constitutional failures, anglophones and francophones
alike view Canada as a great success that I care for, both for myself
and for my children.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to have my turn to speak to the Bloc Quebecois motion
before the House today, which reaffirms, since the consensus is
nothing new in Quebec, that it is for Quebeckers to decide freely
their own future.
1205
First of all, if I may, I shall make a brief comment on the
words of the leader of the Conservative Party in which he rejoices
at constitutional failures. Many conclude each time there is a
failure that the system, at a certain point, is no longer
changeable. That is what has led a growing number of Quebeckers to
back sovereignty.
Many have done so because it strikes them as natural for a
people to have all the tools necessary to manage and control its
own future. Others came to that conclusion because of
circumstances, when the inability of the present political system
to meet their aspirations became evident, whether in accordance
with the formula developed by Robert Bourassa around the distinct
society or some other formula.
They found themselves with the door shut in their faces, not only
closed but locked as well.
We have moved from one constitutional failure to another. The
difference between the hon. member for Sherbrooke and members over
here is that we realize that, at some point, the thing must come to
an end. Discussions cannot go on forever. I personally do not want
to be here when I am 55, still talking about the latest
constitutional failure, and about what ought to be done in the next
round of negotiations in order to avoid another failure.
The hon. member for Joliette said that this has been going on
for 30 years. I believe that 30 year point was reached 5 years
ago. Now we are up to 35. We have been talking about it so long
that we have stopped keeping track of the time.
In response to this federal strategy, what do we have in front
of us now? What is comes down to, finally, is who is entitled to
decide the future of Quebeckers and of the Quebec people.
Ottawa's strategy, and the federal government's in particular, is
clearly not unanimous. The Conservative Party clearly said it did
not support them. For a number of reasons, we can believe that the
New Democratic Party would not support them either, following the
resolutions passed at its political conventions.
The future for the federal government has to be defined by
others besides Quebeckers. By whom? By the justices of the
supreme court? By people in the other provinces? Because in the
end, the question they are putting to the supreme court is: if
Quebeckers cannot do it, who can?
We can see clearly where they are leading us. Their
traditional constitution amending formula involving provincial
consensus. In the end, it means subjecting the future of the
people of Quebec to the approval of a province, and I will let you
decide on that.
But you can clearly see that it would make no sense for the people
of Prince Edward Island, and I have nothing against them, or the
people of Newfoundland, Alberta or Saskatchewan, to have a veto
over Quebec's future. It makes no sense. There is no basis for
it, and on the very face of it, I think it should not even be
considered.
What is Ottawa's strategy? They are playing both horses. On
one hand there is the hard line of the minister, the one who told
us during the last referendum campaign that Quebeckers had to be
made to suffer to prevent the recurrence of such a situation, where
we get a bit excited at expressing our deepest hopes.
It is now implementing its plan, on the one hand toying with the concept
of partition, and on the other asking the supreme court to rule the
whole sovereignty issue illegal within the present constitutional
framework; it keeps on making incendiary declarations right, left and
centre.
Furthermore, the provinces are led to believe there might be a
glimmer of hope for some changes. This is the kind of line the leader of
the Progressive Conservative Party keeps on pushing, changes are
possible. What does all this mean? Let us have a look. In Quebec, nobody
is talking about the Calgary declaration. And yet, this is the great
constitutional reform process Canada is currently promoting.
In about seven paragraphs, it sets out Quebec's uniqueness.
A statement which is promptly watered down on four or five occasions by
the fact that provinces are all said to be equal. These are profoundly
contradictory pronouncements. If Quebec is truly distinct, meaning
different, it should be given, through a formula yet to be determined,
the tools to shape its own future. But the declaration is silent on this
point. Quebeckers are told “You are unique, but you will be treated like
everybody else”. So we are unique, period. End of story.
This is hard to sell. It is done in an underhanded way, on the
Internet, and through a small questionnaire stuffed in an ad-bag so that
nobody can see it. It is all hush-hush, but it will be passed by
Parliament, possibly on a Friday afternoon, so that people do not talk
too much about it.
1210
In this way, they could say to Quebeckers, but not as loudly as
during the referendum “See, we still love you”, to allow Daniel Johnson,
the federalists leader in Quebec—officially, in any case—to
campaign in Quebec and say that there is a willingness elsewhere to make
changes.
Each time, they start again with a lower offer than the previous
time. We are part of a distinct society, an interpretative clause in the
Constitution, a different sharing of powers and the Meech Lake accord
that included a number a things that were given to Quebec. Of course,
that did not respond to the aspirations of all Quebeckers, but there
were some elements in there.
No, it did not work, we started off with less the next time,
Quebeckers were given less. Then there was the Charlottetown accord,
rejected by all Quebeckers. Since this did not work, the federal
government tried giving even less. Then they wonder why there are more
and more sovereignists in Quebec or people who have drawn the conclusion
that this system does not work. They want it both ways.
Now, our dear intergovernmental affairs minister has launched a
philosophical debate in all this. He is a former university professor
who wants to solve a deep academic issue, that is whether democracy
exists within the law or the law exists within democracy. This is his
pet subject and he wants to have his argument examined and validated by
the supreme court.
The very foundations of democracy, and all of us here are products
of democracy, provide that it is up to people to decide their future. It
is not up to us to use all kinds of constraints, to put people in a
straitjacket and tell them they cannot decide their future. What does a
unilateral declaration of sovereignty imply? It implies that Quebeckers
would, after an eminently democratic exercise—that is a successful
referendum in which a majority of people would have supported
sovereignty—decide to start the process to achieve sovereignty.
There is a stage in this process about which Ottawa is silent. We
sovereignists have always said, in good faith, that we will negotiate
with Ottawa. In fact, a period of one year was even provided for this in
a draft bill tabled in the National Assembly.
A transition mechanism was defined. Ottawa is assuming it will not work
because the unilateral declaration of sovereignty will come at the end
of the negotiations if an agreement is not reached. So, Ottawa starts
from the premise that we will not be able to reach an agreement, that we
will not want to negotiate, etc.. There is some bad faith here.
Ottawa admits it would not respect the democratic will of
Quebeckers. Every now and then, the minister tries to tell us that he
would recognize that will, provided it is expressed within the law. It
is not true, because the minister would try to define how he would
negotiate with Quebec. He would not be preparing the next stage, he
would be preparing the first stage. I have no problems with Canadians
discussing how negotiations should be conducted with Quebec, or who
should represent them. I realize the Liberal Party has a problem, and I
would be very surprised to see the current Prime Minister negotiate on
behalf of Canada.
They will not dare debate this issue.
The strategy is obvious: getting a Supreme Court decision stating
that the Canadian constitution does not allow a unilateral declaration
of independence on the part of Quebec, and that such a declaration would
be illegal. We will then see the likes of Guy Bertrand come out in the
open and tell us that we are thugs, armchair revolutionaries, and
whatnot. Guy Bertrand has been the inspiration of all this. He is the
one who launched this Ottawa strategy with the Reform leader breathing
down his neck, and the intergovernmental affairs minister jumped on the
bandwagon.
In conclusion, I would like to point out that the Bloc Quebecois is
not the only one condemning this strategy.
I will not have enough time to read all the quotations I have here, but
let me give for the record the names of people who agree with us:
Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte; Mr. Claude Ryan, the leader of the
federalist no committee in 1980; Mr. Daniel Johnson, the leader of the
no committee in 1995, and still the leader of the Quebec Liberal Party—he
is therefore the current leader of the Quebec federalists; Mr. Lucien
Bouchard; Mr. Alain Dubuc; the hon. member for Sherbrooke; the hon.
member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois; Mr.
Alain Pellet, chairman of the UN International Law Commission; Mr.
Gordon Wilson, a constitutional adviser to the B.C. premier. There are
many more. This consensus which is building up extends beyond Quebec
borders at the international level.
The federal government should recognize the obvious. Its strategy
of using the Supreme Court for its own purposes should be set aside. It
should in good faith let Quebeckers decide freely their own future like
everybody wants them to and let the discussions in the coming years deal
with this issue.
1215
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I thank my colleague from Témiscamingue for this overview that
was much too brief for lack of time. I will try to be brief in my
question in order to give him ample time to answer.
I would like my colleague to elaborate on a vital aspect of this
reference to the Supreme Court. Is it acceptable, in 1998, in a
democracy, for a government to refer such matters to a court, its own
creation, consisting of a panel of nine judges appointed by the federal
government itself? To reinforce that argument, one just has to look at
the very close ties that the last two judges appointed to the Supreme
Court have to the Liberal Party.
Is it normal, is it acceptable, in 1998, in a democracy such as Canada,
for a federal court consisting of a panel of nine judges appointed by
the government to be asked to substitute itself for the democratic will
of 7 million Quebeckers?
Mr. Pierre Brien: Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague's question is so
clear that the answer becomes obvious.
It does not make sense to let nine judges hold in their hands the
future of our people, because it is the future of Quebeckers that is at
stake here. We talked about the appointment process, the fact that these
judges are appointed by the Prime Minister. Moreover, two of these
judges were appointed after it was known that there would be a reference
to the Supreme Court on that issue.
Looking closely, it is obvious there is a kind of incestuous
relationship there, to say the least. In their infinite wisdom nine
judges will decide, based on the Constitution, what kind of a future we,
Quebeckers, can have.
Think about it. During the last democratic exercise in Quebec, the
voter turnout was almost 93% if I remember correctly. So 93% of all
those old enough to vote, millions of Quebeckers, voted at the end of a
long debate during which the federal government kept repeating what it
always says, that is: “The question is not clear. What is at stake is
this and that”. Today, they may have come to realize that their campaign
was not all that effective, because now they say: “The people did not
understand”. I for one think that the people did understand very well
indeed.
It was a long debate, nothing new in Quebec. The people know full
well what is at stake. At the end of the campaign, 93% of all voters
decided: “We are going to vote, to state our positions.”
The majority voted no. We respect the will of these people. No one
has put in motion the process leading to sovereignty.
Nevertheless, we still believe that it is the best solution and we
continue to promote it.
We were reelected as Bloc members, as sovereigntist representatives
in Ottawa. People in Quebec will have to chose between sovereigntists
and federalists during the next provincial election. This is par for
the course, and people are fully aware of the situation.
In the final analysis, how can there be a balance between 7 million
people on one side and nine supreme court justices on the other? Let us
be serious. It does not make any sense and I have no doubt that
Quebeckers understand this very well. That is why the provincial
Liberals in Quebec, the Parti Quebecois, the Bloc Quebecois, the
Conservative Party, the bishops, a cardinal, business people, people
from all walks of life, say that it does not make sense.
Only the Prime Minister and the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs defend this strategy, and they drag the federal government into
their crazy enterprise, plus the person most sympathetic to the Quebec
cause, the leader of the Reform Party. Can you imagine this fine group
organizing our future? These people are trying to manipulate the court,
to put us in shackles, and they would like us to buy it? No way.
1220
Calmly, peacefully, we keep explaining the situation and we realize
that, as people from all walks of life start to react, more and more of
them are adding their voices to those who already oppose this reference,
and I am convinced that the movement will snowball.
Therefore, to answer my colleague's question, it is clear that this
makes no more sense in 1998 than it did 25 or 30 years ago and it will
be the same five years from now because, in a democracy, citizens are
free to decide their own future. This is true for all peoples,
including the Quebec people.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as
the member for Jonquière, who was democratically elected June 2
to represent the constituents of my riding in the House of
Commons, I wish to support the motion introduced by the member
for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois,
concerning the future of the Quebec people, and to repeat my
conviction that Quebeckers alone have the right to decide their
future, and that the current reference to the Supreme Court on
the sovereignty of Quebec is contrary to our democratic values.
I have spent several years of my life in community and
political work and throughout these experiences and for as long as
I can remember, I have observed Quebeckers' attachment to the
democratic values of our society.
The referendums to date have always had a high turnout,
showing our people's wish to decide their own future.
On the eve of the Supreme Court hearing on the legitimacy of
a unilateral declaration of independence by Quebec, I think it
vital to appeal to all Canadians and to point out to them once
again that the Chrétien government is on the wrong track in relying
on a legal authority to resolve the essentially political question
of a people's right to decide its own future freely and to take
responsibility for its destiny.
I am not a lawyer and I am not about to launch into legal
arguments. My eminent colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois are doing
a brilliant job today of demonstrating the futility of the exercise
in which the Supreme Court is now engaged.
What I want instead is to appeal to common sense, which is in
keeping with the feelings of the majority of Quebeckers, whether
federalists or nationalists, concerning what I would call the
hijacking of democracy.
We are again seeing a process which fits perfectly into Plan
B, concocted by the Chrétien government to keep Quebec within the
Canadian federation. This time, though, the reference to the
Supreme Court strikes me as totally pathetic, since it is evidence
of the failure of the Chrétien government to rise to the challenge
of renewing the Canadian federation.
The Chrétien government's strategy was to stir up public opinion
in Quebec on the legality of a unilateral decision to secede.
Instead, it is being bombarded on all sides with the testimonials
of Quebeckers stating their right to self-determination loud and
clear. Whether federalist or sovereignist, all join in opposition
to the federal claims on the right to self-determination. All
agree that it is for Quebeckers to decide their own future.
The federal government is presently facing a strong consensus,
a common front of all those who have at heart the defence of our
democratic values and the institutions with which we have equipped
ourselves in Quebec in order to express our societal choices. The
federal encroachment in the Supreme Court was found unacceptable,
even by such people as Claude Ryan and Daniel Johnson, although
they headed the federalist forces in the last two referendums.
By so doing, they confirmed the fundamental break between the
Quebec Liberal Party and the federal Liberals.
1225
By rejecting the very substance of the legal arguments raised by
the Chrétien government, Claude Ryan and Daniel Johnson have rejected
beforehand the ruling by the Supreme Court.
Besides, Mr. Speaker, we have witnessed the establishment of a non-
partisan groups composed of sovereignists and federalists, like the
Pro-Démocratie group, which was joined by key figures like Monique
Vézina, Jean-Claude Rivet, Pierre Paquette and André Tremblay, to name
only a few.
Leading the movement which has always been more in evidence in all
classes of Quebec society, the Pro-Démocratie group makes a point of
condemning the initiative of the federal government in the following
terms:
“We share the conviction that the constitutional debate is first of all
a political debate and that it should be resolved by political means.
Constitutional law is based on decisions made by the people. It is not
the role of constitutional law to substitute itself to the people's
prerogative of choosing their own political system.”
Other key figures like Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte, archbishop of
Montreal, and Monseigneur Bertrand Blanchette, archbishop of the diocese
of Rimouski, have said that the Supreme Court should not decide the
future of the Quebec people, thus echoing the position taken by the
bishops of Quebec and Canada in favour of self-determination, at the
centennial of Confederation in 1967.
I wish to stress one more time that all these people think it is up
to the people of Quebec to decide their own future.
It must be recognized that the highest court in the country is
widely mistrusted in Quebec today.
Everyone of us will remember that in 1980, in the famous case regarding
the veto right that Quebec thought it had, the Supreme Court concluded
that the federal government could amend the Constitution with the
support of a substantial majority of the provinces.
This constitutional deadlock has lasted for 15 years. Quebec has
learned that within the existing system, no compromise is acceptable to
the English-Canadian majority.
For 15 years, political players have been prisoners of that
majority and incapable of renewing the federal system.
The federal government has found no better solution than to go into
the legal arena in an attempt to muzzle the democratic expression of a
whole people.
With this new case, the Supreme Court is heading towards a new
impasse. Should we be surprised?
Is it any wonder the supreme court defends the institutions that
created it?
In the end, it is nothing more than the expression of the
centralizing will of the federal government and bears witness to
the impasse facing Canadian federation. The fact is that the
Chrétien government has no argument to counter the advance of the
sovereignist movement.
The reference to the supreme court is, in the words of Quebec
premier Lucien Bouchard, an act of powerlessness. In addition, the
reference to the supreme court arises from the change in public
opinion in Canada, which is galvanizing around the doctrine of the
equality of the provinces and the denial of any special status for
Quebec other than a symbolic and totally insignificant one.
When I see the consensus within Quebec on our democratic
values and the defence of our institutions, I am more than ever
sure we can meet the challenges facing us in building our country.
I invite all of you watching me on television to express your
opposition to the Chrétien government's initiative.
Our struggle will not end until we have given ourselves a
country for the year 2000, because what counts for us is the right
to decide our future. Let us be proud to be Quebeckers.
The Deputy Speaker: All members should refer to one another by
title and not by name, please.
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
think it was Montesquieu who, in the 18th century, considered the
separation of the three powers, that is the legislative, executive and
judicial branches of government, as the foundation of democracy.
Now, the executive branch is asking the judicial branch to
interpret the Constitution.
1230
That would be agreeable if the Constitution had not been
unanimously rejected by the people on whom the court's interpretation is
to be imposed. The initial Constitution was developed by two peoples,
the two founding peoples. The Constitution of 1982 was adopted by only
one of these two peoples and now this people wants to impose it on the
other one because it forms the majority.
Does my colleague think, like myself, that this process is nothing
more than another sign of the domination of the rest of Canada over
Quebec?
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
Terrebonne—Blainville for his question. I fully agree with him.
I think he is right. The Canadian government completely ignored the
fact that there are two founding peoples when it referred the case to
the Supreme Court. There are the Canadian people and the Quebec people.
By referring these three questions to the highest court in the land, the
Supreme Court, the federal government misused that institution and
proved that it has no sense of fair play.
I want to state for the record that, by referring the case of
Quebec sovereignty to the Supreme Court of Canada, the federal
government loaded the dice in its favour, as it always does.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the ability of Quebeckers to decide their own future is at the
heart of the motion tabled today by the Bloc. This principle and that of
respect for democracy and the rule of law are as dear to the hearts of
government members as they are to the hearts of our colleagues opposite.
It is this principle, our right to decide our own future as exercised
during the 1980 and 1995 referendums, that I will address.
These principles—that are being discussed in detail today—have
already enabled Quebeckers to choose Canada. By applying these
principles, we Quebeckers have refused to relinquish either one of our
identities as Quebeckers and Canadians, which increase rather than limit
our opportunities.
One thing is for sure: twice we Quebeckers exercised our right to decide
our own future, and twice we decided to stay within Canada despite the
attempt to hide the option behind a confusing question.
Several reasons supported the decisions we made. Each time, Canada
proved to be the logical choice since it has always allowed Quebeckers
to promote their culture and language throughout the world. The
linguistic duality of this country and its multicultural character open
the door to world markets for Quebeckers and other Canadians. These
components of the Canadian identity are valuable assets for the future.
As we approach the next millennium, during which multiculturalism
will flourish as will countries that will successfully meet the
challenge of a harmonious multicultural society, I am confident that we
Quebeckers will again choose to stay within Canada.
[English]
On each occasion Quebeckers have found that Canada gives us an
exceptional quality of life. On each occasion we have been proud
of our country's remarkable international reputation. On each
occasion we have understood that Canada has one of the most
developed economies in the world and that we, Quebeckers, have
contributed largely to its prosperity.
[Translation]
If on two occasions Quebeckers chose Canada it is because not only
are we aware of the rich history we share with our fellow citizens
across the country, but we are resolutely forward-looking. We know that
in the new economy we must combine the strength of major entities
with the
flexibility of smaller ones, national solidarity with regional autonomy;
our federal union is vital to our survival.
1235
On each occasion, Quebeckers took into account the fact that
through the years Canadians have built a strong social safety net.
Compassion and solidarity, the Canadian federation's underlying values,
are shared by citizens from coast to coast. These are the values that
prompt us to lend a hand in difficult times.
Need I remind the House how
quickly the country as a whole responded and helped all those affected
by the recent ice storm? Beyond linguistic and cultural differences,
beyond distances, these values are shared by all. They form the Canadian
fabric.
On every occasion, Quebeckers said no to secession and yes to
Canada.
We have invested too much of our creative energy in this country to let
it go. Quebeckers have contributed their culture and their way of life
to Canada, making them part of our common heritage.
What makes Canada strong is the values inherent in our identity.
Openness, solidarity and respect for individual rights are often
mentioned, and rightly so. These same values have shaped our common
history.
[English]
Quebeckers' desire to stay in Canada has always been the subject
of a consensus. That consensus has twice been tested and has
twice held firm. On each occasion Quebeckers have said yes to
the Canadian component of our identity. I am sure that we will
do so yet again if the secessionist option is submitted to us
Quebeckers again for approval for the third time in less than 20
years.
[Translation]
The 1995 campaign and some revelations since have shown to what
extent the referendum process was very very much like manipulation and
intellectual dishonesty. That is why the Canadian government has decided
to put forward initiatives aimed at clarifying the stakes of secession.
Every member of this House will recall of the circumstances around
the publication of the infamous book by Jacques Parizeau entitled Pour
un Québec souverain, the case for a sovereign Quebec. Quebeckers, like
Canadians as a whole, were shocked to learn that the one-year period for
the negotiations that was always alluded to was only smoke and mirrors
and that Mr. Parizeau had no intention of abiding by it.
On the contrary, he wanted to drag us Quebeckers into an adventure
which, as great as it was, was no game.
Fortunately, when the lobster trap closed, on October 30, 1995, we,
Quebeckers were not caught in it. The strategy of the secessionists is
to bury our heads in the sand and to play with ambiguity. For its part,
our government wants clarity. A possible secession would have a huge
impact on Quebeckers and Canadians as a whole.
It is thus essential to ensure that the referendum process follows
well defined, precise rules accepted by everybody.
This debate, if there is one, should be held calmly and peacefully.
We cannot sit iddly by when the Bloc member for Richelieu says cynically
that his party wants to destroy federalism.
Nor can we remain indifferent to the terrible call for intolerance by
the Bloc member for Louis-Hébert who said, in 1995, that only so-called
old stock Quebeckers should vote in the referendum.
Finally, we cannot accept the disgraceful declarations by Jacques
Parizeau on the evening of October 30, 1995. The list of the
irresponsible comments by the secessionists is very long, but I do not
have the time to speak to that.
1240
I could add, however, that the lofty statements about respect for
democracy coming from the Bloc would be more acceptable if they were
coming from more credible individuals.
Despite the dogmatic opposition of the Bloc, our country is
progressing and changing. Just a few weeks ago, the Canadian
Parliament and the National Assembly passed a resolution amending the
Constitution, which allows the Quebec government to proceed with the
establishment of linguistic school boards.
The secessionists supported this amendment, proving that it is
possible to work together for the common good, when they want to.
If the interest of Quebeckers took precedence over partisan interests,
the Government of Quebec would work with us much more often than it
does.
The vast majority of Quebeckers are proud to be Quebeckers and also
proud to be Canadians. They do not want to reject one of the two
elements of their identity, and certainly not in a confused way, and
against democratic principles and the constitutional state.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, we cannot support this motion from the
Bloc, a party which is against the constitutional state and democracy
for all. As Quebeckers and Canadians, we cannot support this motion.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine referred in her speech to
a huge operation of intellectual manipulation when speaking about the
referendum in 1995. I would like to ask her two questions. I am
convinced that she has all the intellectual capacity to answer them
brilliantly.
My first question is: How does my colleague describe the millions
of dollars spent by Option Canada, which did not hesitate to violate the
referendum law and the measures governing the funding of political
parties within a referendum?
My second question is: How does she describe the declarations of
love and the phoney promises that were made loud and strong by the big
names of federalism, starting with the Prime Minister and continuing
with other big names who are also here in this House?
I am anxious to hear the answer of my colleague from
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. I am sure she will do me the honour
of clearly answering this question.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, we already experienced two
referenda in Quebec, in 1980 and in 1995.
An hon. member: Don't forget 1992.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Each time, the question was confused and,
despite the confusion that existed, the majority of Quebeckers voted
against it.
And if they respected democracy, there would not be a third
referendum, because the will, the ability of Quebeckers to decide their
future has already been expressed twice and, in the end, despite the
confusion, the answer was very clear. By a majority, we said “We want to
stay in Canada. We want to preserve our identity as Canadians and our
identity as Quebeckers”. We answered “We want to stay in Canada”.
I find it deplorable that the secessionists are still saying that
there must be yet another referendum when the will has been expressed
clearly.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I seems to
me that the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine does not
recognize the Quebeckers' ability to understand when she would have us
believe that the Quebec people did not understand correctly the two
questions that were put to them in 1980 and 1995.
1245
Of course they understood them correctly. We must recall that
promises were made to Quebec by big federal guns, Pierre Trudeau at the
time and later Jean Chrétien, and these promises were broken. Quebec has
always wanted to command respect within Canada but we have been denied
that as well when Canada failed to recognize Quebec's distinct nature.
I would say that there is a solid basis for Quebec's frustration, which
make us want to get Quebec out of Canada.
There is nothing antidemocratic in wanting to go through the
referendum process again and it does not confuse the issue.
It is entirely democratic. But once again, in spite of the demands made
in the past to show respect to Quebec, the federal government is the one
who failed to fulfil this requirement, making a reference to the Supreme
Court and failing to acknowledge the Quebeckers' ability to understand
and Quebec's determination to freely decide its future.
It seems to me that the hon. member should also recognize that the
process was not antidemocratic in the past, was not intended to confuse
anything and was not dishonest. It was not an attempt to manipulate. On
the contrary, we were quite clear, still are and will continue to be
until—
The Deputy Speaker: Order. There are only 20 seconds remaining in
the five-minute question and comment period.
Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, the question asked in the
1995 referendum was not clear. A CROP poll held in July 1997
revealed that 44% of Quebeckers who voted yes in 1995 thought
that, after a yes victory, Quebec would still be part of Canada.
This clearly illustrates the state of confusion that prevailed at
the time.
The question must at least be clear. I would like to know why
secessionists would not use a question similar to the one asked in
Armenia in 1991: “Should the Republic of Armenia become a democratic
republic, independent from the USSR?” This question is rather clear—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but the period for questions and
comments is over.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International
Cooperation.
[English]
Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for International Cooperation, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our
country is respected around the globe for its commitment to
individual freedom and democratic values and the rule of law that
sustains them.
Indeed, as Argentine President Carlos Menem said today, Canada
is a nation that has grown to symbolize perseverance, democracy,
solidarity and tolerance.
Canada is a remarkable country. I believe in the 21st century
it will be an even stronger and more united one. Why? Because I
think Quebeckers will continue to chose to remain part of a
country that they have done so much to build.
Most Quebeckers are proud of both their Quebec and Canadian
identities and do not wish to have to choose between them.
However, if Quebeckers should ever choose to leave Canada, I
would want them to make this choice, as I am sure they would wish
clearly and unequivocally. I would not want Quebeckers to break
the bonds of solidarity with their fellow Canadian citizens in an
atmosphere of confusion where no mutually acceptable ground rules
were in place.
[Translation]
I firmly believe that Quebeckers will choose to remain Canadians
because Quebec benefits from being part of Canada and is an essential
component of our nation. The province prospered in Canada, particularly
since the Quiet Revolution. The Quebec economy includes thriving high
tech industries, such as aerospace, biotechnology and the pharmaceutical
industry.
1250
The federal government did its share to help those industries
which, in turn, help all of Canada face international competition. For
example, tools like R & D tax credit and the Export Development
Corporation helped the high technology industries to develop, and the
federal government's major strategic investments continue to produce the
kind of growth that stimulates the creation of well paid jobs for young
Quebeckers.
Quebec within Canada also has a dynamic, living and unique culture.
There are more than 100 theatre companies, 100 publishers, 20 dance
companies and 25 orchestras and choirs in the province, and many of them
receive federal assistance so that they can perform in Canada and
abroad.
[English]
Quebec is flourishing within Canada and Canada is flourishing
because of Quebec, but there are always new challenges to be
addressed. In many instances this commitment has seen the prime
minister working side by side with the premiers. As the minister
of intergovernmental affairs has often said, what Canadians need
today are strong provinces, a strong federal government and
strong relationship between them.
I could name a great many policy initiatives on which the
different orders of government have co-operated recently. I will
content myself with mentioning two, the Canada child tax benefit
and the new partnership on labour market training.
[Translation]
According to statistics, one in five children lives in poverty in
Canada. That is just unacceptable. As Lutheran theologian Dietrich
Bonhoeffer put it, a society's morality is judged by the way it treats
its children. Our children are our future. When a child has to go to
school on an empty stomach, we all lose out.
[English]
In May 1996 the federal government offered its provincial and
territorial partners the opportunity either to assume full
responsibility for job training measures, funded through the
employment insurance account, or to develop a new core management
partnership.
The Canada-Quebec job training agreement, in the words of the
prime minister, demonstrated that the governments of Canada and
Quebec could work together to find practical solutions that are
adapted to the real problem of Quebeckers. As an executive of
the Quebec business organization, the Conseil du patronat, was
quick to observe, the agreement shows that it is possible to
conclude administrative agreements in key areas without having to
amend the Canadian constitution.
[Translation]
In fact, the manpower training agreements and the new national
child benefit show what can be accomplished, within the scope of
administrative agreements and through the exercise or non-exercise of
powers without having to change one iota of the Constitution.
However, that does not mean that our Constitution is or should be
immutable. Our Constitution is not a straitjacket preventing us from
changing it. Rather, it is a framework allowing for orderly and timely
changes. It reflects our evolving identity as Canadians.
We have seen recently how our Constitution can adapt to the
evolving needs of Canadians with the passage of a constitutional
amendment requested by the Quebec government to set up the province's
school boards along linguistic rather than denominational lines.
Everybody in Quebec agreed that denominational school boards reflected
the reality in Quebec in 1867. Today, however, linguistic school boards
are more in line with the values and sociological realities of
Quebeckers. The Parliament and the National Assembly combined their
efforts at the appropriate time and invoked Section 83 of the 1982
Constitution Act to proceed with a bilateral amendment.
1255
[English]
I am sure the constitutional amendment will enable Quebec to
flourish further within Canada. It will enable Quebeckers to
have a stronger school system that responds more closely to their
needs.
Indeed it was seen as such a positive step by the Government of
Quebec that the minister of education, Pauline Marois, was moved
to praise the federal minister of intergovernmental affairs for
having «livrer la marchandise».
I am confident the government of Prime Minister Chrétien will
continue to deliver the goods for Quebeckers and for all
Canadians. All these changes, both constitutional and
non-constitutional, show that our federation is capable of
responding to the needs of Quebeckers.
Of course we have our challenges. Which country does not? Our
challenges are ones that can be resolved through negotiations and
a long tradition of accommodation. We must put our difficulties
into perspective.
We face serious challenges but they are nonetheless the problems
of a prosperous country with strong, democratic institutions and
a thriving civil society. None of these challenges should lead
to a break-up of our country. In fact thousands of people from
other countries apply to share our problems every year.
[Translation]
We must not lose sight of the fact that there have been
debates and discussions on the Canadian identity since the
beginnings of the federation. The debate has, of course, become
particularly lively in the past few decades, but the consolidation
of national unity is an ongoing task.
To those who choose to wallow in past humiliations, real or
imagined, chewing them over and over, we offer our vision of the
future, a future in which Canada will continue to be a source of
influence for the world, a source of pride for its people.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Once again I wish to remind hon.
members to refrain from referring to other hon. members by their
surnames or any other name except their title or the name of
their constituency.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
just like to ask the hon. member what she thinks of the statement
by her colleague for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine referring to the
confusion over the question asked of Quebeckers in the 1995
referendum.
I will read her the 1992 referendum question on the
Charlottetown Accord, and then the one from 1995. I would like to
know where the confusion lies. In 1995, 94% of the people of
Quebec spoke. I shall read the question the federal government
asked in 1992: “Do you agree that the Constitution of Canada should
be renewed on the basis of the agreement reached on August 28,
1992?” That was the 1992 referendum on the Charlottetown Accord.
And then in 1995 the question asked by the Government of
Quebec was as follows: “Do you agree to Quebec becoming sovereign
after making a formal offer to Canada of a new economic and
political partnership under the terms of the draft bill on the
future of Quebec and the agreement of June 12?”
I would like to know whether our Acadian colleague shares the
view of her colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce on the confusion
that clouded those two questions. It is very clear to us. The
people of Quebec spoke out clearly in 1995. When it has a similar
question put before it, soon I hope, there will be a resounding
yes.
Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
member for calling me his Acadian friend. It is true that as
Acadians we are friends of Quebeckers. However, I would like to
relate my version of the evening of the referendum.
I was sitting in my kitchen with my children, my husband and
some friends, because my friends wanted to be with us on the
evening of the referendum. They came to our place for supper, and
we watched the referendum together on television. I can tell you
we were anxious during the voting because we wanted Quebeckers to
know how those of us outside Quebec were feeling.
I intend to answer your question. I will say that my children
and my friends agree with me that the question in the last
referendum was not clear and specific.
1300
I do not think it was the same question. I have to say that
we talked that night and we felt that the question did not make it
clear to those voting with the separatists that they would separate
from Canada. For that reason it was not clear. I think the book
Mr. Parizeau wrote after the referendum made it clear that they
would have voted for separation.
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I see a lack of logic in the position of the members opposite.
While they say the questions in the last two referendums were
not clear, they use the responses to these questions to argue that
Quebeckers chose to remain in Canada. Either the question was
unclear or it was not.
If it was, so was the answer, and so the 50% less three-tenths
cannot be used. If it was not, then they should stop saying it
was.
Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw: Mr. Speaker, I believe the answer to my
friend is on two occasions Quebeckers clearly stated that yes they
wanted to still be part of our great country and remain Quebeckers as
well as Canadians.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.
Today's day of opposition by the Bloc Quebecois is extremely
important and significant. The motion moved by my party leader and
amended by my colleague for Berthier—Montcalm reads as follows:
“That this House recognize the
consensus in Quebec that it is for Quebecers to freely
decide their own future.”
For Quebeckers, the stakes are basic since the debate deals
essentially with democracy and the right of peoples to decide their own
future. Whom are we talking about exactly? I am proud to say: the Quebec
people who probably naively believed in the 1867 agreement when it was
one of the two founding nations of Canada.
One hundred and thirty one years later, what we are talking about
is Quebec's right to self-determination, a right it is denied by the
federal government, as witness its reference to the Supreme Court. What
was happened to cause the federal government to consider the reality of
the Quebec people so negligible?
For the past 30 years, relations between the federal government and
Quebec have not always been rosy. If I may, I will briefly remind the
House of a few important events which will shed some light on what is
happening today.
In 1980, four years after the Party Quebecois was elected in 1976,
Quebec held its first consultation on the future of Quebec within the
Canadian federation. The outcome was clear, the rules of democracy
understood and accepted by all concerned.
After the yes side defeat, Quebec abided by the decision of its
citizens and continued to act within the Constitution of Canada. Two
years later, in 1982, the federal government of Trudeau decided, in a
great impetus of independence, to renew and patriate the Constitution.
Despite Quebec's unwillingness and despite nice but shallow promises
made in 1980, the federal government unilaterally patriated the
Constitution.
At that time, the government, once again through a reference order,
had asked the Supreme Court to make legitimate a unilateral patriation
without the agreement of all the provinces. The answer met the
expectations of the federal government. Patriation without the agreement
of all the provinces is legal. But is it ethical? That is something
else.
Trudeau and his henchmen did not bother with these subtleties. For
him, the new Constitution of 1982 would be the right one, and too bad if
Quebec did not recognize it.
1305
The problem is neither sovereignists nor Quebec federalists have
recognized and recognize the Constitution of 1982.
In 1992, after years of negotiations both difficult and useless,
the Canada-wide referendum is held on the Charlottetown accords. In
Quebec, this exercise is framed by the Quebec Referendum Act. Again, all
parties recognized the rules of the game and no one had any doubt about
the legitimacy of this democratic exercise. The referendum of 1992
unequivocally rejected the Charlottetown accords: in Canada, because
these accords gave too many powers to Quebec, and in Quebec, because
these accords were below the traditional demands of Quebec.
In 1995, Quebec held its second referendum on the future of the
Quebec people. This consultation again took place under Quebec's
Referendum Act. Once again, the rules of the game were agreed to by all.
The issues were clear. No one, not even the Prime Minister of Canada,
questioned the legitimacy of the right of Quebeckers to decide their
future.
Everyone remembers the result of the 1995 referendum. The yes side,
the side that wanted change, got almost 50% of the votes, with 94% of
registered voters taking part in this highly democratic exercise.
Having nothing to offer Quebec, the federal government went with
what is now known as its plan B, a plan based on fear, a plan based on
denying the existence of the Quebec people. One of the main elements of
this strategy is the reference to the Supreme Court in order to deny
Quebec's right to decide its own future.
Yet, ever since the 1960s, Quebeckers have always thought they
could decide their own future and have always acted accordingly. The
referendums that were held in Quebec are good examples of that. With its
reference to the Supreme Court, the government is giving nine judges it
appointed the right to decide Quebec's future. That is a most
undemocratic and illegitimate move. When a government asks judges to
make political decisions, democracy is always threatened.
The federal government is using the Supreme Court to validate its
plan B, just as the Trudeau government seeked approval for unilaterally
patriating the Constitution in 1982. The result of this action by the
government in 1982 was that Quebec refused to recognize that
Constitution.
Today, the federal government is invoking this Constitution to pick on
Quebeckers, by refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the National
Assembly and the free will of the people the assembly represents, in
other words, by denying the Quebec people its right to exist.
As in 1982, the federal government stands alone, its positions have
garnered no support. About the reference to the Supreme Court, there is
a consensus in Quebec that only Quebeckers have the right to decide
their own future and that no court of law can take that right away and
decide for them.
In fact, even the staunchest federalists in Quebec have decried the
tactic used by the government. Mr. Claude Ryan, the former leader of the
Liberal Party of Quebec and leader of the No side in 1980, was very
clear on the reference issue: “It is for Quebec and for Quebec only to
decide its own future.”
In his comments to the amicus curiae, Mr. Ryan said that, on the right
to self-determination, which can be interpreted as including the choice
to opt for sovereignty, there is in Quebec a broad consensus between the
key political parties and the vast majority of politicians working at
the provincial level. All agree that, at the end of the day, the future
of Quebec, whatever option is chosen, depends on the political will of
the Quebec people.
The current leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec and leader of the
No side in the 1995 referendum, Mr. Johnson, approved Mr. Ryan's
analysis and joined the vast consensus reached in Quebec.
The right of Quebeckers to self-determination is a political issue, not
a legal one. A legal measure would never stop a nation from
democratically deciding its own future.
1310
For the past week, the intergovernmental affairs minister has been
making astonishing statements about the Supreme Court reference. After
loudly invoking the rule of law, he recognizes, following Mr. Ryan's
statements, that democracy prevails, but that the rule of law is
essential. For us, the primacy of democracy is a fact and Quebec's right
to self-determination cannot be challenged. Because they respect
democracy and the right of people to self-determination, because they
respect Quebeckers, the nine Supreme Court judges will refuse to answer
the questions of the federal government.
Maurice Maeterlinck wrote, and I quote: “There is nothing finer
than a key, as long as one does not know what it opens”.
The federal government has given a key to the Supreme Court with
the intention of locking up the people of Quebec, but it did not know
what this key opened. We see it now with the consensus in Quebec: there
is no key to lock up the people of Quebec, there is no key to lock up
democracy.
[English]
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I listened with a great deal of interest to the presentation of
my honourable colleague. I would ask her two simple questions.
First of all, does she believe in asking the people of Quebec
once, twice or three times? How many times does she want to ask
the people of Quebec what their views are and then when is she
going to be ready to accept the expressed will of the people of
Quebec? That is my first question.
My second question deals with how you train people to count
votes and how you teach young people democracy. Is it by teaching
them to look at a voting slip and accept a voting slip based on
what has been indicated is the will of the people? Is it to
teach them how to be un peu croches and reject 86,000, 100,000
votes? How many tens of thousands of votes are you allowed to
reject based on disinformation and poor counting and then have to
be recounted how many times?
So tell me about this very democratic society that puts an
unclear question, says no twice and does not count the votes
properly. Is that democracy in Quebec?
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, I am really not sure
what I should do. Should I avoid answering the questions like my
colleagues opposite do? I could make a nice speech instead, with
elegance, and perhaps even with a measure of humour.
If I decide to answer my colleague's questions, I will probably
show a more mature attitude and more respect for parliamentarians.
The choice between the two is quite clear for me, just as clear as
my choice was in 1995, and also in 1980 and 1992.
The first question was about the number of referendums. I would
like to quote from the classics by saying: “Hone your work carefully;
spare no effort”. There will be as many as it takes.
My deeply held belief is that the Quebec people exists, that it has
the right to have a country of its own and to run it in its own way,
being respectful of international conventions and of its immediate
neighbours and of countries that are a little bit more remote. That is
what I believe.
Since this belief is a driving force for me, I am here to achieve
a goal. I do not think I or my colleague opposite can ever say that two
is enough, or three, or ten.
“Hone your work carefully”. I am confident that Quebeckers will
finally take this extraordinary opportunity to join all other nations in
the world when the next referendum comes, because we will have our own
country by the year 2000.
The second question dealt with democracy and the vote counting.
1315
I am almost tempted to make a comment. The Liberals must be really
shattered, they must be really worried to wonder, to draw a parallel
between the value of democracy in Quebec and a few unfortunate decisions
that were made in all good faith by scrutineers who were under the
stress that is normally felt in all polling stations.
Mr. Speaker, like me, you probably had the opportunity to witness
the counting of votes, perhaps as a scrutineer or a secretary or a
representative of the yes side, the no side or the perhaps side, and to
know what goes on. There is some tension in the air. There is some
stress and everyone wants to do his or her best.
But you know, and I only have to look at my colleagues on the other
side, obviously, it is not because one wants to do his or her best that
one always does the right things. The evidence is in front of me. The
Liberals want to do their best, but sometimes it does not work very
well. So democracy is not in jeopardy in Quebec. Democracy is one of our
fundamental values and I have confidence in Quebeckers' maturity.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois to join in a debate which is the
prelude to the political mobilization of Quebeckers in support of the
consensus re-emerging in Quebec which, as stated in the motion moved
today in the House by our party, holds that it is for Quebeckers, and
Quebeckers alone, to freely decide their own future.
Contrary to what the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs is
saying, the Government of Canada has put three questions to the supreme
court dealing with the future of Quebec and phrased them in such a way
that it has shocked and troubled the chair of the UN International Law
Commission, Alain Pellet, and I quote “on account of the partisan manner
in which they are asked”, not because it wants to clarify the rule of
law and become its champion.
No, this is a political move. So political in fact that it might
jeopardize the credibility of this same court held hostage by the law,
according to the prominent lawyer Jacques-Yvan Morin. This strategy is
aimed mainly at discouraging Quebeckers from opting for sovereignty when
the time comes because it would be illegal.
However in Quebec nobody, not only federalist allies, such as
Daniel Johnson and Claude Ryan, is being fooled by such shifty tactics,
such trickery, which, as Hannah Arendt put it, “never conflict with
reason, because things could have happened just the way the liar claimed
they happened”.
This strategy is probably also aimed at influencing the
international community, which Canada will ask to oppose any action the
supreme court might have ruled illegal.
However, the international community is not and will not be fooled by
this none too subtle federal stratagem. One day it will recognize the
will of the Quebec to have its own country and to become a full-fledged
member of the international community.
1320
The international community will recognize a sovereign Quebec, a
Quebec that will reassert, as it has stated for decades, its intention
to abide by the Charter of the United Nations and the other
international instruments ratified by Canada, guarantee the English
speaking community and the native people the rights they need to develop
within a sovereign Quebec, as well as respect all relevant commitments
to ensure the stability of the continent and the whole world.
The Bloc Quebecois has been trying and keeps trying to expose this
legal tactic that undermines democracy in Canada and it will intensify
its discussions with foreign representatives, here in Ottawa and abroad,
to politely and patiently explain to them why Quebeckers will soon opt
for sovereignty, why Quebeckers no longer want to deal with the Canadian
impasse and why they want a state where people speak French and enjoy a
Quebec culture.
When the time comes to decide its own future, Quebec will have
legitimacy on its side, as always. Canada, or at least the part being
represented by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and his
entourage, believes that it has the law on its side. The minister argues
that the rule of law is crucial, but allow me to digress here for a
minute.
To be so crucial, it would have to be understood. Last week, the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs showed us that he does not
understand anything about international law.
When he was talking about unilateral decisions made by Canada, he said
things that exposed and brought to light his lack of knowledge in this
area, which we will continue to decry.
The law is not crucial. Democracy is, the will of the people is
crucial, and that is what the Canadian government is about to learn at
its own expense. There is today a large consensus which the
international community will take note of, a large consensus that it is
for Quebeckers to decide, and Quebeckers will soon have another
opportunity to decide their own future.
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, first I want to
say that, as our leader stated this morning, we support the motion put
forward by our colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois.
It is unfortunate that, once again, the Liberal Party of Canada has
managed to focus the national debate on the relationship between Quebec
and the rest of Canada. It is unfortunate—and I will say this before
asking my question to my colleague—because, at a moment where
Canadians have gone through successive serious crises over the past year
and a half, that particular item is not on their agenda. Our priorities
are definitely elsewhere.
Since Canadians are not sending us a clear message that a
constitutional debate in the House of Commons is a matter of the utmost
urgency, I would like to ask my colleague if he thinks that this debate
has been fuelled for 30 years by irresponsible politicians who have made
historical mistakes, especially over the last 20 years, that went
against the objectives of Canadians as well as Quebeckers as a whole.
A survey released a few weeks ago showed that 80% of Quebeckers
among those who voted yes have had enough and are sick and tired of the
constitutional debate.
Is it an issue that is used and abused by politicians? I would like
to hear what the member has to say on this subject.
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question.
First I will say that the politicians whom the member calls
irresponsible are those who, for more than 30 years, have been proposing
reforms to federalism without ever being able to see them through.
1325
It is not as if Quebeckers, and several of their governments,
have not sought to take part in reforms aimed at changing the
federation in order to bring it in line with Quebeckers'
expectations. The ones responsible for the division today are the
politicians, and I agree with you that the Liberals of Canada are
without a doubt the ones who must accept the bulk of the
responsibility, in particular Prime Minister Trudeau, who we are
not upset to hear is now losing his popularity in Quebec. The
Liberals are the ones who created the stalemate and they are the
ones who continue to maintain positions that perpetuate it.
The sovereignist politicians have their faults, but they also
have their good points, and one of their good points is definitely
that they wanted to find an alternative, and alternative within a
federalism which has reached a dead end and continues to be stuck
there. Our alternative, since René Lévesque founded the Parti
Quebecois, is the one proposed to the people of Quebec, sovereignty
plus an offer to Canada in all friendship and respect to those who
make up Canada, an offer of partnership or economic association.
We
have done so, and will continue to do so, giving priority to the
democratic approach and inviting Quebeckers to reflect on their
future and to decide on that future after sober reflection.
Quebeckers have the right to decide their future, as they did once
in 1980, a second time in 1992, a third time in 1995, and they will
still be free to decide their future again, and soon we hope, so
that Quebec may be a country by the year 2000.
The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments, for a very short
question. The hon. member for Mount Royal has the floor.
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, you asked
for a very short question and I will therefore ask such a question to my
colleague, with all due respect and considering that he has the right to
explain and defend his ideas. Could the hon. member tell me why he did
not want to accept the amendment moved by the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, which was to include in the motion before the
House the words “respecting the rule of law and the principle of
democracy for all”? Why did he not want to deal with this amendment and
accept it?
Mr. Daniel Turp: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I will tell my colleague
that I was not there but I understand that the amendment was not
accepted because it was deemed not to be in order by the chair.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to share my time today with the member for Beauce.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to convey a message to Quebeckers on the
part of the people of my riding: we want you to remain within Canada. We
believe that you make a contribution to our country by your uniqueness.
[English]
The future of Quebec is very important to the residents of my
province and my riding. After all, the people of Ontario and
Quebec have a long and significant history as partners and
friends. Historically we were the twin engines of growth in
Canada. Today our two provinces are bound together by a complex
web of ties, families, friendships, professional partnerships and
trading links.
[Translation]
Many francophone Quebeckers have played an important role in the
life of my province, and among them are Richard Monette, artistic
director of the Festival of Stratford, and Yves Landry, chairman of the
board and chief executive officer of Chrysler Canada. On the other hand,
Quebec has benefited from the talents of Franco-Ontarians, namely Paul
Desmarais of Power Corporation. The magnificent synergy of our two
provinces is embodied in such people.
[English]
The presence of Quebec within Canada is also of particular
importance to the franco-Ontarian community that enriches my
province of Ontario.
1330
Let me just mention a few of their achievements. Both writer
François Paré and playwright Jean-Marc Dalpé have won governor
general's awards for their work. Ottawa's Franco-Ontarian
festival, LeFranco, has grown to be the premier francophone
cultural event of its kind in North America. The Ontario economy
is bolstered by over 7,500 francophone owned businesses,
companies and corporations. In economic terms the provinces of
Ontario and Quebec are among the most closely linked of all
Canada's provinces.
According to the most recent figures available from StatsCan,
which are for 1996, almost 60% of Quebec's interprovincial
exports were to Ontario and over 70% of its interprovincial
imports came from my province. Meanwhile some 40% of Ontario's
exports were indeed to Quebec and some 50% of its imports came
from that province. Quebec is indeed Ontario's largest trading
partner within Canada and vice versa.
For all these reasons, social, cultural and economic, it is very
important to Ontarians that Quebec remain within Canada. As
friends, it is natural that we should not wish Quebeckers to
leave Canada in an atmosphere of confusion without a mutually
acceptable process and a framework to ensure fairness and
clarity.
However, I remain confident that Quebeckers will continue to
choose to enjoy the fruits of Canadian citizenship. I feel
confident that they will continue to build the federation
alongside Ontarians and their other fellow citizens from British
Columbia, the prairies, eastern Canada and the north, for there
is no doubt that together Canadians are indeed a winning
combination.
Former New Brunswick premier Frank McKenna said in his very
emotional farewell address Canada is a country that has the
civility to be able to deal with the most difficult issues in the
most peaceful way imaginable, a country that has been able to
fulfil the dreams and aspirations of hundreds of thousands and
millions of people and it is a country that people want to come
and live in.
One reason why Canada is so attractive for people around the
globe is that we have found ways to accommodate and indeed to
celebrate our tremendous diversity. In a world where so many
countries are torn apart by ethnic and regional grievances, this
is no mean feat. In a country such as ours with its great
distances and a citizenry drawn from the four corners of the
globe, respect for diversity is essential.
Few Canadians would deny that the First Nations, Inuit and
Métis, together with the new and not so new generations of
immigrants, all contribute an important though by no means
identical way to our country.
I was pleased to see this aspect of Canadian reality reflected
in the statement of principles drawn up by nine of Canada's
premiers in Calgary, together with a commitment to individual and
provincial equality. That commitment to equality, however, was
by no means a call for uniformity. The premiers indeed signalled
their recognition of Quebec's uniqueness within Canada in this
context. It appears to be a signal to which Quebeckers can
respond.
An Environics poll taken some time after the text of the Calgary
declaration was released showed that over one-quarter of
Quebeckers who currently support secession would change their
minds if all nine other provinces passed resolutions recognizing
the unique character of Quebec.
This clearly illustrates the ability of the Calgary principles
to bring Canadians together from coast to coast to coast. That
is what we in the government of Canada wish to do. We wish to
bring Canadians together to continue building this remarkable
country so that all Canadians can benefit from our combined
strength in facing the challenges of the new millennium.
Advanced communication technologies are increasingly turning the
world into the global village envisaged by Canada's Marshall
McLuhan.
1335
With our two official languages and our multicultural citizenry,
Canada is increasingly well placed to compete in this new global
reality.
Of course, the reasons for staying together as one country go
way beyond our economic strength. Together we have built a
strong social union which reflects our commitment to sharing and
our sense of a national community. Together we are a stronger
presence in the world and on the world stage.
As I mentioned earlier, there is a wealth of ties which bind
Canadians together on a wide range of different levels. Our
economic achievements are by no means negligible and it is clear
that divided, our economy would be weaker than it is today.
There is no question that at present Canada is a success as
plenty of international organizations and experts agree.
According to OECD, Canada's economy and employment growth are set
to outperform those of all other G-7 countries in 1998.
The investment bank Credit Suisse First Boston has indicated
that it anticipates the Government of Canada will receive a
credit upgrading in the near future. The world economic forum
rates Canada as the fourth most competitive economy in the world
based on such factors as the shape of the country's finances, our
infrastructure and our technology base.
The economist intelligence unit of London predicts that we will
have the third best business environment in the world over the
next five years. As the president of the Toronto-Dominion Bank,
Charles Baillie, observed, Quebeckers can survive economically
without the other provinces and vice versa. But, he said, “since
when is our standard and our aspiration simple survival? Canada
has meant more than simple survival, much more than that to all
its citizens, including Quebeckers”.
I know Quebeckers are interested indeed in more than survival. I
know they want to continue to flourish as the only majority
francophone society on this continent.
In the motion today Bloc members say they are against the
democratic principles and rule of law of their own province of
Quebec, my province of Ontario and indeed our country of Canada.
It is for those reasons that I cannot support this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to respond to my hon. colleague for Mississauga West, a
region I know well.
My brother, Maurice Marchand, lives in the riding of
Mississauga West, and, like me as a Franco-Ontarian, is quite
familiar with the treatment afforded francophones in Ontario.
Contrary to what my hon. colleague has just said or wants to
have us believe, francophones have not been treated well in
Ontario.
The very opposite is true. In the history of Canada, if there
is one province that is more responsible for mistreatment and for
failing to respect the rights of francophones outside Quebec, it is
Ontario. It prohibited teaching in French for nearly 50 years and
only in recent years has it granted francophones their own schools.
This is another issue I would have liked to tackle. It is a bit
off topic, but it is related to the Quebec issue.
It shows once again how little respect is accorded the French
language in Canada, and the very same thing can be seen in Quebec
as well. Canada has not found a way to honour the integrity and
unique character of Quebec. The uniqueness of its character is
ignored despite the fact that Quebec has for many years expressed
a need for some recognition.
In the past, a number of referendums were held. Changes in
federalism promised to Quebec never materialized. The member for
Mississauga West is trying to tell us, like a number of members on
the other side of the House, the federalism and the Canadian
Constitution have changed. It is true, but do they not think the
federal government's stand on Quebec has hardened in the process?
Is its reference to the supreme court to prevent Quebeckers
from freely expressing their will and their decision to become an
independent country not further proof that the federal government
has taken a tougher stand with Quebec rather than really honouring
its claims for several years?
1340
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that if
the hon. member's brother lives in my riding there is probably a
fairly good chance that he voted for me. If he did I thank him.
The member made reference to some of the history in Ontario.
What he failed to do was recognize some of the gains which have
been made, particularly in recent years.
I was part of the David Peterson government in the province of
Ontario. We made several changes in our province to recognize
the importance and the significance of the francophone community.
That was not easily done. There were a lot of people who were
saying why do we need bilingual signs on our highways in the
province of Ontario. We would not find bilingual signs on the
highways in the province of Quebec. That is an interesting
double standard.
We have ignored that particular problem. We have done that
because we believe in Canada and we believe in Quebec as being
part of Canada.
I also point out there are a number of French schools and French
immersion courses in Ontario. Many people in my riding insist on
having their children go through their entire elementary
education in the French system. That is tremendous. I wish I had
done that. Then my attempts at French in this place would be
dramatically better than they are today. The reality is Ontario
recognizes the importance.
The bottom line which the member and other members of his party
refuse to admit is that they have clearly spoken out today
against the democratic principles of Quebec, of Ontario and of
Canada. They have spoken against the rule of law of Quebec, of
Ontario and of Canada. For that reason we will not be supporting
the motion. However, we do support the people of the province of
Quebec's remaining in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a Quebec MP, I am
pleased to take part in today's debate on the future of Quebec within
Canada.
I find the motion before us significant on more than one account
because it stresses our democratic values. It is not every day we
parliamentarians have the opportunity to discuss such an issue; this is
the reason why I find this debate so important.
Our government's position should another referendum be called in
Quebec, the third one in less than 20 years, has always been clear. We
do not want to deny Quebeckers the right to decide to separate from
Canada if they believe it is the best thing to do.
What we have always maintained however is that the referendum
process must be clear and allow Quebeckers to fully understand what is
at stake. Whether we are for or against Quebec's secession, it would
inevitably have a serious impact on every field of human activity, not
only in Quebec, but also in the rest of Canada. This is the reason why
the process must be clear. This is the reason why we are making sure it
will be.
Bloc members accuse us at times of wanting to deny Quebeckers the
right to decide their own future. Nothing is further from the truth.
Canadians have always been known for their sense of freedom and
democracy. This country was built on openness and tolerance. Respect for
these ideals and their implementation give Canadians a very enviable
reputation internationally.
This legacy inherited from our forefathers is part of our identity and,
as Quebeckers and Canadians, there is probably nothing we hold as dear
as what sets us apart from the rest of the world.
As the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs so rightly said,
Canada would no longer be Canada if was not based on the voluntary
participation of all its constituent parts. Nobody is forced to be part of
this country. Anybody who accuses our government of trying to exercise
such force does not understand our position at all or does not want to
understand it.
We respect democracy, but contrary to some of our friends opposite,
we also believe in clarity. We do not want Quebeckers to lose their
country over a misunderstanding.
1345
We do not want the democratic experience to be turned into a bad
joke. People have the right to understand what they stand to lose by
opting for Quebec's separation. They will have to make their choice with
full knowledge of the facts.
Bloc members will undoubtedly wonder why we are so prudent with
them, since we have already taken part in two other referendum campaigns
at the end of which Quebeckers still expressed the will to remain
Canadians. The answer is simple: since 1995, several facts that were
made public clearly demonstrated that the referendum process had not
been followed with a concern for the respect of democracy.
Let us recall the controversial statements of Jacques Parizeau
about a unilateral declaration of independence. Indeed, the three party
agreement signed on June 12, 1995 between Mr. Parizeau, Mr. Bouchard and
Mr. Dumont included dubious aspects. Concluded in mid-panic in the face
of the probability of a bitter defeat, it had the effect of confusing
Quebeckers by painting in glowing colours the possibility of an economic
and political association with Canada, which Mr. Parizeau himself had
never believed in.
Indeed, we have to see that the approach suggested by secessionist
leaders—to use an euphemism—has not always been crystal clear. And
how. For years opinion polls have been showing that a clear question on
Quebec's independence gets less support than if vague and utopian
concepts such as “association” and “partnership” are added to it.
Association and partnership scenarios are continually presented as
certainties, when over the years all successive federal governments and
those of the other provinces have always rejected the sovereignist
option.
In this regard, results of the last referendum are most revealing.
A few months before October 30, 1995, an opinion poll indicated that 80%
of Quebeckers, including 61% of yes side supporters, said they were
“proud to be both Quebeckers and Canadians”. Yet, 49% of Quebeckers
voted in favour of sovereignty on that day.
Other results also enlighten us on the ambiguity that was knowingly
fostered by secessionist leaders with regard to their option.
According to a poll conducted at the very end of the referendum
campaign, 80% of Quebeckers who intended to vote yes thought that,
should the yes side win, Quebec would automatically continue to use the
Canadian dollar as its currency. Close to 80% believed that economic
ties with Canada would remain unchanged, while 50% thought they would
continue to use the Canadian passport, and 25% believed Quebec would
continue to elect federal members of Parliament. Another poll showed
that close to 20% of yes voters thought that a sovereign Quebec could
continue to be a Canadian province.
As you probably remember, the question asked in the referendum held
on October 30, 1995 was based on the tripartite agreement of June 12,
1995. Unlike in 1980, when the question was made public five months
before the referendum, the PQ government released the 1995 question only
six weeks before the vote.
The agreement reached by Parizeau, Bouchard and Dumont was quite
extraordinary in its own way. The government pledged that, once the
secessionist plan was approved by a majority of people, it would wait
one year before proclaiming sovereignty and would conduct negotiations
on the infamous economic and political association project with the rest
of Canada. However, as Mr. Parizeau would later say, nothing would have
prevented Quebec from deciding that the negotiations were going nowhere,
thus leaving it free to make a move whenever it deemed it appropriate to
do so. This is sure a nice example of transparency and of respect toward
Quebeckers.
I will not dwell on the remarkable unworkability of the 1995
sovereignist project. I simply want to stress the confusion that it
generated among Quebeckers. A confusing and convoluted question almost
resulted in the breakup of the country. We do not want the fate of our
country to be dependent on tricks or semantics.
We want clarity, not confusion. The democratic process does not
truly fulfil its purpose if we try to confuse voters instead of helping
them make a decision. Voters must understand the consequences of their
decision, and it is precisely the role of the government to make sure
they do.
We are in favour of democracy, but we also trust Quebeckers'
judgment. Quebeckers played a major role in the building of our country.
They have left their mark throughout history, thanks to their
determination and their drive. Canada provides them with even greater
opportunities. Quebeckers excel in many areas.
1350
What we inherited from my ancestors, yours and all those who came
to settle in this beautiful country of ours is the strong will to build
our future on a solid base made up of solidarity, compassion, freedom
and respect for our differences.
These values come out for instance in our social programs and the
assistance we provide to any part of the country that is hit by a
natural disaster. These values are enshrined in our Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms. This is the kind of country I want to pass on to
the next generations of Quebeckers and Canadians.
The right of Quebeckers to decide their own future is at the very
heart of the initiatives the Government of Canada has taken to clarify
the problems that could eventually arise from the separation of Quebec
and the breakup of Canada. Yes, I believe in the future of Canada and I
firmly believe that, in a democratic process that would respect all of
the principles underlying our federation, Quebeckers will decide to
remain in the country they have helped so much to build.
We cannot support this motion after seeing the Bloc Quebecois
refuse to recognize the rule of law and the principle of democracy for
all. Such a refusal cannot be approved by the people of Beauce, by
Quebeckers and even by Canadians.
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am really
surprised to hear the hon. member for Beauce quote statistics about the
1980 referendum and the 1995 referendum, when his party and all his
colleagues are about to support what is bound to happen in the supreme
court, who will deny Quebeckers this very right. I wonder how he will
be able some time soon to express his views about democracy and
self-determination for the Quebec people.
The federal Liberals are more and more alone in this adventure.
Think about the positions taken by Claude Ryan and the leader of the
Liberal Party of Quebec, Daniel Johnson. They seem increasingly to be
distancing themselves from the federal Liberal members of Parliament.
There is in Quebec a consensus that this reference is pointless,
illegitimate and disrespectful of our democratic values.
Does the hon. member realize that he can only rely on his Reform
allies and Guy Bertrand to help him defend the hard line set out in Plan
B, which is decried by the Parti Quebecois, the Bloc Quebecois, the
Liberal Party of Quebec, some international experts and the people of
Quebec?
Mr. Claude Drouin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to my
colleague opposite that I am not alone since the majority of Quebeckers
are on our side, saying that we should make things very clear in order
to have a sound basis because the country will not be divided on the
basis of innuendos and trick questions.
That is why we must turn to the supreme court to clarify every
legal aspect of the matter, and I am sure Quebeckers will support our
initiative.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member from
across the way why the government was not interested in bringing
before the people of Quebec the Calgary declaration as proposed
by nine of the country's ten premiers. Why did the Liberal
government not choose that opportunity to go before the people of
Quebec and get a feeling from them on how they felt on those
seven points that the rest of the country are prepared to
consider with the issue of unity?
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Drouin: Mr. Speaker, that issue was raised by the
provinces and it must be resolved in conjunction with the provinces. We
would have liked the Quebec government to consider it. Unfortunately, it
has refused to do so. Let us hope it changes its mind and decides to
submit this issue to Quebeckers.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to go
back to the question asked by my colleague from Lotbinière, which seems
most relevant.
I want to ask the member for Beauce if he is conscious of the lack
of support for the Liberal Party of Canada, particularly its Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, in Quebec. Think about a former leader of the
Liberal Party, Mr. Ryan, and the present leader, Mr. Johnson, two former
leaders of the no side who faced us with complete honesty and with all
their talent, both in 1980 and in 1995.
1355
Think about Jean-Claude Rivest, Conservative senator and former
special advisor to the Liberal premier, Mr. Bourassa, a federalist, who
said at one point that never again would Quebec go through what it went
through after Charlottetown. Think about André Tremblay, special
constitutional advisor to Robert Bourassa in Charlottetown in 1992.
Think about Cardinal Turcotte—and that tops it all—who, despite
his very delicate functions, has had the courage to take a stand in this
debate, knowing what kind of criticism he would draw because of that.
Where does the Liberal Party of Canada stand in Quebec at this moment
apart from the support it gets from Alliance Quebec? I would like my
colleague from Beauce to respond to that.
Mr. Claude Drouin: Mr. Speaker, I could repeat what I said to his
colleague previously, but when I am given a list of 12 people and told
that it represents the majority, I have a problem with that.
If the member wants to quote Mr. Ryan, I would like him to repeat
everything he said. He said that he would like to have a clear question.
Will it be possible for you to have a clear and honest question? I do
not think so.
[English]
The Speaker: My colleagues, before I begin with the
statements, I address myself to the hon. member for
Edmonton—Strathcona. If you were seeking the floor, I will
recognize you now and you will be the first intervener after
question period.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will wait until after question period.
The Speaker: It being nearly 2 o'clock, we will now
proceed to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
1998 WINTER OLYMPICS
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Canadian Olympian Kevin
Overland of Kitchener who won the bronze medal in 500 metre speed
skating very early this morning. His bronze medal race was over
in only 71.86 seconds but I am sure the memory will last a
lifetime.
Kevin will also compete in the 1,500 metre race on Thursday and
the 1,000 metre race on Sunday.
Kevin's sister Cindy is also on the Canadian Olympic speed
skating team with her first race, the 3,000 metres, tomorrow.
Their father Ernie is a coach and their sisters Amanda and Kate
are also in training for future national teams.
On behalf of Kitchener—Waterloo I join Canadians everywhere in
congratulating Kevin, and Red Deer, Alberta's silver medalist
Jeremy Wotherspoon for their medals and on having fulfilled their
Olympic dreams. I wish Cindy much luck in fulfilling hers.
To all our Olympians, well done.
* * *
THE BUDGET
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, sometime soon the government will
introduce its 1998-99 budget.
One of the major points of interest will be what this Liberal
government intends to do with any budget surplus. Liberals appear
to want to put 50% of any surplus into increased government
spending with the rest being divided between debt reduction and
tax relief.
But the question is what do Canadians want? I put this question
to my constituents and their opinion differs vastly from the
Liberals' plan. With over 2,000 responses to my survey, the
average response of the people of South Surrey—White
Rock—Langley was to have 55% of the surplus going toward debt
reduction, 36% going to tax relief and less than 9% going to
increased government spending.
Once again Liberal fiscal priorities are completely out of step
with average Canadians.
* * *
FLAG PROTOCOL
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to propose an important amendment to
protocol as it relates to the lowering of flags at federal
government buildings.
Currently the lowering of such flags to half mast is an honour
reserved for a small group of public officials.
1400
However, in recognition of the important work federal public
servants do for our communities and our country, I encourage the
Minister of Canadian Heritage to allow the lowering of flags at
federal government facilities where workers are mourning the
death of a colleague.
Several federal government employees in my riding of Sault Ste.
Marie have requested this measure, and I fully support their
proposal. In my opinion such a move would be a fitting gesture
of respect and appreciation for those men and women who, without
the media fanfare afforded to elected officials, perform vital
services to Canadians on a daily basis.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-28
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, for the past week, we have been asking the Minister of Finance
serious questions regarding Bill C-28. Instead of getting clear answers,
we heard insults and contradictory statements from the finance minister,
the ethics commissioner and even the vice-president of Canada Steamship
Lines.
We feel the government is playing Battleship with us. When we tried
G-6, the Prime Minister got up and said “No”. The next day, we tried B-3
and the Deputy Prime Minister said “No”.
But I think that in the case of C-28, the Minister of Finance should
rise and say “Touché. My ship is sunk”.
We are entitled to answers. The Liberals should stop trying to take
us for a ride.
* * *
[English]
CITIZENSHIP AND HERITAGE WEEK
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is Canada's annual Citizenship and Heritage Week, a
week long celebration that includes National Citizenship Week,
National Flag of Canada Day and Heritage Day. A special focus
this year will revolve around young Canadians. A variety of
youth oriented activities will take place across the country.
This week represents an opportunity to pay tribute to the value
we as Canadians share and to the enduring traditions that have
formed the fabric of our nation.
I encourage all parliamentarians to recognize the individuals
and organizations that have been participating and contributing
to the program of special events in their communities.
This is an opportunity to further strengthen the vibrant,
positive community bonds that exist throughout the country.
* * *
IRAQ
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
some have expressed the view that Canada really has no choice but
to respond favourably to American requests on Iraq, given the
significant integration of our economy with the U.S. that has
taken place since free trade. Indeed the Liberals, pathetically,
now seem to accept and even defend the very restrictions on
Canadian policy they once joined with the NDP in warning against.
Under the Liberals, Canada has become a country of no choices.
Unlike the hope held out by the alternative federal budget and
other proposals for change, the Liberals' Canada is a country not
able to freely choose its own future. If it is not the Americans
it is the money lenders and bond holders or NAFTA or the WTO, and
soon it will be the MAI.
Under the Liberals, globalization is an ever tightening but
apparently welcome vice that constricts our ability to be
ourselves.
For the NDP, globalization must become the opportunity for a
truly global community in which Canadian values proliferate
rather than are exterminated. We must create a global economy
that is not just a marketplace designed for the profit strategies
of multinational corporations.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC'S RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, from now on, new
federal policies and programs will be closely scrutinized to determine
their impact on rural areas.
This announcement was made yesterday in Rimouski by the federal
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, who was accompanied by the
Secretary of State for Agriculture and Agri-Food and Fisheries and
Oceans, and by the Liberal member for
Bellechasse—Etchemins—Montmagny—L'Islet, at the conference held
by Quebec's Solidarité rurale.
The president of Solidarité rurale, Jacques Proulx, called the plan
a “great victory for rural Quebec”. This decision will make the Canadian
government a special partner in ensuring the future of rural development
in Quebec.
It will enable the Canadian government to promote local development
within a global vision.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN WAR MUSEUM
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, last week
in the other place a Senate committee heard from several veterans
organizations. They all stated that they were not consulted on
the proposed expansion to the war museum that included a
Holocaust gallery. The recent controversy regarding the
Holocaust gallery could have been avoided if veterans had been
consulted.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs has been notably absent
throughout this controversy. It is his responsibility to
intervene and ensure that adequate consultations take place.
1405
The Senate subcommittee on veterans affairs should be commended
for taking it upon itself to allow our veterans to be heard. It
was quite evident from the hearings that veterans groups want the
Canadian War Museum to be severed from the Canadian Museum of
Civilization and the Department of Canadian Heritage.
I call upon the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the government
to listen to our veterans and do what is necessary to take
control of the war museum and place it solely under the auspices
of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
* * *
ABORTION
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, a million babies, give or take a few, have lost their
lives in the last 10 years. Is parliament horrified? No. Is
the media in an uproar for the government to do something? No.
Thanks to the Supreme Court of Canada and weak-kneed
politicians, Canada has been without any restrictions on abortion
for 10 years. Not only are there no restrictions when a woman
can get an abortion between the time of conception and until the
baby emerges alive from the birth canal, but the government has
forced taxpayers to pay for the killing of these one million
babies.
I have introduced a motion that would at least put a stop to
government funding for abortions, a measure which two-thirds of
Canadians support.
My private members' Motion No. 268 calls for a binding national
referendum at the time of the next election to ask whether or not
voters are in favour of government funding for medically
unnecessary abortions.
I urge every member who feels strongly about saving the lives of
tens of thousands of helpless infants to support this motion and
to help me convince the House to make it votable.
* * *
[Translation]
MARIE LAURIER
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with
the Olympic Games unfolding, we should not forget our young Canadian
athletes who dream of reaching the top level in sports. That is why I
would like to draw your attention today to the success achieved by a
14-year-old athlete in my riding of Pierrefonds—Dollard, Marie Laurier.
At the Canadian figure skating championships held in Hamilton from
January 5 to January 12, Marie Laurier won the gold medal in the junior
singles category. Last year, in Vancouver, she won the title in the
junior couples category.
Marie never spared any effort, and she has the results to show for this.
We can take pride in our young athletes who work so hard to get
recognition nationally and internationally. At that level of
competition, the talent and concentration needed to succeed require
almost superhuman preparation and training. Our athletes are very
deserving.
Marie, I wish you the best for the future, and every success in
upcoming competitions.
* * *
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Canada has shown
the world its real bilingual face in Nagano. The Canadian heritage
minister says it is unacceptable and the foreign affairs minister says
it is unfortunate.
Last summer, when war veterans were there, Major Brossard, our
military attaché in France, had to ask for some French to be spoken
during the historical briefing on German bunkers.
In Vimy, in November 1997, before an audience made up of 300 French
people, a lady asked me, during speeches by the veterans affairs
minister, the Canadian heritage minister and the secretary of state for
parks: “Why don't you have interpreters? You're not here as
conquerors.”
I answered that this is Canada's own brand of bilingualism.
The day Quebec is sovereign, you will see what being respectful of
minorities really means.
For the time being, Canadian-style bilingualism is restricted to
“mesdames et messieurs” and “merci beaucoup”.
* * *
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, two recent reports add to the growing body of evidence
concerning the economic and social pressures facing many
Canadians.
A report at Industry Canada entitled “Keeping up with the
Joneses” indicates that real personal income per capita is
almost 25% lower in Canada than in the United States.
A second report issued by the Vanier Institute of the Family
indicates that the average Canadian family needs 77 weeks worth
of work, that is two wage earners, just to cover basic annual
expenses.
The increasing competitiveness of the workplace often demanding
overtime and the rigidity of employers regarding family
commitments come at the same time as growing expectations that
the parents be more involved in their children's activities and
their education.
In a society where we are expressing concern for family
integrity surely there is a role for government—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary West.
* * *
SENATE OF CANADA
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what a
month for Senator Andy Thompson.
He suffered through his own ice storm when he spilled his pina
colada while doing the macarena. To make matters worse, he had
to trade in the cocoa butter for a winter coat so he could show
up for work in the frosty north.
1410
Hundreds of Canadians have told me in writing that they want
this mucho grande Senate to end. They want to choose who
represents them in the upper house.
We do not have to live with these absentee amigos. The prime
minister can choose today. He can respect the will of Canadians
and recognize senate elections or he can continue to appoint
Liberal cucarachas to the Senate.
* * *
QUEBEC
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Quebec's cultural and linguistic situation is special because
francophones must constantly fight for their place in North
America.
The 60 Minutes program aired by CBS last weekend
misinterpreted the Quebec reality by stating that the province
wanted to become a francophone enclave. Nothing is further from
the truth. Those responsible for the program lacked objectivity
and missed an opportunity for professional journalism.
I ask that the facts be reviewed concerning the description of
Quebec's social linguistic situation. Time should be taken to
show both sides of the coin on an issue which is so important for
Quebec francophones.
* * *
[Translation]
MAGOG-ORFORD REGION
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last
Friday, on behalf of the Secretary of State responsible for the Federal
Office of Regional Development-Quebec, I announced that a $15,000
contribution would be made to the Magog-Orford Chamber of Commerce, to
identify concrete measures to encourage our U.S. neighbours to come and
shop in Brome—Missisquoi.
We have to remind our neighbours in Vermont, 300,000 of whom live
within an hour of the Canada-US border, that with the recent drop in the
value of the Canadian dollar, the GST and Quebec sales tax refunds they
are entitled to since their purchases are considered exports, and the
decrease in our customs tariffs, they will find in my beautiful riding
of Brome—Missisquoi excellent business opportunities as well as the
most breathtaking scenery in all of the Eastern Townships.
Welcome to our American friends.
* * *
[English]
SENATE OF CANADA
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today the upper chamber will be honoured by the return
of the infamous Senator Thompson. We should all go out of our
way to welcome him back to make sure he settles in okay. We
should start by getting the senator reaquainted with some of the
local customs.
The upper chamber is not like the beaches of Mexico. Shirts
must be worn at all times. Midday siestas are discouraged
although not uncommon. The pages almost always refuse to serve
banana daiquiris. There is no happy hour and you must check in
your mariachi at the door.
We could also get our senator a few welcome back gifts: aspirin
for the lingering margarita headache, a winter coat for the cold
Ottawa evenings and a Canadian flag to remind him of the
hardworking, overtaxed Canadian public.
Maybe the senator will be so moved by the generosity that he
will join in the chorus of Canadian voices demanding that the
Senate must be reformed.
* * *
CANADIAN EXECUTIVE SERVICES ORGANIZATION
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in the House today to recognize five members of my
constituency of Scarborough East who have made significant
contributions to the world community through Canadian Executive
Services Organization: John Goldie, Jim and Leslie McDonald, and
Roman and Sheila Russek.
John Goldie made available western construction methods to the
people who live in Ukraine which will increase the safety of
their construction. Jim and Leslie McDonald helped a hospital
facility in the Philippines to design medical waste disposal
systems. Roman and Sheila Russek helped to redesign a factory in
Poland engaged in cable construction.
Roman, Sheila, Jim, Leslie and John are to be congratulated on
their contribution to building our world community. Canada is
proud.
* * *
NEWFOUNDLAND SCHOOL SYSTEM
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker,
latest statistics show that the Newfoundland school system is
facing a sharply declining enrolment. Total enrolment this year
is down by 4,597 students or 4.3%. This enrolment drop is
largely related to out migration of families with children,
families in which parents have left home to find work elsewhere
in Canada.
After nearly 50 years in Confederation my province still has an
unemployment rate more than double the national average. That
out migration is currently at 9,200 people per year and is
continually going up.
As a result, whole communities have been decimated leaving only
seniors in many areas.
1415
A very distinct society in Newfoundland is in danger of dying.
The ability to work elsewhere in the nation is very much
appreciated but most Newfoundlanders would like to see the
federal government take the lead in solving the problem a little
bit closer to home.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
IRAQ
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday parliament discussed the Iraqi crisis long
into the night and cabinet apparently discussed it this morning,
but some critical questions remain to be answered by the Prime
Minister.
If diplomacy fails and force is to be used against Saddam
Hussein, Canadians want to know what the overall military
objective is. Is it to take out weapons factories or is it
something bigger?
What exactly is the overall mission and how will we know if it
is successful?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the position of everybody at the moment is still to have
a diplomatic resolution.
Now that parliament has expressed its views, we as the
government decided that this morning that there will be support
coming from Canada. There will be a frigate and Hercules
airplanes going there. There will be some Canadians on board
United States AWACS aircraft. I can inform the House of what has
been decided to offer to the coalition.
At the moment the diplomatic efforts are still ongoing. I spoke
for a few minutes with Mr. Chirac who is very active. He
discussed his activities.
When the time comes for a strike, if we are obliged to have a
strike, we will be able to inform what will be the exact targets
the military operation will aim at. At the moment we are not at
that stage yet.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.):
Last night, Mr. Speaker, the weakest presentation made in the
debate on Iraq was made by the Minister of National Defence. He
said nothing had been ruled out, nothing had been ruled in, and
had nothing much more to say.
If the American secretary of defence appeared before the
Congress the night before committing forces to an action and had
nothing more to say than that, he would be fired by the next
morning.
What will the Prime Minister do to fill this vacuum at the top
of the Department of National Defence?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of National Defence is a minister who is
responsible enough to wait for a decision of the cabinet before
announcing something.
I have just told the Leader of the Opposition of the plan
concerning Canadian participation at the moment. I have talked
about a frigate. I have talked about the Hercules airplanes and
the participation of Canadian soldiers with the AWACS airplane
surveillance of the area.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has a moral duty to assure Canadians
that our personnel have been committed to support action with a
clear mission, a clear vision of their role and adequate
resources to do the job.
The time for these vague answers and vague assurances has
passed. Will the Prime Minister provide that plan, that mission
and that resource detail, or will we find out about it from CNN
and Bill Clinton?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have clearly spoken about the position of the
government. A frigate will be doing its duty there. It is a
very modern ship and very well equipped with very capable
officials on board.
The Hercules airplanes will be serving the forces personnel.
They have used them many times in the past and know what to do
with them. Those who are already on the AWACS planes will keep
doing what they are doing now.
It is very simple to explain, but it seems to be very difficult
for the Leader of the Opposition to understand very simple
things.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
the day the Oscar nominations are being announced we want to give
the finance minister the full monte.
Canadians are swamped with our titanic size debt. It is $77,000
per family. We are swamped with titanic size taxes, the highest
in the G-7. Canadian families are barely keeping their head
above water.
1420
When will the finance minister throw Canadian families a
lifeline in the form of across the board tax cuts and specific
targets for debt reduction?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have in previous budgets provided poor Canadian
families with the child tax benefit, which is a very important
initiative. We have provided those families in which there are
disabled Canadians with lower taxes. We will continue in this
vein.
There is no doubt that the great reward for the clean-up of the
country's balance sheet that has been effected by Canadians will
be that over the course of time clearly the tax burden will be
lowered.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that was a real Oscar winning performance. It kind of reminds me
of Forest Gump.
Canadian families are paying $6,000 a year in taxes just to pay
their share of the interest on the debt. They have seen their
disposable incomes fall by $3,000 per family since 1990.
Instead of titanic sized spending increases, what Canadians want
to know is when will the finance minister introduce a budget
which brings in broad based tax cuts and, of course, specific
targets for debt reduction?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Canadian government certainly intends over the
course of this mandate to reward Canadians for the tremendous
sacrifices they have undergone as this country has come back from
what was the deficit despair.
I should like to say to the hon. member and to all members of
this House who have been quite patient in asking questions on the
forthcoming budget that we will answer those questions on
Tuesday, February 24 at 4.30 p.m.
[Translation]
I am pleased to announce that I will be tabling the budget on
Tuesday, February 24, at 4.30 p.m.
* * *
FEDERAL COMPENSATION PROGRAM
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, a
growing number of analysts, commentators and editorial writers, as well
as Daniel Johnson, leader of the Liberal Party, fail to understand the
attitude of the federal government, which refuses to compensate Quebec
for damages to its hydro-electric system. They all question the
President of the Treasury Board's restrictive interpretation of the
compensation program.
Does the Prime Minister recognize that the provisions of the
federal compensation program give his government the latitude to
compensate Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
was a disaster in the Saguenay region and another one in Manitoba, and
the rules were applied to the satisfaction of both provincial
governments at the time.
Companies like Hydro-Quebec do not qualify. Government assistance
is targeted to small and medium size businesses and to farmers. In the
case of the Saguenay region, for example, no money was given to Alcan or
to the paper mills that sustained damages, because government assistance
is not for them.
The eligibility rules are very clear. They were established in 1988
when Lucien Bouchard was a minister in the Conservative government.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
guide clearly says that the federal government has the latitude to
compensate hydro companies. It is not the words but only the section
numbers that were changed in 1988. I suppose it is a subtlety that the
Prime Minister fails to grasp.
That being said, will the Prime Minister recognize that the
decision on whether or not to compensate hydro companies for the damages
they sustained is up to the federal government? In other words, the ball
is in the government's court. Will it respond to the requests that have
been made?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
are applying the rules set out by the Conservative government in 1988,
when Lucien Bouchard was a minister in that government.
Again, we did not compensate hydro companies for any damages
sustained as a result of the flooding in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean
region. It is very clear.
Our role is not to help large corporations. Our role is to help
small businesses and farmers. That system worked well in the Saguenay
region and, last year, in Manitoba, and we intend to continue with what
has served Canadians well during—
The Speaker: The member for Témiscamingue.
1425
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the President of the Treasury Board repeated his
refusal to compensate Quebec, giving the excuse that Hydro-Québec
is a very large company able to pay for the cost of its own
repairs. The federal policy manual states that the federal
government may compensate large companies, and I quote: “In an
exceptional situation, if the minister thinks it justified”.
Are we to understand that the ice storm and the damage to the
hydroelectric system are not exceptional enough for the government
to feel it is justified in taking action?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we have made it clear to the Government of Ontario, which also
sustained considerable damage, that Hydro Ontario was no more
eligible than Hydro-Québec. We are not compensating large
companies. We will not be providing assistance to Bell Telephone,
which also sustained enormous losses in Quebec during the last
storm, because the system provides that companies that can insure
themselves must cover their own damages. Companies such as Hydro-Québec
and Bell Telephone can afford to insure themselves against
disasters.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am quite
surprised to see the Prime Minister make no distinction between
Hydro-Québec and a private company not owned by Quebeckers. There
is a big difference.
The principles underlying federal assistance would allow the
government to pay compensation because, one, electricity is an
essential public service; two, there is a clause to compensate
large companies; and, three, there is a precedent in Newfoundland.
Why, then, is the government stubbornly refusing to compensate
Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the government thinks that companies such as Bell Telephone, Hydro
Ontario and Hydro-Québec, the latter having made $700 million,
could have spent a few million dollars on insurance and not come to
the federal government for money.
* * *
IRAQ
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the
Prime Minister justified a military intervention against Iraq by saying
that Saddam Hussein is violating the ceasefire. Yet, in 1991, he stated
that we should not take part in a war that is not fought under the flag
of the United Nations.
Does the Prime Minister intend to follow the United Nations or the
United States?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Both, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, General
Lewis MacKenzie also opposes military aggression against Iraq,
saying “as many as 5,000 Iraqi children under 5 are dying each
month as a result of UN sanctions, and bombing Baghdad will only
make matters worse”.
What further diplomatic measures have the Prime Minister and his
foreign affairs minister taken in the last 72 hours to avert
those senseless bombings?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are very active diplomatically. Earlier I was
talking with the president of France concerning initiatives. I
consulted with him and gave him my views, and he gave his. We
hope we will be successful with the Russians to persuade Saddam
Hussein to respect the resolutions of the United Nations.
Tomorrow the Minister of Foreign Affairs will be in New York
discussing matters with the secretary-general of the United
Nations.
[Translation]
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is
quite timely, in view of the answer just given by the Prime Minister on
Canada's involvement in an initiative in the Gulf.
Since the Prime Minister admits that he has been in touch with the
President of the United States, the Prime Minister of Great Britain and
the President of France in the last 72 hours, I would like to know if,
during these talks, he demanded that any action be taken under the
authority of the United Nations in order to give greater moral authority
to any such action.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I
explained in my speech yesterday, we are acting in accordance with a
United Nations resolution and a ceasefire resolution that was violated
by Saddam Hussein.
When the ceasefire was signed, Saddam Hussein agreed to allow the
inspections he is now refusing. Because he is in violation of the
ceasefire terms, the 1991 resolution is still valid for all the parties
concerned.
1430
[English]
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
take it by the response of the Prime Minister that neither he nor
his government asked that this intervention happen under a new
resolution of the United Nations, a new resolution made necessary
by an admission of his Minister of Foreign Affairs yesterday who
said there was division within the security council.
The Prime Minister will know that there are more chances of
success and fewer chances of bloodletting and children and
innocent people suffering if there is a firm determination and
resolve within the United Nations. That will give the world and
Canada moral authority and less chance of war.
Why does Canada not—
The Speaker: The right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow the Minister of Foreign Affairs will be in New
York to discuss that and other subjects.
I said that the president of the United States, the prime
minister of Great Britain and I and others who have agreed to
participate were advised that we are acting under a valid
resolution which has existed since 1991. When Saddam Hussein
broke the agreement of ceasefire he gave us the authority to have
the resolution of 1991 respected by him.
* * *
THE SENATE
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today we are hoping for a sighting. Senator Andrew Thompson is
due back in the Senate from his siesta in Mexico. His visit
could be a rare and exciting event around here, something like
the swallows coming back once a year to Capistrano.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Why is the Canadian
taxpayer paying the senator's salary? Does this government not
believe in work for wages?
The Speaker: I do not know whether this falls under the
administrative responsibility of the government. However, if the
Prime Minister wishes to address this I will permit him to.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said that Senator Thompson should do the honourable
thing and resign. I cannot kick him out. If I could, he would
have been gone a long time ago. To do so I would have to amend
the constitution. I do not think we want to amend the
constitution at this time just for that.
I hope he will do the honourable thing and resign. The Canadian
people are asking him to do so.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Canadian public is begging for Senate reform and this Prime
Minister, rather than saying he hoped that he could kick him out,
should not make any appointments to the Senate from now on.
Senators should be voted in and voted out.
The Prime Minister says he cannot fire him. The Canadian
public, the people paying the bills, wants to know this. Why
not? When will he change the Senate so that it will be elected
and accountable to the Canadian public?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we voted for an elected Senate on this side of the
House. The Reform Party voted against it in the Charlottetown
accord.
* * *
[Translation]
SMALL BUSINESS
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a question
for the Prime Minister.
Following the ice storm disaster, a great many small and medium
size businesses in the Montérégie and central Quebec regions in
particular are in dire straits. There is an obvious need for financial
assistance and for federal involvement.
Does the Prime Minister intend to propose an assistance program
identical to the industrial business assistance program, which was put
in place in Alberta in 1987, following the tornadoes and floods that hit
that province?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as we
speak, the President of the Treasury Board and the Secretary of State
responsible for Quebec Regional Development are in Montreal to discuss
such a program with business people from the area that was affected by
the ice storm a few weeks ago.
1435
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister surely knows what mandate he has given them.
In the name of fairness, will the Prime Minister reassure us by
stating that all the measures taken to help Alberta businesses will also
be implemented in Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
program that the Canadian government approved in the past two years to
help businesses in the Saguenay region and in Manitoba is being
discussed as we speak by the two ministers in Montreal. Of course, the
program will also apply to business people from eastern Ontario.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Bruce
Starlight wrote a confidential letter to the minister of Indian
affairs, alleging corruption on the Tsuu T'ina reserve.
Those allegations are now being looked into by the RCMP. Instead
of keeping Mr. Starlight's letter confidential, a copy of it with
the minister's own stamp on it was sent to the chief under
suspicion.
Yesterday the minister said: “That letter was not conveyed by
me or by any official in my department”. How can she say that
with certainty when this investigation is not even finished?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I indicated was that
the letter was not conveyed to the chief by me or through
official channels.
I would like to say, though, that as I went through the facts
yesterday, there are some other facts the House should consider.
First of all, for the last week there have been only allegations
and unfounded innuendoes. The Reform Party has been undermining
public servants. It has been challenging duly elected chiefs and
councils with no evidence.
I quote the hon. member who said: “It really is easy to draw
these conclusions, however, we do not have the evidence”. No
evidence.
Why do they not wait for the investigation to conclude and then
we will deal with the facts?
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister
knows that quote has been taken right out of context. The
evidence is very clear that Mr. Starlight wrote to the minister.
That letter, with her stamp on it, is sitting in Chief Roy
Whitney's office as we speak. How can the minister say that the
letter was not conveyed by her or by any official in her
department? How can the minister say this confidential letter
did not come from her department when her own stamp is on it?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have made very clear the
responsible approach we are taking with regard to this letter.
I have to ask what the motivation is of this opposition. I
guess it puts me in mind of a comment made by a political
forebear of mine, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who said that it is easy
to raise prejudices.
In his recent book John Ralston Saul, a Canadian philosopher,
says it is a major responsibility of those with power not to
raise prejudices. I believe that is why we are on this—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would caution you on both
sides of the House not to impugn motives either in the question
or in the answer.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-28
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since
the start of the debate regarding Bill C-28 and a possible conflict of
interest involving the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister has been
maintaining that the Bloc Quebecois is mistaken.
At the same time, the government systematically refuses to let us
call upon people who could shed some light on this issue.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister
realize that, far from dispelling any suspicions surrounding his
minister, he is actually making him look worse by taking an attitude so
lacking in transparency?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
attacks on the finance minister's integrity are unfounded. As I have
said on a number of occasions, the Minister of Finance has my complete
confidence.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
besides public officials, the only person the government has given us
access to is its ethics counsellor.
1440
But, with all due respect, an ethics counsellor is neither an
expert in international income tax planning nor a shipper.
In this context, is the Prime Minister in fact asking us to close
our eyes and to blindly trust him?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
clearly stated that the Minister of Finance has my complete confidence.
His business concerns are in the hands of an administrator, in
compliance with the guidelines issued, and in the four years and some
months since he became finance minister, his behaviour has been beyond
reproach.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister of Indian affairs just said a couple of minutes ago
that behaviour was motivated by prejudice. I must tell this
minister that I lived on a reserve, I taught on a reserve, and I
raised five Indian foster children in my home.
I want to ask the minister of Indian affairs right now if she
will retract that vicious slur she just made on the floor of the
House of Commons.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I recognize the contribution
the hon. member has made. But I have to wonder why, when there
are so many good examples of strong healthy aboriginal
communities in this country, they never find their way into the
questions and the comments of the members opposite.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is our motivation to help grassroots aboriginal people who
trusted the minister, to go to her in confidence. People can say
whatever they want but I want to ask the minister, whose side is
she on right now, the bureaucrats and the chiefs or the
grassroots aboriginal people at the band level?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, without question aboriginal
people in this country need the help of all of us. When I look
at the agenda of the party opposite, it would cut $920 million
per year from my department's budget. That is money for
education, for housing, for water and sewers, all those things
aboriginal people in this country need so desperately.
* * *
[Translation]
IRAQ
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
During last night's emergency debate, the minister pledged “to
follow through on the kinds of continuing dialogue and exchange of
information to ensure that Parliament is fully involved in the ensuing
developments”.
My question is simple. Is the minister considering holding a vote
in the House, as was done during the 1991 debate, to give all
parliamentarians an opportunity to express themselves before the
government authorizes Canada's military participation in—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The Minister
of Foreign Affairs.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I cannot say for sure. I assume the hon. member is
aware there was a debate last night which was open to all members
of Parliament and which dealt with the question of the nature of
Canada's participation.
The final decision on those very crucial matters remains with
the Government of Canada and with the cabinet. We will certainly
maintain every effort to keep Parliament informed. There is a
full briefing for all members of the standing committee this
afternoon.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the Minister of Human Resources Development. What
assurances can the minister give the fishermen of Atlantic Canada
that there will be some help for them when the Atlantic
groundfish strategy runs out in August?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce
that today I am publicly releasing the post TAGS review prepared
by Eugene Harrigan and his team. I want to thank Mr. Harrigan
and his team for their very good work.
1445
The objective of Mr. Harrigan's report was to get a sense of how
the end of the TAGS program would affect individuals, families
and their communities. The report provides us with a very good
portrait, the best ever, on what will be the reaction when TAGS
ends at the end of August. It will serve as a useful basis for
discussions with my colleagues, the stakeholders and the
provinces.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it has
been 26 days since we heard about the letter sent by Bruce
Starlight to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development. Can we expect a report on the investigation soon or
do we have to wait until the media frenzy dies down and the
budget comes out so we can sweep it under the carpet?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I take the work of the
investigator very seriously. I want to make sure that there is a
full investigation done. We will report on the results when it
is complete.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there
is one thing that should take no time at all. The letter has the
minister's stamp on it. The letter was leaked, it ended up in
the wrong hands and Mr. Starlight is being sued.
Will the minister announce today that her department will pay
Mr. Starlight's legal fees? Yes or no?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, it is
not the usual practice of the department to pay for such things.
It would be absolutely inappropriate for me to make a
determination of whether it would be the right thing to do until
the investigation is complete.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
A woman died in an emergency room after a four hour wait. A
woman raped at knifepoint was turned away from an emergency room.
Canadians clearly favour an increase in medicare funding so
these tragedies do not repeat themselves.
Will the Minister of Finance act on the advice enclosed in the
alternative federal budget and other proposals for change and
restore federal health transfers to 1995 levels?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we acknowledge and we share the concerns of Canadians that we
have quality health care when it is needed and where it is needed
in this country. That is why this government supports the
principles of the Canada Health Act. That is why this government
just this year increased the cash floor in the transfers to the
provinces to enable the provinces to reinvest in health services
where they are needed most.
That reflects the priorities which this government puts on
health care in this country.
* * *
CHILD POVERTY
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
alternative federal budget also shows that the $1.9 billion
needed to fight child poverty can be found. The Minister of
Finance said in December and even today that child poverty is a
priority. But it appears that the government is backing down and
will recycle yet again last year's $850 million.
What hope is there for kids when the government's commitment is
nothing more than headlines and recycled announcements? What new
funds are being committed for the national child benefit?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as of July 1 this year a
further investment of $850 million will go toward child poverty.
We are committed as a government to adding another $850 million
to that during the life of this Parliament. We will do that
because it is a commitment of our government.
We have restored and added to the CAPC program of my colleague,
the Minister of Health. It is a very good program. There is the
head start program in the department of Indian affairs.
We are doing our very best and we will do even more in the
future.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, perhaps to follow this line of questioning I will
pose my question to the Minister of Finance.
Montreal and Toronto area emergency rooms are in a crisis
situation. Patients are lying on gurneys in hospitals because
they cannot get beds. Our health care system is in shambles
because there was $6 billion ripped out of the federal transfers
to provinces by this government.
Will the Minister of Finance assure this House that the $6
billion will be reinstated to health care before any new program
initiatives are brought in by this government?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as I have made clear, this government shares the concerns of
Canadians that we restore and maintain the quality of health care
in this country. It is to that end that we are committed.
1450
The hon. member should remember that some of the emergency rooms
that are overcrowded and some of the places which require
reinvestment are in provinces that already have surpluses, that
have money to reinvest. If some provinces choose to cut taxes
instead of making those reinvestments, that should be taken into
account.
For our part, we have increased the cash floor for the provinces
and that signals our priority.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, we are getting the same old malarkey. They take
dollars and give back pennies.
The crisis in health care funding is a result of the money that
has been taken out by this government. Will this minister ensure
Canadians that we will have standards in place to ensure that the
quality of health care is not compromised? Will this minister
agree today to work with the provinces to achieve a health care
guarantee on standards of enforcement mechanisms so Canadians can
enjoy the same standard of health care right across the
provinces?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we are working toward that very objective daily. Next week I
will meet again with my counterparts in the provinces and
territories.
One thing I can tell my hon. friend for certain is that we will
not pursue that quality the way he and his party suggested by
removing cash transfers to the provinces and by removing
altogether any influence on the part of the federal government.
That is not the way to go. We shall do it the Liberal way. We
shall do it the effective way.
* * *
[Translation]
RURAL COMMUNITIES
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Rural communities make an important contribution to our country,
but they often feel neglected and forgotten. What is the government
doing to make sure the challenges confronting Canadians living in rural
areas all receive the same consideration as the issues that concern
those who live in urban centres?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my colleague has certainly pointed out
the importance of rural Canada in the strength of this country. I
am pleased to state that every program and policy that comes
before this government and the cabinet will be scrutinized
through a rural lens by the minister and the ministry so that
they can be fully applicable to rural Canada and rural
communities.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister of Indian affairs attempts to deflect these
criticisms of her department by saying that Reform would cut the
spending of her department. I want to tell her why we want to
cut the spending. It is because we do not believe that a fraction
of the money put in the top of that department ever gets to
grassroots aboriginal people.
Will the minister tell this House how much of the money poured
in the top of her department gets to ordinary aboriginal people
and how much gets sucked off by consultants, Liberals—
The Speaker: The hon. minister of Indian affairs.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition
drew these concerns to my attention some months ago. Indeed, I
have called his office on at least two occasions asking him to
come and join me and identify these specific allegations. I have
yet to hear from him. I am truly wondering if he is interested
in these files or not.
* * *
[Translation]
MILLENNIUM FUND
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the Minister of Human Resources
Development made the following comment regarding the Millennium Fund:
“We will strive to avoid any duplication of the services provided by the
Government of Quebec”.
Will the minister admit that the only way to avoid any duplication
of Quebec's financial assistance program is simply to give directly to
the Quebec government the moneys that it is entitled to, instead of
setting up any new structure?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the Bloc Quebecois member for giving me
another opportunity to remind the House and our fellow citizens that the
Quebec student loans program is funded to a large extent by the Canadian
government. Should any improvements be made to the Canadian student
loans program, the Quebec government will get its share for that
province's student loans program.
As for the Millennium Fund, we will make sure there is no
duplication because we want to work in partnership with the Quebec
government.
* * *
1455
[English]
LABOUR SPONSORED INVESTMENT FUNDS
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
labour sponsored investment funds are an important source of
venture capital for small businesses that wish to grow, expand
and create jobs. In Manitoba the crocus fund was responsible for
80% of all the venture capital issued in that province last year.
Will the Minister of Finance ensure the survival of these funds
by restoring the tax credit and the contribution ceiling to their
previous 1996 levels?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all I would like to thank the member for giving
me notice of this question.
As the hon. member knows, the tax credits for LSVCCs were
originally brought in by the federal government and the
provincial governments in order to make sure that these funds had
the initial impetus to get going. Since then they have raised
large sums of money and by and large have been successful. It was
deemed at that point by the provincial finance ministers and
federal finance minister that the generosity of the credit should
be cut back.
We are in the process of monitoring the situation.
* * *
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the president of the Medical Research Council of Canada, Dr.
Henry Friesen, recently wrote that the health of the health
research enterprise is in serious jeopardy. Its funding has been
slashed back to the 1987 levels, and it is now forced to reject
80% of its research requests. Canada is the only member of the
G-7 to have cut support for medical research.
Is this the minister's great vision for the future of health
care in this country?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when the government took office there was no doubt that
this country's financial back was against the wall. A number of
very important decisions had to be taken, none of which we wanted
to do, thanks in fact to the terrible mess that we inherited.
The fact is since then we have created the Canada Foundation for
Innovation and have put some $800 million into it.
We are very cognizant. The Minister of Health has been very
articulate on the importance of medical research and we will
continue to support it.
* * *
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Many people in B.C. and across Canada are concerned about the
report and recommendations of the Citizenship and Immigration Act
and how it will affect the lives of Canadians. How will the
minister ensure that the opinions of Canadians are heard and will
affect the decisions of this report?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the report of this advisory group
was made public on January 6, 1998.
In one way, the consultations can be said to have already
started because several Canadians have already responded and are
writing us daily and consulting our Internet site.
In addition, I am going to conduct a broad national
consultation, from Vancouver to Halifax, beginning in late February
so as to hear from the largest possible number of stakeholders
interested in immigration policies. We have even added
consultation days, and parliamentary committees—
The Speaker: Sorry to interrupt. The hon. member for Vancouver
Island North.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my wife and my children are status Indians. When the
minister of Indian affairs accuses us of being motivated by
prejudice, she is insulting me and my family. I demand that the
minister retract her statements that she made to the member for
Skeena.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
circumstances facing the hon. member, but I have to look at the
other facts.
I recall very clearly the former member for Capilano—Howe Sound
talking about the life of aboriginal people. Yesterday in the
House the member for Delta—South Richmond indicated quite
clearly his party's position when it comes to issues of
aboriginal rights. To them they do not exist.
1500
I have a final point. I am reminded of a Calgary Sun
piece of October 30, 1995, written by a man named Ezra Levant, a
main adviser—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis.
* * *
[Translation]
CANADA DAY
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
For Canada Day, the minister has organized a huge contest,
open to children under 18, that will close on February 27. Each of
the 12 provincial and territorial finalists will win a chance to
take part in the Canada Day festivities on July 1.
Does the minister think the prize offered is not enough to
interest young Quebeckers in taking part in the contest, since that
province's winner will be the only one to also receive a computer?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is a new one on me.
* * *
[English]
POINTS OF ORDER
COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. During question period the minister of Indian
affairs stated that my questions were driven by prejudice.
This is a totally and completely unacceptable statement for the
minister to make and I ask you to ask her to withdraw it
immediately.
The Speaker: The minister has been named. The minister
is in the House. She seems to want to get to her feet. She has
the floor.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was not trying to impugn
anything against the hon. member. I was just trying to reflect
the facts as I see them. If I have hurt them so severely, I
would be glad to apologize.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
SUPPLY
ALLOTED DAY—FUTURE OF QUEBEC
The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the
amendment.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, first
of all, I want to advise you that I will be sharing my time with my hon.
colleague from South Surrey—White Rock—Langley.
1505
For all the people out there who just joined us, I would like to
read the motion put forward by the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois.
The motion reads as follows:
That this House recognize the consensus in Quebec that it is
for Quebeckers to decide freely their own future.
This motion seems to deal with the concept of
self-determination, which is not without controversy, but is
usually considered as being fair and democratic. However, we will
not be able to support the principle of self-determination as
long as we do not clearly understand what it implies.
It is a well-known fact that, for the Bloc members,
self-determination includes the right to a unilateral declaration
of independence. Separatists have clearly indicated that they
refuse to consult with the rest of Canada, even if the decisions
made in their province will have a profound and lasting impact on
the rest of the country.
It is also clear that this motion tends to discredit the reference
to the supreme court, which will start next Monday. Some people are
opposed to any discussion about the possible legal restrictions to
secession. This reference to the supreme court to seek the opinion of
the highest court in the land on this issue is considered a denial of
the right to self-determination.
This shows clearly that, when the Bloc Quebecois and others speak
about Quebec's right to decide its own future, they are suggesting
that the rest of Canada is not entitled to participate in any way.
No change as profound and irreversible as Quebec's secession can
be made unilaterally. It can certainly be argued that, after a
vote on sovereignty, in which a clear question is put to the
public, and as long as 50% plus one of the population is in
favour, Quebec will be able to enter into negotiations with the
federal government. The people of Quebec have the right to
self-determination as long as these conditions are met.
There is no denying that separatist and federalist leaders in
Quebec have questioned the government's decision to ask the supreme
court to rule on a primarily political problem.
However, general agreement within Quebec's political elite does not
mean there is broad grassroots support among Quebeckers.
[English]
However recent comments made by Quebec's political elite have
suggested that self-determination and the right to declare a
unilateral declaration of independence are mutually dependent
self-supporting rights.
If self-determination includes the right unilaterally to deny
the northern Cree their expressed desire to remain Canadian,
their expressed desire to continue to be protected under section
91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, we cannot in good conscience
support this motion.
It should be clear that self-determination as it is explicitly
understood by Bloc members of the House is not supported by the
natives in Quebec. They cannot be counted among those who are
said to be in general agreement with the principle of sovereign
rule. Self-determination defined in such broad terms with the
inclusion of such sweeping political powers is clearly in
violation of aboriginal rights and is not supported by this group
of Quebeckers.
1510
If self-determination includes the power to unilaterally deny 50
municipalities in Quebec the right to remain Canadian, we cannot
in good conscience support this motion.
My colleagues from the Bloc are acutely and painfully aware that
there are municipalities across Quebec, each with its own
democratic mandate, which have voted to remain a part of Canada
should a yes vote unfortunately occur. I hope that these
municipalities and the hundreds of thousands of people they
represent are not wrongly included in the so-called consensus to
which this motion makes reference.
If self-determination is thought to include the right to
unilaterally secede from the rest of Canada, it is likely that
very few Quebeckers would support this principle. There are
censuses on the right to seek separation from Canada through
democratic and legal means. Legitimate democratic means would
involve seeking a clear indication of support from the people of
Quebec in a referendum presenting a clear question.
The legal avenue would necessitate that the province of Quebec
be obliged to enter into negotiations with the rest of Canada to
determine the terms of separation. Partition, passports,
currency and debt allocation are the issues that would require
open discussion before sovereignty could be achieved.
It is a tiny minority of Quebeckers who would wish to ignore the
legal and moral responsibility to settle on the terms of
separation before a unilateral declaration of independence. It
is in response to the position of this tiny minority that the
supreme court is offering its opinion.
The legal reference does not affect self-determination unless
this concept has come to include the right to ignore any legal
obligations to the vast majority of Canadians who wish to see
Quebec remain a part of Canada. To my amazement it would appear
that there are in fact some members of the House who would adhere
to this understanding of self-determination.
There is a better solution to our unity problems than to concede
defeat and argue over the process of secession. We can all work
together in the House to rebalance the federation. This is what
we call the third way. Members of the House know it well.
Let us join to make Canada work for Quebec, for Alberta and for
the rest of Canada. Members of the Bloc do the country a
disservice with their singular focus on secession. Canada can
work. I pray that we all can work together for this mutual
beneficial end.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Madam Speaker, before
asking my colleague a question, I would like to apologize to the
Reform Party for getting elected. During the last election
campaign, the Reform Party and its leader recommended electing
members whose leaders did not come from Quebec. I am even prouder
that I was elected with the best leader of all this country's
political parties.
Since the thinking is that we will get the courts to sort out
the constitutional question, I would like to ask my colleague
whether he still agrees with the advertising in the last election
campaign that was critical of Quebec's politicians.
It cost us at least 25 Conservative MPs in Quebec by polarizing the
vote and insulting all Quebeckers and French Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Madam Speaker, we all learn from our
mistakes. The message of what was said in those commercials is
simply what we have said from the beginning of Reform's
inception, that the west wants in.
We may not use the same way of getting that message across in
future and perhaps that could be up for debate. However most
people saw that message from Reform's point of view, We need to
have all Canadians involved in the constitutional process and in
any process that involves changing the constitution. Also the
leadership of the country has to come from across the country,
not just from one province and not from just one region.
That is the message we tried to get across. We continually
fight for the fact that the west wants in. In this case let us
try to represent regions effectively. That is what Reform stands
for.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Madam Speaker, I listened
carefully to what my colleague from the Reform Party said. I think that
he is champion of federalism, especially on the Quebec partitioning
issue.
1515
There is much speculation these days around the fact that, if
Quebec can part from Canada, it too can be divided or partitioned. The
example of the Cree is often given. I would advise my federalist friends
to be very careful with this very dangerous argument.
I will ask my colleague two questions. At least Quebec is light
years ahead of the rest of Canada in recognizing aboriginal peoples. In
fact, there is a National Assembly resolution providing for the
recognition of 11 aboriginal peoples. Will the Reform Party join the
Bloc Quebecois in recognizing for instance the 50 other aboriginal
peoples elsewhere in Canada?
Also, on the issue of partition, if my hon. colleague agrees that
Quebec can be divided and the Cree can leave with the northern part of
Quebec, the same rule should currently apply to Canada. Can the Nisga'a,
Sahtu, Dogrib and 600 communities in Canada afford to leave, each with
their little part of Canada? If not, the same is true of Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Madam Speaker, specifically what I have
identified in my speech today is that there have been groups that
have not only wanted recognition as the hon. member refers to but
want to remain a part of Canada regardless of what happens in the
politics of Quebec. I think that is something the hon. member
and the Bloc has failed to recognize. There are Indian groups
and municipalities that have said that regardless of Quebec's
secession, they want to remain a part of Canada.
The fact is that the Bloc has not addressed or talked about that
issue at all. Unfortunately, we do not get any details from the
Bloc when it even comes to secession.
To answer his second question, the fact remains as I said
earlier to a colleague who asked a question, we in the Reform
Party are looking at different ways. We know there are problems
in Quebec. There are problems in Alberta and right across this
country. That is why we are looking at a third option, something
that status quo federalists and separatists have not brought to
the table. We are looking at rebalancing the powers in this
country. We are looking at trying to work with the regions in
this country to make the federation stronger.
What I urge my hon. colleague from the Bloc to do is to start
looking at realistic options to try to build a stronger nation
for the future.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Madam Speaker, I
have a couple of questions I would like to ask the hon. member.
I consider him to be a very thoughtful member.
What this debate actually entails is to find out what the rules
are for secession. One fact we do know is that the supreme court
ruling will not tell us anything that we do not know already. At
the end of the day there are no rules when countries split up
either domestically or internationally. There are no 20 points
which we can actually put down on a piece of paper and say that
they are the rules if there is a yes vote in any referendum.
This kind of debate and this kind of question the government is
posing to the supreme court essentially privatizes the political
leadership of government.
I would like to ask the member again, because I understand him
to be a reasonable and thoughtful individual, about whether he
agrees with the ads which the Reform Party utilized in the last
election and should they ever be used again.
The second question I want to ask the member is whether he will
distance himself away from Ezra Levant's comments in terms of
what he stated in the Calgary Sun on October 30, 1995, on
the eve before the country could have actually broken up. Mr.
Levant makes comments such as “Say no to other special interest
groups. Is it any wonder that Canada has so many special
interest groups? After all, they see Quebec's payoff for being a
constant nag. If we kicked out Quebec, we might then have the
fortitude to tackle Canada's other ethnic separatists, natives”.
This kind of extremism is not what actually adds to the
political process. I ask the member if he will distance himself
away from these comments. Also, if he were the leader of his
party, would this person be under his employ?
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Madam Speaker, I think I made myself
quite clear when I answered the other question from a member of
the hon. member's party. The fact remains that the message was
quite clear in those commercials.
1520
Whether the presentation is going to be used again is up for
debate. Personally, I was not happy with the presentation, but
we learn from our mistakes, as we have seen from many members of
other parties.
The key is that the message was clear. It is something that the
west wants. We have to try to represent other regions of this
country equally in the federal Parliament. That is exactly what
we are going to stand by.
To answer his other question, it is interesting that the
Conservatives have brought this out of their sack of goodies. The
fact of the matter is Ezra Levant was not a part of the party
when he was writing for the Sun, like many other
journalists in this country when they report on politics. They
are allowed to voice their opinions and they are allowed to do so
freely.
I hope the hon. member is not suggesting that we should have any
censorship on the media or gag laws. That is something which
most members of this House would fight against.
The fact of the matter is, regardless of what he said as a
journalist, it does not reflect his current work for our party. I
am really upset that the member did not paint the proper picture.
The fact is that he was a journalist when he made those
comments.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Questions or comments. The hon.
member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.
[English]
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Point of order, Madam Speaker. It
should be my colleague on debate.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must tell the hon.
member that the information I have is that the member did have 10
minutes to speak and therefore the questions and comments period
is 10 minutes.
An hon. member: Five minutes.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): No. Ten minutes. The
hon. member was speaking for 20 minutes with 10 minutes of
questions and comments.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Madam Speaker I indicated at the
beginning of my speech that I was splitting my time with my
colleague.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid that I
did not hear that. We will have to check the blues and we will
get back to the hon. member.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
would like to give our friend from the Reform Party an opportunity to
practice speaking French in this House as he does on a regular basis.
He probably noticed recently that, in Quebec, federalists are
joining with sovereignists to state that the Quebec people should decide
their future, that the supreme court has no business interfering with
the freedom of speech of Quebeckers and that it is up to them to settle
the matter in a future referendum.
I would like to know what the position of the Reform Party is on
this issue in light of the emerging consensus among Quebeckers,
including federalists like Claude Ryan and Daniel Johnson.
[English]
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Madam Speaker, I addressed that point
somewhat in my speech when I said that even though there may be
some sense of consensus in Quebec, the fact of the matter is that
there is not a clear consensus as to whether first of all Quebec
has actual support for separation from the rest of Canada.
As the Conservative member pointed out, in the Constitution
currently there is no legal provision for any province to
separate from the federation.
Clearly we need to have some legal parameters as to what this
means. That is why we have supported the reference to the court.
Hon. David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak against
the motion of the Bloc Quebecois. The motion is that the House
recognize a consensus—
1525
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My hon.
colleague from Edmonton Strathcona before he started his debate
announced that he would be dividing his time with me, the member
for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley and I am ready to speak in
this debate.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): My answer to the hon.
member is that we are checking the blues right now. On the other
hand, under the circumstances if the House has no objection, does
the member has the unanimous consent of the House to speak at
this point?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Ms. Val Meredith: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the
opportunity. I have spent the last three months working with the
B.C. unity panel going around the province of British Columbia
discussing the issue of Canadian unity. I am very aware of the
emotions that run to a high level when we talk about this issue.
The motion the Bloc has introduced is “that this House
recognize the consensus in Quebec that it is for
Quebeckers”—and it was amended to read—“alone to decide their
own future”. I think the question is can they make that
decision on their own without consideration from the rest of the
country.
It would appear to me that this motion has arisen because of the
three questions that have been put before the Supreme Court of
Canada to make a recommendation on. I want to clarify what those
questions are for the Canadian public listening to this debate.
The three questions that have been put before the Supreme Court
are:
One, under the Constitution of Canada can the national assembly,
legislature or Government of Quebec effect the secession of
Quebec from Canada unilaterally?
Two: Does international law give the national assembly,
legislature or Government of Quebec the right to effect the
secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?
Three: In the event of a conflict between domestic and
international law on the right of the national assembly,
legislature or Government of Quebec to effect the secession of
Quebec from Canada unilaterally, which would take precedence in
Canada?
I would suggest that the question is not whether or not Quebec
can raise the issue of separation, that Quebeckers are not in a
position to say by referendum that they want to secede from
Canada. The question is do they have the right to do so without
the input from the rest of the country.
I know the analogy has been made before but the analogy of a
divorce is very apropos in this case. A member of a marriage can
state that they want to leave the marriage, that they want a
divorce but there are laws in our country that help that process
to proceed, that have to be followed for that divorce to go
through.
There has to be a mutual agreement on the division of assets and
liabilities. If a mutual agreement between the two parties
cannot be reached, then the intercession of the courts is
required. One partner cannot say that they are taking the house
and the kids and walk away from the marriage. If it is not
agreed upon, the courts enter the situation and the courts decide
whether it is fair for one spouse to take the house and one
spouse to take the children.
If there was not law in this matter and in all other matters,
then what we would have in this country is anarchy. I do not
think anyone wants to see that happen.
Quebeckers can decide whether they want to leave, but the laws
must be followed. Even the former Quebec premier, Jacques
Parizeau, understood the rule of law when writing the draft bill
that he introduced in 1994. I would like to quote two sections of
that draft bill.
In section 10 he acknowledged that laws passed by the Parliament
of Canada shall remain in force until amended or repealed by the
national assembly. It is very clear that he believed in the
existence of laws to give some direction.
The second thing that he acknowledged and which I want to quote
was, “In so far as the negotiations unfold in a positive
fashion, the national assembly will declare the sovereignty of
Quebec after an agreement is reached on the partnership treaty”.
After an agreement is reached.
1530
It is very clear that he did not mean an unilateral declaration
when he recognized the need for an agreement with the other
partner. I do not think it is possible for the Bloc to suggest
that Quebec can separate unilaterally and not allow or extend
that to parts of Quebec that could then unilaterally separate
from Quebec.
My colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona brought up the aspect of
the aboriginal communities and others who have specifically
indicated that they do not want to leave Canada and that they
would make the decision to stay in Canada given that option. For
the Bloc to suggest that Quebec has the right to unilaterally
leave Canada but not extend that to members of the Quebec
province, be they the Cree in the north or other municipalities,
is hypocrisy in the least.
Unilateral declaration of independence would set a precedent for
the Quebec Cree, for the Outaouais and the island of Montreal to
vote on partition. If separatists wish to ignore the decision of
the Supreme Court of Canada, they set the precedent for the
partitionists to ignore any Quebec court ruling. If Quebec
separatists believe that this is purely a political decision to
be made solely by the people of Quebec, they are setting a
precedent for the partitionists to make purely political
decisions made solely by the people in the affected regions of
Quebec.
There is a real myth that there is this thing called the rest of
Canada that Quebec could negotiate with. Separatists are living
a pipe dream if they believe that an independent Quebec would be
able to make a negotiation and an agreement with the rest of
Canada. If Quebec were to separate there is no guarantee that
the rest of Canada would remain intact. No one can predict what
would happen in the aftermath of the breakup of the country, but
none of the realistic proposals include a rosy scenario.
I assure separatists that if they were to be successful in
separation there would be very little willingness in British
Columbia to welcome Quebec as an equal partner. However British
Columbians are more than willing to accommodate Quebec within
Confederation.
Hopefully the country will never come to a point where Quebec
decides to leave. Hopefully the separatists will never get a
majority. It is clear to me and others that people in Quebec are
looking at a third option. People in Quebec are realizing that
separation is not the answer to getting rid of the status quo. It
is clear to me that people throughout the country, including
British Columbia, feel very strongly that Canada is worth
fighting for and Canada is worth making changes so that all
provinces, all regions, have a much greater say in their future.
Although maybe not perfect, the Calgary declaration was brought
by nine premiers to the Canadian public to talk about other
options: the devolution of power, the equality of citizens and
the equality of provinces. Hopefully this attempt by Canadians
to talk about the unity issue in a positive way, in a way that
all regions including Quebec can benefit from, will be
successful.
As a result of my work with the B.C. unity committee I can say
that Canadians are willing to talk and make concessions.
Canadians are willing to accommodate the differences in our
societies and in our country under the understanding that all
Canadians are equal and that all provinces have equal status
within Confederation.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Before carrying on with
questions and comments, I would like to offer a clarification.
We have checked in Hansard and found that the hon. member for
Edmonton—Strathcona had indeed said he would be sharing his speaking
time. I think this settles the matter.
1535
[English]
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Madam Speaker, we
will have to address three important elements in the whole
scenario of the right of Quebec to separate from the rest of
Canada. When Quebec entered into Confederation it became a part
of a partnership. At the time there were no terms concerning
what would happen in the event the partnership would come to an
end.
First, to that extent any one partner of all 10 partners in the
partnership would have to seek the consensus of the rest of the
partners, or at least the consensus of the majority of the
partners, before the partner departs.
The second one concerns the notion of native people in Quebec
who entered into a historical agreement with the rest of Canada
of the day. The agreement these people had with the rest of
Canada has to continue to remain intact notwithstanding what
would happen to Quebec.
Third, if we were to move with the assumption that Quebec is a
level of government that has a right to decide on its own what
happens to it, we would have to look at the third level of
government, the municipal governments in Quebec in urban settings
or urban cities such as the city of Montreal and other cities in
western Quebec.
If we were to move forward with the notion that Quebec is a
level of government that has a right to decide once it consults
its people, the city of Montreal as a level of government would
have the right to consult with its people and make a decision
based on it.
The whole issue is irrelevant now in light of what has happened
around the world. Borders are collapsing at an incredible speed,
faster than the speed of light. People are coming together
around the world faster than ever before. The European Union is
now moving toward political, monetary, economic and social unions
where language is no longer an issue. People to people relations
are becoming the prime element of our global village.
To that extent, rather than continuing to frighten the people of
Quebec and the small, medium and large businesses of Quebec with
uncertainties, we as Quebeckers, as Canadians, must work together
to ensure that society as a whole is meeting the needs of our
people. There is nothing one level of government in Quebec, the
provincial level of government, cannot do now within
Confederation. It can do just about anything it would like to
do. It has control over education, labour, health, immigration
and transportation.
What is it the Government of Quebec wants to do and cannot do in
the present Confederation?
Ms. Val Meredith: Madam Speaker, it is obvious a question
was not posed. It was just comments. However I agree with the
hon. member for Ottawa Centre.
It is a very serious issue. It is something that Canadians are
very able and wanting to address. Canadians want the issue
settled. They do not want to be dealing with the unity issue 20
years from now.
I urge my hon. colleagues to let us get on with settling the
issue once and for all.
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Madam Speaker, as I was saying before, the
government would oppose this motion but not because of its terms.
It reads:
That this House recognize the consensus in Quebec that it is for
Quebeckers to decide their own future.
This is fine.
It is because of the fact that the Bloc Quebecois refused to give
unanimous consent this morning to our proposed subamendment which
would roughly translate as being that Quebeckers should decide
their future but with respect for the rule of law and of
democracy for all.
1540
As Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa I have had
the opportunity to meet with people in places as diverse as Peru,
Honduras, Brazil, Uganda and Rwanda. Visiting places like those
has made me even more aware of how fortunate we are in Canada
with our high standard of living and our comprehensive social
safety net.
In some cases my visits have shown me just how important respect
for individual rights and democratic values are and the crucial
role that the rule of law and an independent judiciary play in
upholding both. These travels have already driven the message
home. If Canadians, with our virtually unparalleled good
fortune, are not capable of settling our differences and building
our future together, it does not bode well for many other people
around the world. A member of parliament from a southern African
country said to me a year ago that if this country could not stay
together how could his own country stay together.
Having written extensively on relations between western Canada
and central Canada I know that learning to live together will
remain a constant challenge for Canadians.
It is certainly an ongoing task but respect for differences is a
hallmark of the country. In my own province of Alberta, first
nations, British and French settlers have learned to live side by
side. They were joined by Ukrainians, Poles, Germans and people
of many other nationalities, many of whom were fleeing
persecution or economic deprivation in their own homelands. We
have welcomed a new generation of immigrants who are often from
the Pacific Rim and more recently from Latin America and the
Caribbean.
This history has made Canadians more open to cultural diversity
than perhaps anywhere else on the face of the earth. It is part
of who we are. I strongly believe that we can overcome the
difficulties of today and build a Canada for tomorrow that is
even stronger, more united and entirely secure in its diversity
because it is part of who we are as a nation.
I have been reminded that I am sharing my time.
[Translation]
My current portfolio makes me keenly aware of Canada's presence on
the international scene. This presence reflects our commitment to
democratic values and the lessons our country's true diversity has
taught us.
It was a Canadian, John Humphrey, who 50 years ago drafted the
initial Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which, as predicted by
Eleanor Roosevelt, was to become humanity's Magna Carta.
The Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs stated recently before an
American audience, and I quote:
Our democratic tradition, our commitment to the rule of law and our
bilingual, multicultural society have prepared us well to help
Eastern European countries and the former Soviet Union make the
transition to democracy.
As a matter of fact, we are doing our very best around the world to
convince governments to support human rights and the values inherent in
a democratic regime.
[English]
Would it not be an enormous shame if Canada, which has served as
an inspiration for so many countries, were to crumble? I do not
believe it will. The vast majority of Quebec, the Québécois and
Québécoises, will remain committed to building their future
within Canada; but if they should decide otherwise, it must be
with all the facts before them.
Nothing would be more sad for the country than if a quarter of
our population were to leave “in confusion without a legal
framework to overcome our divisions in a dangerous ambiguity that
is unacceptable in democracy”, to quote my ministerial
colleague.
[Translation]
I come from a province which is one of the engines of economic
growth and innovation in Western Canada. However, Alberta is also the
cradle of pioneer spirit in Canada.
1545
Therefore, in Alberta, we appreciate the kind of determination
needed to overcome difficult situations. So I do appreciate the efforts
required of French speaking Quebeckers not only to protect a mainly
francophone society on this continent, but also to allow it to prosper.
[English]
This is no small achievement. Now is the first time in the
history of humanity that almost an entire continent, North
America excluding Mexico, is more or less unilingual and more or
less unilingual in what has become a major international lingua
franca, the language of business, the language of the Internet.
In spite of this, since the beginning of Confederation, Quebec
has never been as francophone as it is today. In 1997 no less
than 94% of Quebeckers can express themselves in French. This is
a triumph for Quebec and it is an enrichment for the whole of
Canada.
[Translation]
I know solidarity is a value dear to Quebeckers. It is also
important to Albertans. Those of you who believe that Alberta is a
bastion of rough-edged individualists might be surprised to learn that
it has the highest percentage of volunteers of all provinces.
On a larger scale, Canadians from sea to sea feel they belong to
the same community. It could be said that it is when tragedy strikes
that our belief in solidarity shines through; such was the case during
the recent ice storm, the floods in Manitoba and in the Saguenay in
Quebec, and the tornado which ripped through my home town of Edmonton in
1987.
Every time it was obvious that Canadians care for one another and
love their fellow citizens.
Is there a more telling sign of the links uniting the prairies to Quebec
than the decision by the head of the Saguenay relief fund to send $1.5
million to flood victims in the Red River area in Manitoba?
[English]
Do we really want to see these ties broken by the secession of
Quebec? At an international level this solidarity is of vital
importance as well. Our two official languages give us an edge
when it comes to competing internationally. They are two of the
various official languages of the European Union, a market into
which we are seeking to expand. Both are recognized languages at
the United Nations.
English is the official language of 56 countries, and French of
33. Our country benefits for membership in both la francophonie
and the Commonwealth. It should be noted that our image abroad
is strengthened by the important role that Canada plays in
international peacekeeping.
It was a Canadian, former prime minister Lester B. Pearson,
who came up with the idea of an international peacekeeping force
for which he won the Nobel peace prize.
Since that time, thousands of our fellow Canadians have served
on international peacekeeping missions. Our bilingual capacity
has been invaluable in countries like Haiti, Cameroon and Rwanda
and in helping our troops to work with peacekeepers from other
nations.
Our peacekeeping is good for Canada's international image. The
fact that we are a united country gives us more economic weight.
Together we are strong enough to be a member of the G-7.
All provinces benefit from this membership. Domestically, all
employees benefit from being part of a large internal market.
The importance of international trade was underlined recently by
an economic who estimates that when adjustments are made for
distance and size of market, Canada's provincial trade is some 14
times more with each than with American states.
Quebec, for example, imports about $33 billion worth of goods
and services from other provinces. Our economic union, our
international strengths are important building blocks for the
future of this country.
To position Canada optimally for the challenges of the coming
millennium, we must draw on the strengths and diversity it brings
all of us.
I was delighted when the premiers met last September in Alberta.
They stressed the importance of diversity in drawing upon
statements and principles that can serve as well for the 21st
century.
As the premier of our smallest province, P.E.I., put it, the
Calgary declaration sends a positive signal to Quebec by
recognizing the province's unique character but it does so within
a framework that mirrors the ideals of a great many Canadians
from coast to coast.
It is a celebration of Canadian diversity with an emphasis on
the importance of provincial and individual equality. The
declaration of Calgary and the broad public relations it has
engendered can also be positive steps toward national
reconciliation and a stronger future together.
1550
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
listened carefully to the speech of the hon. member, who is a minister
as well as a lawyer. He is extremely familiar with the Canadian justice
system. I liked his serious speech. However, I would like him to look a
little further at what is currently going on in the justice system, and
especially at the use that the federal government, of which he is a
minister, is making of the Supreme Court of Canada.
I do not know if he had the opportunity to hear me this morning
when I made my speech where I tried to demonstrate in the 10 minutes
allotted to me that, since 1981, the supreme court, with the unilateral
repatriation of the Constitution, has been more than a tribunal that was
there to interpret the law. With these decisions, since 1981 and 1982,
the supreme court judges became legal scholars; they became tools for
the federal government to centralize more powers at the federal level.
Let us just think about the veto that was taken away from Quebec in
1982. In 1983, in trade and economy, there were some extremely important
judicial precedents.
In 1989, there was the General Motors case, where provinces were
told this is not your jurisdiction; everything at the interprovincial
level is under federal jurisdiction. There were decisions in 1990 and in
1993.
Recently, there was the Hydro-Québec case, where Hydro-Québec was told
that environmental studies were not their concern, but under federal
jurisdiction.
Each time Quebec went before the Supreme Court of Canada because it
had no choice, because it was taken there, even about the language law,
even about extremely important institutions in Quebec, it came out
weakened. I would like the member, as a lawyer, as a law professional
who looks at what is going on in the supreme court, to give me an answer
if he has reviewed the supreme court's decisions.
I would also like him
to explain to me why decisions made by Quebec's courts of appeal,
superior courts that come before the Supreme Court of Canada are
reversed six times out of ten by the tribunal known as the Supreme Court
of Canada. This is the case for Quebec.
But when it comes to decisions made by courts in other provinces, they
are reversed by the Supreme Court of Canada only four times out of ten.
Why is that? I would like him to explain this to me. Why is it that the
supreme court treats Quebeckers and the whole Quebec justice system in
such a way?
Hon. David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Berthier—Montcalm. His comments are very eloquent. I certainly hope
judges will read them and people will reflect on them. The hon. member
is well aware that, in West Germany, there is a constitutional court
made up of eight judges. Four of them are appointed by the Länders, and
four by the federal government.
In a federal system, I personally think we should have a court
whose members are appointed by both sides. I am convinced the hon.
member and the people in my region gave some thought to this issue. We
hope that, in the near future, the provinces, including Quebec of
course, will have the right to appoint half of the judges. It could be
that the people appointed by the two sides might be perceived as being,
shall we say, less neutral. I was very interested in the hon. member's
comments.
1555
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Timmins—James Bay, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
also very pleased to address the motion moved by the Bloc Quebecois.
First, let me say that I intend to oppose this motion. However, I would
like to explain why I hope Quebec will never take a chance and go for
the secessionist gamble.
For obvious reasons, French speaking communities in the other
provinces have special ties with Quebeckers. We speak the same language
and we may share more intimately certain episodes of our history.
As a Canadian and a francophone, I am obviously concerned by the
political situation in Quebec, and I hope that province will continue to
be part of our country.
There are of course many similarities between French speaking
Quebeckers and francophones from other parts of Canada. However, the
context in which we live is very different. Francophones who live
outside Quebec are in a minority position in three ways. They are a
minority on the continent, in their country and in their province.
French speaking Quebeckers are also in a minority on the continent and
in their country, but they form a majority in their province.
Linguistic and cultural insecurity can partly explain the desire of
some Quebeckers to opt for secession. We francophones living outside
Quebec are particularly apt to understand this feeling of insecurity.
We know, however, that the French language is not threatened in
Quebec and that it is becoming even more prevalent in that province.
Data from the last census shows that Quebec is more francophone than
ever and that the future of francophones in Quebec have never been so
promising. We can only be thrilled about the vitality of the French
language in Quebec because, as francophones outside Quebec, we also
benefit from this strengthening of the francophone community in our
country. What affects Quebeckers affects us as well.
[English]
My community has been called on to face special challenges. The
linguistic and cultural uncertainty experienced by Quebeckers is
felt by us even more intensely. We believe in solidarity among
the country's francophones and we have always counted on Quebec's
influence within the country to ensure francophone communities
from coast to coast to coast the cultural vitality needed for
their development. That is why we oppose Quebec secession.
[Translation]
The history of our country has been marked from the start with a
French presence that has influenced our collective journey. Our language
is part of our Constitution. The Official Languages Act recognizes our
country's linguistic duality and prescribes the use of both official
languages in every institution of the Canadian Parliament and
government. As for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it
ensures the growth of the French language and culture, along with the
many initiatives implemented by the Canadian government to this end.
We owe this official recognition to generations of francophones
from coast to coast who asserted their rights. That does not mean that
justice was always easily achieved. As is the case with any minority,
the historical journey of francophones outside Quebec had its dark
moments.
We still have to assert our language rights today.
All these struggles have created between members of my community
ties of solidarity that make us strong and proud. And we have confidence
in our future and in that of our country as a whole. The Canada in which
I live is no longer the one that existed under Regulation 17 in Ontario.
[English]
Canada's francophones are proud of what this country has become.
They have helped Canada to become what it is today, a country
distinguished by its openness and its tolerance. These great
human values are the essence of Canadian ideals. Francophones
and anglophones have learned to live together and to grow in
mutual respect. Naturally there have been some obstacles along
the way but no one can dispute that Canadians have achieved a
degree of maturity to which Quebeckers have greatly contributed.
We have achieved this because we have worked together, not
divided.
[Translation]
Nobody can ask me to be indifferent to the political debate in
Quebec. By separating from Canada, Quebec would take away a vital part
of ourselves. Nobody wants to deny the right of Quebeckers to express
their choice to separate from Canada if they were to do it some day with
full knowledge of the facts.
1600
It is essential that they fully understand the consequences of
the action they are contemplating. One of these consequences has
to do with the fate of the francophone minorities in the other
provinces.
It is obvious that, by staying in Canada, Quebec is in that
much better a position to promote the French fact in all regions of
the country. Quebec plays a vital role in our linguistic and
cultural development, as we too, for our part, help consolidate the
Canadian French-speaking community.
The best proof that Canada has never held Quebec back is that
its language and culture have flourished, to say nothing of
Canada's promotion of the Quebec culture internationally, so that
it is now associated with Canadians.
[English]
French language and culture are essential elements of the
Canadian entity. They strengthen the unique character of Canada.
While this vitality is due, as I have said before, to the
determination shown by francophone communities across the
country, it is also true that the recognition of the French fact
in this country has also played an important role.
Together francophones in every region of Canada have succeeded
in affirming the bilingual character of this country and have
helped to give it an identity that is expressed in a genuine
openness to the world.
Canadian federalism has greatly contributed to the French fact's
vitality throughout the country. Canada can reap the benefits of
its participation in the francophonie. Quebec also benefits from
its ties with this country with the different countries of the
Commonwealth.
Yes, francophones in Quebec and Canada have made a remarkable
contribution to building our country. That contribution stems
from a vitality specific to each of our communities. In every
region francophones are inspired by the same ideal, to make live
and flourish an identity enriched by their contribution to our
collective heritage.
Need I say more about Quebec's exceptional contribution in this
respect. Quebec should never feel this country is foreign to it
because, on the contrary, it has an exceptional place within it.
Canada would not be Canada without Quebec. I also think it is
right to say that Quebec would not be Quebec without Canada. We
francophones in other provinces need our fellow citizens of
Quebec.
[Translation]
Our ancestors had a great dream: to help francophone
communities survive in a country whose spaces were as far-reaching
as its ideals. Together, we have built a land of tolerance, in
which each of us can choose our own way of being Canadian without
apology. Canadians know that diversity is a strength, not a
weakness. It is in large measure to the maturity with which they
live out this diversity that they owe their international
reputation.
No one is thinking of forcing Quebeckers to stay within
Canada. If I may, however, I will tell them frankly what I think:
You would be making an irreparable mistake if you were to leave
Canada. Why renounce a part of what you are, of what we all are?
The loss would be everyone's. Canadians themselves would be
irremediably diminished, and francophones outside Quebec doubly so.
Together, as francophones from western Canada, the Prairies,
the territories, Manitoba, Acadia and Quebec, we have shown that
those who, through their sacrifices, their hopes and their efforts,
fulfilled the promise that the Fathers of Confederation saw in
Canada, were right.
Together, we have made this country a wonderful success.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok,
BQ): Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate the member
opposite for the speech he gave as a francophone outside Quebec. We in
the Bloc are always moved when we discuss this issue with our colleagues
opposite.
1605
The previous speaker's question was just as emotional: “Why would
Quebeckers want to leave Canada, a country as beautiful and great as our
ambitions? We can be Canadian any way we want.” That is what he said in
his speech. We do not have anything against francophones outside Quebec.
We love them too. But the hon. member forgot to mention that Canada was
founded by two peoples, the two founding nations as they are called in
Canadian history books. These two peoples each had their own territory,
one was called Upper Canada, the other one, Lower Canada, and they have
become Quebec and Ontario.
That was the beginning of the famous 1867 Confederation.
After that, more people joined Canada, and the last province to join
was Newfoundland. I hold no grudge against them, but they had two
referendums and joined Canada after the third one. This decision was
made by Newfoundlanders. I do not think my father ever told me
Quebeckers were consulted in 1949 on the admission of a new province.
The question that begs to be asked today is this: Why should the rest of
Canada be consulted today if Quebec wants to separate and go back to the
situation before it entered into an association with Upper Canada, which
is now Ontario?
Why should Quebec want to separate from Canada? That was the
member's heartfelt cry. Maybe because we do not feel a lot of respect,
maybe because we want things we cannot get within Canada.
My question to the member opposite is this: Why did his government
choose Plan B, which focuses on repression?
“If you do this, you will get a slap on the wrist.” In more polite
terms, the reference to the Supreme Court tells us: “We are going to ask
a few questions, and the way they are asked, it all means the same
thing.” For some of us, the questions as phrased call for a certain kind
of answer.
Let me ask the hon. member why his government or the people in his
party are not looking for ways to keep Quebec in Canada. During the last
referendum, the Prime Minister made promises in Verdun. What are they?
Are they reason enough for Quebeckers to stay? Instead of wasting their
energy looking for legal tricks to force us to stay in Canada, they
should look for real solutions. If they do not have any, Quebeckers will
stay on the same track, and I can assure my hon. colleague I will make
an excellent neighbour.
Mr. Réginald Bélair: Madam Speaker, I
hope the hon. member is speaking in the name of his colleagues from the
Bloc when he says he recognizes at least that there are many affinities
between French-speaking Quebeckers and francophones outside Quebec
because we must admit to ourselves and to all Canadians that we,
francophones outside Quebec, come from the province of Quebec, one way
or another.
In 1925, my father, who incidentally was from Boucherville, settled
in northern Ontario, so I am a francophone immigrant. Consequently, I
have no doubt that we have a lot of affinities. The message I conveyed
in my maiden speech is that I do not understand why Quebec would want to
separate from Canada since, in my humble opinion, it has benefited just
as much as the other provinces from being a part of Canada.
1610
I am happy and proud to say that I am living proof that it is
possible to live in Canada, to exercise one's rights, to keep one's
mother tongue, one's culture and even to blossom. This is why I say to
Quebeckers: “Make no mistake about it, the best solution for you is
still to stay in Canada. Think seriously about the consequences”.
I wish I had more time to speak.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker, I want to
participate in this debate, which the Bloc Quebecois launched today to
bring this House to recognize that only the people of Quebec should
decide their own future.
It is also with some emotion that I heard my colleague who has just
spoken and who is, if I may say so, a francophone outside Quebec.
I would like to tell him that what the people of Quebec want is the
collective ability to establish their own priorities, to develop their
potential, and to fight poverty, as it competes annually with
Newfoundland for the title of poorest province.
Many Quebeckers are tired of seeing the Quebec government fight with the
federal government over a budget surplus to which Quebec has contributed
more than the other provinces, because the Employment Insurance Act was
especially hard on Quebec and the maritimes and the reduction in
transfers hurt Quebec more than other provinces.
Now that the deficit has been wrestled to the ground, the federal
government wants to use the money to give scholarships, for example. But
the political life in Quebec is marked by these endless fights. If only
this had started six months ago and could be resolved within two years.
But this is not the case. The truth is that the people of Quebec, who
are concentrated in what we call the State of Quebec, must usually
fight with less powerful weapons.
Finally, what we want to say today is that the people of Quebec
themselves are the driving force behind this democracy. That is a basic
fact: only the people of Quebec can decide for themselves. If there is
one thing that we can declare in this House, it is that. The right of
one people to make its own decisions takes precedence over a Supreme
Court that was created by another people for its own ends. Always we may
respect its intentions, we cannot let another people decide what shape
democracy will take in Quebec.
That is the bottom line. We must go to the bottom of things.
Liberal and Reform members say that if Quebeckers can make the decision,
then municipalities will have to ask themselves questions. The members
across the way and beside us do not want to recognize the right of the
Quebec people, but they are ready to give that same right to
municipalities which are administrative creations of provincial
governments.
When I hear the hon. member and others speak about the Canadian
dream, I can only see a theoretical Canada where the two languages and
the two cultures can flourish.
1615
That is not how things are in real life. The truth is closer to
what happened in Nagano, the truth is that we had to fight some battles
for Quebec artists to be able to pursue their careers, because many of
them receive financial assistance to promote their art throughout
Europe. The truth is we had to face huge cuts in higher education and we
will have to fight because they are trying to go over our heads by
setting up two grants systems. And I could go on.
The debate tonight is part of our history, of our evolution.
Quebeckers and their longing for sovereignty have been around for
a long time. It is a result of history, but not only of history.
Our project does not dwell on the past. It is forward-looking. It
is a result of a socio-economic and democratic project that will
no longer suffer any obstruction. As I said before, poverty also
affects a lot of people in Quebec. In education, the needs are
great and there are many of us—people of my generation and
others—who are fed up with debates that lead nowhere.
As I said before, there is a theoretical Canada, the Canada which
is said to be the best country in the world, but where the political
leaders do not care enough about the best country in the world to wonder
what it would take to keep the other founding nation part of the
country. The other nation, not just a province. What do they offer us?
They tell us we should stay in the best country in the world as a
province just like the others and that we should be very pleased to
remain in this country and also that we should be very careful if we are
serious about leaving because they will not let us go so easily.
This Canada only exists in theory. The truth is that if Canadians
were so concerned about this great country of theirs they would be
worried. They would finally agree that Quebeckers are a people. They
would take a look at other federations, not uninational federations, but
multinational federations, and get concerned.
But we are faced with the terrible situation of a people governed
by a government which does not want to face the problems, because
it is committed to saying that it is the best country in the world,
a government whose political leader is incapable of looking at what
could be done, and who knows only how to refuse negotiation of a
future partnership, and to use threats.
What the Bloc Quebecois has said on numerous occasions is that,
with its present leadership, Canada is headed—and
rapidly—toward a dead end. It is amazing to see how few people outside of
Quebec will say so. I must say that I am very proud that Claude
Ryan has acted consistently with what he has done for most of his
life. Although I have often disagreed with him, he has taken
courageous steps in the past, and this is one more.
The same
thing goes for Daniel Johnson, Jr. In 1965, his father wrote
Égalité ou indépendence. In it he said that if there were no
equality between the two nations, French Canada and English
Canada, it would be understandable if the French Canadians in
Quebec were to wish to realize their full potential there, and he
was not opposed to that. Daniel Johnson, Jr. sometimes remembers
that point. He has stated that the question must be decided in
Quebec.
For us, this was a fundamental debate.
1620
It is up to the Quebec people to determine its future and we
deeply regret that the federal government has dragged the supreme
court into it, because the way the question is worded is very
tricky and neither Quebec nor Canada can get out of it easily, on
the contrary.
This desire of Quebeckers, which we have now expressed a
number of times in our history, will be forcefully expressed again,
and you will have helped us in the end.
[English]
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to ask the member opposite if she would
care to comment on this. She mentioned that a lot of what we are
very proud of in Canada is in theory only. However, I can think
of two of the most important votes that I as a member have voted
on. One was the Newfoundland school question and the other was
the Quebec school question. Those votes were a clear
demonstration that this country and its constitution are willing
to keep time with current events as they unfold and also to make
room for an emerging nation.
I would ask the member opposite how she could make those
comments in the face of legislation which has already been
passed.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I cannot respond for
Newfoundland, but I can for Quebec and say we wanted to carry out
this reform a very long time ago. Had it passed this time in the
House of Commons—I deeply believe so, and I am not speaking for
my colleagues—Newfoundland too had a problem, and Quebec could
have posed its problem in the same process.
However, you have to understand one thing. It is a small part
of the problems we experience as a different people. When we see
how Canada is changing and how Quebec is changing, we are forced to
admit that they are not changing differently, they are growing
apart. It is quite legitimate for you to change in one direction,
as it is for us to change in another.
We are tired of having to fight over every little thing when
the matter of jobs is so important as are the issues of fighting
poverty, education and economic development.
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Timmins—James Bay, Lib.): Madam Speaker, as
there is not much time left, I shall be brief.
Could the hon. member for Mercier tell us, first of all, how Quebec
would go about giving back to the rest of Canada its share of the
national debt? Also, how would a new Quebec government give money back
for all that was investment in infrastructure, anything provided by the
federal government in Quebec, including occupational training?
Mrs. Francine Lalonde: Madam Speaker, this is a very interesting
question.
I will tell you that the sovereignists in Quebec have been giving
a great deal of thought to what would happen “after” for quite some
time. The Bloc Quebecois had been instrumental in defining such terms
and conditions. Discussions were held, as they were byn the Bourassa
government in Quebec, at the commission on sovereignty. We have looked
at negotiating strategies.
During the 1995 referendum campaign, a booklet was distributed to
every Quebec household and this booklet said that, following a victory
of the yes side in the referendum, the National Assembly would make an
offer of partnership; this would naturally entail negotiating assets
because part of these assets are ours.
1625
These matters would be addressed as part of negotiations carried
out afterwards, but nothing stops us from looking at various scenarios
together before then. In fact, we would feel it is quite normal to start
now.
To do so, one must recognize and agree that this offer of
partnership made after achieving sovereignty may provide the basis for
settling disputes. Bear in mind that our goal is to maintain an economic
zone. The various treaties that will have to be signed may require that
ministers meet on a regular basis, as some sort of political body.
Basically, what we want is to be able to pursue our dreams without
bothering the rest of Canada and for the rest of Canada to stop
interfering with this pursuit so that we can work in partnership and
like each other better.
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Madam Speaker, I would never
have thought that I would speak about the very foundation of democracy
in our society that I considered a democratic one until today.
Today, I would be ashamed if I were a Quebecker and an elected
Liberal member of this government. I will therefore bring to the
attention of Liberal members elected by Quebeckers the consensus that
was achieved in Quebec.
Despite their allegiance to federalism, their fellow citizens never
denied the right to decide for themselves the future of Quebec, their
Quebec. I invite these members to respect their constituents and the
consensus of the people and of the major political stakeholders,
including those of the Liberal Party of Quebec, and to support the
motion moved in this House by the 44 Bloc Quebecois members.
I address them—you—directly as a part of the Quebec society.
The decision of the Quebec government to respond to the possible
choice of the people of Quebec in favour of sovereignty is a political
decision, not a legal one. A court of justice will never be able to
replace the will of a people. A court will never be able to impose on a
whole nation a road it did not choose to take.
In fact, public remarks made by former leaders of the no side fully
demonstrate that there is a strong consensus in Quebec. I remind this
House once again of the statements made by Mr. Ryan and Mr. Johnson,
because I think that, as the day gets closer, it is better to recall the
essential things.
Mr. Ryan said: “I support a most elementary principle, namely the
primacy of democracy over any other consideration in an issue as
fundamental as determining the future of a nation”. He even stated that
it would be a tremendous victory for democracy if the Supreme Court
clearly confirmed that the right to self-determination is fundamental
and must be respected by all means.
As for Daniel Johnson, leader of the opposition in Quebec and
leader of the no committee in the 1995 referendum, he said that the
Supreme Court should not deny Quebec's right to self-determination. And
I quote: “Quebeckers will decide what will become of them, and it is
they who must determine the referendum question”.
The wisest thing the court could do is to give politicians the
responsibility of finding democratic answers to the questions that were
submitted to it.
Quebec politicians have demonstrated their ability to steer the debate
on Quebec's political future with the utmost respect for democracy.
On many occasions, Canadian politicians have shown respect for the
approach taken by the people of Quebec. But after the close results of
the 1995 referendum, the rules have changed. The old rules were no
longer applicable and valid. That is when the federal government decided
to set its plan B in motion, that is the hard line strategy.
It seems clear to me that the future of seven million people cannot
be decided by nine judges of the Supreme Court of Canada.
1630
This misuse of the court by the Prime Minister and his associates
shows that they seek victory at any cost, regardless of democratic
principles. Plan B reflects a unitarian vision of federalism, in which
the historic equality of the two founding nations is scorned.
The referral asking the Supreme Court to rule on Quebec's right to
secede is illegitimate since the federal government's real objective is
not, as claimed, the respect of the rule of law. The government is using
that pretence to try to have the Supreme Court judges take part in
lowdown dirty tricks. This referral is an attempt to fraud democracy. It
is an attempt to put our democratic institutions under state
supervision. This referral denies the existence of the people of Quebec.
There is still time for the court to avoid undermining the Quebec
democratic and political process. In order to do so, Supreme Court
justices must refuse to answer the questions submitted by the federal
government. I am referring in particular to the judges from Quebec,
Chief Justice Antonio Lamer, and Justices L'Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier.
We urge them to refuse to play the game of a federal government running
out of arguments and strategies to stop the sovereignist project.
If I rise in this House to ask Supreme Court judges not to answer
these questions, it is because the referral to the Supreme Court is a
basic demonstration of the inability of Canadian federalism to meet
Quebeckers' historic demands.
Let us talk about history, the official one and the other one.
Historically, Quebec's gains were made within the political sphere, in
the respect of democracy.
Let us remember the nationalization of electricity, the Caisse de dépôt,
the creation of the local community service centres, the powers relating
to culture, language and immigration. These development tools were not
given to Quebec by the Supreme Court of Canada. We got them by occupying
the political space, in the respect of democratic rules. The result is
that we have now become a modern democracy.
The other history concerns the heart of Quebeckers. It has to do
with the very fabric of the people of Quebec.
I am a native of the lower St. Lawrence region and my family, the
Lizottes, owns the same land since the 17th century. Like other
families, over the years, it has welcomed the unfortunate survivors of
the great famine that struck Ireland and Scotland. We are tolerant,
generous and open.
My great-grandfather was a seagoing captain. At the time, the motherland
was constantly in contact with our founding people.
I grew up in this environment, and I learned to understand and to
protect my people. This is where my political commitment comes from.
With a pride reminiscent of that of my ancestors, I am asking Supreme
Court judges to refuse to answer the three questions, and to let
Quebeckers decide their future themselves.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take the floor for
questions and comments on the speech by my colleague for Louis-Hébert.
She dealt with the substance of the matter. It is quite important to
point out that this debate has been requested by sovereignist members,
who have come to Ottawa in order to make sure decisions on Quebec's
future would be made democratically.
We were given a mandate in 1993, and it has been renewed in 1997,
after the referendum. People tell us we lost the referendum and we
should accept these democratic results.
We do accept them, but we think we can go on trying to convince
Quebeckers because we have been able to raise the level of support from
40% in 1980 to 49.4% in 1995.
1635
Our approach is a democratic one, and I am very proud that we are
the ones who raised this issue.
I appreciated the call to Liberal members, especially newcomers,
those that have nothing to do with the Trudeau generation, who did not
take part in the process that gave us the Canadian constitution, a
constitution for the judges. When the constitution was unilaterally
patriated, it was to create a society ruled by the judges, the Pierre
Elliott Trudeau society. The result is an ever greater involvement of
the judiciary.
My question to the hon. member for Louis-Hébert is this. If the
Liberal majority in the federal Parliament votes down our motion, would
that not be an even greater rupture than the unilateral patriation of
the constitution? Once more, Quebeckers would realize that the country
in which they want to live would not make such undemocratic decisions.
Ms. Hélène Alarie: Madam Speaker, I think my colleague has
raised a very important point. If we do not have the agreement of
our colleagues in the House today, we will probably be facing an
even greater impasse than the one we faced when the Constitution
was unilaterally patriated in 1982.
Talking about working towards rapprochement and understanding
is one thing, but I think that if members oppose the most basic
step of allowing a people to define themselves and be able to say
what they wish to become, if they ignore this issue, I really
wonder how this could ever be put behind us later on. I see some
very sad times ahead.
Mr. Yvan Bernier
(Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I will give you a small lesson in geography. The riding of
Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok is the
nose-shaped part of Quebec that extends into the Gulf of St.
Lawrence. I will take this opportunity to echo my colleague from
the Lower St. Lawrence region, who said that her family still has
its parcel of land from the 1700s.
Back to the Gaspé in the Gulf
of St. Lawrence.
All the inhabitants of Upper and Lower Canada, all those who live
in the western part of my riding, passed by us on their way up
the St. Lawrence and now the members opposite are telling us what
to do, that we can no longer decide for ourselves. I will not
stand for it and, on that note, I give the floor back to my
colleague.
Ms. Hélène Alarie: Madam Speaker, I will continue the
heartfelt words of my hon. colleague. It is true—
An hon. member: It's frustration.
Ms. Hélène Alarie: No, not frustration. It is true that we
have everything we need in hand, and have proven it with all of the
decisions, all the organization of our political structure in
Quebec, everything we need to continue to determine our own future
without waiting for someone else to do it for us.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, in response to the
Bloc Quebecois motion, I wish to reaffirm the position of the
Government of Canada, which acknowledges the right of Quebeckers to
decide their future. It is precisely because it believes in that
right that the Government of Canada has introduced certain
initiatives to ensure that the debate for the possible secession of
Quebec is held in an atmosphere of clarity and transparency. It is
only then that the right of Quebeckers to determine their future
takes on its full meaning.
1640
[English]
It is clear that Quebeckers cannot be kept in Canada against
their clearly and democratically expressed will, but they must
not lose Canada without having renounced it clearly. A clear
question, a legal, orderly process acceptable to all, an
enlightened decision made by citizens who have all the
information they need and a clearly expressed will, these are the
essential components for Quebeckers to be able to decide their
future. To settle for less would be to deny Quebeckers the
exercise of their democratic rights that clarity and transparency
are paramount for the Government of Canada.
[Translation]
Some information that has now been made public reveals the
true intentions of the Government of Quebec at the time of the 1995
referendum, and the approach it had in mind, even after a weak yes
on a nebulous question.
The unilateral declaration of independence, plan O or the big
game plan of Jacques Parizeau, as well as the famous political and
economic partnership suggested by the referendum question but
described now by Mr. Bouchard as just the bare bones, or a summary,
clearly demonstrate that the process for taking a decision as
serious as separation from Canada must be clear and transparent.
The process proposed by the PQ government to achieve sovereignty was
irresponsible and unrealistic, and the negative consequences of a vote
in favour of secession were not disclosed.
Not only must the process be transparent, but the consequences of
a vote in favour of Quebec's separation must be clearly explained to
people. The fact that the government was prepared to risk losing over
$17 billion in people's savings for the unrealistic purpose of limiting
panic on the markets after a victory of the yes side—this after
assuring people that the consequences of such a victory would not be
alarming—clearly shows that the right of Quebeckers to decide their
future must be exercised with full knowledge of the facts. The decision
to break up a country must be taken with full knowledge of the
consequences.
Quebeckers must be allowed to decide, but they must also know
exactly what they may have to give up.
The confusion generated by secessionists regarding the consequences of
Quebec's separation convinced the Canadian government to ensure the
clarity and transparency of the process. Do I have to remind the House
that, according to a CROP poll taken in July 1997, 44% of Quebeckers who
voted yes thought Quebec would still be part of Canada after a yes
victory?
The President of the Queen's Privy Council and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs reaffirmed the importance, for
Quebeckers, to have all the information required to properly
exercise their right to decide their future. In a letter dated
February 6, addressed to Mr. Ryan and dealing with the reference
to the supreme court, the minister wrote “Through this reference,
the Government of Canada seeks clarification of an important
issue, that of the legal aspects of a unilateral secession. We
believe Quebeckers and other Canadians are entitled to that
information. Above all, the decision whether or not to secede
should not be made on the basis of myths and false theories”.
[English]
We could add that the governments of Quebec and Canada alike
have a duty to take necessary measures to inform citizens of all
the aspects of a possible secession by Quebec. I repeat, only
under those conditions does Quebec's right to decide its future
take on all its meaning.
The Government of Canada has and will always have the
responsibility to respect that duty, to provide information that
is incumbent on every government.
[Translation]
The current Quebec government said on a number of occasions that,
should the yes side win a referendum, even with a small majority, it
could separate Quebec from the rest of Canada by unilaterally declaring
its independence, adding that neither the Constitution nor the courts
have a role to play in a secession. The Government of Canada is of the
opinion that such a statement has no legal foundation.
1645
In fact we rather agree with Lucien Bouchard's statement in
his book Mot à Mot, and I quote:
Quebeckers, whatever their stripe, did not and do not agree
with living outside the Constitution of Canada, when we live
in a society based on the rule of law. And Canadians have to
understand this.
Secession within the law would already cause huge problems.
While it is true that unilateral secession has no basis in law, it
would raise problems that are even more difficult to overcome, as
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs indicated in his letter
to Mr. Ryan.
In it he said that one of the consequences of such legal
instability could fly back in the face of the secessionist
government, and I quote:
Many Quebeckers would claim the right to not lose Canada in
the confusion, without a recognized legal framework. The
Government of Quebec would have a hard time obliging its
citizens to comply with its laws, since it would have moved
itself outside the legal framework. We Quebeckers would not
want our society plunged into such instability.
No person and no government would benefit from such
instability, which would, in turn, create economic uncertainty and
threaten peace in society.
The action taken by the Government of Canada for clarification
purposes in no way questions the legitimacy of a referendum. The
aim is not to prevent Quebeckers from expressing their opinion on
their political future, but rather to clarify certain matters of
law to enable Quebeckers and other Canadians to better understand
the scope of the unilateral action proposed by the current
Government of Quebec.
[English]
Among other things the principle of the rule of law protects the
democratic rights of the population. It ensures that over and
above the political choices of the day all democratic principles
underlying society and guaranteeing its existence within an
orderly and peaceful context are respected.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs went further in his
letter to Mr. Ryan, stating that the law is necessary in order
for political action to take place democratically and not in
anarchy.
[Translation]
The Government of Canada undertook to explain clearly what was
at stake in a possible third referendum on Quebec's independence
and, in particular, the consequences of unilateral secession.
I agree with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs when he
says that, as a Quebecker, he wants to be sure that neither he nor
his fellow citizens will lose their identity or their full rights
as Canadians in the confusion, with no legal framework to decide
our disputes, in a dangerously unclear state that is democratically
unacceptable.
I cannot support the motion introduced by the Bloc Quebecois
because this party refuses to recognize the rule of law, as we saw
with its refusal to agree to the amendment moved earlier today by
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty
pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the
questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as
follows: the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, Education; the
hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington, Trade; the hon. member for
Frontenac—Mégantic, Dairy Products.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. parliamentary
secretary. As always I was impressed with the logic and concise
nature of the arguments he put forward against the motion before
us today. Among the many good points he made, he made it quite
clear that we must at all times in this very civilized country
rule ourselves in accordance with the rule of law.
1650
It would seem to me that an avowed separatist would want to
pursue a strategy to achieve his or her objectives which are in
accordance with the laws of the land. After all, in the case of
a favourable vote in accordance with a good clear question, he or
she would want the international community to recognize that
decision.
Could the parliamentary secretary elaborate a bit more on the
importance of the rule of law in any civilized society,
particularly as we might unfortunately at some time face another
referendum in Quebec on the question of separation? Why is it so
important to remind all Canadians and all Quebeckers that we must
at all times conduct ourselves in accordance with the rule of
law?
Mr. Paul DeVillers: Madam Speaker, the member emphasizes
the point that the government is trying to make sure that Quebec
or any other province is not denied the right to determine its
own position within Confederation or, for that matter, outside
Confederation.
The rule of law is important. This needs to be done in an
orderly fashion. I would like to quote from the former justice
minister and current health minister when he was in the process
of this reference to the supreme court. He made reference to the
rule of law by saying:
The rule of law is not an obstacle to change. It permits change
to take place in an orderly way. It allows Canadians to alter
and adjust institutions that govern our country in a fashion that
reflects our values of consensus, dialogue and accommodation.
The government is hoping to have clarification. It is not a
question of attempting to deny the right of Quebec or any other
province to determine their own future. We trying to guarantee
that it is done in an orderly fashion.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker,
I know the parliamentary secretary was sincere in what he said, but
I think he abandoned originality and emphasized sincerity, because
it was a speech straight from the Privy Council, prepared by speech
writers obviously hired for that very purpose.
I have three comments and one question. When our colleague,
the parliamentary secretary, says that we do not know the
consequences of sovereignty, if he says something like that at this
point, then he has not followed the debate, because all Quebeckers
know that, on the day Quebec becomes sovereign, through democratic
means, no other means having ever been considered, there will be
three consequences: Quebec will keep all its taxes; Quebec will
decide on its international politics, and there will be a single
parliament, the National Assembly, that will pass laws having force
over its territory. So, the next time the parliamentary secretary
is asked about the consequences of sovereignty, he can give as a
reply what all Quebeckers know.
What is at issue in the parliamentary secretary's discourse is
whether he admits that, unlike Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and
Saskatchewan, Quebeckers form a nation and that, because they form
a nation, they have the right to decide their future
democratically. And does he admit that that is basically what the
last two referendums were about? Once his government took part, it
recognized Quebeckers as a nation.
I would like to hear what my hon. colleague has to say about
this.
Mr. Paul DeVillers: Madam Speaker, the documents the government
just submitted to the supreme court mention there would be many
people in
both Canada and Quebec; however, as I said in response to the member's
question, the questions the government put to the supreme court are
aimed at clarifying what the consequences would be.
1655
Even the speech my honourable colleague opposite has just
criticized mentions there are questions, claims regarding sovereignty
that need answering. The Parizeau government set $17 billion aside to
try to calm the financial markets.
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Madam Speaker, we
have had a motion before us I would like to reread to be sure that I
understand its terms and that there is no confusion.
That this House recognize the consensus in Quebec that it is for
Quebeckers to decide freely their own future.
I have some reservations I would like to express. Despite these
reservations, I was almost prepared to support the motion. Some would
consider my reservations fundamental. Often it is simply a matter of
semantics. Are Quebeckers a people, when the definition in the
principle of the founding peoples included much more than Quebec?
In spite of this potentially contentious difference, this was not reason
enough for me not to support the motion.
It mentions a consensus. The word consensus has become a buzz word.
It is being used, abused and interpreted. Is there really a consensus in
Quebec? This too is contentious, and I am far from convinced there is
one. In spite of this I might have supported the motion.
We moved an amendment. It said “while respecting the rule of law
and the principle of democracy for all”. This amendment was not
accepted. So I have to say no. Democratic values are being promoted
abroad. In Quebec, inclusively—
Mr. Yvan Bernier: Madam Speaker, I would like you to remind my
colleague opposite that the Chair ruled on the amendment in question
this morning and that a parliamentarian should not question a ruling by
the Chair.
Mr. Paul DeVillers: Madam Speaker, I want to remind the House that,
this morning, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs proposed an
amendment. The Chair ruled that amendment out of order. The minister
then asked the unanimous consent of the House for his amendment to be
accepted, but the House refused to give unanimous consent. I am not
questioning the Chair's ruling, but these are the facts.
Mr. Jacques Saada: Madam Speaker, our society, both in Canada and
in Quebec, has a tradition of promoting democratic values, and I do not
mean only at home. I am speaking here of our influence around the world.
The role that Quebec and Canada play abroad is marked by this desire to
promote democratic values throughout the world.
How is it that what is good for others is not good enough for us?
How can we refuse that any debate be based on a fundamental and
inescapable premise, which is respect for democracy for all? If that
term is not included in this motion, then I cannot support it.
1700
The supreme court was put down in just about every speech made by
members of the Bloc Quebecois today, but this was not the first time. I
am not trying to make the point the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs made this morning but, if the supreme court has so little
credibility, why is it that, less than two weeks ago, Serge Ménard, a
Quebec minister, the former justice minister as I recall, was quoted in
Le Devoir as stating that, following a separatist victory in a
referendum, should Quebec declare its independence or sovereignty, he
would be prepared to repatriate the three supreme court judges who are
Civil Code experts.
There is a contradiction in there, a double standard. The same
argument is twisted around.
The amendment providing that the rule of law be respected was
defeated. As far as I know, correct me if I am wrong, there are only two
alternatives with the rule of law. Either you have it or you do not and
face anarchy or dictatorship. The rule of law is fundamental, so much so
in fact that, regardless of political affiliations, it has been a
fundamental basis of our lives for centuries.
Not only as a Quebecker, a francophone and a federalist, but also
as a human being who advocates stability for the people, I find it
deeply disturbing when an amendment concerning respect for the rule of
law is defeated. There is a fundamental contradiction.
Granted—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Order, please. On a point of order, the
hon. member for Richelieu.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, you heard what the previous
speaker just said. He just challenged the Chair's ruling, and that is
unacceptable. It goes against the democratic process established in this
House.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member for Brossard—La
Prairie was not taking issue with the motion, but with the decision
made by the House. It was the decision of the House, not the ruling made
by the Chair. It is the House, not the Chair, that did not accept the
amendment.
Is the hon. member for Richelieu rising on a point of order?
Mr. Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, first there was a ruling made
by the Chair, and then the House did not give its consent. So, to come
back to this decision is a direct challenge to the Chair. The decision
made by the Chair is being challenged. Members should never challenge a
ruling made by the Chair.
Mr. Jacques Saada: Madam Speaker, first, I am pleased to see that
some members are listening to what I have to say. Second, I want to
condemn all attempts, for dubious technical reasons, to stop me from
addressing the issue. I will not stand to be muzzled.
I want to make it clear that I recognize the freedom of Quebeckers
to decide their own future, but with freedom come some responsibilities.
The first is to ensure the security and stability of the people of
Quebec, these Quebeckers, and I am one of them, who have already
expressed their opinion twice on this issue.
I have confidence in the choice Quebeckers will make if the
question is clear and shows respect for the rule of law and guarantees
democracy for everyone. I am confident, but I am not sure my opponents
are ready to put as much faith in their fellow citizens.
1705
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Madam Speaker, I have several questions to ask my
colleague.
First, he raised the consensus issue, that is what is an adequate
consensus. Does the fact that the leader of the no side in 1980, Mr.
Ryan, finds that the federal policy in this area is unacceptable, that
the leader of the committee in 1995, Mr. Daniel Johnson, the current
leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec, finds it unacceptable, not seem
to be the beginning of an interesting consensus in Quebec?
Second, when Liberals say “a clear question”, that is an insult to
Quebeckers. If the question had not been clear, do you think that 93% of
the people would have answered it?
His whole political organization worked to have people vote on the no
side. That means that you are contradicting yourselves.
Is there not a clear message in there? Is it not a insult to the
intelligence of Quebeckers to tell them that the question was not clear
and that there was no possibility to decide properly? Quebeckers came to
a decision in 1980, came to a decision in 1992 on the Charlottetown
accord, came to a decision in 1995. They know full well the political
issue that is at stake. It is an insult to their intelligence to show
such an attitude.
Third, what we reproach the supreme court for is not the fact that
it is a tribunal. It is the federal government that uses the supreme
court as a tool, with three loaded questions, to ensure beforehand that
the answers will be the ones it wants to obtain.
That is a tactic one usually resorts to when one knows once are
losing. Instead of trying to win on the skating rink, they are trying to
change the rules of the game. It was the same thing this morning with
the amendment.
There is an important distinction to be made. This morning, the
minister was not able to move his amendment because it was out of order.
It is not my fault if he still does not know how things should be done.
If he does not know our procedure, and if there were difficulties within
the majority in Parliament, it is not my problem.
But it should never be said that this amendment has been rejected
by people on this side. It was not accepted because it was out of order.
Mr. Paul DeVillers: Madam Speaker, this morning, the minister was
following the practice of this House. Anything can be done with
unanimous consent. It happens all the time, and it is not exceptional.
The hon. member is impugning the minister's motives, but he could
perfectly well do what he did under the rules of the House.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is
the second time a ruling of the Chair has being challenged. The hon.
member is telling us the House could have reversed the Chair's ruling on
procedural acceptability. That is not so. Once again, the integrity of
members on this side has been questioned, just as the Chair's integrity
has been.
This situation should be clarified, and the Chair should tell these
members they should be talking to the motion before the House and not to
an amendment that has been ruled out of order by the Chair.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): This matter has been debated
long enough. I have already made a decision and we will go back to where
we were in questions and comments.
Mr. Paul Crête: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to see that we did
touch a nerve with the majority on the other side. To get back to the
wording of the motion, the motion on which we will vote is very clear
and simple.
When the member, as a member from Quebec, will return to his
riding, when he will have to make a decision before his fellow citizens,
before all Quebeckers, will he say that he voted against what should
have been in the resolution, rather than what is actually in it? He will
have to bear this responsibility before all Quebeckers, like all the
other members from Quebec.
I am very anxious to hear his answer to this question. Is he able,
in all good conscience, to say that he has Quebeckers' interests at
heart when he denies their right to decide their own future?
1710
Mr. Jacques Saada: Madam Speaker, I am much more concerned
about Quebeckers than about the separatist government of Quebec.
I hear talk of a consensus, when—
Mr. Louis Plamondon: That is an opinion.
Mr. Jacques Saada: Democracy is all about letting people speak
when it is their turn. There is talk of consensus. Has somebody
forgotten to mention the fact that Mr. Ryan, whose intellectual
contribution to this debate I always welcome, was very definite on
the need for a clear question and solid rules of interpretation?
There is no mention of that, because it does not serve their
purpose.
The insult was trying to get Quebeckers to swallow the affront
of an unclear question, an unclear interpretation and no plans from
Mr. Parizeau. That was the insult.
Now what I find totally hilarious is the arrogance I see. If
the members opposite are so sure of winning, why do they fight the
principle of a clear question with clear rules of interpretation
and a clear context? Why are they trying to fool the people if
they are so sure? René Lévesque must be rolling over in his grave.
[English]
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
pleased to rise this afternoon to add my voice to the debate on
this motion.
[Translation]
I thank you for allowing me to speak on a subject so important
for everyone as self-determination.
[English]
Surely the issue of people determining their own future is one
of importance for all Canadians and one I strongly support in
principle. It is the particular application of this principle
that we must now take time to explore.
When a member of a family decides on a plan of action that will
have significant impact on other members of the family, it is of
course essential that such impact be weighed carefully. I
appreciate the opportunity given us here today to develop that
exploration.
Having had the opportunity to explore issues affecting
aboriginal peoples, I am particularly concerned about this motion
in general and the notion of consensus in particular.
What about the aboriginal peoples of Quebec? Much of northern
Quebec is the traditional land of the Cree and Inuit. Roughly
15,000 square kilometres of the province's north are exclusively
dedicated to aboriginal peoples. Quebec's aboriginal peoples
include Inuit, Cree, Micmac, Malecites, Algonquin, Huron,
Montagnais, Abenakis, Attikameks, Naskapis and Mohawk people.
These people need to know what plans the hon. member and his
party have in store for the traditional peoples of these lands.
The wording of the motion is very general and ambiguous. What
plans are there for negotiations and discussions with these
peoples before and during this “decision of their own
future?”
The Quebec boundaries extension act of 1912 stated that the
province would recognize the rights of Indians to the same extent
as the Government of Canada had recognized such rights. It also
provided that the trusteeship of Indians in the territory and
management of lands reserved for their use would remain within
the Government of Canada. Does the Bloc still plan on upholding
the principles outlined here or is it planning to try to deny the
rights of aboriginal peoples in northern Quebec?
What about the position taken by the Cree people in Quebec?
Their position during the last referendum was that they had the
right to maintain their territory in Canada. This cuts to the
heart of one of the difficulties with this motion. While it
supports the right of self-determination for Quebeckers, surely
the same must be true for aboriginal peoples within Quebec.
To support self-determination for Quebec in general but then to
deny that same provision for the aboriginal peoples living within
the boundaries of Quebec is not only contradictory but sets back
the tone of relations with aboriginal peoples to a time to which
surely none of the members in this House would wish to return.
The motion refers to the ambiguous concept of consensus.
1715
How does the hon. member reconcile this with the notion of
self-government? The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples
stated:
The right of self-determination is vested in all aboriginal
peoples of Canada including First Nations, Inuit and Metis. It
is founded on emerging norms of international laws and basic
principles of public morality. Self-determination entitles
aboriginal peoples to negotiate the terms of their relationship
with Canada and to establish governmental structures that they
consider appropriate for their needs.
How does this notion take into account self-determination for
aboriginals?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It being 5:15 p.m.,
it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith
every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The question is on
the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those in favour
of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Call in the members.
1745
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
|
Borotsik
| Brien
| Brison
| Charest
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lefebvre
|
Loubier
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
| Matthews
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Muise
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
| Price
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Wayne
– 54
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bailey
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Cohen
| Collenette
| Copps
| Cullen
|
Cummins
| Davies
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Elley
| Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guarnieri
|
Hanger
| Harb
| Hardy
| Harris
|
Hart
| Harvard
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
|
Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
| Jordan
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lincoln
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacAulay
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Manning
| Marchi
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Mayfield
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McNally
| McTeague
| McWhinney
| Meredith
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Morrison
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
|
Reynolds
| Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| St - Julien
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Wilfert
| Williams
|
Wood – 201
|
PAIRED
Members
Bertrand
| Canuel
| Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Longfield
| Marleau
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Pratt
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
1750
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1755
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bigras
| Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Brien
|
Brison
| Charest
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hardy
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Loubier
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
|
McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
| Muise
|
Nystrom
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Power
| Price
| Proctor
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne – 67
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assadourian
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bailey
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casson
| Catterall
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Cummins
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Duncan
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Elley
| Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvard
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lincoln
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacAulay
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Manning
| Marchi
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Mayfield
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Meredith
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Morrison
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Obhrai
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Pankiw
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Ramsay
| Redman
| Reed
|
Reynolds
| Richardson
| Ritz
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Solberg
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stinson
| St - Julien
| Strahl
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Wappel
| Whelan
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
|
Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 187
|
PAIRED
Members
Bertrand
| Canuel
| Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Longfield
| Marleau
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Pratt
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
1800
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a question of privilege. I feel that my abilities as a
parliamentarian have been obstructed and threatened due to a
gesture by the member for Langley—Abbotsford.
The member showed me and several of my colleagues, in a gesture
of anger during the vote, the middle finger of his right hand.
Perhaps the member would like to apologize for this extremely
rude and unparliamentary action.
The Speaker: It is difficult for the Speaker to check
Hansard because such a gesture would not be recorded. I
did not see it.
I would hope that hon. members would refrain from making
gestures which are offensive to other members. I would rule that
it is not a question of privilege, but I would encourage all hon.
members to treat each other with the utmost courtesy at all
times.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
FINAL OFFER ARBITRATION IN RESPECT OF WEST COAST PORTS
OPERATIONS ACT
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.) moved that Bill
C-233, an act to provide for the settlement of labour disputes
affecting west coast ports by final offer arbitration, be read
the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate
on my private member's Bill C-233 which provides a process to
prevent costly strikes and lockouts at west coast ports.
As new MPs in 1994 one of the first emergencies we were forced
to deal with emanated from a work stoppage at west coast ports.
The Reform Party has always understood that when labour disputes
occur in the transportation sector or at the ports, it is the
users, the innocent third parties who pay the costs. Since we
arrived here four years ago there have been three occasions when
work stoppages in these sectors alone required back to work
legislation.
In February 1994 the dispute between the British Columbia
Maritime Employers Association and the International
Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union shut down west coast
ports for almost two weeks. One year later, in March 1995,
parliament was called on to bring an end to a dispute between the
foremen from this very same union and the Maritime Employers
Association. No sooner had this group been ordered back to work
than we were called upon to pass another bill legislating an end
to a work stoppage, this time in the railway sector.
On each occasion the Reform Party pressed the government to act
quickly to protect the livelihood of the users. Rather than deal
with each work disruption on an ad hoc basis, we believe it would
make more sense to deal with all potential disputes ahead of time
by establishing a process called final offer selection
arbitration.
1805
This government, however, does not see the need for a permanent
solution. For some perverse reason it passes up every
opportunity to solve the problem once and for all by giving both
sides the tools to settle their disputes. The government prefers
instead to take a piecemeal approach to labour issues. Nowhere is
this more obvious than when the labour bill currently awaiting
second reading is examined.
The Canada Labour Code has jurisdiction over only 10% of the
country's workforce, yet a work disruption in any federally
regulated work place has immediate, far-reaching and long lasting
effects on the entire nation.
Because of the unique nature of the federal system alternate
sources are often not available. It is in the interest of all
Canadians that we have reliable access to essential services to
keep employment within our borders and to establish and maintain
a reputation worldwide as exporters of goods.
Our reputation as reliable exporters and shippers is dealt a
severe blow every time work stoppages occur in the vital
transportation and port sectors. Like a boxer, the more frequent
and prolonged the blows the longer it takes to get back up until
eventually the match is lost.
As a trading nation we cannot afford to lose ground. Today's
global customers require a stable, dependable supply of goods. In
a proper functioning labour environment, employers and employees
both have to weigh the costs if they resort to a strike or
lockout.
Employees will have to forgo wages, live on a meagre strike pay
and face possible personal financial hardship. Employers, on the
other hand, stand to forfeit lost sales and revenues. These are
normally powerful enough incentives for a negotiated settlement.
In key economic sectors, however, this normal safeguard does not
apply. The knowledge that work stoppage will not be permitted to
last for any length of time must be factored into the negotiating
process. If they cannot achieve their goals at the bargaining
table all too often negotiating parties will give up and allow
the federal government and its arbitrators to settle the dispute
for them. Unfortunately the real victims of this process are not
the employers and employees, but Canadian farmers, producers,
importers and exporters.
Good labour relations cannot be legislated. Final offer
selection arbitration, however, gives the parties the tools to
resolve their differences. It does not favour one side or the
other.
Here is how it works. If and only if the union and employer
cannot make an agreement by the conclusion of the previous
contract, the union and the employer would provide the minister
with the name of a person or persons they jointly recommend as an
arbitrator or an arbitration panel. The union and employer would
be required to submit to the arbitrator or panel a list of the
matters still under dispute.
For disputed areas, each party would be required to submit a
final offer for settlement. The arbitrator selects either the
final offer submitted by the trade union or the final offer
submitted by the employer; all of one position or all of the
other. The arbitrator's decision would be binding on both
parties.
A permanent and fair resolution process must be put in place,
removed from the whims of government. Back to work legislation
has become too predictable and management and unions count on it.
Permanent legislation would provide both sides with predictable
rules and a timetable by which to negotiate.
The risk to Canadian jobs should be minimized. Not only a
significant number of jobs would be lost in the export sector if
these disputes could not be resolved, but jobs at the ports will
be at severe risk when alternative means to ship goods are
utilized. The use of more reliable U.S. west coast ports would
result in the loss of cargo and British Columbia jobs in the
ports.
The cost interruption of government business should not occur.
While there is need for regulation by various levels of
government, it is unnecessary to put emergency measures in place
each time labour and management are unable to reach a
satisfactory agreement.
Resolving the differences of these two groups can be achieved
without interrupting the regular flow of government proceedings.
1810
We are not talking about ending the collective bargaining
process. We are talking about making it work better. Every time
back to work legislation is used it usurps the collective
bargaining process.
Final offer selection arbitration is not a new concept. As a
matter of fact, it was used by the government to settle the 1994
longshoremen's dispute. At that time the minister of human
resources development said:
The imposition of the final offer selection procedure should
encourage the two sides to demonstrate a strong sense of
rationality in deciding on the positions they place before the
arbitrator.
That is what we have been saying all along.
Even the Mulroney government saw the benefits of final offer. It
included it in the 1987 National Transportation Act as a
mechanism to solve pricing disagreements between shippers and
railways. One transportation writer described it as a very
useful precedent for all rail shippers, in that it confirms that
an inexpensive and expedited recourse is available when
manufacturers or producers are dissatisfied with their freight
rates.
The problem is that no government has yet been willing to
enshrine final offer selection arbitration in the Canada Labour
Code as a permanent dispute settlement mechanism. The best
solution the government could manage is the half measure in Bill
C-19, the amendments to the labour code, which would force grain
handlers and longshoremen to cross the picket lines of their
colleagues to ensure that the grain already in the ports is
loaded on to ships.
By the time parliament intervened in 1994 in the dispute between
the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association and the
International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union the work
stoppage is estimated to have run up $125 million in direct
costs, $250 million in indirect costs, and $500 million worth of
grain sales had been threatened. During the best of times this
is a very severe hit on the national economy. In a recession it
is devastating.
At the moment, despite the problems with the Canadian dollar and
the recent jump in the unemployment rate, analysts describe the
economy as strong. Yet a prolonged strike or lockout in the
railway sector could wreak havoc with this recovery.
Grain represents 30% of the port of Vancouver's business. There
is no doubt about its importance. I would be the first to agree
that grain farmers have been forced to endure more than their
fair share of losses due to labour disputes beyond their control.
The minister was in Vancouver last month begging farmers to
support his bill but he is missing the point. Farmers do not
want to be pawns in other people's labour disputes. They have
enough obstacles to contend with from the weather to the wheat
board.
Once again the threat of a rail strike hovers over us. In March
1995 when parliament legislated an end to the railways dispute,
the legislation included provisions mandating two year contracts
with an expiry date of December 31, 1997. A nationwide rail
strike this spring is a very real possibility. Contract talks
involving 6,500 CN Rail workers collapsed over the weekend
despite the presence of a federal conciliator, and a strike vote
is not unlikely.
The provision which the government is proposing as a solution to
the problems of farmers will be useless if there is a rail
strike. Final offer selection arbitration as described in the
bill would give farmers, producers, importers and all exporters
that use west coast ports the assurance that their goods would
reach consumers unimpeded.
Final offer selection arbitration is not discriminatory. It
does not single out one commodity over another like the Liberals
are attempting to do with their proposed amendment to the Canada
Labour Code. It is fair to importers that are suffering because
of the dismal value of the Canadian dollar. It is fair to grain
farmers who, thanks to the Canadian Wheat Board, have enough
problems trying to sell their grain. They deserve to be spared
the ongoing threat and uncertainty of strikes and lockouts.
It is fair to all producers and exporters who use the west coast
ports to ship their goods to market.
1815
The time has come to include final offer selection arbitration
as a permanent dispute settlement mechanism in the Canada Labour
Code.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Labour, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this
opportunity to participate in today's debate on Bill C-233.
I read my hon. colleague's bill with some interest and I am
surprised by the lack of balance in the bill. I know my
colleague tries very hard to achieve good solutions. However, it
puzzles me that the member opposite has proposed such a rigid and
mechanical approach to labour relations, especially at a time
when rapid economic change both in Canada and around the world
requires imaginative responses to difficult problems.
Free and fair collective bargaining is a cornerstone of
industrial relations in Canada. Members will ask is the system
perfect. My answer would be no, but what system is?
Our history and experience have demonstrated that collective
bargaining has served the interests of labour and management well
and, by extension, it has served the interests of Canadians well.
The best solution in any dispute is the one arrived at by the
parties themselves in the give and take process of collective
bargaining. That is where this government feels that the
responsibility should rightfully remain.
We pride ourselves as a free and democratic society and in such
as society it is not the government's job to intervene and impose
solutions on people. However, there are times when the rights
and freedoms of different groups must be weighed against the
interests of the nation and the well-being of its citizens as a
whole.
No one disagrees with that but in labour relations in the
federal jurisdictions we already possess the tools required to
ensure that a balance exists between the national interest and
the rights of the parties involved in a labour dispute.
My hon. colleague across the way is nodding and giving me a
thumbs up.
Let me explain what I mean. Right now, if there is a labour
dispute at a port, part I of the Canada Labour Code gives the
minister and the government a variety of tools to help the
parties. The goal is to assist the parties in their negotiations
so that an agreement can be reached and a contract signed.
First, a conciliation officer is made available to assist the
parties in their negotiations. Should the parties fail to reach
agreement at this stage of the process further assistance can be
rendered by a conciliation commissioner if deemed appropriate. At
any time a mediator can be appointed to assist in the resolution
of issues in dispute.
As members can see, there is no shortage of assistance available
to help the parties reach a settlement.
The preamble to the Canada Labour Code states:
It means that in Canada we recognize that labour unions have
made lives better for millions of their members. It means that
labour unions have an important role to play in the economy. They
also have an important role to play as a safeguard for workers
rights.
When the Sims task force looked at part I of the code, it
concluded that “free collective bargaining continues to serve
our social and economic needs”.
In other words, the benefits of free collective bargaining
usually outweigh the inconvenience caused by any strikes. When I
say usually, I mean there will always be times when a strike
causes too much damage for the economy. I think this is what the
member for Wetaskiwin had in mind when he drafted his bill.
His party mainly represents rural ridings where agricultural
interests are dominant and important. If the ports are closed,
produce does not head for its destinations abroad.
1820
Ports play a crucial role in the distribution of goods into and
out of this country, and a lengthy work stoppage cannot only
create economic hardship but also it can jeopardize the
country's reputation as a reliable trading partner in the
international scene.
I am not going to argue this point, particularly in light of the
legislation interventions which have been made in the past. There
are times when the national interest demands an end to work
stoppage and back to work legislation becomes an unfortunate
necessity. That legislation normally includes a number of
provisions, including a process to resolve the issues in dispute.
Final offer arbitration is one of the many mechanisms which may
be chosen. Final offer arbitration can be a useful tool if used
to settle a single, definitive issue such as the amount of a wage
increase. But the implementation of this process across a broad
range of issues is not appropriate.
The key weakness of final offer arbitration is that the
arbitrator picks one side's position on all issues in its
entirety over the other side. Suppose you have a labour dispute
where the union wants an end to outsourcing, 50 cents more an
hour and a dental plan. Management offers 25 cents, no dental
plan and no end to outsourcing.
Some feel that final offer arbitration will encourage
compromise, but it could well do the reverse. If you know that
final offer arbitration will force someone to win everything and
someone to lose everything, and if you know that final offer
arbitration is based on final offers, you have a very good reason
to stand pat and to take your chances.
Moreover, with final offer arbitration you cannot split the
difference, 35 cents more an hour, keep the dental plan but allow
management to continue outsourcing. That may be the best solution
but with this process it can never happen. Either one side gets
everything it wants or the other side does. End of argument. The
more complicated the dispute, the worse it gets.
How, for example, would you use final offer arbitration to solve
disputes in a court over manning provisions, rules of dispatch,
grievance procedures or overtime? When you try to use final
offer arbitration for complicated labour disputes, inevitably one
side is left very bitter, and this bitterness keeps on poisoning
the workplace after. It is very serious.
Instead of the sense of satisfaction that comes from settling
differences through collective bargaining, you may instead have a
legacy of simmering anger that manifests itself down the road.
There are better solutions. Bill C-19 currently before this
House modernizes part 1 of the Canada Labour Code and improves
the collective bargaining process for federally regulated
industries. It balances the rights and the responsibilities of
employers, unions and employees and it reflects Canada's changing
labour relations environment. It will improve flexibility and
encourage settlement of disputes.
I see my hon. colleague saying “well”, but perhaps that is a
move forward and I feel that is progress too.
We have tried to strike a balance and I do not feel that Bill
C-233 advances our interest at all. Instead of seeking a balance,
it eliminates the balance completely. I urge all members of this
House to vote against Bill C-233.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, as
I understand Bill C-233, the Minister of Labour would have the
authority, without coming back to the House of Commons for any
debate, to suspend the right to strike or lockout in the west
coast ports or, where a strike or lockout has occurred, to direct
the parties back to work. Then any outstanding differences would
be settled by final offer selection and the findings of the
arbitrator would be binding without any recourse to appeal.
1825
That much seems straightforward. The bill makes the argument
that the movement of goods to market through our west coasts
ports is so critical to the nation's well-being that workers in
that sector should not have the right to withhold their services
if negotiations break down.
Stripped down to its basics, that is the essence of the bill. I
am happy to rise today to speak against it on behalf of the New
Democratic Party and on behalf of working people everywhere for
whom free collective bargaining is their only avenue of recourse
if they ever hope to elevate their standards of wages and working
conditions.
Elements of the right wing in this country have tried to take
away workers' right to strike for years. It is an ongoing
battle. This is only one in a serious of attacks on worker rights
that we have seen from the Reform Party. I do not what it is
about fair wages and worker rights that so offends the members of
the Reform Party, but bill after bill and motion after motion
submitted by them seeks to strip away the most basic fundamental
rights and freedoms that we as Canadians have put in place in the
interests of fairness and justice for working men and women in
this country.
Since ancient times people without power in the traditional
sense have been using the tactic of withholding their services as
a bargaining tool to achieve their objectives without resorting
to violence. In ancient Greece the playwright Lysistrata tells
us that the women in that community were so sick of their
husbands warmongering and pillaging expeditions that they
withheld their services from their mates until the men would
listen to reason. The author tells us that before long the front
of the men's togas look like tents pitched in the desert. Before
long the collective action taken by the women began to have the
desired effect. The men were willing to sit down and accept the
counsel of their partners and things gradually returned to normal
relations much to the relief of all concerned. That may be the
first recorded strike in known history.
My point is that the right to withhold services is a legitimate
and peaceful means of protest. It is one of our most basic
rights and freedoms as working people. The New Democratic Party
caucus is opposed to any legislation that would erode that
fundamental right.
We heard a great deal about final offer selection during the
recent postal strike. The Reform Party critic at that time was
arguing that all future negotiations between Canada Post and the
Canadian Union of Postal Workers should be settled by final offer
selection. It seems they want everything settled by final offer
selection. They have such confidence in the process.
I do not want to burst anyone's bubble but there is nothing
magic about final offer selection or any type of binding third
party arbitration. There is certainly nothing new about it. The
fact is final offer selection is of very limited value to labour
relations practitioners, as was very capably explained by the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour. It has great
limitations in what it can do to resolve a round of bargaining
that has reached impasse.
Negotiators already have the option to use final offer selection
in any round of bargaining they see fit. As such it becomes
another tool in the tool chest for negotiators to use. But we do
not need legislation to voluntarily stipulate ourselves to some
form of binding arbitration because that option already exists.
It is interesting to note that final offer selection has its
origins in major league baseball where it is still used largely
today. It is hardly in an industrial setting but it is useful to
look at their experience in major league sports.
The only fair and useful way to use final offer selection is if
the items in dispute are very simple and straightforward, as the
parliamentary secretary pointed out. For instance, if all that
is left on the table are the monetary issues, the money matters,
then there is some value in putting your final offer forward and
the selector will choose either one or the other.
It is generally agreed that FOS process is heavily biased toward
the employer when dealing with any matters other than money. For
example, it would be very unlikely for workers to achieve any
type of non-monetary gains such as changes to work rules, the
introduction of new benefits, a language that might recognize
family leave or any clause that would be difficult for the
arbitrator to weight against a cash offer from the employer.
Arbitrators, like judges, are very much creatures of past
practice and precedence. They are reluctant to break new ground
with their rulings.
They feel, quite correctly, that new and innovative approaches to
industrial relations should be arrived at through negotiations,
not through any kind of imposed settlement.
1830
Therefore in a case involving complicated non-monetary issues,
the arbitrator in all likelihood would rule in favour of the
employer. The employees would never achieve clauses that were
important to them and having lost the right to strike they would
not be able to apply further pressure in the form of withholding
their services.
I have tried to explain what I do not like about final offer
selection and I would like to spend the last few minutes I have
explaining what I specifically do not like about Bill C-233.
In the province of Manitoba where I am from we actually had
final offer selection legislation for a number of years. As a
labour relations practitioner, as a union representative I had
the occasion to not only follow that legislation very carefully
but to actually use it in my own collective bargaining.
The actual fact is in Manitoba FOS was used very sparingly. In
fact the Manitoba labour relations board received only 97
applications in all the time that it was legislation in that
province. Of those 97 applications only seven were ever ruled on
by an FOS selector or arbitrator. Four went to the union package
and three were in favour of the company in those rulings. In the
vast majority of cases, 72 in all, the application was withdrawn
because the parties returned to the bargaining table and found a
satisfactory resolution by more conventional means.
This illustrates my first criticism of Bill C-233, that nowhere
in the proposed legislation are the parties encouraged to
continue meeting to resolve their differences after the FOS
process had begun. As I say, in Manitoba this led to a
satisfactory resolve in a large majority of the cases.
Also in Manitoba either the employer or the union could make
application to the minister of labour if they wished to use the
FOS process. The minister would then order a supervised vote of
the employees in the bargaining unit to determine if it was their
wish to conclude this round of bargaining by final offer
selection.
Bill C-233 never asks the parties. It is the minister involved
who would impose his or her will on the two parties involved in
the negotiations.
Also the Manitoba legislation stipulated that the parties could
only apply for FOS between two windows: either between 30 and 60
days prior to the expiry of a collective agreement, or after a
strike had gone on for 60 days or more. This was crafted with a
specific idea in mind, that it is far better for the two parties
to use their normal avenues of free collective bargaining as much
as possible without third party interference.
So only if the two parties agreed to FOS 30 days or 60 days
before the expiry date, or only if the two parties had already
been on strike for over 60 days would the legislation even be
relevant.
We in the New Democratic Party are very critical of any labour
legislation that imposes binding time limits, such as clause 9(3)
of Bill C-233. It not only has binding time limits, but it has
severe penalties if anybody misses those time limits. We believe
that this flies in the face of the deemed fairness provisions
that most labour relations practitioners are striving to achieve.
In that sense we are critical of both the tone and the content of
clause 9(3).
In summary, Bill C-233 is an intrusive and heavy handed proposal
that has little or no merit in the labour relations environment
of a 1990s democracy. It is poorly crafted and it is riddled
with serious flaws and omissions. Even if it were better
written, members of this House should speak against it because it
does nothing to further the cause of harmonious labour relations
in this country. It would further erode workers rights by
stripping away that most basic and fundamental right which is the
right to withhold your service as a peaceful bargaining tactic.
Final offer selection is a little used bargaining strategy
because it is of little value and it is of questionable merit. It
is available and free to use for those who choose to use it, but
it is certainly not necessary to impose a heavy handed bill such
as Bill C-233.
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on Bill C-233 in support of
my colleague from Wetaskiwin. He has put a great deal of thought
and a great deal of time into this problem, not only for the west
coast ports but for other matters which may later be addressed by
this as well.
1835
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour said that
she was very puzzled by this. I will try to clear up some of
those things that seem to puzzle her.
She said that final offer arbitration is very one sided and
results in one side being very bitter about the settlement. I
suggest that she ask the Canadian Union of Postal Workers what it
thought of her government's settlement which used a different
method. She should ask if the postal workers are bitter.
She may be even more puzzled by something that is in keeping
with the comments of the NDP member who just spoke. He spoke
about how this is a right wing plot by the Reform Party. He also
mentioned that final offer arbitration was used for a number of
years in Manitoba. But he did not mention that it was put in by
the NDP government which is kind of to the left. It is not right
wing like Reform.
This method was taken out by the Conservative Party. That party
sits to the right of the Reform Party here in this House. The NDP
members who sit on the far left of the House are saying that this
is a terrible right wing plot, but it was put in by them and it
was taken out by the Conservative Party whose members sit on the
righthand side of the Reform Party. If the parliamentary
secretary was not really puzzled before, that must really get her
spinning.
A number of misconceptions need to be cleared up. The NDP
member has used this one before, as have many others. It is the
old sabre rattle about how Reform is trying to take away the
rights of workers to collective bargaining with bills like Bill
C-233.
For someone who says he has been involved in labour negotiations
for a number of years, to steal the words of the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Labour, I am really puzzled as to
what he thinks collective bargaining is. Strikes and lockouts are
not collective bargaining. Strikes and lockouts are the result
of the failure of collective bargaining.
Collective bargaining involves three things. It involves
negotiation. It involves conciliation. And it involves
mediation. When those things fail, the company locks out the
workers, or the workers withdraw their services from the company.
That is not collective bargaining. It is a failure of collective
bargaining.
The strike or lockout is a dispute settlement mechanism. It is a
form of coercion used by one party against the other to drive
them back to one of the three real parts of collective
bargaining: negotiate, conciliate, mediate. That is collective
bargaining. We have no intention of taking collective bargaining
away from anyone.
Both members who spoke in opposition to the bill suggested final
offer arbitration rarely needs to be used. Consider Canada Post
which was mentioned by both members. There was a strike in 1987
and the government legislated the workers back to work. The next
strike was in 1991 and the government legislated them back to
work. The next time up was 1997 and the government legislated
them back to work. There is a bit of a pattern here, is there
not?
The early 1970s saw the first ever strike of air traffic
controllers. The government legislated them back to work. The
second time around the workers took a strike vote. They had not
yet gone on strike but the government legislated them back before
they went out and imposed a settlement on them. That does not
make for a happy side. And the parliamentary secretary to the
minister was worried that final offer arbitration would make one
side bitter. I was an air traffic controller in those days and I
can tell her that the government's methods made one side very
bitter.
Then a ports strike crippled the country in 1994. The government
legislated them back to work. We had a rail strike in 1995 and
the government legislated them back to work. There is a long
history of the government intervening in labour disruptions in
this country.
Then the problem comes in. We have already heard figures
mentioned about the cost of the ports strike. The more recent
Canada Post strike cost Canada Post in loss of revenues, workers
in loss of wages. The NDP is so concerned about the rights of
workers. Lots of workers suffered financial devastation
themselves through loss of wages. The union lost a tremendous
amount of money paying out the strike pay and the cost of the
negotiations that were going on with this process.
1840
Charities and mail dependent business collectively lost
somewhere between $1 billion and $2 billion in the last postal
strike because the government failed to act on a prompt basis.
And it failed to have a method in place like the one proposed by
my colleague in Bill C-233 to deal with the problem in the west
coast ports.
At the port of Vancouver in my province of British Columbia, we
used to have among other things, grain, a tremendous number of
shipments of potash. A lot of the potash from Saskatchewan does
not go to Vancouver any more. It goes to Portland, Oregon.
Portland, Oregon said to ship it there instead, that they would
build the facilities and they would guarantee it would be
delivered on time.
We are losing our ability to trade internationally because the
government has failed to put in place some method of settlement
that is fair to both sides. How can it possibly be one sided
when each side has the exact same power as the other, no more and
no less?
The member from the NDP said that this is terrible because it
will not allow the parties to reach a settlement. They could
both go with the same settlement. They would say that they did
not mean it to go that far. All they would have to do is to go
to the arbitrator making the decision with their common
presentation and they would have a settlement.
What this in fact does is it puts out a message to both the
employer and the employees that if one side's demands are
outrageous and the other side's demands are not, they will lose.
That is the way it should be. That is reasonable and proper.
Under the current system, workers lose wages and the company
loses revenue. The workers and the company collectively lose
business which means jobs and this devastates the national
economy.
In the case of the port we talked about the impact going all the
way back to the prairie grain farmers. It affected me in my
riding 400 miles inland from the port in British Columbia. In my
riding I have a mill and a smelter that almost got shut down
because all the ore was locked up in the port.
This is something that cannot go on. If the government thinks
that we can have a system that allows people to willy-nilly go on
strike, which has a devastating impact on the national economy
and of people totally unconnected to the job, then it has to
rethink its priorities.
Let us talk about a corner store. The workers in that corner
store say “Give us a dollar or we are on strike” and the owner
says “No, I am only giving you 50 cents”. They go on strike.
What is the impact? It is an economic tug of war between the
employer and the employees.
Who else is hurt? Some of the neighbours are inconvenienced
because they will have to go to a different store. The families
of those workers are going to be harmed but it is the impact
directly related to their families' jobs. There may be a little
economic spin-off in the immediate area if it happens to be a big
store. Primarily it is right there located within that worksite.
In the case of the Vancouver port, there can be an impact felt
2,000 miles away by people totally unrelated to the port,
thousands of different people in all kinds of different
industries, such as farming or other businesses across the
country. The government does not only have the right to act, it
has a duty and a requirement to act.
This bill tries to address a real problem that the government
itself has already recognized by intervening time after time
after time when these types of situations have come up in the
national interest.
Now is the time for the government to recognize the old system
is not working in the interests of Canadians and to say that it
is time for a little evolution to take place in collective
bargaining.
Collective bargaining will still exist. All we will be doing is
putting in a more effective final dispute settlement mechanism.
If the government cannot see that, it is time it moved aside and
allowed someone else to do it.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
was listening very closely to some of the comments from the
parliamentary secretary and those made by the labour critic from
the New Democratic Party. I think it is necessary to correct
some misconceptions they have about this process.
The parliamentary secretary said that in her opinion fair and
free collective bargaining has always been the best way to arrive
at a settlement, or words to that effect.
1845
Certainly we agree. We are not advocating a heavy-handed
approach here at all. It is most important to note that the
process applies equally to the employer and to the employee. It
is a tool that can be used equally by them.
I have said many times before in the House that final offer
selection would take the place of very heavy-handed back to work
legislation. I see it as a real step forward.
Back to work legislation has become sort of a crutch whereby
management and labour do not feel compelled to earnestly bargain,
to get right down to cases and to settle the disputes themselves.
Of course any dispute that can be settled between the parties is
absolutely the best way to go.
We are offering final offer selection as a final step that would
take the place of having to go through the trauma, so to speak,
of a strike or a lockout and then having parliament legislate
them back to work.
This tool can be used equally by both parties. If it were in
legislation both parties would realize it was the final step and
would bargain accordingly. They would get right down to the last
parts of the case.
My colleague in the NDP actually made the case for final offer
selection in Manitoba. He said that knowing the legislation was
there 93 of 97 cases resolved themselves because the parties came
to an agreement. That is exactly how we want it to happen. For
those 4% to 5% that cannot come to an agreement, someone has to
make the agreement for them.
My colleague in the Reform Party from British Columbia made an
excellent point. When the local grocer has a work disruption,
whether it is a strike or lockout, certainly it affects a few
families that like to deal at the particular store. It also
affects the employees and the owner of the store. However people
in the city do not starve because they have alternative places to
buy their groceries.
Canadians, particularly in the western part of Canada, do not
have an alternate west coast port to use. It is the only game in
town and the people who run the west coast port are very much
aware of it. It is no coincidence that work disruptions take
place at a time of year when western farmers are trying to market
their crops through the port.
The parliamentary secretary says that this process will not
work. There are many precedents in Canadian history to show that
it does work. In the case of legislating parties back to work,
all that accomplishes is to reluctantly have the parties go back
to the job. It does not resolve any of the outstanding issues.
Those outstanding issues are yet to be resolved and in many cases
are done through the exact method we are suggesting here.
It is most unfortunate the bill is not a votable motion. I
would have been very pleased to have seen how the House would
have voted on it.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): There being no
further members rising for debate and the motion not being
designated as a votable item, the time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
the order is dropped from the order paper.
Would there be unanimous consent, since it is 10 minutes before
the hour we were to adjourn tonight, for the House to proceed to
the adjournment motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
1850
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
EDUCATION
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Madam Speaker, on
October 22, I asked the Minister of Human Resources Development
whether the Liberal government was going to restore hope to young
Canadians by making access to post-secondary education a priority.
His response was that he was going to give students as many
options as possible.
The only options he appears to be offering our young people are
exorbitant fees and a future fraught with insecurity.
This government has not done enough for our young people.
Over the past four years, all Canadians have suffered from the
Liberals cuts. Among those most heavily affected by these
unfeeling Liberal measures were young Canadians, with an average
debt load of $25,000 at the end of their post-secondary education.
As if these unbelievable debts were not enough, they find
themselves jobless, with an unemployment rate as high as 16.5%.
Since the government introduced its youth employment strategy,
there are 48,300 more young people unemployed. Clearly the
Liberals have missed the boat as far as young Canadians are
concerned.
The situation is so critical that 78% of young Quebeckers believe
that poverty has increased in our society. The majority of them even
think that the worse is yet to come. This government has taken away from
our young people the most important thing they need to succeed: hope.
Moreover, the problem of inequality in our society is growing every
day. A minority of people benefit from the new global economy, whereas
most of us live in insecurity. This insecurity is most deeply felt by
our young people. High unemployment, an education system accessible only
to the rich, a lack of hope and a deep feeling of insecurity, that is
what the Liberals have given our young people.
Young Canadians are our future. An investment in our young people
would mean a bright future for all Canadians. That is why we need to put
more money into the post-secondary education system.
More money for post-secondary education means a better education for our
young people and a system that would be accessible to all.
Last week, I met with students in New Brunswick. They are deeply
concerned about the exodus of our young people in Atlantic Canada who go
west because they cannot find jobs in their region. The enormous debt
load is also one of their main concerns, as it is for everybody.
This government must start listening to young Canadians and respond
to their expectations and concerns. Government programs, such as the
millennium scholarship fund, must be there to help those who need them.
But that is not enough. The government must help all young Canadians by
increasing transfers to the provinces, to ensure that tuition fees stay
at a reasonable level.
The actions of the Liberal government have demonstrated that it is
more concerned with corporate interests than with the future of our
young people. We need a government that will make young Canadians its
priority, that will invest in their future by investing in our post-secondary
education system.
The Liberal government must start working for all Canadians to
build a secure future for our young people and for the whole country.
[English]
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I certainly agree
with my hon. friend that the millennium scholarship fund
announced by the prime minister will become a cornerstone. It
will assist those students who not only are most in need but also
qualify for post-secondary education.
I should point out to my hon. friend that the Government of
Canada does not set tuition fees. The whole educational process
is the purview of the provinces.
1855
We play a major role in helping students with costs and in
facilitating access to post-secondary education through the
health and social transfer.
In the 1997 budget the government increased federal support for
higher education and skills by improving interest relief and tax
measures such as the period of interest relief and by pursuing
with interested provinces an income related repayment scheme.
We introduced special opportunity grants for students with
permanent disabilities, high need part time students and female
doctoral students in certain fields of study. With all the
financial pressure that has been on the government over the years
we recognized the need for post-secondary education support.
The 1997 Speech from the Throne announced the government's
commitment to help youth access education and to reduce barriers
to post-secondary education through further changes to the Canada
student loans program. It increased assistance for students with
dependants—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member's
time has expired.
TRADE
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Asian crisis underscores the extent to which the economies of
the world are interconnected. It dramatically points our the
extent to which globalization of the World Trade Organization and
world trade in general is now in place.
Canada has felt the effects of the Asian crisis. Even the
Governor of the Bank of Canada recently stated that the fallout
from Asia would no doubt have a dampening effect on Canadian
output.
I am pleased, however, to see other more positive developments
that will hopefully will work to mitigate this effect. Growth in
Canada's major trading partners outside Asia have been stronger
than expected. With low inflation, falling government deficits
and declining unemployment, Canada is now in much better shape to
withstand such shocks as the Asian crisis. This is certainly the
case more so today than it was during the Mexican peso crisis of
two years ago.
My concern, however, is the impact the Asian crisis could have
on Canadian firms doing business in that part of the world. Some
international economists have warned that the recent crisis in
the Asian markets could have a negative impact on foreign
companies doing business there.
What can Canada do to mitigate any negative impact? Are we
continuing to get countries in the Asia-Pacific to open their
countries to Canadian companies? I ask the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of International Trade to respond.
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I say to my hon.
friend that it has never been more important to encourage these
economies to become more open and, if I may use the word proudly,
liberal in their trading practices. I am pleased to say we are
now getting signals from Asia that the countries are moving to
further modernize their economies and overcome these effects.
The problem of the financial downturn for Asia was partly the
lack of transparency in business practices and in government
regulation. At a time of dynamic economic growth across Asia and
in an environment of readily available loans, a pattern of
imprudent borrowing and lending has developed with a
concentration of investment in overheated property markets. This
did nothing to contribute to the productive base of the affected
countries.
A more transparent system of controls, accounting and financial
statements could have alerted national authorities, overseas
lenders and international financial institutions earlier to the
true underlying picture and perhaps could have prevented the
crisis from developing. Given the current realities of
globalization, Canada can promote the return to stable economic
growth, enhanced trade and future prosperity by encouraging
increased transparency and liberalization. Moreover, we lessen
in the future the probability of financial shocks of this nature.
By supporting trade liberalization we improve the climate for
Canadian firms seeking to do business in Asia. This is what
Canada, its G-7 partners, the IMF and other international
financial institutions are striving to achieve—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid I have to
interrupt again.
1900
[Translation]
MILK PRODUCTION
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Madam Speaker, on
November 24, 1997, I asked the Hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
if he intended to protect Canadian dairy farmers against the import
of increasing amounts of the cream and sugar mixture commonly known as
butter oil.
At the time, the secretary of state for Agriculture and Agri-Food
stood up to thank me, of course, for my question and say he was doing
his best. That was on November 24, one month before Christmas.
Today, nearly two months after Christmas, many weeks have gone by
and it is clear that butter oil imports to Canada are doubling every
year. To preserve our so-called supply-managed industries, that is to
say dairy, eggs and poultry, when the WTO agreements, formerly known as
GATT, were signed in December 1993, tariffs were set so high that they
would discourage any country from exporting supply-managed items to
Canada, including dairy products.
A number of exporters affiliated with Unilever met with Revenue
Canada senior officials to discuss the tariff schedule and numbers. With
the blessing of Revenue Canada, they were told: “Put in only 49%
butter, melt it, add 51% sugar, and you will pay a 7% entry tariff
instead of 284%”.
That is how things are done under this Liberal government and our
farmers, our dairy producers, have seen their milk quotas drop by 3%
last year. That is a 3% decrease in net profits.
Very recently, the Dairy Farmers of Canada held their annual
convention in Vancouver, where the minister took the trouble to meet
with them at the end of their meeting. The poor guy said he was
disappointed by the position taken by the Dairy Farmers of Canada, and
he asked the revenue department to set up some kind of tribunal, a so-called
advisory tribunal, to review the tariff on butter oil. What a
disgrace.
In one, two or three years from now, this advisory body will
probably submit its report to the revenue department, which will review
it under the leadership of the revenue minister, but without too much
pressure from the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. We will end up
with another agreement we will have to sign since, in 1999, in 18
months' time, we will have to embark upon a new negotiation process to
renew this WTA agreement.
I have always been told that, in law, one cannot do indirectly what
one cannot do directly. Dairy products were subject to a quota—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry, but the hon.
member's time has expired. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
[English]
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I thank the
hon. member for his question. I appreciate the fact that he
shares the concerns of the dairy industry as we all do on this
side of the House.
I want to make very clear that the government recognizes the
dairy industry's concerns about increasing imports of
butteroil-sugar blends. However, while there have been efforts
to address the concerns of the dairy farmers of Canada, it has
not been possible to find a solution that would not—and I would
emphasize the word not—would not contravene Canadian law and our
international rights and obligations.
1905
Butteroil-sugar blends are part of a larger issue of imports of
dairy blends outside tariff rate quotas. The government shares
the DFC's concerns about the impact of these blends on dairy
producers.
Therefore the government has referred the broader issue to the
Canadian International Trade Tribunal, CITT, for a thorough
examination of ways we could address these concerns in a manner
consistent with our international rights and obligations.
The government is very disappointed that dairy farmers have
indicated they do not intend to make their arguments to the CITT.
We hope this decision will be reconsidered. The CITT is to
report the results of its study to the government by July 1,
1998.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The motion to adjourn the House
is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned
until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.06 p.m.)