36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 39
CONTENTS
Tuesday, December 14, 1999
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1055
(Division 660)
| Motion agreed to
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Tabling of documents
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1100
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
1105
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| Mr. René Canuel |
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
1110
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Mr. Maurice Godin |
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1115
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1120
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
| Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
1125
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Mr. Réjean Lefebvre |
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
1130
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| AN ACT TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR CLARITY AS SET
|
| Bill C-20. Second reading
|
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
1135
1140
1145
1150
1155
1200
| Mr. Grant Hill |
1205
1210
1215
1220
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1225
1230
1235
1240
1245
1250
| Amendment
|
1255
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1300
1305
1310
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1315
| Mr. Reg Alcock |
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1320
| Mr. André Harvey |
| Mr. André Bachand |
1325
1330
| Mr. John Bryden |
1335
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1340
1345
1350
| Mr. Tom Wappel |
| Mr. René Laurin |
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| MANIFESTO 2000
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| CHRISTMAS CHARITY CAMPAIGNS
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| THE LATE MATT COHEN
|
| Mr. Tony Ianno |
1400
| NATIONAL POLLUTANT RELEASE INVENTORY
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
| CULTURE OF PEACE
|
| Ms. Aileen Carroll |
| LONGHORN LIMO
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| DR. CHARLES DRAKE
|
| Mr. Bob Wood |
| MEMBER FOR ABITIBI—BAIE JAMES—NUNAVIK
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
1405
| HEALTH CARE
|
| Mr. Hec Clouthier |
| LOIS HOLE
|
| Mr. John Williams |
| REFORM PARTY
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| BILL C-20
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
1410
| PARLIAMENTARY INTERNS FOOD DRIVE
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| PARLIAMENTARY INTERNS FOOD DRIVE
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| GUELPH—WELLINGTON
|
| Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
| SASKATCHEWAN TELEPHONE RATES
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| SAINT-EUSTACHE PATRIOTS
|
| Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| PRISONS
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
1420
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| BILL C-20
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
1425
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| HOMELESSNESS
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| BILL C-20
|
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. André Harvey |
1430
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| PRISONS
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| RCMP
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| BILL C-20
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| PRISONS
|
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1435
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| BILL C-20
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| PRISONS
|
| Mr. Randy White |
1440
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| BILL C-20
|
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
| Hon. David Kilgour |
| RCMP
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
1445
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| HOUSING
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| MERCHANT MARINERS
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| COAST GUARD
|
| Mr. Charlie Power |
1450
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| Mr. Charlie Power |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| RAIL TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| PUBLIC SAFETY
|
| Mr. Grant McNally |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1455
| BILL C-20
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| TRANSFERS TO PROVINCES
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| RCMP
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1500
| RAIL TRANSPORTATION
|
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Motions for Papers
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1505
| Mr. Derek Lee |
1510
| The Speaker |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| AN ACT TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR CLARITY AS SET
|
| Bill C-20. Second reading
|
| Hon. Diane Marleau |
1515
1520
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1525
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
1530
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1535
| Ms. Val Meredith |
1540
1545
1550
1555
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
1600
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1605
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Mr. Irwin Cotler |
1610
1615
1620
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1625
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1630
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
1635
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
1640
1645
1650
1655
| Motion
|
1745
(Division 661)
| Motion negatived
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| MINIMUM SENTENCES
|
| Motion No. 20
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1750
1755
1800
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
1805
1810
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
1815
1820
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1825
1830
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1835
1840
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1845
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Culture
|
| Mr. Bill Graham |
1850
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
| Airline Industry
|
| Mr. Bill Casey |
1855
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
| National Defence
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1900
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
1905
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 39
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, December 14, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[English]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to four
petitions, and I move:
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the point of order being raised by the
Bloc Quebecois whip related to the motion put by the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons?
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the point of order was prior
to that. In fact, I have been on my feet ever since prayers,
waiting to be recognized. You recognized the parliamentary
secretary first, and what I simply wished, Mr.
Speaker, further to the Prime Minister's announcement that he
wants to introduce a bill denying Quebecers their fundamental
rights—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
There is a problem. I indicated that the House would
proceed to tabling of documents and recognized the hon.
parliamentary secretary. I heard nothing of a point of order at
that time. I shall therefore propose the motion to the House at
this time.
[English]
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
1055
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Baker
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Collenette
| Copps
| Cotler
|
Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Forseth
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
| Lincoln
|
Lunn
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Saada
|
Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Julien
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 139
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Brien
| Brison
|
Canuel
| Cardin
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Epp
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
|
Guay
| Guimond
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Jones
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Lill
|
Loubier
| Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| McDonough
| McNally
|
Ménard
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Muise
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Power
|
Proctor
| Reynolds
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Turp
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
– 89
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
POINTS OF ORDER
TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
further to the Prime Minister's announcement that he wants to
introduce a bill denying Quebecers their fundamental rights and
in view of the fact that debate on it will begin in a few
minutes, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table a
document that will clarify matters for the House.
It is an article from Le Devoir of March 16, 1995 showing that
the 50% plus one rule applies everywhere in Canada, which there
seems to be a desire to—
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, further to the Prime Minister's
announcement that he intends to introduce a bill denying the
fundamental rights of Quebecers, I ask for the unanimous consent
of the House to table a document which would enlighten the
House. The document is the statement made by Premier Lucien Bouchard to
the effect that Ottawa—
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit to your
kind attention the fact that all parliamentarians in this House
are fully entitled to express themselves as they wish and on
issues that are of interest to them.
The rules clearly provide—and there is absolutely no doubt about
this—that every member, whether or not he or she belongs to the
government majority and regardless of what our friends opposite
may think, has the right to express himself or herself. Every
member has the right to point out to the House the relevance of
certain documents—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. member rising on the same
point of order?
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I thought the hon. member
for Roberval had
risen on a point of order and had finished, as he then sat down.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: Fine. I will give him the floor again if he
so wishes.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe that all
of us, that is you, the members of this House and myself, will
have to be extremely careful in the minutes to come to ensure
that what will take place here is not misinterpreted.
The reason I sat down is because it was absolutely impossible to
speak in the House, because members of the Liberal majority were
yelling so loudly. And that is a fact.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: If I sat down, it was because it is your
duty to ensure that my right to speak is protected in this
House. I am now asking the Chair to ask them to be quiet, so
that I can conclude my point of order.
1100
The Deputy Speaker: I would like to assure the hon. member for
Roberval that I can hear him. Had I thought it was impossible to
do so I would certainly have taken action. I can indeed hear
him and I would ask him to speak directly to his point of order
so that I may give a ruling.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, a while ago we had a
conversation outside the House to discuss a problem, that of
being unable to hear my colleague, the Bloc Quebecois whip.
Somehow you can hear me in all this noise when I cannot hear
myself for the racket from the other side. That is what I
wished to tell you.
Now that they have settled down a bit, I simply wish to tell you—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Now that they have settled down a bit, I
simply wish to tell you that members on this side, regardless—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Michel Gauthier:—of members from Quebec on the other side
who are put out, are perfectly entitled to seek your attention,
to raise a point of order, to suggest that material relevant to
the debate we are now having be read or considered. That is our
perfect right and I call on you to observe the Standing Orders,
to protect the right to speak of members in this House, and to
ask the members of the government party to be quiet, whether
they like it or not.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
does seem to me to be perfectly logical that the Bloc members
want to table documents. I have no problem with that.
However, it would not hurt to have a little debate before they
head off in the direction they are going in now. Why do we not
enter into the debate and afterward, if they want to make
dilatory motions and so on, let us have that.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair is cognizant of the fact
that sometimes there is some noise in the Chamber, not all on one
side, I may say. The Chair cannot stop members from yelling but
the Chair does try to encourage order in the debate.
[Translation]
The Chair has an obligation to ensure that each member has the
right to express his or her views in the House and I would
always wish to protect this right, even those of the hon. member
for Roberval, when other members have something to say. I am
here to rule on a point of order.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. Before the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs sees fit to address in this House the
bill denying the basic rights of Quebecers, I would like to
table a speech made by the Prime Minister of Canada on November
28, 1999, where he said—
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the hon.
member to table this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, you are not letting me
finish.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. Before the House begins consideration of the bill, I
would like to table in the House a study released by the Library
of Parliament on the basic rights of Canadians and Quebecers.
The study was carried out in 1984 and revised in—
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the hon.
member to table this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a point of order.
Further to the announcement by the Prime Minister that he
intends to introduce a bill denying the fundamental rights of
Quebecers, I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to
table a document that could enlighten the House. It is an
article from La Presse that clearly indicates to what extent—
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the hon.
member to table this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1105
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I know
that you always strive to serve the House well and I realize
that there is a fundamental right at stake here, the right of
all parliamentarians to express their points of view and not
only to say what they have to say, but also to get fair and
relevant information.
Under the circumstances, I would ask for the democratic,
unanimous and informed consent of the House to table a document,
further to the announcement by the government that it intends to
introduce a bill that shamelessly changes the referendum rules
in Quebec.
I ask for the consent of the House.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first of all,
as a question of privilege, I would like to point out that
before asking if there is unanimous consent of the House, it
would be important for the House to hear the member who is
seeking such consent explain what he or she is asking for
exactly.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: In my case, I have here an excerpt from
the referendum act of Nebraska, in the United States. I ask for
the unanimous consent of the House to table this document.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Portneuf has a point, but I
must say that points of order should not give members the
opportunity to make a speech.
When members rise on a point of order, they must say
specifically what their point of order is about. After that, if
they have indicated that they want to table a document, I think
it is the duty of the Chair to put the question to the House,
and that is all I am doing. I do not have to give each member
the opportunity to explain the whole content of the document.
That is not what I am supposed to do.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, further
to the Prime Minister's announcement that he wants to introduce
a bill denying Quebecers their fundamental rights, which is a
serious threat to democracy, I want to table a document that
will enlighten the House.
This document is the International Covenant on—
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, further to
the Prime Minister's announcement that he wants to introduce a
bill denying Quebecers their fundamental rights, I have here a
document entitled “Commission nationale sur l'avenir du Québec”,
the chapter on sovereignty.
I would ask for unanimous consent to table this document so that
members can read it.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, following the
Prime Minister's announcement that he wants to table a bill
denying Quebecers their basic rights, I ask for the unanimous
consent of the House to table a paper that will enlighten the
House.
It is a paper prepared by the Library of Parliament on the basic
rights of Canadians and Quebecers. The study, released in 1992,
is entitled “Human Rights Legislation and the Charter”.
No doubt that—
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at the
request of people from my riding, I wish to educate the House
and provide it with supplementary information. Here is what my
constituents have asked me to table this morning. It is an
extract from the referendum act of the state of Wisconsin, in
the United States of America.
I ask for unanimous consent and hope that I will get it.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, following the announcement by the Prime Minister that he wants
to introduce a bill denying Quebecers their basic rights, I
would like to table in the House an extract from the report on
the territorial integrity of Quebec in the event of its
accession to sovereignty, which was presented to the Commission
d'étude des questions afférentes à la souveraineté.
This report states that, according to international law—
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1110
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last night
I was a guest on a television program of the parliamentary
channel CPAC. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine was
also invited. Unfortunately, she was afraid to show up.
I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table the
transcript of that television program at which she was afraid to
show up.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have in my
possession a statement made by Mario Dumont, the leader of the
Action démocratique, according to which the bill presented today
is an attack against the dignity and the pride of Quebecers.
I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table this
document that will enlighten parliament.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent
to table this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to table a research paper published by the Library of
Parliament on the issue of fundamental rights of Canadians and Quebecers.
This study, prepared in 1990 and revised in 1995, is entitled
Electoral Rights: Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Many members of the government would certainly need to reread
such document in order to remind themselves of the fundamental
rights that exist in Canada.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that the hon.
member table this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have here a
text paying tribute to René Lévesque, who defended Quebec's interests and
democracy.
I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table this text.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent
to table this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have here an article from La Presse dated
December 11, 1999, entitled “The National Assembly attacked
by Ottawa. The people must react”.
I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table this
document which will enlighten the House.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the hon.
member to table this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I ask
for the unanimous consent of the House to table a document which
will enlighten all members of this place. It is the “Loi sur la
consultation populaire du Québec”, a pillar of our democracy.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that the hon.
member table this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
the House to be aware of the content of a very interesting
article that was published in Le Soleil in October 1999 and
which mentions that 50% plus one is enough in the United Kingdom
and in Scotland.
I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table this
document.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent
to table this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, further to the
Prime Minister's announcement that he wants to introduce a bill
denying Quebecers their fundamental rights, I ask for the
unanimous consent of the House to table a document that will
clarify matters for the House.
It is an article from the December 11 issue of La Presse which
comments on the commotion caused—
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the hon.
member to table this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, now that the
Prime Minister has announced his intention to introduce a bill
denying Quebecers their fundamental rights, I ask for the
unanimous consent of the House to table a very informative
document.
It is a document from the Quebec director general of elections
explaining what real democracy is all about, and what truly
democratic rules are.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the hon.
member to table this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the
government has announced its intention to introduce a bill to
change the referendum rules in Quebec, I ask for the unanimous
consent of the House to table part of the referendum legislation
of the State of Illinois, in the United States of America.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that the hon.
member table this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I have here a document entitled “Un pays, c'est normal pour un
peuple qui se tient debout”, and I ask for the unanimous consent
of the House to table this action plan of the Coalition des
partenaires sur la souveraineté.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the hon.
member to table this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1115
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have here a
document entitled “Rapport de la Commission sur l'avenir du
Québec” about the new relations between Quebec and Canada. If
this document were tabled, it would help the House
understand why sovereignists are doing what they are doing,
because—
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, further to
the Prime Minister's announcement that he wants to introduce a
bill denying the fundamental rights of Quebecers, I am asking
for the unanimous consent of the House to table a document that
will enlighten the House.
It is the report by the chief electoral officer of Quebec on the
results of the 1995 referendum, in which 93% of—
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House for
the hon. member to table the document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
view of the extreme importance of the comments I will be making,
I would ask you to see to it that I complete them without being
interrupted by catcalls and other noises.
Further to the Prime Minister's announcement that he intends to
introduce a bill denying the fundamental rights of Quebecers,
and I think everybody understands what I mean, I would ask for
the unanimous consent of the House—
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Paul Mercier: I want to be heard to the end.
I am asking the unanimous consent of the House to table a
document that will enlighten the House. It is a—
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous
consent of the House to table the document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, before the
government uses the House of Commons to limit the powers of the
National Assembly of Quebec, I would like to ask for the consent
of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to table an excerpt
from the referendum legislation of Maryland, which he would
certainly find inspiring—
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: I must advise the hon. member that, like
yesterday, we will have only one point of order per member. I
would like to recognize other members who have not yet asked to
table documents now in order to know whether there is unanimous
consent.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what standing
order you are basing your ruling on that the point of order I am
making deals with something you do not want to hear about.
You are required to show objectivity. I am the House leader of
this political party and I fully intend to make all the points
of order we need to ensure our rights are respected. Otherwise,
our jurisdictions will come into conflict.
The Deputy Speaker: I have to inform the House that the Chair
has taken into consideration the fact that all the points of
order that have been heard today, and it was also the case
yesterday, dealt with the same point. It is a point of order
asking permission to table a document.
I am sure the Chair is entitled to proceed with the business of
the House. Yesterday, during the submissions, the Speaker ruled
on that point. He said that one submission per day per member
would be enough. I believe that the situation is the same today.
There is no difference.
I would like to continue with the other members, but I think
the ruling handed down yesterday was fair for all the members in
the House. I think it is appropriate.
There is no precise rule on this point, but the Speaker's ruling
is always reasonable, as the member for Roberval should know,
and I am sure that he will agree with that.
1120
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my colleague
from Jonquière referred a little earlier to a serious threat to
democracy. I would say, rather, that the government is simply
trying to kill democracy in Quebec.
I have here an article that was published in Le Soleil on
October 4, 1995, emphasizing that the 50% plus one majority
rule is acceptable everywhere in Canada except Quebec.
Further to the Prime Minister's announcement that he wants to
introduce a bill denying the fundamental rights of Quebecers, I
am asking for the unanimous consent of the House to table a
document that will enlighten the House.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, further to
the Prime Minister's announcement that he wants to introduce a
bill denying Quebecers their fundamental rights, namely Bill
C-20, sponsored by the minister for interference with the provinces'
and Quebec's jurisdictions, I ask for the unanimous consent of
the House to table a document that will enlighten the House.
It is an article from the June 8 issue of Le Devoir—
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We would like to appeal
to members of the House that there are other members who would
like to speak for their constituents. We would like the other
Canadians to be heard as well.
I would like to invoke Standing Order 1 on unprovided cases so
that the Speaker may look at the applicability of this rule to
make a ruling so that an obvious attempt to stifle the work of
parliament may be prevented.
The Deputy Speaker: The Speaker tries to be fair to all
hon. members. I have indicated that the practice the Speaker
adopted yesterday seems to the Chair to be a very fair one. That
was to allow each member who wished to obtain leave of the House
to present a document might have that opportunity. I am doing
that and I intend to finish.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the government
has announced that it wants to introduce a bill changing the
referendum rules in Quebec.
I ask for unanimous consent to table part of the referendum act
of the State of Massachusetts, in the United States of America,
which will certainly enlighten the House.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today on this sad anniversary. Exactly 162 years ago today,
Dr. Olivier Chénier and 11 patriots lay down their lives in the
church in Saint-Eustache in the name of democracy.
Further to the Prime Minister's announcement that he wants to
introduce a bill denying Quebecers their fundamental rights, I
ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table a document
that will enlighten my friends opposite. It is an article—
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, further to the
Prime Minister's announcement that he wants to introduce a bill
denying the fundamental rights of Quebecers, I am asking for the
unanimous consent of the House to table a document.
It is an article published in The Gazette commenting on an exchange
of letters between the intergovernmental affairs ministers of
Canada and Quebec, dated October 20—
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs having stated his
intent to introduce a bill undermining the basic human rights of
Quebecers, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table
a document that should answer some of the questions the House
might have.
The document is a newspaper article published in—
1125
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House for
the hon. member to table that document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Mr. Speaker, further to the Prime
Minister's announcement that he wants to introduce a bill
denying Quebecers their fundamental rights, I ask for the
unanimous consent of the House to table a document that will
clarify matters for the House.
It is the text of the referendum question of May 1980.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House for
the hon. member to table the document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have here a
story from the December 11, 1999 issue of Le Droit, which
clearly indicates how the government intends to stop Quebecers
from deciding freely their own future.
I am asking for the unanimous consent of the House to table this
document.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House for
the hon. member to table the document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, further to the
Prime Minister's announcement that he wants to introduce a bill
denying Quebecers their fundamental rights, I have with me an
excellent document on the new Quebec-Canada partnership put
forward by the Bloc Quebecois. That document explains
extensively how we could establish partnership with our friends
from Canada.
It seems to me that to clarify matters for the House it would
be important that people could be aware of its contents.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House for
the hon. member to table the document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I hope you
will allow me to continue to speak since I have here an excerpt
of the referendum legislation of the State of Washington, in the
United States of America.
I would like to have unanimous consent to table this document.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent
to table this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
sincerely thought you were saving the best for last, but my turn
came too soon.
I have here the working document of the focus group on
partnership, produced by the Bloc Quebecois, which shows a new
way to view the relations between Quebec and Canada, one based
on mutual respect.
Since the government tabled a bill negating the fundamental
rights of the Quebec people, I am asking for and hope to get the
unanimous consent of the House to table a document—
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent
to table this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, following
the government's announcement that it wants to introduce a bill
changing the referendum rules of Quebec, I ask for the unanimous
consent of the House to table a document which will enlighten
all the parliamentarians in this House.
It is an excerpt—
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent
to table this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in order to facilitate the
debates, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to table an
excerpt of the referendum legislation of the State of Florida,
in the United States of America.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that the hon.
member table this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: I believe everybody had an opportunity to
ask for the unanimous consent of the House. I would now like to
proceed with—
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise on
a point of order.
The voters in my riding have asked me to table a document for
the federalist members from Quebec who are denying the voters of
Quebec-East their fundamental rights.
I respectfully ask that you allow me to table this document,
which is not very long and which—
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent
to table this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1130
The Deputy Speaker: I believe this puts an end to the points of
order on tabling of documents for today.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I respectfully submit that our colleagues must be given the
opportunity to make the request before we can seek unanimous
consent.
I now ask for unanimous consent of the House to revert to
motions, in the spirit of courtesy and collaboration appropriate
to this time of the year.
The Deputy Speaker: There are two things I want to point out.
First, I always gave members the opportunity to say something
about the tabling of their documents. I believe the Chair is
not required to allow lengthy discussions about documents when
there is no unanimous consent.
The Chair has recognized that problem and I believe I was fair
with all members who wanted to table some documents in the
House.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Also, the Bloc Quebecois whip is right in saying that we all
want to speak about these things. There will be other
opportunities during debate to quote the documents and that is
the important point here.
Now, is there unanimous consent to revert to presentation of
motions?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think you were very
unfair to me. When I tried to table my document, I did not even
get a chance to read its title. I think I can and I must tell
you—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. We will now proceed to
debate.
* * *
AN ACT TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR CLARITY AS SET
OUT IN THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA IN THE QUEBEC
SECESSION REFERENCE
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.) moved
that Bill C-20, an act to give effect to the requirement for
clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada
in the Quebec Secession Reference, be now read the second time
and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill on clarity, that I have the
honour of discussing today at second reading, clarifies the
circumstances in which this House would declare whether the
Government of Canada would be obliged to enter into negotiations
on the separation of a province from Canada.
An eventual break-up of our country is a serious and sad matter.
But, paradoxically, it reveals how much Canada is a real
country. It is because the ties that unite us have been so
closely knit over the years that endless precautions would need
to be taken, should we, unfortunately, one day undertake to
break up our country.
This bill is in keeping with the supreme court's opinion of
August 20, 1998 and gives effect to it.
It defines the unavoidable responsibilities of the Government of
Canada and the House of Commons, while respecting the
prerogatives of the Government and National Assembly of Quebec
and all other political actors in our federation.
If the population of a province clearly expressed its will to
secede from Canada, the Government of Canada would have to
undertake negotiations on secession. But in the absence of that
clear will, the Government of Canada ought not undertake such
negotiations. This is the Government of Canada's position. It
is reasonable. It just makes good sense.
And it is good sense that has guided the Government of Canada in
the past, in 1980 as well as in 1995.
1135
Faced with the confusing question of the 1980 referendum, the
then Prime Minister stated on May 14, 1980 that, if the yes side
obtained a majority, he would say to the then Premier of
Quebec—and I am quoting the Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre
Elliott Trudeau—“If you knock on the sovereignty-association door,
there is no negotiation possible”.
On September 18, 1995, the Prime Minister of Canada stated in
this House, and I quote: “For months and months I have asked the
Government of Quebec to ask a clear question. It is asking an
ambiguous question”. The Prime Minister of Canada also declared
that a majority of 50% plus one was not enough to break up
Canada.
The day after the referendum, on November 1, 1995, the Leader of
the Official Opposition, who is now the Premier of Quebec, took
note of the Prime Minister of Canada's position. The former
Leader of the Official Opposition said as follows: “We will
recall that [the Prime Minister of Canada] said in this House he
reserved the right not to honour a narrow yes majority in favour
of sovereignty”. I would ask the present Premier of Quebec to
remember what he said back then.
On January 27, 1996, two days after I was sworn in as minister,
I was quoted in Le Soleil, Quebec City as saying “In the
unfortunate eventuality that a strong majority in Quebec were to
vote on a clear question in favour of secession, I believe that
the rest of Canada would have a moral obligation to discuss the
division of the country”. I believe that the supreme court had
something similar to say.
I have reiterated that position in open letters to the Premier
of Quebec and his ministers.
[English]
The Attorney General of Canada also said in announcing the
supreme court reference in September 1996 “in the unlikely event
that the population of Quebec were to decide that they do not
want to remain in Canada, we will be negotiating”.
That is exactly what the supreme court said in its opinion
issued two years later on August 20, 1998. The court wrote that
we are obliged to negotiate secession if things are clear. The
court assigned to the political actors the responsibility of
determining what constitutes a clear question in a referendum on
secession and what constitutes a clear majority.
[Translation]
To negotiate secession where there is clarity, and not to
negotiate where there is not: this has been the Government of
Canada's position in the past, this is what the supreme court's
opinion enjoins it to do, and this is what it says in the bill
on clarity.
This bill specifies the unavoidable responsibilities of the
Government of Canada and the House of Commons. At the same time
it fully respects the prerogatives of the government and
the National Assembly of Quebec.
The Government of Quebec can ask Quebec voters the question of
its choice. But the Government of Canada and the House of
Commons, as political actors, have a duty to make their own
assessment of whether the question and the majority indicate a
clear support for secession before concluding that the
Government of Canada is bound to enter into negotiations on the
breakup of Canada.
It is self-evident that the House of Commons would be duty-bound
to evaluate the clarity of support for secession before the
Government of Canada could undertake to negotiate secession,
because the negotiations would aim to terminate all the
responsibilities, those of the House of Commons as well as those
of the Government of Canada, toward part of the Canadian
population.
Even the Bloc's intergovernmental affairs critic and his leader
have agreed with that.
In fact, on December 8, the Bloc's critic and MP for
Beauharnois—Salaberry said “According to the court's
opinion, if there is a justifiable role for the federal
government it is after the referendum, in determining the
clarity of the question and the majority required, so as to
conclude whether there is an obligation to negotiate”. We
are not that far apart, really.
1140
[English]
The decision that the Government of Canada must undertake
negotiations on secession would be a major one for the House. It
could not ignore the enormous consequences for Canada's
population as a whole.
A referendum on secession is not just an ordinary election.
Voters will not have the opportunity to review their choice four
years later. Negotiating the dismantling of a modern democratic
country is an enormous, unprecedented task.
A number of difficult and complex questions would be raised
affecting the rights and interests of all the country's citizens.
The House could not conclude that the Government of Canada could
impose such an ordeal on Canadians unless there is a clear will
in favour of breaking up.
[Translation]
We Quebecers have the same rights as other Canadians to have
our two constitutionally authorized governments, our provincial
government and our federal government, fully respect our right
to Canada.
In tangible terms, this means that if we clearly indicated in a
referendum that we wished to stop being part of Canada in order
to make Quebec an independent country, our federal government
would have an obligation to undertake negotiations to terminate
our belonging to Canada, to terminate its constitutional
responsibilities toward us. But in the absence of this clear
desire for secession, our federal government has the opposite
obligation: the obligation to maintain peacefully the
constitutional responsibilities it has toward us, and to
safeguard all our prerogatives as Canadians, in Quebec,
throughout Canada and around the world.
This is our right to Canada. For its part, the Government of
Canada intends to respect that right of Quebecers. That is the
reason for this bill.
No one can seriously maintain that the Government of Canada
would be obliged to negotiate no matter what the question was.
The question must clearly be about secession. A confusing
question would make negotiations impossible. It is only
reasonable that, to trigger negotiations on secession, you need
a clear question on secession.
The question would have to state clearly that the province would
cease to be part of Canada and would become an independent
state. That is what the bill stipulates.
The notion of the will to effect secession is essential. The
supreme court speaks of “no longer wishing to remain in Canada”.
It does not speak of the will to confer a mandate to negotiate.
It speaks of no longer wishing to remain in Canada. One
undertakes negotiations on secession because one wants to
secede, not to find out whether that might be what one wants.
The bill indicates that a clear question must address secession
exclusively. That is obvious. Introducing other elements would
make it impossible to know whether voters really want secession
or not. No negotiations could result from a question such as
the one in 1980 or 1995, referring to the notions of association
or an offer of partnership with Canada, because it would be
impossible to know if the yes supporters really wanted to secede
from Canada.
I return to the clarity of the majority. Under both Quebec law
and Canadian federal law, a referendum is a consultation. The
political authorities assess the importance of such a
consultation on the basis of, among other things, the clarity of
the question and the clarity of the result.
Accordingly, Quebec's Referendum Act sets no threshold, be it
50% plus one or anything else, so we might perhaps ask the
Government of Quebec and Bloc Quebecois members to respect
Quebec's Referendum Act.
1145
The white paper on referenda stated that:
The fact that referenda are a consultation makes it unnecessary
to include provisions about a required majority of a level of
voter participation.
It is customary in democracy to require a clear referendum
majority before proceeding with a radical change whose
consequences would be virtually irreversible. This is the case
with a vote that could lead to negotiations on secession.
Such negotiations should never be undertaken on the basis on an
uncertain majority that might not hold firm in the face of the
inevitable difficulties engendered by the breakup of a country.
It is not worth imposing that risk on everyone, because the
chances that such an attempt at secession will succeed are slim
to none in the absence of a clear majority. That is accepted in
Quebec.
One does not break up a country with support of 50% plus one.
That has just never happened. On the contrary, outside the
colonial context, referenda held as part of a successful process
of secession have always garnered majorities of over 70%.
Separatist leaders around the world say “Let my people vote
under fair conditions and you will see that they want to
separate”. They are not saying “Half of my people want to
separate”.
Quebecers have already said no twice to secession even when they
were asked questions designed to artificially boost support for
the yes side. And each time the PQ government promised it would
be back with another referendum. It said “See you soon”, “See
you next time”, instead of taking into account the will of the
voters. The PQ government has indicated that it wants to hold a
third referendum on secession by the end of its current mandate.
And it is not saying it will accept “three strikes, you are
out” either.
As long as the Quebec population answers no, the separatist
leaders intend to keep proposing their secession plan. But if
they ever chanced to get a yes, no matter how slim, they would
try to effect secession. That would have irreversible
consequences, because it is almost impossible to rebuild a
country after breaking it up. The no supporters would have no
opportunity to say “See you soon” or “See you next time”.
The consequences of saying yes to secession are very
different from the consequences of saying no. No means not now,
but yes means forever. Only a yes can give rise to an
irreversible change that is binding on future generations. There
must be a clear majority before negotiations are undertaken on
the possibility of effecting such a change.
The fact is we have no choice. The supreme court requires the
political actors to assess the clarity of any future majority in
favour of secession. It used the expression “clear majority” no
fewer than 13 times in its opinion. The qualifier “clear” means
that more than a slim majority is required.
But the court also added that there is a qualitative dimension
to assessing clarity, requiring a political evaluation and a
full understanding of the actual circumstances.
It is therefore impossible to determine what constitutes that
clear majority at this time, in the calm atmosphere of a united
Canada, outside the turbulence of a referendum, because the
circumstances in which that political assessment would have to
be made are unknown to us.
The government of the province would first, following a
referendum in which a clear question had been asked, need to
seek to enter into negotiations on secession. It is conceivable
that, faced with a majority that was not clear, the government
itself would conclude that it was better not to proceed. It
would be ridiculous, for example, to have such a grave decision
hinge on a judicial recount.
[English]
But in the eventuality that the Government of Canada was called
on to negotiate, the House of Commons would proceed to consider
and, by resolution, set out its determination as to whether in
the circumstances a clear majority had expressed itself in favour
of secession, again taking into account the other points of view
that would be expressed.
1150
The final subsection of the bill stipulates that no minister of
the crown can propose a constitutional amendment to effect the
secession of a province from Canada unless the Government of
Canada has addressed in the framework of negotiations the terms
of secession expressly mentioned by the court, such as the
division of assets and liabilities, any changes to the borders of
the province, the rights, interests and territorial claims of
aboriginal peoples of Canada, and the protection of minority
rights.
While the court requires the parties to such possible future
negotiations to address these issues, the court also requires
them not to determine any results in advance. Here again the
clarity bill respects the supreme court's opinion.
[Translation]
With respect to borders, for example, the supreme court had this
to say:
Nobody seriously suggests that our national existence, seamless
in so many aspects, could be effortlessly separated along what
are now the provincial boundaries of Quebec.
Borders could be subject to negotiation.
To be sure, under Canada's constitution, a province's borders
cannot be modified without the agreement of the province's
legislative assembly. It may be, however, that democracy and a
sincere quest for justice for all would make an agreement on
separation contingent on modifying the borders. But the bill
provides no certainty about that, to any party.
The bill does not reiterate the position once advanced by the
Bloc's intergovernmental affairs critic to the effect that the
aboriginal peoples living in Quebec would have the right to
continue to remain in Canada in the event of the province's
secession.
Aboriginal populations in Quebec have twice demonstrated through
referenda, in 1980 and 1995, their clear will to stay in Canada.
If aboriginals were to express such a clear will once again, the
Government of Canada could not guarantee in advance what fate would
await them, but it is committed to taking that factor into
account during negotiations on secession. The government would
have all of its responsibilities to all Canadians at heart.
The House of Commons, every member of this House, would have the
opportunity to assess the way in which the government conducted
these infinitely painful, serious and difficult negotiations.
This bill is reasonable, and is in everybody's interest,
including that of my fellow Quebecers who desire Quebec
independence. They can and must acknowledge that their plans for
political independence can only be realized in clarity and
legality.
To act otherwise, to try to reach independence through
ambiguity, with no legal safety net, is to show disrespect for
Quebecers and to doom the independence initiative to failure, to
an impasse that would be disappointing and costly for everyone.
In this matter the separatist leaders do not defend the rights
of Quebecers. None of our rights as Quebecers is threatened. No
one in this country wants to hold back Quebecers against their
will. No, what the separatist leaders defend is their capacity
to maintain confusion on their project. They are upholding their
so-called right to confusion.
1155
So far the Government of Quebec has reacted to the announcement
of this bill with a most regrettable display of polemic frenzy.
Among other niceties it has said that the bill is of Soviet
inspiration, designed to turn Canada into a prison, and that it
dishonoures Canada in the eyes of other democracies.
If Canada is to be described as a “prison” for not
contemplating its own divisibility other than through legality
and clarity, just how would we describe all those democratic
countries that declare themselves to be indivisible, starting
with the United States?
The Bloc Quebecois should stop asking its researchers to swarm
the library of the House of Commons to try to find out about the
referendum acts of American states. The United States'
constitution provides that the country is indivisible. The same
goes for France, Italy, Spain and Australia. And how should we
describe the indivisible country into which the separatist
leaders want to transform Quebec? A prison?
The truth is that by obliging itself in law to negotiate
secession under circumstances of clarity Canada is displaying
unprecedented openness in the democratic world in the face of
the secessionist phenomenon.
[English]
By the way, for my many fellow citizens who have Canadian unity
at heart and who will thus be saddened to see their parliament
pass legislation that contemplates the possible breakup of
Canada, they may rest assured that their federal government is
firmly convinced that if things are clear Quebecers will never
renounce their full-fledged Canadian support.
[Translation]
The Government of Canada is convinced that Quebecers will always
choose to stay in Canada, will always work from the inside to
make Canada better, will always accept a helping hand from their
fellow Canadians, and in return will never deprive them of the
remarkable contribution of Quebec's culture and vitality. As
Quebecers, we will never want to deprive anyone, be it ourselves
or our fellow human beings, of the benefits of Canadian unity,
here at home and throughout the world.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I wonder if, through you, we could request unanimous
consent that the minister have questions posed to him by members
of the opposition and his own government.
1200
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to have a
question and answer period for the minister?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
There was and there is still some shouting in the House, but,
with all due respect to the Chair, now that things have calmed
down, I would like you to seek unanimous consent. I am convinced
that, given his great generosity, the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs is prepared to answer questions. With
all due respect to the Chair, I ask you to seek unanimous
consent again.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair is very reluctant to keep
putting the question on such points of order. Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the unity
debate in Canada has surfaced again with a vengeance. Most
Canadians are neither keen to open this subject nor ready for the
arguments that follow. I feel the country has referendum or
unity fatigue.
However, the Prime Minister has decided that there is no better
time than now to clarify referendum rules so I will speak to the
bill in the following way. First, I will speak to why the
official opposition supports the basic principles behind the
bill. Second, I will present some suggested changes. Third, I
will suggest that there is a major missing component to the bill.
Fourth, I will review the history to show how visionary the
official opposition leader has been on unity.
Reform, as the official opposition, supports the bill because it
does improve the chances that a referendum on secession by any
province will be conducted fairly.
The bill lays out specific criteria for Canada's elected
representatives to respect the principle of clarity. Is it
reasonable to expect the question on such a serious matter as
secession to deal with only that topic? I think so.
Is it reasonable for the question to specifically refer to a
province “ceasing to be a part of Canada”? I think so as well.
These ideas are fundamentally fair. A province may ask any
question of its population, but to be clear enough to divide a
country the question cannot be ambiguous.
It is important to state that the province must propose the
question and only the province can do that under our referendum
law. No one else can provide the wording, but to have legitimacy
everyone should be able to accept the result of a question posed
that cannot be misunderstood.
A clear majority has also been referred to in the bill. On this
point I also concur. I feel that a clear majority should be
defined in such a way that no one could misunderstand exactly
what that means. I will return to that point later.
I will now reflect on the changes that I think would improve the
bill. First, there is the issue of a clear question. Since the
subject is open to debate, I believe it would be wise to place a
sample question in the bill as a suggestion to a province
intending to hold a secession referendum. I stress the word
suggestion. The following is the official opposition's sample
question that meets our personal test of clarity.
[Translation]
“Should—the name of the province—separate from Canada
and become an independent country with no special legal ties to
Canada, yes or no?”
This is only a proposal. Why should sovereigntists oppose such a
question?
1205
[English]
Now to the somewhat more complex issue of the clear majority.
The government treats this issue a bit like a poker game.
Both the Prime Minister and the intergovernmental affairs
minister have said that 50% plus one is not good enough. They
then, however, hold their cards close to the vest and refuse to
say what is good enough. I listened carefully to the arguments
that state that this cannot be defined. However, this issue is
not some tactical battle. It is not a poker game. It is an
issue that involves millions of Canadians. I believe that the
plain truth is always better than tactical strategy.
I will use a hockey analogy to show how I feel changing the
rules can backfire and fail. In 1955 the Montreal Canadiens won
the Stanley Cup. What a team it was, so fast, so difficult to
check. Jean Béliveau scored three goals during one penalty and
it was determined that was too big an advantage. In 45 seconds
there were three goals, a hat trick. That summer the rules of
hockey were changed. A minor penalty was now to be terminated as
soon as a goal was scored. This rule was changed for but one
reason: to slow down this fast skating team from Montreal. The
rule change failed. An even more determined Canadiens team went
on to win four more consecutive Stanley Cups. The rule change
backfired.
Let us fast forward to 1984. The Edmonton Oilers were then the
dominant force, another fast, offensive oriented team.
Coincidental minor penalties for four on four gave them an
advantage. Four on three was even more of an advantage. They
won the Stanley Cup in 1983-84. The rules were changed that
summer so that coincidental minor penalties gave no advantage to
this fast skating team. The rule change failed again. They went
on to win three of the next four Stanley Cups, even more
determined than before to overcome the rule change. Again the
rule change backfired.
I believe changing the rules on a suitable majority could
backfire as well. The last two referendums were run under 50%
plus one.
An hon. member: No, they were not.
Mr. Grant Hill: The intergovernmental affairs minister
says “no”. Let me simply say that when the Prime Minister said
that this issue would be irreversible, and when the Prime
Minister, right after the referendum, said “We won”, he in fact
said that this rule was the one we expected.
I listened very carefully because I said this was debatable. I
say to my colleagues across the way that they should bring
forward the powerful arguments they have to make this debate
clear to every Canadian. I simply ask for that.
Reform supports and argues for 50% plus one of all the ballots
cast, including spoiled and rejected ballots. That would prevent
electoral shenanigans from affecting the result. We also
believe—and this is the flip side of that coin—that 50% plus
one is a powerful deterrent. If 50% plus one could divide Canada, 50%
plus one could also divide Quebec.
We have laid out and, if an unclear question were asked under a
provincial secession referendum attempt, we propose a two pronged
question. I will shorten the question. First prong, “Should—a
province—separate from Canada, yes or no?” Second prong,
“If—the province—separates from Canada should your community remain
a part of Canada, yes or no?” What a mess. What chaos. Who
would enter such a disaster knowingly?
One other issue that could and should be improved in the bill is
the level of public consultation. The government rightly notes
that this is not just an issue for the province wishing to
secede, but neither is this just an issue for politicians nor
just for journalists and professional commentators. This issue
cries out for public consultation, public hearings and vigorous
debate. The debate should not be conducted behind closed doors.
It should be conducted around the kitchen tables of the country.
1210
The bill has highlighted some problems with secession that would
need to be negotiated, namely the division of assets and
liabilities, any changes to the boundaries of a province,
aboriginal claims and the protection of minority rights. This
list is not exhaustive. I might suggest that the bill could also
mention citizenship, passports, pensions, creditor confidence,
the Canadian dollar, international agreements, an access corridor
if the province is in the centre of Canada, defence issues,
military assets and a potential rejoining of Canada. All these
issues make separation chaotic and very unappealing.
When the official opposition put forward its ideas for improving
the federation and laying the clear rules for secession, we made
it plain that the secession rules would be debated and passed in
parliament but never proclaimed unless a secession attempt were
made. That was in the hope and belief that positive changes to
the federation would make this legislation unnecessary. I
suggest the bill before us could well be improved by exactly the
same proposal.
Now to the gaping hole in the bill. It may be unfair to call
this a hole in the bill, but along with this bill we believe
there should be specific measures to improve our federation. When
this issue is raised in questions to the government, we hear that
the government has actually made significant changes. I hear
that the recognition of distinct society, a regional veto and the
social union are evidence of those changes.
However, these are not the sorts of changes that I think
Quebecers and other Canadians want. Once again the official
opposition has put its significant changes to paper in “Loi
sur le nouveau Canada, Partie A—Améliorations au fonctionnement
de la fédération”.
[Translation]
(a) to treat all Canadians with fairness and equity;
(b) to promote equality of opportunity for all Canadians;
(c) to respect the equality of rights and the dignity of all
Canadians, as well as their various needs;
(d) to recognize that all provinces, despite their different
characteristics, have the same legal standing.
We wish for a better sharing of powers under the constitution;
reduced federal spending powers in areas of provincial
jurisdiction; a dispute settlement mechanism and a change in
policies and programs for aboriginal people; and a democratic
reform of federal institutions, especially the House of
Commons, the Senate and the supreme court, to make them more
accountable to Canadians.
These changes must be made if we want to avoid problems with the
federation in Quebec and outside Quebec.
[English]
These are changes that would leave us with an option other than
the status quo or separation. These are positive and
constructive changes.
Finally, I will put a historical context on the unity debate and
place on the record what the official opposition has said and
done on this debate both here in Ottawa and even prior to our
arrival here.
1215
The Leader of the Opposition in chapter 17 of his book The
New Canada, and I ask my colleagues to read chapter 17, laid
out with a clarity of vision the unity issue and foresaw exactly
where we are today. I invite any student of Canadian history to
look at the copyright date, which is 1992. This is a short
quotation from the book:
This revival of the concept of Canada as an equal partnership
between founding races was doomed from the start. Even in the
1960s it was profoundly out of step with the times. The
Québécois wanted to be “maître chez nous”.... Federal
politicians responded by trying to bolster a national duality
that had been in decline for ninety years. The cultural
backgrounds of people in English-speaking Canada were becoming
more and more varied. Quebeckers were calling for less
bilingualism, not more bilingualism, in their own province and in
the other provinces.
Most importantly, Canadians outside Ontario and Quebec were
beginning to realize fully the real significance of the “two
nations” theory of Canada. A Canada built on a union of the
French and the English is a country built on the union of Quebec
and Ontario in which the other provinces are little more than
extensions of Ontario. Moreover, arrangements giving special
constitutional status to the French and the English as “founding
peoples” relegate the twelve million Canadians who are of
neither French nor English extraction (including aboriginal
peoples) to the status of second-class citizens.
It goes on to say that this history describes the constitutional
road that federal politicians and their predecessors have
travelled for a very long time. It is a road marked by signs in
both official languages that say things as equal partnership
between French and English, founding races, languages and
cultures, and special status based on race. It largely bypasses
the constitutional concerns of Atlantic Canada, western Canada,
northern Canada, aboriginals and the 12 million other Canadians
who are of neither French nor English extraction.
In other words, this road leads to an unbalanced federation of
racial and ethnic groups distinguished by constitutional
wrangling, deadlock, regional imbalance and a fixation with
unworkable linguistic and cultural policies to the neglect of
weightier matters such as the environment, the economy and
international competitiveness. That was in 1992.
On June 9, 1994 the Leader of the Official Opposition published
an open letter to the Prime Minister asking him to bring clarity
to the issues of a secession referendum. He asked the Prime
Minister:
Prime Minister, we cannot stand by passively and allow Quebec
voters to make the decision—separation or Canada—without
offering them a vigorous defence of Canada, including a positive
federalist alternative to the status quo. And we cannot let them
make their decision without disputing the separatist contention
that separation will be a relatively uncomplicated and painless
process.
That was in 1994 before the last referendum. He went on to lay
out 20 issues that would need to be negotiated, including
division of assets and liabilities, boundaries, native rights and
minority rights. Does that sound familiar?
Then in the spring of 1996 we brought out our 20:20 vision for a
new Canada: 20 proposals for a new confederation; 20 realities of
secession. That was clear as a bell.
Bill C-341 was given first reading October 30, 1996. That bill
was Stephen Harper's act to establish the terms and conditions
that must apply to a referendum relating to the separation of
Quebec from Canada before it may be recognized as a proper
expression of the will of the people of Quebec. It set out the
ground rules for a clear question.
Does that sound familiar?
1220
Also in October 1996 we released a fresh start for unity, again
laying out ways to rethink the Canadian federation and improve
it.
On August 20, 1998 there was the supreme court reference, which
we supported alone among the parties opposite the government, the
government having asked for it. We asked for two things:
clarification on secession rules and new partnership rules to
make Canada work better.
In May 1998 we brought out the new Canada act, once again
putting forth positive changes to fix the federation. After
public consultation we introduced the new Canada act this month,
taking into consideration the Prime Minister's wish to finally
clarify the secession rules.
I have spent this time going over the historical record so that
everyone in Canada will know that the Leader of the Official
Opposition has ploughed this ground before.
In summary, Bill C-20 does provide some clarity on the issue of
a question that could result in separation. It leaves undefined
the issue of what would be a suitable majority and I repeat, I
think that is unwise. I urge the government to put forward
positive changes to the federation that will truly put the
secession issue forever into the annals of history.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Madam Speaker,
today is a very sad day indeed as the House of Commons prepares
to deny the legitimacy of the national assembly to trample upon
democracy in Quebec.
In order to have a proper understanding of what is going on, we
must go back over history to learn from it and to identify the
key figures of yesterday and of today.
The Quebec people, who were then called Canadiens or even
Canayens, were conquered by the British in 1760. This was a
victory for one side and a defeat for the other.
Since then Quebec has had no desire for revenge. In fact there
have instead been several attempts to reach an agreement between
the two peoples. The Canadiens of the time, who later became
French Canadians, and still later Quebecers, invested all of
their imagination, their goodwill, in getting along with
Canada.
There is, however, one fundamental and undeniable requirement
for this: recognition of what we are, a people.
That objective has not been attained, despite much effort.
Throughout history democrats in Canada have stood up to open
their arms to Quebec, but their point of view has never won out.
This, unfortunately, has been the case for a number of peoples.
Some Canadiens, later French Canadians and still later
Quebecers, offered their services to the conqueror, and now to
the rest of Canada, in order to put the people of Quebec in
their place, to do a number on their fellow Quebecers, which
they could do a far better job at than their masters.
History is replete with individuals for whom principles and the
defence of their own people are of very little importance
compared to the power they can gain, the kudos they get from it,
and the perks of all kinds that are forthcoming to those who do
the dirty work for others, who are only too pleased not to have
to do it themselves. That held true yesterday, and holds
equally true today.
Throughout its history the Quebec people have resisted, have
fought for their rights and have obtained some, even in 1774 with
the Quebec Act.
1225
There people, by their resistance fighting, got one of the first
parliaments in the world, the parliament in Quebec City in
1791. Our democratic roots go a long way back. In Quebec we
have a long tradition of democracy.
The 1791 parliament did not really have much power, no more than
the modern parliament in Quebec has every power, as it is not
sovereign. The people were denied power then and will again be
denied power now, 200 years later.
The people of Quebec are a tolerant and peaceful people, but
they will not live on its knees or let others decide on their behalf.
This is as true today as it was then. Men and women rebelled
against the uncompromising attitude of the British back then.
They were called the Patriotes. Our ancestors are a true
inspiration to us.
They were definitely ahead of their time. Forerunners of the
modern Quebec, they fought for their people, not for an
ethnic group. Among them were men like Robert Nelson and Wilfred
Nelson. They recognized native rights. It took 150 years for
another Patriot, René Lévesque, to rise in 1985 and recognize,
before any other Canadian province and the Canadian government
itself, the first nations' right to self-government, as provided
for in the motion of the national assembly that was not
unanimously accepted because Quebec Liberals voted against it.
The Patriotes fought along with the Upper Canada Patriots, the
democrats of the time, against the family compact or la clique
du château, laying the foundations of the kind of co-operation
that is needed between democratic neighbours and treating each
other as equals. This was long before sovereignists started to
talk about this. These were the first steps in what we now call
a partnership between equals.
The Patriotes were crushed, as we know, but their legacy is
still alive. At the time, however, the authorities did not learn
anything from these rebellions. They responded with the Durham
report, which said that the people of Quebec, the people of
Lower Canada, were a people with no history and no culture.
Today, 160 years later, this government denies the existence of
the people of Quebec, makes Quebec culture a regional component
of the Canadian culture and is trying to undermine our
democratic institutions.
Durham laid the foundations of the union of the two Canadas, the
Province of Canada, the plan for a single Canada that now has a
much more subtle, pernicious and dangerous look. This plan was
based on equal representation in parliament, even though the
population of Lower Canada was significantly larger than the one
of Upper Canada. Today we are told that all provinces are
equal, Quebec only being a province like the others, no more no
less.
The only official language of the parliament of the time was
English. Today Ottawa, the federal capital of this supposedly
bilingual country, is not even bilingual. And this is what the
government wants to hold up as an example. How history repeats
itself.
Lower Canada paid for the debt of Upper Canada, which did not
have debt. Today we are told about the great generosity of the
federal government, which paid off its deficit on the backs of
the provinces, knowing full well that the one who has the money is
the one who sets the rules.
This was once called fair play, and still is. In my view, this
was once hypocrisy, and still is.
Those who wielded power at the time even went so far as to burn
down the parliament building in Montreal. Today their heirs
want to give us lessons in democracy. Let us talk about
democracy.
1230
When the men known as the Fathers of Confederation signed the
1867 pact, they did not allow the people of Lower Canada to hold
a referendum. They were satisfied with the votes of a few
parliamentarians, as was the case in 1982 for the patriation of
the constitution. The assemblies of the other provinces and the
House here made the decision without ever consulting the people
of Quebec.
That is when a whole series of attacks began against
French-speaking Canadians from coast to coast. Now the House is
paying tribute to Riel, who was hanged. But the problems that
gave rise to the situation with Riel were never resolved.
The Metis and the natives are second-class citizens in Canada.
Francophones in the other provinces are more than ever in danger
of becoming assimilated, despite the laudable efforts they are
making across Canada to resist assimilation. The figures do not
lie.
Legislation was passed in Manitoba and Ontario on behalf of the
majority and for the sake of fair play to hinder the development
of francophone minorities. That is what I call hypocrisy.
However, the French Canadians who believed they were one of the
founding nations of this country never gave up. I am thinking,
for instance, of people like Bourassa. Hon. members from the
province of Quebec have always been asked to help Canada put
Quebec in its proper place. It happened before, and it is
happening again today.
There are members from Quebec in this House whose ultimate job
is to put Quebec in its place.
As time went by, as Canada developed as a country, the
consolidation of Hugh McLennan's two solitudes became more and
more obvious. We can think of the conscription in World War I,
where the militia even went as far as opening fire on people in
Quebec City, killing a few protesters.
The anglophone majority was counting on its parliament in Ottawa
and on London to put Quebec in its place. It did happen in 1927,
with the privy council's decision concerning Labrador, but
French Canadians kept trying to make Canada their country, and
they were consistently deceived.
Promises concerning conscription were broken in World War II.
Today the government would have us believe that by not
determining what would be an acceptable majority in a Quebec
referendum it will keep its promise. We have heard that before.
The federation became increasingly centralized with the creation
of the unemployment insurance program in Ottawa and the
introduction of income tax for the duration of the war, or so
they said at the time.
French Canadians continued to fight. We were patient. Then
came a great awakening, the quiet revolution, when Quebec
discovered itself while discovering the world. “Masters in our
own home”, said Lesage. Our own home meant Quebec. It could no
longer be anything else. At that time only Quebec was
considered home by all Quebecers. It was true then, it is true
now, and it will still be true tomorrow. “A mari usque ad mare”
was a dream, and it became an illusion. The quiet revolution
marked the start of an overwhelming impulse, with Quebecers
moving from resistance to affirmation.
The Quebec culture was flourishing like never before. Quebecers
were taking control over their own affairs and penetrating the
business world. We were being told that we were not able, that
we could not create Hydro Quebec. It was always the others,
always the same who were telling us “You cannot do it”.
I remember this beautiful slogan, popular in 1966, “We can do
it”. We were told “You are not good at business”. We certainly had
enough blows. Ottawa reacted by establishing the Royal
Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. In 1963 we found
out that, on average, Quebecers had a grade nine education.
Enough to be water boys but not nation builders.
1235
Quebec then focused on education. It took control over its
destiny. Quebecers developed a taste for freedom, and we all
know that those who get a taste for it never have enough.
This is when the sovereignist movement appeared in all its
modernity. It provoked reactions in Canada. I think of Lester B.
Pearson who spoke of “a nation within a nation”, and of Robert
Stanfield who referred to “two nations”. Some people were
starting to see us for what we were, for what we are, a distinct
people, a nation.
Then came out of Quebec a French Canadian who was ready to play
the role that Canada generally assigns to those who agree to put
Quebec in its place. Pierre Elliott Trudeau did not miss a
chance to criticize Quebec's modern nationalism.
According to him, nationalism was a good thing for all other
peoples around the world. It was good for Canadians, but a
shameful disease for Quebecers.
Then a real nation building effort started, the Canadian nation
building, in which Quebec never had its place, still has no
place and will never have a place.
Yet Quebec persevered. We have great patience. Daniel Johnson Sr.
put forward the concept of equality or independence.
Nobody listened. He was even rebuffed by Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
We understood then that there could never be equality without
independence.
This is the great hope, the blueprint for the future that was
put forward by the Parti Quebecois, a resolutely modern and
democratic party, the bearer of a project of hope, a
contemporary and modern project that finds its inspiration in
Europe, where various sovereign countries are getting together
into larger entities such as the European Union.
The federalists have denounced this project; they would have had
the people believe, back then as today, that Europe was taking
Canada as a model. How I would like to see the Prime Minister go
to the national assembly of France and predict to its members
and senators that within 15 to 20 years France will no longer be
a sovereign country. How I would like to see the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs go to Westminster and announce to the
British people that within 15 to 20 years Great Britain will
disappear into a large European entity, having lost its status
as a sovereign country. And while we are at it, why not have the
Secretary of State for Amateur Sport go to the Bundestag in
Berlin and bring the good news to the Germans.
This is a modern project we are proposing.
Ottawa's answer to this modern plan was scaremongering, a
favourite tactic on the part of those who have nothing to
offer. Then came the Brinks affair, and the War Measures Act
whereby hundreds of innocent people were thrown in jail. We can
already see the hand of today's Prime Minister in this.
He was so sure he had succeeded that in August 1976 Pierre
Elliott Trudeau turned prophet: “Separatism is dead in Quebec.”
Three months later, René Lévesque and the Parti Quebecois formed
the first sovereignist government in Quebec's modern history.
Quebec witnessed then a tremendous momentum. It was the scene of
many achievements in the area of democracy, opening up to
others, to Canada, to the world. René Lévesque offered a policy
of reciprocity regarding Quebec's anglophone minorities and
Canada's francophone minorities, which are supposedly a concern
of this legislation. The Canadian provinces turned him down.
We can see the hypocrisy of some people, such as the hon. member
for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, who says that anglophones in Quebec
are being discriminated against. Let us look at the facts.
Anglophones in Quebec have access to a state-of-the-art hospital
network while, right here in Ottawa, the only francophone
hospital in Ontario, the Monfort hospital, has to repeatedly
fight for its life before the supreme court. There is no
comparison.
Quebec's anglophones have access to a school network ranging
from elementary school to high school to college, with three
universities of their own, McGill, Bishop and Concordia. They
have rights and so they should. Look at the painful situation of
francophones outside Quebec. They have their own social and
cultural institutions.
1240
Compare this to an assimilation rate of 70% in British Columbia,
over 60% in the prairies, 40% in Ontario, and even 8% in Acadia
where the francophones, a courageous breed, the Acadians, are
fighting with all their might and are dreaming of enjoying the
same living conditions as anglophones in Quebec.
The Parti Quebecois government proposed a referendum that would
provide it with the mandate to negotiate a new framework for
Quebec's relationship with Canada, the kind of relationship
between two sovereign nations, and the kind of modern
association that can exist between two sovereign nations. That
was a project based on the European model a project, I repeat,
which was promising.
Was it not the U.S. president himself, Bill Clinton, who in
Mont-Tremblant used the evolution of the European Union as an
example of federalism development in the future? How is it that,
if it is so promising for Europe, it could be so bad for Quebec
and Canada?
The response of the federal government was to try to scare
Quebecers in the 1980 referendum, telling them that they would
lose their old age pension, showing no respect for Quebec's
democratic referendum process, spending federal funds to
interfere in that process without any consideration for the
Quebec referendum legislation and promising change, sticking its
neck out.
Quebec got scared. It believed in change one more time, but the
disappointment was huge.
We then saw the patriation of the constitution, following the
night of the long knives, in which, once again, the present
Prime Minister took part. This is one thing that has remained
constant in our history over the last 40 years.
The constitution was patriated despite a very large consensus
in Quebec among all parties represented in the national
assembly. Not one Quebec premier, federalist or sovereignist,
from Lévesque to Ryan, leader of the opposition, to Robert
Bourassa, to Daniel Johnson Jr., to Pierre-Marc Johnson, to
Jacques Parizeau to Lucien Bouchard, signed the constitution,
and Jean Charest would not sign it either.
What was done to Quebec at that time would have never been done
to Ontario or even to Prince Edward Island. And it was done
without a referendum. That insult, that injustice, did not bring
Quebec to capitulate. It continued to fight and tried to work
toward a reconciliation.
This was the “beau risque”, which paved the way to the Meech
Lake accord. Once again Quebec was isolated and once again we
saw the current Prime Minister say “Thank you, Clyde” for a job
well done.
At that point, Robert Bourassa said that English Canada must
clearly understand that whatever happens and whatever is done,
Quebec is and always will be a distinct society, one that is
free and quite capable of taking charge of its own destiny and
development.
He created the Bélanger-Campeau commission that carried out broad
democratic consultations and recommended that a referendum on
sovereignty be held if renewed federalism were to fail.
Quebecers tried to figure out what they would do either within
Canada or as a sovereign nation and they examined the pros and cons.
It may be about time for Canadians to ask themselves the same
question. How do they see Canada with Quebec and how do they
imagine Canada without Quebec. They should address this issue.
It would be the responsible thing to do.
However, Mr. Bourassa lacked confidence in his fellow Quebecers
and backed down. He signed an agreement that had yet to be
drafted—talk about clarity—an agreement based on legal documents
that had yet to be drafted, an agreement that would never have
been distributed to the population were it not for the
opposition party. The agreement fully embodied the two
solitudes. Both sides voted no, but for very different reasons:
the agreement was not enough for Quebec and too much for the
rest of Canada.
A new government was elected in Quebec, a sovereignist
government that submitted for a second time to Quebecers a
sovereignty project along with a new partnership proposal.
1245
The question was clear. Nowhere in the opinion of the supreme
court does it say that the question was not clear. Nothing in it
excludes a partnership proposal with some federal or confederal
bodies.
For Ottawa, there is only one kind of federalism on this earth
and it is the one in existence in Canada. There is only one kind
of relationship, one kind of collaboration possible, and it is
what we have now in Canada. For Ottawa, the rest of the world
does not exist.
As I remember, during the referendum campaign the Prime
Minister very eloquently predicted that we were going to get it,
that we were going to get under 40% of the votes. We know what
the results were, even after the love-in that was held, with
total disregard for the
Quebec referendum legislation, where people came to tell us that
they love us when we are subservient, when we are pliant, when
we are down on our knees and when we are Liberal. More promises
were made after that.
The distinct society motion had no substance at all. We were
told that “The motion would impact on all the bills passed in
the House”. However, take the Young Offenders Act. All of the
political parties represented in Quebec's national assembly as
well as all the lawyers, judges, social workers and even police
officers have stated “We do not want this new bill. Let us keep
the system we have in Quebec, which has given us the best
results possible in this area”. What impact did the distinct
society motion have on the recognition of this consensus? None,
none at all. It had no substance at all. We knew it and we see
it once again today.
A so-called veto was also given to all of the regions. This led
to total paralysis, as we saw with the Meech Lake accord, where
not only a province or a territory, but a single individual was
able to block what Quebec wanted. To top it off, we were offered
a social union. There were two distinct views: one in favour in
Canada and one opposed in Quebec. The Liberal members in this
House, a minority here, we remind them, once again supported the
Canadian view, ignoring the view in Quebec.
This belittling of Quebec is a true obsession with the Prime
Minister. Inspired by his muse, the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, he is now going after the powers of
the national assembly. He would like to impose the wording of
the question on the national assembly.
Yet, in 1994, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said
that the words secession, separation, sovereignty and
independence all meant the same thing.
Apparently, this is no longer the case. He has changed his
mind. I suppose he would also say that Quebecers are not
intelligent enough to decide if a question is clear; the folks
in Vancouver, Moose Jaw, Halifax, Toronto and Regina, who know
all about clarity, must be consulted.
He tells us that elected representatives in the national
assembly are incapable of clarity, as are the federal members
from Quebec in the House of Commons, the 44 Bloc Quebecois
members in Ottawa and the four members of the Progressive
Conservative Party who are not in agreement with the bill. The
Liberal members from Quebec are in the minority, but we would
not understand. The 26 Liberal members from Quebec know what is
best.
This is nothing more than contempt and arrogance.
This same bill questions the rule of 50% plus one. Let us
consider Newfoundland. Why? Two referendums. Why did 50% plus
one apply in the case of Newfoundland? Why was Quebec never
consulted when Newfoundland joined confederation in
1949? Why this double standard? Why did the government not set
figures, rules, percentages and thresholds in its legislation?
Undoubtedly because it was afraid of being challenged
internationally or in the courts.
1250
If it was dangerous to set a percentage beforehand, why is
it any less so to set one once the results are in? How can
Ottawa be judge and judged? What are these relevant conditions
for setting the percentage? Again, Ottawa will decide.
Is the federal government, the Liberal party, essentially the
sole bearer of the truth, the whole truth? By raising the issue
of partition in this bill, is the government not going back on
all its positions with respect to maintaining the borders of new
countries, such as the Baltic countries, the Ukraine, the
federated republics of the former Yugoslavia? How can it take
one stand internationally outside the country and another here
in the House for Quebec?
They who have so much to say about consensus and clarity, do
they not see a great consensus in Quebec within our civil
society, among all parties represented in the Quebec national
assembly, even federalist parties, among the vast majority of
members from Quebec who were democratically elected to this
House, within the Progressive Conservative Party, I suppose, and
I hope within the NDP, which recognized Quebec's right to
self-determination? Those are the ones who are on the side of
democracy, but this government just ignores them.
Who do we find on the other side, on the side of the Prime
Minister's Liberals? The Reform Party, which has a great
presence in Quebec and a good understanding of Quebecers, Guy
Bertrand, Bill Johnson, Keith Anderson, Howard Galganov. Is that
the Liberal consensus in Quebec? Is that their great consensus?
How did we get to this point? Because support for sovereignty
went from 8% in the 1960s to 49.6% in 1995. In his 35 year
career the Prime Minister will have seen sovereignty surge like
never before in our history. Seeing this incredible surge and
unable to propose anything to Quebec, he thinks the best thing
to do is to prevent Quebecers from making a decision.
Nothing can resist the will of the people. Quebecers will
not give in to Ottawa and will remain masters of their own
destiny. Someday we will see two peoples who respect each
other, who appreciate each other and who do not prevent each
other from going forward in the direction they each want to
follow.
I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word “That” and substituting the following:
“this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-20, an act
to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the
opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec secession
reference, because the bill contravenes the inalienable right of
the Quebec people to decide freely their own future.”
Someday Quebec will be sovereign. Canada can certainly count on
that.
1255
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair will take the amendment
under advisement and return to the House in a few moments as to
its admissibility.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my
privilege today to rise to participate in a remarkable debate in
the history of our country. Today we speak frankly and openly
about how our country might break up through legal and democratic
means. That this is a debate that arouses great passion should
surprise no one, great passion among parliamentarians and among
Canadians in general.
[Translation]
Today, we are talking frankly and openly about a sensitive
issue: how to legally and democratically break up our country.
[English]
Every federalist who participates in this debate must do so with
the determination to make sure that possibility never happens.
I will briefly outline some recent efforts of the federal New
Democratic Party to do just that. I will share the basis of my
optimism that if we proceed with appropriate sensitivity, with
careful deliberation and mutual respect, we can succeed and we
can emerge a united, strengthened Canada.
Immediately after the 1997 federal election the New Democratic
Party launched its social democratic forum on the future of
Canada, a party task force that undertook a thorough study and
broad consultation on possibilities for improving the way Canada
works for all of its citizens. Over the subsequent two years we
held literally dozens and dozens of meetings in every corner of
Canada. We talked to ordinary Canadians and representatives of
organizations who are earnestly engaged in the work of trying to
make Canada work better for all of its citizens.
What did we learn from those meetings and those discussions over
the past two years? We learned that there is a real appetite to
make Canada work more effectively and that there are a lot of
good practical ideas about how we can accomplish that. We found
that vast numbers of Canadians remain committed to doing the work
that is needed to make our federalism more responsive to a rich
diversity, the rich diversity which is Canada.
[Translation]
They remain committed to making it a responsive federalism, a
federalism presenting all the advantages of a common citizenship
and preserving all the rights inherent with that citizenship,
and a federalism reflecting the many regional, linguistic and
cultural differences which make Canada the country that it is.
[English]
One of the main pillars of responsive federalism must be an
effective social union. In the framework we advocate, social
programs would have enforceable Canada-wide standards as a right
of citizenship, but those standards and mechanisms would be
co-decided between the federal and provincial governments acting
as genuine partners.
For the social union to work and for the unity of this country
to be strengthened, provinces must have the flexibility to
respond to local conditions effectively, and the federal
government must be a reliable fiscal partner. If there is one
thing this government has not been in recent years it is a
reliable fiscal partner with the provinces.
To strengthen Canadian federalism, the number one thing the
government must do is to undo the damage it has inflicted on our
health care system, post-secondary education programs and
critically important social welfare programs administered by the
provinces. Through careful investment of the surplus the
government can improve the quality of life of individual
Canadians and strengthen the bonds of federalism at the same
time.
1300
Another quality of responsive federalism is to craft federal
institutions and relationships that accurately reflect the unique
position of particular cultural and linguistic communities in
Canada.
Since the quiet revolution in Quebec the country has been
grappling with exactly how to recognize Quebec's unique character
both in terms of constitutional language that accurately and
symbolically describes that uniqueness and in terms of particular
federal arrangements that practically recognize that unique
character.
[Translation]
That project failed, but we have to find a way to cut the
Gordian knot if we do not want another referendum to be held in
Quebec.
[English]
Canada's aboriginal people represent another community whose unique
place in Canadian society cries out for action. Recommendations
of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples have still not
been implemented.
New Democrats joined with others in celebrating the passage
yesterday of the Nisga'a treaty legislation. However let us make
no mistake about it. The work of attaining justice for our
aboriginal people is only just beginning. If we are sincere
about national unity we must redouble our efforts to pursue the
simple, positive project of making Canada a better place to live
for all its citizens.
In short, and let me make it very clear, discussion of the
legislation before the House today can never be a substitute for
improving the Canadian federation to prevent a future referendum
that would result in the breakup of Canada.
The bill we are debating had its origins in the opinion of the
Supreme Court of Canada on questions relating to the right of
Quebec to secede from Canada.
[Translation]
The essence of that opinion was that Quebec could legitimately
separate from Canada if a clear majority of Quebecers answered
yes to a clear question.
The supreme court also said that negotiations on the secession
should be held in accordance with the principles of federalism,
democracy, the constitution and the rule of law, and in a context
of respect for minorities.
[English]
This opinion establishes two essential things about the way a
future referendum should be handled within the framework of
Canadian democracy and federalism.
The first is that Quebec under certain conditions could
legitimately secede from Canada. In the words of the court, “the
continued existence and operation of the Canadian constitutional
order could not be indifferent to a clear expression of a clear
majority of Quebecers that they no longer wish to remain in
Canada”.
As a party that supports and has always supported Quebec's
democratic right to self-determination, New Democrats welcome
that confirmation of Quebecers' democratic values and
perspectives on the Canadian federation.
In setting out that the rest of Canada would be obliged to
negotiate secession with Quebec only on the basis of a clear
majority on a clear question, the supreme court also established
that the elected representatives of Canadians would have a
legitimate circumscribed role to play in a future referendum. As
committed federalists and democrats, New Democrats also support
this principle.
The bill before us today is an attempt to set out a framework
for the response of this parliament to a future referendum
according to the supreme court ruling about the role of
parliament.
1305
[Translation]
We do not think this is an exact reflection of the supreme court
opinion, and there are many complex elements both in the opinion
and in this bill which require a more thorough examination.
[English]
Changes in the bill are advisable. There is work to be done,
but New Democrats will be supporting the bill in principle at
second reading.
I assure all Canadians that we take very seriously our
responsibility to play a constructive role in working out a
framework for an appropriate federal role in a future referendum
that lives up to the supreme court decision. We intend to play
that constructive role. We take it seriously. We invite all
Canadians to draw inspiration from the supreme court ruling where
it underscores that “a functioning democracy requires a
continuous process of discussion”.
Today I implore the Prime Minister in particular to listen to
the court's urgings. Regrettably there is no evidence so far to
suggest that the Prime Minister is willing to do so.
[Translation]
From the outset, the Prime Minister could have taken a number of
initiatives to discuss this issue and consult all interested
parties in order to determine how we could discharge the
obligations set out in the supreme court opinion.
[English]
The Prime Minister could have referred the supreme court
decision to a parliamentary committee to offer suggestions but he
chose not to do so. The Prime Minister could have held a first
ministers conference to consider the question but he chose not to
do so. He could have initiated a dialogue between the House of
Commons and the Quebec national assembly to see if there were
some common ground but he chose not to do so.
In short, he could have acted responsibly and democratically in
the spirit of the court's opinion and reflected the longing of
Canadians for constructive nation building, but to date he has
chosen not to do so.
From the moment the Prime Minister began weeks ago issuing
mysterious statements about his intentions, escalating the
insulting and disrespectful rhetoric toward the Quebec people,
and challenging other federalists to agree with a position which
he refused to clarify, he defiantly set out to antagonize other
federalists, other federalists in the House, federalists in
Quebec and a good many federalists across the country.
It is a transparent and shameless attempt to play politics with
the future of the country. It is a deliberate ploy to distract
the public from the pressing responsibilities and many failures
of the government.
The fact that the Prime Minister chose to announce his
intentions literally hours before the 10th anniversary of the
pledge of the House to eradicate child poverty in the country
speaks volumes. The Prime Minister wants to play politics with
this important question. His actions over the past couple of
weeks have made that clear, but we cannot and we will not let
him.
Today New Democrats pledge our willingness to offer a
constructive contribution to the study and the improvement of the
bill in committee. We want to make sure that the bill reflects
as closely as possible the democratic responsibilities set out by
the supreme court. We will be proposing amendments that we
believe are necessary to achieve that.
The section of the bill dealing with the clarity of the majority
sets out a framework where the rules of the game would not
effectively be set until after a secession vote is held. Fears
have understandably been aroused about the potential for abuse by
the House of Commons in arbitrarily rejecting a clear majority
after the fact.
1310
The bill goes out of its way to say that the views of the Senate
should be taken into account in the deliberations on the clarity
of the question and the majority. Surely this is an absurd
notion for a bill that is supposed to live up to a democratic
ideal.
I have to say that I was astonished that the Conservative Party
had taken the position that the Senate deserves an even greater
role than the one set out for it in the bill. In the entire
process of consideration and negotiation the role of first
nations also needs to be carefully considered if the bill is to
truly reflect Canadian reality and Canada's obligations.
My colleagues and I look forward to considering these as well as
other issues raised by Canadians in the process of studying the
bill. We urge the government to take a similar approach of being
open to amendments in its work at committee. Indeed the way
the government treats the committee process and its openness to
amendments will be the test of the Prime Minister's true motives.
[Translation]
Does the Prime Minister really want a bill that is a true
reflection of the supreme court opinion, or does he want to go
on playing little games that are dangerous for the future of our
country?
[English]
Throughout the debate we will be seeking a truly democratic and
constructive process, one that can open the door to all
federalists. In some cases that means reopening the door to some
federalists so that they can all work constructively on building
a united Canada.
Most of all, I hope the work on the bill does not distract the
Prime Minister or parliament from the critically important task
of building a better Canada, one that meets the hopes, dreams,
needs and aspirations of all our citizens so that the legislation
that we are debating today will never be required.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The amendment moved by the leader of the
Bloc Quebecois is in order. Debate is now on the amendment.
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question for the leader of the New Democratic Party is very
simple. She listed a number of very convincing arguments on why
this is bad legislation and why the government is playing
meanspirited politics with the national unity issue to advance
its own short term goals at the expense of the long term interest
of Canadians.
Having articulated so forcefully why this is bad legislation,
how could she possibly be supporting the legislation?
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, the member raises a
very understandable question. Given how very distressed we have
been and remain about the actions of the Prime Minister, about
the cynicism and the crass political manoeuvring that preceded
the introduction of the bill, why would we be willing to consider
it in good faith?
1315
I will answer the question. We are prepared to look at the bill
on its merits and to consider it in good faith because that is
the job that is required of us as parliamentarians. We must try
to make a distinction between whatever the political motives may
be or whatever the political manoeuvring of the party in power
may be. I think we all have some pretty big suspicions about
that. I have outlined some of them today. We have to separate
that from what is truly in the interests of Canada and what is
truly the route to a strengthened united Canada that is going to
work better for all of our citizens.
As I indicated, there are improvements needed. The manner in
which government members and the Prime Minister participate in
that process will indicate whether this is a project worthy of
support and whether the final results can indeed advance a
stronger united Canada. We are prepared to take our
responsibility as parliamentarians to play a constructive role in
that process.
Mr. Reg Alcock (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the
Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I simply wish
to thank the leader of the New Democratic Party for her
willingness and ability to put aside partisan politics and focus
on this very important question. It is not an easy issue for all
of us. As she has so rightly pointed out, it involves the future
of our country. We look forward to working with her as this
debate unfolds.
I note that her party's critic and House leader is one of the
few members in the House who has been through both referendums.
He has often spoken to me about some of the difficulties in
sorting out these questions. We want to thank them for their
willingness to work with us in trying to find a solution.
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the member
on the government bench takes under serious advisement our urging
that government members come to the committee process and
participate in this debate in a way that is absolutely respectful
to the rights and interests of all people of Quebec. They must
be sensitive to the fact that there obligations upon all of us to
understand that we have to find new ways to create a more
flexible federalism that will respond to the particular
conditions of Quebec, just as we need to do the same as it
relates to aboriginal Canadians. If government members are
prepared to do that, then I think we will all discharge our
responsibilities as representatives of the interests of all
Canadians within Quebec and across this great country of ours.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
last summer I was an observer at the NDP convention in Ottawa
and I could see what was decided there.
I read with a great deal of interest one of the resolutions that
the convention adopted, clearly recognizing Quebec's right to
self-determination, and going as far as recognizing Quebecers as
a people. This is the first federal political party that did
that. The NDP recognized that Quebecers are indeed a people.
How can the NDP leader now explain that, in an unbelievable
flip-flop, she is accepting that the federal government can make
a pronouncement on the acceptability of the referendum question
asked by the national assembly? How does this position square
with the resolution passed last summer?
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, I very much welcome
that question. I am not sure whether the member was listening to
my comments, but that is precisely why I opened my discussions of
the New Democratic Party position on this debate with a proud
reference to the social democratic forum and the recommendations
that were endorsed overwhelmingly at our federal convention in
August. It recognizes the right of self-determination of the
people of Quebec.
That is what the bill is about.
1320
What the supreme court ruling did, and we welcomed this
clarification, is it acknowledged the right of self-determination
of the Quebec people. It also said that there is an obligation on
the federal government under certain conditions to recognize a
vote, a clear decision on a clear question that would indicate
that the people of Quebec want to separate from Canada.
The supreme court decision that is reflected in the legislation
now before us acknowledges exactly that right. It also makes it
clear that it is not possible to take the view that there is no
other impact, that there are no other implications for the rest
of Canadians. Therefore it acknowledges both a right and a
responsibility, a circumscribed, very particular, limited role on
the part of the federal government. It is around our doing the
most careful and sensitive job possible of defining what that
role is in which the Parliament of Canada is now engaged.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, in any
parliamentary debate the NDP leader is considered to be, as a
rule, very sensitive to social issues such as health care,
education and poverty.
Would she not agree that the government is wasting our time with
such a bill giving effect to a supreme court's decision?
It is going to drag on for months and months. In the meantime,
the House will be monopolized by this one issue. Does the NDP
leader not believe it is a waste of time not to deal with more
practical issues the NDP usually cares about?
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, I guess I should not
expect that members listened to my comments over the last half
hour but that is precisely the point I made. New Democrats have
no intention of allowing the government to use the bill as an
excuse for not dealing with the critical problems of child
poverty and homelessness, with the worst agricultural crisis in
this country since the great depression, with the deterioration
of our health care system and with the access barriers to
post-secondary education that have been erected for our young
people.
I am in total agreement and so are my colleagues that those are
the priority issues. That is why we implore members on the
government benches but we also implore our colleagues on the
opposition benches to participate with us in dealing with this
issue in a reasoned, responsible, sensitive way, while none of us
on this side of the House let the government off the hook on its
responsibilities to Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, this
morning, and even this afternoon, we have had the “pleasure” to
listen to several speeches, including one by the
intergovernmental affairs minister. I must say that if I were at
home, if I were a mere individual and not an MP, listening to
the minister, I would say it is as though tomorrow morning
Quebec is going to say yes to a referendum on sovereignty. When
listening to the minister's speech, one had the definite
impression this government is giving up on Canada and any
improvement to the federation. This is exactly what it is doing.
This bill says: “Here is the recipe to break up the country.” We
cannot support it. On behalf of the Progressive Conservative
Party I have the following message for the government: Step
aside. It is going to be all right. We will put forward some
positive proposals.
We are going to talk about the real problems Canadians and
Quebecers are facing. We will take care of the future of the
country.
1325
The governing party used to say: “We want to keep the country
together. We want to keep Quebecers and Canadians united.” For
the past few days and weeks, Canada has never been as divided as
it is today.
Quebecers themselves have never been this divided. Canadians
have never been this divided. For years now parliamentarians
have never been this divided. I must say that even within
our own caucus some members are having reservations and
questioning the strategy to follow.
Nevertheless, our party's line is clear: we will fiercely oppose
the Liberal government's initiative.
This bill on clarity is also an instrument of division. It shows
us how to break up our country and, in the meantime, how to
shatter the common interests that parliamentarians share in the
hope of eradicating poverty. Why not try to build something
positive to solve this problem? Instead we are given
the instructions on how to break up a country. We are told how
to destroy parliament. We are told how to drive a wedge between
family members, individuals and the provinces.
Let us talk about the provinces. The supreme court has always
referred to the politicians. The federal government has decided
to act on its own and ignore the provinces. How many provinces
today have stated that they agree with the federal government?
They are divided. Is that what the federal government's strategy
is all about? This is pure machiavellianism. It is more than
machiavellianism 101. It could give us a lecture on this theme.
Where are the provinces that support the federal government in
today's newspapers?
An hon. member: Where does Ontario stand on this issue?
Mr. Nick Discepola: Four out of four.
Mr. André Bachand: They are divided, that is true. Is that the
kind of country you want? Not me.
What is important here, and it is even mentioned in the bill, is
that the role of the provinces is a residual one. It is subject
to the federal role. Even though Quebec and Ontario are the two
main trade patterns, Ontario has officially no say in this.
Nowhere does the opinion of the supreme court give the federal
government an additional role compared to the provinces.
However, the federal government has decided to negotiate on
behalf of the provinces and to take into consideration their
points of view.
Take into consideration? Did it consult the other provinces
about this? Did the provinces introduce a bill like this one?
Did they give to the great federal government the authority to
negotiate secession on their behalf? I am not sure that
Albertans would agree to that. I am sure that Ontarians would
disagree. I am not sure the maritime provinces would support the
Liberal government and say “Yes, if Quebec separates, go ahead
and negotiate on behalf of maritimers. You have the
authority to do it. We rely on Ottawa to negotiate on our behalf
and on behalf of western Canada”. This is hogwash.
There is more. In addition to excluding the provinces from the
negotiations following the secession of a part of Canada, there
is talk of excluding the opposition here. There are speeches
about uniting during the Christmas holidays. But here we are
talking about dividing as a country before the Christmas
holidays. But that is another matter.
Mr. Speaker, I had forgotten to tell you something. First, I
really appreciate having you as a Speaker and, second, I will
divide my time with the hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
In the bill, the government, in addition to excluding the
provinces, is technically excluding the four opposition parties
here. Why? Because it talks about the House of Commons. It says
the House of Commons will analyze all this. Looking at the way
the Liberals have been conducting their business since 1993, we
see that it is the PMO that makes the decisions. However, the
PMO, the Prime Minister's Office, is not Canada. Is it clear
enough? The decisions should be made by all parliamentarians.
The government bill is silent. The government talks about
negotiating sovereignty, secession, and says that parliamentary
rules will remain the same. It does not even talk about free
votes.
I was talking with the hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac this
morning.
I asked “Why not have a free vote on that?” He said “Why
not?”
But they are not saying what we will be voting on. We do not
even have a resolution. There is no analysis of what a clear
question is. We do not even know if our negotiations in this
House are clear.
1330
What percentage will be needed for the House to say that there
is a clear majority? What percentage of the votes cast? Will we
use the parliamentary rule which requires 50% of the votes plus
one? Will the governor in council or the Prime Minister's office
decide if the question and the majority are clear?
Why not say in the bill that members of parliament will be more
involved and, above all, that provinces and regions of Canada
will be involved? There is nothing like that. It is the silence
of the lambs. There is absolutely nothing to that effect.
The only one who is given a role is the Prime Minister, so that
he can say that the question is not clear and that the majority
is not clear.
There will be a short debate in parliament, but, knowing the
parliamentary process as we know it, we can anticipate a closure
motion and the debate will be cut short. We will be told “Enough
talking. We find that it is not clear enough”. The provinces
will be told “You can write a letter if you want and tell us
what you think, but we will make the decision”.
This is not what the supreme court said. The bill was introduced
last Friday thanks to a little trick. They used to accuse the
former premier of Quebec, Mr. Parizeau, of trickery. However,
promises were made and agreements were concluded with the House
leaders. They were told “This is an important bill, an important
draft bill. We will wait for everybody to recover from the
madness the Reform Party put us through, and we will come back
with it next week, when everybody is rested”.
But no, the draft bill was tabled. What is going on? What a
great beginning for negotiations.
If the government is not even capable of treating
parliamentarians with respect, imagine the provinces, imagine
Quebec. This is nothing to be proud of. It is not just the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, I realize, there is a
little gang of people controlling the procedural aspects of the
government. This is a slap in the face of democracy. They could
have waited until Monday.
What happened is that he introduced it and then he took off.
After that, out came the ministers, one after another. The
Minister of Finance came out first of all with his “Hi there,
how are you? I am in agreement with it”. Then, two minutes
later, the Minister for International Trade said “Oh yes, we
are fine with it”. That is the way it was done. All the people
who had nothing to say on the matter, who remained silent, were
anxiously waiting to be told “Go out there, we will be timing
you”. That is the way it went—a lovely sight to behold.
I was off in my riding, settling some real business, like making
sure some people on unemployment would at least get a cheque for
Christmas, because they have children too. It is important.
There were the ministers all saying, one after another “Oh yes,
it is reasonable”. But at that time no one had seen the bill.
Many MPs were off in their ridings. There were the initial
reactions. Mr. Clark put it very well, borrowing a quote from
Robert Stanfield “Nothing is easier to do than to turn the
majority in a country against a minority”. Nothing is easier to
do than to divide this country.
Now we have a bill. Hooray. We are one of the few countries in
the world that now has such a thing. We have a recipe book.
The finest country, the best place to live, now has a recipe
book on how to break up. That is really something.
I know my time is nearly up.
I can get emotional. When Quebec is being discussed, it affects
me. When they come up with such a piece of legislation, when I
am taken for a fool, it affects me. It upsets and offends me.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for my hon. colleague.
Is it true that one of the winning conditions for the
separatists would be to have as prime minister a party leader
like Joe Clark, since Mr. Joe Who likes to be chummy with the
separatists? If we had not a clear question, everything would be
lost with Mr. Clark as prime minister.
1335
Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke
is part of a political party that will go down in history as one
that always went around major constitutional conferences to find
a solution with long knives. Thus I do not need him to give me any
lessons.
With regard to Mr. Clark, the hon. member should come to Quebec to
see how well Mr. Clark is, a priori, appreciated and respected by
Quebecers. This morning the newspapers were saying that
Mr. Clark is consistent. So, on that score, the Liberals have
nothing to say to us.
There are many parties in the House that are flip-flopping.
First, there is the government party that is flip-flopping on the
issue, to an unbelievable extent. It was against the Meech Lake
accord, against the Charlottetown accord. It centralizes
everything in the Prime Minister's office. It gives nothing to
the provinces. And now it has decided to deal with national
unity. Reform flip-flops. The NDP members are also flip-flopping.
It is unfortunate, but I must say that we are the only
federalist party which still believes in Canada and which is
against this bill.
It is not easy for Mr. Clark. However, if they think that Mr.
Clark is a winning condition for sovereigntists, they are wrong
because he is a winning condition for the country, including
Quebecers. When the time comes, Quebecers will decide what their
future will be.
Once they decide to vote for the Progressive Conservative Party,
they will do it. It is as simple as that, and we have no lesson
to learn form them, particularly from the Liberal Party. The
Right Hon. Joe Clark is taking a stand, and it is not easy
because he is faced with quite a problem.
In fact, everybody agrees on certain elements of the secession
process. By the way, we use words like secession, sovereignty,
independence, sovereign country interchangeably. Secession is a
process; the result is sovereignty or independence. If Mr.
Clark, the Right Hon. Joe Clark, comes to power, unlike the
present Prime Minister, who feeds on the sovereignty movement,
he will put a stop to that, he will find a way to co-operate in a
completely different way and as fast as possible, I hope. I
think it is high time we stopped working ourselves into a state
over all this.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at the
outset of his speech the member said that this bill is an
admission of failure by Canada because the government, whether
it is Liberal or Conservative, cannot succeed in improving the
constitution nor the country to accommodate Quebec and to do
what Quebec has always requested.
It is indeed an admission of failure. Obviously, the federal
government wants to reject Quebec and to treat it like any other
minority instead of recognizing that Quebecers really form a
single people. It is an admission of failure, and I must say to
the Conservative Party member that it does not matter whether
the government is Liberal or Conservative, because Canada does
not accept Quebec.
Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier people who
are working themselves into a state and the problems of the
ultra federalists and of the ultra separatists, who both exist
and need each other to live. What is clear is that when I
mention the admission of failure, it is the failure of this
government I am talking about.
Clearly, the Conservative Party has a completely different
vision of the way our federation should work and of the respect
that should be shown for the regions and the provinces. It is
that spirit that has to be developed here.
I ask the member to prove to me that a man like Mr. Clark tricked
Quebec. I know that is impossible to prove. Our party did not
trick Quebec. There were hard times in the history of our
country, but I can assure members that the Conservative Party
gives Quebec the recognition it deserves and that it also gives
Canada the recognition it deserves, that of a country where
Quebec has its place.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I commend my dear colleague for Richmond—Arthabaska.
Unfortunately, I cannot express myself in the other official
language of Canada, but my passion for the French language, for
Quebec and for the country is as great as his.
[English]
History has been very kind to this country. We have enjoyed a
great deal. We have enjoyed freedoms, bountiful gifts of natural
resources, prosperity and peace for much of our history.
However, we continue to struggle with national unity.
Although our country was forged from the fire of two warring
nations on this continent, we continue to be engaged in some form
of warfare. That is not the wish of the Conservative Party.
1340
There is little that is certain about the aftermath of this
debate, but one thing can be sure: passions will be inflamed and
emotions will run high. This bill makes secession respectable
and more accessible. This bill is not about clarity; it is about
confusion. It will not lead to a conclusion, but more confusion.
It is ill-timed to introduce this legislation before the
country. The national agenda has been hijacked and it will cause
contentious debate to erupt at a time when the focus should be
elsewhere.
My fear is that the Liberal definition of clarity will give
separatists the winning condition which they have sought. A red
flag has been waved. We question, as Conservatives, the process
and the timing.
Strategically, the Prime Minister has brought this legislation
before the House immediately prior to the holidays, ensuring that
this debate will continue without opposition. We understand that
this was done over the protestations of senior cabinet ministers,
caucus colleagues and many advisers within the province of
Quebec. As before, Canadians will once again embark on this
divisive, destructive debate.
This legislation is not a positive framework for negotiation. It
is in fact a provocative and threatening attempt at undermining a
lasting relationship that we have enjoyed in this country.
Instead of drawing Canadians together, this legislation provides
a road map to secession. It codifies a process to permit a
province to leave confederation and it says nothing of actions to
create a common purpose, but it will bring about fear and
loathing.
This is not progress for Canada. It is not leadership. It is
not the leadership that we should expect from a government and
from a prime minister. We have already received an opinion from
the Supreme Court of Canada which clearly recognizes the
requirement of a clear question. No one is against clarity. Why
is it necessary to repeat this in legislation? It becomes a
classic double-edged sword.
It will allow or be perceived to allow the federalists the power
to cut off disingenuous separatist tactics. Premier Bouchard is
once again going to be elevated into his rhetorical and lofty
debate over self-determination. He will tell Quebecois that English
Canada has abandoned them and in the end it will be
imposing its will over Quebec.
Why are we allowing this to happen at this time? This issue
detracts from many important issues: health care, unemployment,
education, brain drain, agriculture, fisheries and, of
course, poverty. All of these issues are real issues, real
issues that face Quebecers and all Canadians. These are some of
the pressing issues that we should be debating at this time.
Positive efforts to address them are being delayed by this
ill-timed, ill-conceived initiative.
Government efforts should clearly be focused elsewhere. We
should be convincing Quebecers to stay rather than making
provocative threats. Like the sword of Damocles, this
legislation will hang precariously over the heads of Quebecers
from a thread.
We are left to believe that the Prime Minister is embarking on a
legacy building attempt. Running roughshod over the objections
of others, he calls this nation building. We know the often
quoted phrase that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
Canadians should not forget about the Prime Minister's
participation in flawed constitutional repatriation attempts or
how he helped cynically to torpedo past attempts at putting the
country's contentious unity debate to rest.
Canadians will, of course, recall how he disappeared in the 1995
referendum campaign. What confidence should Canadians and the
provinces have that the Prime Minister will do their bidding? He
has clearly demonstrated in the past that he does not understand
nor respect Quebec. He appears as the Prime Minister who is
trying to define or defend his legacy with the imposition of this
bill.
Canada should not be put in jeopardy to appease the Prime
Minister's ego or afflict his legacy in envy on the rest of the
country. This is a personal, meanspirited and divisive process
meant to provoke Mr. Bouchard and Quebec at a time when the
Quebec premier is mired in real issues, issues such as labour
unrest, high unemployment and financial problems in health care
and education.
The Liberals are going to try to capitalize on what they
perceive as a vulnerable period in the life of the Pequiste
government. The Bloc, the Pequiste and Mr. Bouchard appear to be
at their lowest level of popularity, but this issue, make no
mistake about it, will breathe new life into the debate of
separatism. The smiles on the faces of our Bloc colleagues here,
members of the House, signal that this has begun.
The war has begun. The Bloc and Bouchard will reload and get
ready for this divisive debate. Obviously the Conservative Party
opposes this legislation for reasons much different than the
Bloc. The Liberals will carefully word their press releases and
try to spin it that somehow we are cozying up to this movement.
Let us make it very clear that is not the case.
1345
The Conservative Party has always stood proudly for a united
country. Our party has always sided with history on nation
building from Macdonald to Clark. Make no mistake about the love
of this party for our whole country. It is a birthright that we
will not neglect.
The possibility of an early referendum and an early election is
signalled by the introduction of this legislation. Let us be
clear on one thing. The timing, the wording and the method all
indicate that this legislation is about crass politics, putting
Liberal electoral fortunes ahead of the long term fortunes of the
country.
The Prime Minister has proven time and time again that he is a
ruthless, reckless partisan. This is a very dangerous game.
While it is politically clever, it ensures Bloc seats, helps the
Reform Party, keeps the country polarized and the implications
for Canada are grave. The potential backfire of this manoeuvre
could cost us dearly.
It is ironic that the Reform Party has aligned itself with the
Liberal government. This is the same party we all recall that
ran ads with red slashes through the faces of Quebec leaders in
the 1997 general election, and yet it purports to understand
Quebec.
We just heard from the NDP leader who spoke adamantly against
the bill, railed against the politics of the Prime Minister's
move, and yet she stated that her party will support it, a weak
and submissive move.
There is currently no provision in our constitution for a
province to secede. However, for the first time in our history,
this bill would have Ottawa spell out the steps for separation.
The legislation will now give Canadians an entrenched plan
through legislation to dismantle the country. It legitimizes the
separatist movement. It is not necessary but it is temporarily
politically popular.
I hope I am wrong in my prediction of an early referendum, but I
suspect we will see an unclear question, not about separation but
about the right of self determination, which sadly the
separatists could win.
The Liberal government and its brand of federalism is autocratic
and insulting. The Prime Minister and his government are acting
like bullies. Co-operation and compromise, the essence of
federalism that built this country, are put aside. Parliament is
ignored, the caucus that the government has brought together has
been brought in line and some cabinet ministers have been
silenced. That is not democracy.
Mr. Charest, who went to Quebec for the right reasons, is
finding that now he has to fight a prime minister as much as he
has to fight the separatists. The federal Liberals continue to
wound the man who has preserved stability in Quebec. As he has
done on many occasions in the past, the Prime Minister has
directly undercut Mr. Charest.
Provincial premiers will wait to see how this plays out but
there is certainly unease. No real discussion or consultation
took place, just perfunctory calls informing them of the
legislation. They were not given the opportunity for input or
opinion. Instead, they were dictated to. The responses from the
premiers have been less than enthusiastic. We have seen from the
provinces of Ontario, Alberta and certainly New Brunswick that
there is increasing discomfort with the Prime Minister's
pre-emptive move.
Lukewarm support is not going to help the country at this time.
All parts of the country will be affected. My home area of the
maritimes is certainly very much in jeopardy as a result of what
has occurred. It will not be clarity. There will be a profound
negative effect if the government continues on this line.
The legislation is silent on the issue of 50% plus one. We know
that 50% plus one in this House will defeat a bill or will defeat
a government. The Prime Minister himself received the electoral
support of only 38% of the Canadian population, so he is very
unclear on this particular aspect of the legislation. It is
contrary to democracy to suggest that anything other than 50%
plus one is to be accepted. This is a hasty and poorly drafted
piece of legislation.
The Progressive Conservative Party has always endorsed the
approach of co-operative federalism. We have often liberated the
country from the straitjacket of false federalism of the Liberal
Party of Canada. Currently, we are involved in national
grassroots policy consultation to best determine how Canadians
would make this legislation acceptable.
In the season of goodwill and reconciliation, the Prime Minister
has chosen the opposite direction. He has undermined the
historic partnership and widened the two solitudes. We hope to
be able to introduce some useful amendments that would at least
enhance the legislation. We will wait to see, with anxious
hearts, how the Liberal government will react to those
legislative changes.
1350
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is an experienced orator and debater. I
take it he can confirm that the position of his entire party, the
Conservative Party of Canada, is that a 50% plus one vote of
those who vote will dismantle the country. If that is the case,
how is it that we cannot change our own constitution on 50%
plus one? Why is it that we need to have a much greater and
clearer majority to change our constitution than Mr. Clark
appears to want to have to permit the breakup of the country?
I ask the member, who is also a barrister and solicitor, if we
are to take it that Mr. Clark disagrees with the Supreme Court of
Canada that a clear majority is not required and that 50% plus
one is all it takes to destroy Canada.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member
has not stated the position of the Conservative Party or Mr.
Clark at all. We very clearly said that the issue of 50% plus
one is completely absent from the legislation. It is a very
reckless piece of legislation in the sense that it puts forward
just part of the equation. Fifty per cent plus one is the rule
of democracy and it has always been that way. It is how
elections are decided. It is the democratic principle the world
over.
Fortunately, we have never been faced with that situation nor do
I suggest we would ever be faced with one person deciding the
breakup of the country. This legislation does not speak to that
issue nor does the Supreme Court of Canada clearly pronounce
itself on what 50% plus one would do if the situation ever arose.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first I want to
thank my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party for
supporting us in the debate on this legislation.
I would like his opinion on this: When the government speaks of
self-determination, what does that mean for him? Does it mean the
same thing for him as for the Liberal Party?
The Liberal Party says “Quebec has full entitlement to
self-determination”, except that the Canadian government wants to
tell Quebec how self-determination is to be achieved.
Even before the process is under way, the Canadian government,
through the Liberal Party, will tell Quebecers how they must
move toward self-determination to be recognized by the Canadian
government. We know very well that, no matter how clear the
question, the Liberal government will never recognize it.
In the 1993 election campaign the Liberals promised the
taxpayers “If we are elected, we will scrap the GST, we will put
an end to the GST, we will tear up NAFTA.” Could something be
clearer than that? People believed them and elected them, but
they never kept their promises.
Can we believe them when they say “If the question is clear, we
will be ready to negotiate”? In their minds, clarity has nothing
to do with the facts. They will go on doing as they please.
Does my colleague agree with me? I would like his comments on
this.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I will say right off the
bat that we are not supporting the Bloc position on this. We are
clearly opposing this for very different reasons, reasons that
pertain to national unity as opposed to setting up a plan for
dismantling the country as this bill will do.
The hon. member has very articulately and clearly set out a less
than proud record that the Liberal government has amassed. He has
chronicled some of the reversal of unfortunate positions that the
government has engaged in over the last 50 years. It has
occurred on wage and price control and on the price of gasoline.
It occurred on the GST. It occurred on free trade. The list
goes on and on.
1355
The hon. member is perfectly right when he suggests that the
trust that Canadians should place in the Liberal government at
this time should be very suspect. We should be very wary of
where the government is going with this legislation at a time
when its record is obviously not the best, when it has asked
Canadians in the past to trust it and upon being elected has
simply done the opposite.
The question is very timely and very apt given the amount of
trust that the government is seeking from the people of Canada on
this important issue.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
As you will probably resume the debate on this important subject
after question period, I will give notice
through the Chair to the House at the present time that all
Liberal members participating in this debate today will be
splitting their time.
The Speaker: That will be noted and it will then not be
necessary to notify us as we go along. I will recognize the hon.
member for Sudbury on debate and she will have the floor when we
return.
[Translation]
It being almost 2 p.m., the House will now proceed to statements
by members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
MANIFESTO 2000
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on December 1 the parliamentary group in support of
UNESCO launched Manifesto 2000 for a culture of peace and
non-violence and proposed it to all members of the two Houses for
their endorsement.
[English]
This manifesto 2000 is not an appeal nor a petition addressed to
a higher authority. This manifesto was written by the Nobel
Peace Prize Laureates to create a sense of
responsibility starting on a personal level.
The goal is to present 100 million signatures to the United
Nations General Assembly meeting at the turn of the millennium in
September 2000.
[Translation]
Manifesto 2000 was made public in Paris on March 4, 1999, and
seeks signatures of the general public throughout the world. It
has already been endorsed by more than 250 parliamentarians in
both Houses of this Parliament.
* * *
[English]
CHRISTMAS CHARITY CAMPAIGNS
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I wish
to pay tribute to two charitable Christmas initiatives in my
riding of Kelowna. The first is the Be an Angel Fund organized
by one of our local newspapers, the Daily Courier.
For three weeks, beginning on December 3, in words and pictures
it has shown what it is like to face the holiday season with fear
instead of joy, with despair instead of anticipation, with a tear
instead of a smile. The angel fund receives donations on behalf
of the Salvation Army and the food bank, and publishes stories
explaining what the donations do to turn these situations of
hopelessness to happiness.
The Tree of Hope campaign features a 110-foot tall tree where
individuals and groups purchase lights on the tree. The money
goes to local children's charities: Central Okanagan Foundation
and the Rainbow of Opportunities. This year the campaign raised
over 30% more than last year.
Together these two campaigns prove that there truly are angels
who spread the light of hope during the Christmas season.
* * *
THE LATE MATT COHEN
Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today I rise with sadness to recognize the passing on December 3
of a great Canadian, Mr. Matt Cohen, this year's winner of the
Governor General's Literary Award for fiction.
Mr. Cohen was both an esteemed writer and a neighbour. He
contributed significantly to the Canadian literary scene. It was
in 1969, at the age of 26, that Mr. Cohen published his first
novel, entitled Korsoniloff. From then, he was involved in
30 books, including novels, Quebecois translations, children's
books, short story collections and books of poetry. It was for
his novel, Elizabeth and After, that he recently received
the Governor General's Literary Award for fiction.
Mr. Cohen pushed for the right for writers to be able to receive
payment for the library use of their works. Mr. Cohen kept
writing even through his illness. Therefore, even as we mourn his
loss, we can anticipate a book of his short stories that will be
published by Knopf Canada next spring; his last gift to
Canadians.
On behalf of the people of Trinity—Spadina, I would like to
offer our condolences to his wife Patsy and his family.
* * *
1400
NATIONAL POLLUTANT RELEASE INVENTORY
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
national pollutant release inventory revealed that in 1997 the
pollutants released in Ontario totalled 62,000 tonnes, of which
8,000 tonnes of industrial chemicals were flushed into sewers.
In Ontario, industries put five times more chemical waste into
the sewer systems than all the other provinces and territories
combined. In 1997, industries in Ontario released 6,000 tonnes
of cancer causing industrial waste, of which approximately 81%
ended up in the air, 18% in landfills and 1% in water. These
figures are incomplete because resource extraction industries are
not required to report in the inventory, and not every pollutant
must be reported.
How long will it take for the Ontario government to realize it
has a role to play in preventing pollution and protecting public
health?
* * *
CULTURE OF PEACE
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in keeping with the United Nations proclamation that the
year 2000 be the International Year for the Culture of Peace,
UNESCO mobilized the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates meeting in Paris
for the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, to draft the Manifesto 2000 for a
culture of peace and non-violence.
The year 2000 must be a new beginning for us all. Together we
can transform the culture of war and violence into a culture of
peace and non-violence. This demands the participation of
everyone. It gives young people and future generations values
that can inspire them to shape a world of dignity and harmony, a
world of justice, solidarity, liberty and prosperity.
The culture of peace makes possible sustainable development,
protection of the environment and the personal fulfilment of each
human being.
* * *
LONGHORN LIMO
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this year's bonehead bureaucrat award goes to federal
transport employee Bertrand Boily.
It is a well known fact that we in western Canada love our
pickup trucks. Mike Nickerson was visiting Texas when he saw
every cowboy's dream, a stretch limousine pickup truck. Realizing
a market exists for such a truck in Calgary, he mortgaged his
farm and risked his life savings to purchase the $200,000
vehicle.
The truck passed Alberta safety regulations with flying colours
and business was booming. Even Tom Selleck hired the longhorn
limo.
Alas, enter bonehead Boily who called Nickerson stupid for
thinking a stretch pickup would be allowed in Canada. Then
without even looking at the vehicle, he declared it unsafe and
seized it.
According to Boily, if Mr. Nickerson wants his truck declared
street legal, all he has to do is crash it into a wall and set it
on fire to see if it is safe. And he calls Nickerson stupid.
Maybe Boily's boss, the Minister of Transport, should volunteer
to be the crash test dummy. Maybe then Mr. Nickerson might agree
to the test.
* * *
DR. CHARLES DRAKE
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to announce today that future students of medicine and health
science at the University of Western Ontario will benefit from
the legacy of the late Dr. Charles Drake.
The Drake family has committed a gift of $1 million to Western
to establish the Charles Drake Student Awards in Medicine. The
gift, to be matched by a combination of university based and
government sponsored programs, will boost the awards to a total
of $2.13 million.
A Companion of the Order of Canada, Dr. Charles Drake was an
internationally renowned neurosurgeon at the University of
Western Ontario. He pioneered surgical procedures that are now
taught around the world.
Dr. Drake passed away in September 1998 at the age of 78. Dr.
Charles Drake's son John recently stated, “My father was
committed to building excellence in medical education and
research in London. We are pleased this gift will help the next
generation of students and faculty to pursue that dream”.
I am sure that all members will join me in celebrating the
generosity of the Drake family.
* * *
[Translation]
MEMBER FOR ABITIBI—BAIE JAMES—NUNAVIK
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-20
limits the democratic rights of the Quebec people. The position
of the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik is clear: he is
opposed but will vote in favour. A local newspaper quotes him
as follows:
I am not in agreement with our government's passing a bill on
the question. I do not believe it is up to Ottawa to dictate to
Quebec the procedure it must follow.
He even indicates that he is not the only one in his party to
disagree. Having revealed his thoughts, however, and led people
to believe he was opposed, the member for Abitibi—Baie
James—Nunavik hastens to add that he will be voting with his
government. This is a clear illustration of how brave the
Quebec Liberal MPs are.
In this debate, the masks are off. The choice between their
personal future in politics and the interests of their
constituents is clear: a good little Liberal looks after his
interests, his political future, first. For the ministers, that
means the reward of a limousine. For the backbenchers, it means
continuing to be yes-men.
* * *
1405
[English]
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, during this joyful holiday season many Canadians are
spending time in hospitals either as patients or visiting loved
ones. It may not be very pleasant but we can rest assured that
Canadians enjoy world class medical care.
In my great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke we have a
number of wonderful health care facilities, including the Renfrew
Victoria Hospital. This facility's caring, compassionate staff
is under the very able administration of Mr. Randy Penney. He is
one of those rare, young, talented individuals who makes an
immediate positive impact on the community.
In fact, 75 kilometres up the road from Renfrew, Mr. Penney is
also administrator at St. Francis Memorial Hospital in Barry's
Bay. His talents are so much in demand that he has acted as a
consultant to foreign hospital administrations.
Last Friday night I participated in the Renfrew Victoria
Hospital's tree of lights ceremony which funds many health care
programs. Mr. Penney and his staff are brilliant beacons of hope
for patients and their families in the upper Ottawa Valley.
* * *
LOIS HOLE
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
gives me great pleasure to offer sincere congratulations to the
Hon. Lois Hole, the new lieutenant governor of the province of
Alberta and a resident of my riding of St. Albert.
Lois Hole is well known across Canada as the author of six
best-selling books on gardening. She and her husband Ted are
co-founders of Hole's Greenhouses and Gardens in St. Albert,
perhaps the largest retail greenhouse operation in western
Canada.
Not only is she known for her green thumb but also as a tireless
advocate for education, serving as a trustee and chair of school
boards in the St. Albert area, a member of the Athabasca
University governing council and now the 16th chancellor of the
University of Alberta.
Through her tireless work in the community, Lois Hole is
recognized as a leader not only in St. Albert but across the
province. She was named a member of the Order of Canada in 1998.
I know she will serve Albertans well in her new role as
lieutenant governor.
Once again, on behalf of the people of St. Albert,
congratulations, Lois Hole.
* * *
REFORM PARTY
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what is in a name? In the case of the united Reform led
alternative, I have some suggestions for them to name the new
party.
How about Reform-R-Us-Eh? Given that they behave like little
children I think it works. Or it could read Reform-R-U.S.A.,
given their preference for American style government. Or how
about Tor-E-Form or Lack-of-Form, or No-Form-At-All. Take your
pick.
Given the pain most Canadians feel in their backs over this
embarrassment, how about Con-Form since the whole thing is a con
job designed to prop up the Reform Party. Or how about Obus-Form
so that once and for all we can relieve Canadians of their lower
back pain caused by these people, who, let us face it, cannot unite
the right, cannot unite their own caucus, and certainly could not
unite this country, no matter what they call their party.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today marks the 50th day of a
hunger strike by a fisherman by the name of Mr. Dan Edwards on
the west coast of British Columbia.
Mr. Dan Edwards is on a hunger strike to symbolize the hunger
and starvation thousands of west coast fishermen and their
families are facing due to the Fraser River sockeye crisis which
is happening right now. In fact, on Sunday they got together and
formed a resolution which basically states that the committee
make one more effort to bring all the governments to the table to
develop a fair and open consultative process.
I was speaking to Mr. Edwards' doctor the other day. He said
that if he continues on his hunger strike any longer, his body
will suffer irreparable damage.
My statement to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is for once
to get off his high horse and speak directly to Mr. Edwards. He
should open a consultative process so that all fishermen on the
west coast can have fair and equal access to the salmon fishery.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-20
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the anti-democratic
intentions in Bill C-20 are based on the 1998 supreme court
advisory opinion.
Yet, in 1991, in the reference on Saskatchewan's electoral
boundaries, the supreme court concluded “There is a further,
equally important aspect of the right, namely that each vote must
be relatively equal to every other vote. To water down the
importance and significance of an individual's vote is to weaken
the democratic process”.
1410
We remind anyone getting ready to question the rule of 50% plus
one that in 1991 the supreme court ruled, and I quote “A
system which dilutes one citizen's vote unduly as compared with
another citizen's vote runs the risk of providing inadequate
representation to the citizen whose vote is diluted. The result
will be uneven and unfair representation”.
One thing is clear: with Bill C-20, democracy hangs in the
balance.
* * *
PARLIAMENTARY INTERNS FOOD DRIVE
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
parliamentary internship program has been around for over 30
years. Every year 10 young people from across Canada are
selected to work with MPs. They thus acquire unique insight
into our parliamentary system.
This year the parliamentary interns are organizing a food drive
for the Ottawa—Carleton Food Bank. This is an opportunity for
MPs and Hill staff to help out the less fortunate during this
holiday season.
Boxes will be placed in the parliamentary cafeterias for
donations of non-perishable food items and money.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the
parliamentary interns on their initiative, community spirit and
generosity.
* * *
[English]
PARLIAMENTARY INTERNS FOOD DRIVE
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
ironic that in the national capital of one of the richest
countries on earth, over a 120,000 residents of Ottawa-Carleton
live below the poverty line. Of these, 30,000 require some form
of daily food assistance. In the land of plenty these numbers
should shame us all.
Again this year, thanks to our parliamentary interns, MPs and
all Hill staff will have the opportunity to take a personal stand
against hunger. Non-perishable food collection boxes are set up
around the parliamentary precinct. The interns will also be
visiting our offices to collect food and cash donations. The
dollar amount collected will be doubled by the Canadian Bankers
Association.
I would like all members to recall that fortune has not smiled
so kindly on all in society. Hunger and cold does not end when
the holidays are over. The generosity of spirit that this
magical time of year imparts to us must be a year-long commitment.
We truly must be each other's keepers. I thank the interns.
* * *
GUELPH—WELLINGTON
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as always great things are happening in
Guelph—Wellington. The Guelph Spring Festival, the Guelph Jazz
Festival and the MacDonald-Stewart Art Centre all recently
received funding from Heritage Canada to help ensure that world
class performers and artists continue to visit
Guelph—Wellington. I would like to take this opportunity to
thank these three local organizations and others like them that
contribute so much to the cultural fabric of our community.
I would like to congratulate the 11th Field Regiment on
receiving $75,000 worth of funding from the Department of
National Defence Canadian forces millennium fund. This money
will be used for a special project entitled “Serving With
Honour: Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae and Other Citizen
Soldiers”. I am very pleased to see that Guelph—Wellington's
proud military heritage is being commemorated in this way.
With all of these exciting events under way, it is no wonder
that Guelph—Wellington is such a wonderful place to live.
* * *
SASKATCHEWAN TELEPHONE RATES
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the CRTC has ruled that there can be no averaging of the
monthly telephone service charges between rural and urban. In
other words, those areas in Canada which are considered rural are
now facing unbelievably high monthly service rates.
Saskatchewan is the most rural province in Canada. Almost
one-third of its population lives on farms, in small towns, in
villages and in aboriginal communities. These telephone
subscribers are facing a $130 a month service fee.
If rural areas across Canada are going to have affordable
telephone, fax and Internet rates, as is the government's policy,
then the government must act to protect these areas of Canada. I
urge the government to immediately move so all areas in Canada
can have telephone and related electronic services without an
unbearably high service rate.
* * *
[Translation]
SAINT-EUSTACHE PATRIOTS
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today
is a sad anniversary. It was on December 14, 1837, that General
Colborne's army of 1,200 attacked Dr. Chénier's 200 or so
Patriots in the village of Saint-Eustache.
1415
Eleven of the patriots who had taken refuge in the church,
including Dr. Jean-Olivier Chénier, were executed. We should add
to the list the name of 7-year old Jean-Baptiste Marineau who,
after having been shot in retaliation by a volunteer from
Saint-André, died in March 1838 of the injuries he had sustained.
At the time, the legislative council appointed by London had
power over elected representatives. After more than 30 years of
sterile parliamentary battles to achieve democracy, a large
segment of the population, including some English leaders, took
up arms and participated in the uprising.
Our patriots fought for the national recognition of our people,
for freedom and for a democratic government.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
PRISONS
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the solicitor general is spending $2.5 million in his own riding
to research drugs in prisons. The only problem is that there are
no federal prisons anywhere on Prince Edward Island. There is
already an addiction research centre in Ottawa. One would think
that would do.
Drugs in prisons are a serious problem, but pork barrelling will
surely not fix it. Why does the rest of the country have to pay
for the solicitor general's multimillion dollar vote grab?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that my hon. colleague
does not really understand the problems in our prison system.
When I was appointed solicitor general and realized that 70% of
the people who enter our federal institutions either have alcohol
or other drug problems, I indicated a number of times in the
House that is where we should start, and that is where the
government is going.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
think all of us in this place understand that there is a drug
problem in prisons, but there are far more suitable places to do
that research.
I just said that there is a place already in Ottawa. There are
lots of empty buildings just down the road at CFB Summerside.
Those places are empty; they are up for grabs. Why does the
minister not move into one of those places and start solving the
drug problem?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if everything were so simple it would be
wonderful. What happens with these problems is that I ask the
department to evaluate where this institution should go. The
director of Correctional Service Canada indicated that this was
an appropriate place to build the building. That is why this
building will be constructed where it is to be constructed.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps it does look like everything is so simple. It is a
special kind of logic that allows him to justify a prison
research centre in a province with no prisons. It is a bit like
studying rainfall in the Sahara. It is pretty dry over there;
they are getting ready for Christmas.
Canadians want the government to fight drugs in our prisons.
That is not the issue. However the solicitor general belittles
people's concerns with blatant pork barrelling. Why is the
solicitor general spending his time and our money looking out for
number one?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that my hon. colleague
does not understand that this is a research institute. It is not
a rehab institute. It is meant to deal with the problem of
alcohol and drug abuse in our penal institutions.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
70% of the solicitor general's corrections staff said that his
drug strategy was a failure. The only thing that he is doing is
padding his own constituency with this $2.5 million boondoggle.
Why will the minister continue in this way? Why does he arm
himself only with pork to fight drugs?
1420
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is certainly unfortunate my hon.
colleague does not understand when he is told that 70% of the
offenders in our federal institutions have alcohol or drug
problems.
It would seem to me that would be the place to start, and that
is what the government will do.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in the same correction survey I just referred to over 80% of the
frontline staff said their stress level was not reduced one bit
with his drug strategy.
What is the minister saying to these men and women who put their
lives on the line when they see him padding his constituency with
this $2.5 million pork?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is certainly sad my hon. colleague
does not understand when he is told that 70% of the individuals
who enter our federal institutions have alcohol or drug problems
and 50% of the people who enter our institutions are intoxicated
when they commit crimes.
That is why the government is creating a special initiative to
deal with the drug and alcohol problem in our federal
institutions.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-20
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs insisted
that the mentality of holding a knife to people's throats must
stop.
Need we remind the minister that this strategy he is
speaking out against has never been used by the sovereignists,
whose project is to have their own country?
Does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs recognize that
this strategy was put forward by federalists who were tired of
trying for years, in good faith, to renew the federation, with
nothing but no for an answer, ever?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have improved Canada in a variety of ways and will
continue to do so. We will be able to do so even better if no
one in this country any longer threatens others with the
possibility of separation.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, he
has worked this out on his own. The minister can say what he
wants, but one cannot rewrite history. I can see he is avoiding
answering the question, and I can guess why.
The fact is that Ottawa has never been able to respond to the
legitimate desires of Quebecers or even of their federalist
allies. History is there as proof of this. The only thing that
is clear, the only solution available is sovereignty.
Is the minister going to acknowledge that his bill is a
regrettable admission that any attempt at renewed federalism is
doomed to failure in advance?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadian federalism is being renewed constantly, and
Canada is so admirable a country that millions, if not billions,
of people dream of being Canadian.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs often talks about the 1982
constitution as if it were the eighth wonder of the world, but
it is a wonder that was imposed on Quebec against the will of
its national assembly, a wonder that even tired old federalists
do not accept.
Will the minister finally realize that no Quebec premier, not
even Robert Bourassa, ever wanted to sign that constitution, and
that no one in Quebec will ever sign it?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member should read the most recent book
written by former Quebec Liberal leader Claude Ryan who, while
disagreeing with certain aspects of the 1982 constitution, says
that, overall, that document is beneficial to Quebecers in many
ways.
Some of these benefits are a Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms that is popular everywhere in the country, including in
Quebec; the entrenchment of the principle of equalization in the
constitution which, as we know, benefits Quebec; the
strengthening of the rights of language minority communities
across the country, and we know that Quebecers care about the
future of francophones. Also, we would like this city, Ottawa,
to be bilingual. Incidentally, I dare say—
The Speaker: I am sorry. The hon. member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry.
1425
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps it is because he was tempted to sign that constitution
that Mr. Ryan never became Premier of Quebec.
The 1982 constitution leaves Quebec bound and gagged. Now the
government wants to go even further and put Quebec in a
straitjacket. The bill is a new violation of democracy, a denial
of the Quebec democracy.
Will the minister admit that his real intention is to prevent
Quebecers from expressing themselves freely and democratically
and building a new country?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the more the Bloquistes and Péquistes talk like that,
impute motives and work themselves into a frenzy in their
arguments, the less they are likely to succeed in their project.
Should I encourage them to keep going in that direction? No,
because I know many separatists who are not proud of that kind
of rhetoric.
* * *
[English]
HOMELESSNESS
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. Emergency shelters in
Toronto are bursting at the seams and the city of Toronto is
pleading for federal help. Instead of responding positively the
federal government tomorrow will close the Fort York Armoury
which provides nightly shelter for 100 homeless people.
With winter now upon us will the government reverse its decision
to throw desperate families literally out in the cold? Will the
Prime Minister do that?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is not the case at all with respect
to the Fort York Armoury.
The city of Toronto has been able to get many additional beds
and additional shelters that were established this fall to take
over from the Fort York Armoury. The Fort York Armoury will be
turned back over to the military tomorrow and used as a command
centre with respect to the Y2K rollover.
We provided that facility as a stop-gap measure to help
with the homeless problem in Toronto. We are very pleased that
we were able to do that, but it is no longer needed.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is
simply not true that those beds are no longer needed. There are
not enough beds in Toronto today. With the armoury's closure
there will be even fewer beds.
The Prime Minister whispers “constitution” and child poverty,
the crisis on the family farm and the homeless literally
disappear from the government's radar screen.
Will the Prime Minister just pause for one moment, think of the
homeless, reverse this heartless decision and continue providing
shelter to the homeless at the Fort York Armoury?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, those responsible for CMHC have given money to the city
of Toronto in the last few days to help it with this problem.
The government is working on the problem of the homeless. As
well we have been working for a long time on child poverty. We
did that. We invested billions of dollars at the time we were
cutting because these were priorities of the government.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-20
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker,
contrary to the supreme court ruling, in Bill C-20 the federal
government has appropriated for itself the role of arbitrator
and negotiator in the referendum process, relegating the
provinces to a secondary or advisory role. There is nothing new
there.
Does this mean that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
interprets political actors as meaning only the comics sitting
on the government benches?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is completely irresponsible to interpret the bill in
this way. In acting alone, the Government of Canada would be
running a great risk.
Let us suppose that the Government of Canada thought that the
question was clear, but that eight out of nine provinces did
not. That would be a problem that would have to be resolved.
That is why consultation is necessary. The bill provides for
such consultation.
The difficulty in reaching agreement does not stem from the bill
but from the complexity inherent in any secession process. The
solution is therefore for all of us to stay together in Canada.
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
After 30 years of provocation, what are the results? The
percentage in favour of sovereignty has gone from 20% to 49.4%.
1430
Does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs want to know what
the next step is? Is he aware that, if he did not exist, he
would have to be invented to serve as the primary winning
condition for the next referendum?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if that is true, the Bloc Quebecois will vote in favour
of the bill.
* * *
[English]
PRISONS
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general.
We agree with the solicitor general when he says that 70% of the
people who end up in the prison system have a drug or alcohol
problem. What we disagree with is that he says he has successful
programs. Of his own staff, an internal report says, 70% say
that the programs are ineffective in our prison system.
Can the minister explain to the Canadian people why he thinks
his programs are a success when 70% of his staff in the prisons
think they are not successful?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is certainly one thing I would
never want to do and that is to indicate that Correctional
Service Canada has not been addressing this issue because from
1993 to last year the percentage has dropped from 39% to 11% on
random testing. That is success, but we intend to do more.
* * *
RCMP
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP is badly underfunded in Canada and the
minister is planning to shut down seven detachments in the
province of Quebec. The solicitor general has stated that
organized crime is one of his number one priorities.
With biker wars taking place in Quebec and with one of our own
members of parliament under 24 hour RCMP protection, can the
minister tell us when he is going to stop slashing resources for
the RCMP and increase its funding so we can go after organized
crime?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. colleague would never
want to tell anybody in the House or the Canadian people
something that was incorrect. There is nothing to indicate that
detachments are going to close anywhere. The truth is, there has
been a review and it is ongoing.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-20
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs has just told my colleague from
Beauharnois—Salaberry that a number of sovereignists did not
support his rhetoric.
May I humbly remind him that he leaves us far behind in that,
for there are tens of thousands of federalists who do not agree
with what he is saying. To name but one of these, Jean Charest,
leader of the Quebec federalists.
How can the minister claim that the supreme court's requirement
of clarity can be translated into forbidding the Quebec national
assembly from presenting to its citizens the political project
of its choice?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I invite the hon. member to sit down and quietly reread
the bill. The national assembly can ask what it wants. There
is even a whereas clause on that.
It can ask what it wants, but it cannot compel the House of
Commons to negotiate on secession. The House of Commons has a
responsibility to establish that there is a clear wish for
secession, which would lead to the Government of Canada
negotiating the sad event which the breakup of our country would
represent.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister
is using the supreme court opinion as he sees fit.
How can he base his position on this opinion when it refers 57 times to
negotiation in order to claim that any recourse to the word
“negotiation” in the question would make that question obscure
and unacceptable?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we would never have needed such a bill if the Premier
of Quebec, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and the other
independent leaders had been capable of completing the phrase
“required to negotiate if a clear majority on secession, with a
clear question”, with everything on the table, including borders.
* * *
[English]
PRISONS
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in a
Correctional Service Canada document that was leaked to me this
morning entitled “Report of the Task Force on Security”, the
vision for corrections in the new millennium is as follows:
removal of all firearms from the institutions; all prisons take
the form of small communities; and all offenders prepare their
own meals.
My question is for the solicitor general. Why is he turning our
federal institutions into summer camps and our guards into camp
counsellors?
1435
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure from whom my hon. colleague
received the leaked document, but I assure the House that public
safety is always the number one issue in our federal penal
institutions and it will continue to be.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
further in the document it states that all razor wire will be
replaced because of the concentration camp appearance of the
facilities and that inmates will be given control keys to their
own cells. “Welcome to Kingston. Here is the key to your
cell”.
Why is the solicitor general more concerned with appearances
than with public safety?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague that
public safety is, always was and always will be the number one
issue in our penal institutions across this country. That is why
we are going to address the major problems that are in our penal
institutions across this land.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-20
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs justifies his bill on
Quebec's next referendum by saying that the federal government
needs to define under what conditions the question would be
clear.
How can the minister presume to define under what conditions the
question asked at the next referendum would be clear and
unbiased when his bill refers 23 times to the concept of
secession and is clearly worded to give a negative connotation
to a legitimate project to which almost half of Quebecers
subscribe?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first, it is not a bill on a referendum. It is a bill
to set a framework whereby the Government of Canada must
negotiate if the process is clear and must not negotiate if it
is not clear.
Second, this bill follows up on the supreme court opinion, which
uses the word secession, which is the legal term to describe the
act of separating from a country to create a new one.
To my knowledge, the first point on the Parti Quebecois' agenda
provides that Quebec would become a state and would be
represented at the United Nations as an independent state. If
this is not the case, then the Bloc Quebecois should tell us.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
one wonders who needs to be subjected to a framework.
How can members and ministers representing Quebec support such a
bill, which seeks to restrict the democratic rights of their
people, the people of Quebec? How could the Minister for
International Trade, among others, get involved in this?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as Minister for International Trade and as a
Quebecer I would never support any measure to gag Quebec's
national assembly.
This bill respects the right of the Quebec national assembly to
ask a question on what it intends to do. If this then means
asking the House of Commons, the Government of Canada, to
negotiate, we have a duty not to embark on negotiations on
Quebec's independence if the question asked was not clear.
I want to stress that I support the choice made by Quebecers.
Seventy-two percent of them do not want another referendum, but
the people opposite want to continue to divide us and to make us
weaker.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
* * *
[English]
PRISONS
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to ask the solicitor general a question about his comment
on public safety. Four hundred and eighty offenders have gone
unlawfully at large from Canadian prisons since April 1998 and
have not been recaptured. The Sumas centre in Abbotsford,
British Columbia where I live had 53 unlawfully at large. Many
are serious offenders. This disgraceful record emphasizes the
Liberal government's soft on crime policy.
Why not just tell the people of the Fraser Valley that criminals
are more important than the law-abiding citizens who live there?
1440
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated before, and would indicate
again, public safety is always the number one issue. At the
Sumas centre a number of changes have been made and there are 20%
fewer escapees from that institution than there were previously.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, those words are not very comforting to the people who
live in my community.
Since those 53 offenders have gone unlawfully at large, at least
eight sexual offences have occurred, in addition to assaults and
robberies. I have received letters from the Commissioner of
Corrections and the solicitor general who say “All is well.
That is just the risk you folks have to take”.
Why will the solicitor general not grasp a bit of reality and
admit that Canada's prison system needs an overhaul, and a major
overhaul at that?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when I was appointed solicitor general
and saw the drug problem, I knew that it had to be addressed more
forcefully. It is being addressed, it has been addressed and it
will continue to be addressed. Other public safety issues will
continue to be addressed in our federal institutions across this
land, all with public safety being the number one issue.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-20
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
have noticed that the bill introduced by the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs does not mention any threshold for
determining a majority below which the federal government will
unilaterally refuse to negotiate with Quebec, for the good
reason that such a threshold could be challenged in the courts.
No threshold is up to such a challenge before a referendum is
held.
How can the minister think that setting a threshold after a
referendum in Quebec would be any less likely to be challenged
in the courts?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, for the simple reason that the supreme court is leaving
it up to us to determine what constitutes a clear majority in
the eventuality of a referendum.
* * *
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on September 13 the Baker family in my
riding learned of the disappearance of their father, Roy Baker,
in the jungles of Gabon, Africa. I have since met with his
daughters, Anne and Rebecca Baker.
Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs reassure the Baker family
that everything is being done to try to locate Mr. Baker?
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we were informed the day after
Mr. Baker's tragic disappearance. An official was sent from our
embassy in Libreville to arrange the search. Our ambassador in
Gabon has spoken to everybody, including the president, about the
case. I, personally, have spoken with the family on several
occasions.
Unfortunately, three months have gone by. However, we feel that
the Government of Gabon is doing everything it can to try to find
this citizen of Canada.
* * *
RCMP
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
here is an interesting one. The RCMP headquarters has directed
all detachments to crack down on grey market satellite TV viewers
and dealers. Canada Customs, on the other hand, is collecting
duties from the import of grey market equipment. People are
taxed on the way in and then they are charged for possession, all
because the government wants to know what they are watching on
TV.
Why is the solicitor general directing the RCMP to spend scarce
resources to crack down on channel surfers instead of trying to
catch real criminals?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said a number of times in the
House, and I will repeat, I do not direct the actions of
the RCMP. I do not run the internal affairs of the RCMP.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if
the solicitor general does not, then I wonder who over there
does.
Why is this government concerned about what is going on in the
living rooms of the nation? It is hard to explain the
justification for the RCMP spending scarce resources—and we have
heard about them today—on tracking down wayward TV watchers when
it cannot afford to track down murderers.
Why is the government more interested in cracking down on what
Canadians are watching on TV than cracking down on real
criminals?
1445
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the RCMP is concerned about in this
country and what it should be concerned about is public safety.
If there is any allegation of wrongdoing in this country, the
RCMP—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. We of course want to hear
the question and common courtesy says that we then have the right
to hear the answer. The hon. solicitor general has the floor.
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated
previously, the RCMP always looks into any allegation of
wrongdoing that takes place in the country. That is exactly
what it is supposed to do because public safety is the number one
issue for the RCMP and for this department.
* * *
HOUSING
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister responsible for housing.
Experts tell us that mould in leaky condos is putting people
with weak immune systems at risk, including the elderly and young
children. Still, the federal government is stonewalling the
Barrett commission in its efforts to find a solution to this
disaster.
We know that the federal government has provided funding to
aboriginal communities faced with the same problem. Why is the
minister denying help to people who are at risk in B.C.? Why is
the minister doing nothing while children and elderly people are
slowly being poisoned by dangerous mould spores in leaky condos?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we
have been very active on this file.
CMHC has been doing research and trying to help. We
offered financial help to all the owners of the condos to renew
their mortgage and apply for a second mortgage. We offered the
government of B.C. $75 million. It did not want to take it and
that is its business. We have definitely tried to help everybody
and we will continue to do so. We have invested quite a lot of
money in the RAP program to help with the leaky condo situation.
* * *
MERCHANT MARINERS
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
merchant mariners have been denied justice from the government
for far too long.
It seems to many that the government is in a terrible and tragic
waiting game, knowing that with the advanced age of so many
Canadian merchant mariners, the longer it waits to provide
compensation the more merchant mariners will die.
Will the minister announce a just settlement negotiated with
merchant mariners before the end of this century?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am doing exactly what the standing
committee unanimously, with representatives from each political
party, including the hon. member, asked me to do, which is to
consult with these veterans. There are meetings ongoing today.
That is exactly what we are doing. We are respecting the power
and the independence of our standing committees. Who gave us
that new power and independence? It was our Prime Minister.
* * *
COAST GUARD
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker,
again we hear of a lavish dinner and cruise aboard a Canadian
coast guard vessel, this time the Sir Humphrey Gilbert.
The guests were none other than Premier Tobin and his Liberal
colleagues.
The operating cost of the vessel, the cost of the prime rib, the
salmon, the booze, including the four cases of expensive wine,
were all paid for by the good old hospitable coast guard, on behalf
of the Canadian taxpayer of course.
1450
Could the minister tell us who authorized the ex-captain
Canada to have his own private cruise ship?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, from
time to time the coast guard provides services for a community,
and in this case the premier of the province—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for St.
John's West.
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, no
matter what the minister says, these two parties in question have
cost the Canadian taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars. A
fisheries and oceans memo says that the moneys to pay for these
parties are hidden in the ship's budget. A disgraceful pattern
has emerged outlining blatant and deliberate misuse of coast
guard vessels and funds.
I ask the minister to support my request of today to ask the
auditor general to investigate this reckless spending in the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if anybody would know about
wasting money it is that party, the Conservative Party, which
left a $40 billion deficit that we had to clean up.
With regard to Mr. Tobin, this is the Premier of Newfoundland on
behalf of his people requesting an opportunity to be transported
on a coast guard vessel. We believe in
working with provincial governments. That is what—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Beauce.
* * *
[Translation]
RAIL TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have heard
rumours of a schedule change for VIA Rail that would have an
impact on rural and isolated communities.
Could the Minister of Transport reassure the House in this
regard?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I am pleased
to announce that there will be no changes to VIA Rail's
schedule, as was rumoured, except for the new service between
Montreal and Toronto.
* * *
[English]
PUBLIC SAFETY
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the solicitor general tells us that public safety is his number
one priority. His actions say otherwise.
Melvyn Adams brutally murdered Sandy McGillvary's father over 15
years ago and has also threatened Sandy. He has been moved
to Ferndale, the walkaway prison in the same neighbourhood as
Sandy. If safety is this solicitor general's number one
priority, why is he moving a cold-blooded convicted murderer into
the same neighbourhood as his victim's family?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when individuals are convicted in the
courts and sentenced to a federal institution they are assessed
as to where they should serve their sentence. They can start
their sentence in a maximum security institution, then could be
moved to a medium and then possibly to a minimum. This is how
the process works.
* * *
1455
[Translation]
BILL C-20
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the publicity
the government has released today it describes a referendum as a
powerful instrument in a democracy. Yes, when a people
expresses itself, that is powerful.
How can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs draft a bill
that attempts to ensure that a referendum addresses only
secession and nothing else, while this is the same person who
not long ago was saying that sovereignty, independence and
separation were all the same thing?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, indeed it is a powerful instrument. Once it has been
used, there is no going back. The electorate must be respected.
Second, the use of the term secession in the question is not
necessarily mandatory. There is nothing in the bill requiring
that this or that term be used. What it does say is that, in
order to be clear, a question must mean that Quebec would cease
to be a part of Canada and would become an independent country.
It seems to me that this is very reasonable.
* * *
TRANSFERS TO PROVINCES
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday,
December 8, the legislative assembly of New Brunswick
unanimously passed a motion calling for the re-establishment of
social transfers to the 1994-95 level.
Is the Minister of Finance prepared to listen to his Liberal
cousins in New Brunswick and restore transfer payments to
their 1994-1995 level in order to ensure that the people of New
Brunswick may benefit from better social programs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member must realize that, including the tax points, or in
other words all transfers together, we are already where we were
five years ago.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
last week I had the opportunity of travelling out west with the
agriculture committee. In all of those meetings I asked the
farmers how many of them had applied for AIDA. All of them put
up their hands. I also asked those same farmers how many of them
had received money from AIDA. Almost no one put up their hand.
What the farmers said was that they need money and they need it
now. Will the agriculture minister please tell us how he will
get cash into those poor farmers pockets who were denied AIDA by
Christmastime?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that well over
20,000 farmers in Canada have received assistance from AIDA. We
understand that not everyone who applied for AIDA met the
criteria. We have made changes to AIDA and the net income
stabilization program. For 1998-99, the federal government
alone has put nearly $1.1 billion, more than was available a year
ago, into their hands.
* * *
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this question is for the Minister of the Environment.
When the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act was passed by
this House it included a requirement for a five year review. Will
the minister tell us what he plans to do with regard to the
review and will he specify the timeline for the review?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct. After five years of
operation it is time to have a review of the act to see if it can
be improved. That will take place starting now and for the next
year.
There will be an interactive website, which will allow rural
Canadians in particular to take part, and there will be some 17
meetings at urban centres across the country. I trust that
within a year it will be possible to report to the hon. member
and to the House the results of that review.
* * *
RCMP
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, through access to information I learned that the RCMP
now employs 391 paper pushers on the government's fatally flawed
gun registration scheme. In the meantime, the solicitor general
leaves the RCMP desperately short of police on the street. In
B.C., for example, there are 300 full time vacancies and 200
temporary vacancies.
Why is registering grampa's gopher gun a higher priority for the
government than real law enforcement?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government certainly supports real
law enforcement. That is why $10 million of extra money was
allocated to the E-Division in British Columbia. That is why
Treasury Board, along with the RCMP and my department, are
evaluating the situation. That is why it was indicated in the
Speech from the Throne that this government has a commitment to
law enforcement in the country. This government will make sure
that public safety is always the number one issue.
* * *
1500
[Translation]
RAIL TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
further to the requests made by the Bloc Quebecois through the
hon. members for Drummond, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and Longueuil
concerning a change of schedule for the Montreal-Quebec City
line, will the Minister of Transport confirm that the train
between Montreal and Quebec City will continue to stop in
Saint-Lambert, Saint-Hyacinthe and Drummondville after January 16, 2000?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I already answered the question asked by the hon.
member for Beauce, who takes a keen interest in this issue.
As I said, no changes will be made to the VIA Rail schedule.
[English]
The Speaker: All of us are hoping that we will be getting
out in a few days time. I do not know any more than members when
the House will recess, but I invite you to a reception this
afternoon in my chambers if you have time.
Perhaps we could prepare ourselves a bit for the onslaught
that will be coming tomorrow by coming together for a little
while.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Mr. Speaker, I seek consent to
revert to presenting reports from committees.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a question of privilege. On June 3, 1998, I introduced
Motion No. P-24 for the production of papers. I resubmitted it
in this session and it is now called Motion No. P-11 and states:
That, a humble address be presented to Her Excellency praying
that she will cause to be laid before this House copies of all
documents, reports, minutes of meetings, notes, correspondence
relating, prosecutions and issues related to extradition
concerning the bombing of Air India flight 182 in 1985.
1505
I am arguing that a response with the information, the papers I
requested, was deliberately delayed and there was an attempt to
deliberately mislead me into believing that there were no papers
when it is well known that there are papers.
The Speaker: Order, please. I must have misunderstood.
Did the hon. member accuse another hon. member of deliberately
misleading him?
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: No, Mr. Speaker. I am not accusing
anyone of deliberately misleading me. I would like to explain
the process that misled me to believe, which will become very
clear in my following sentences.
I have waited 18 months for a response. The Parliamentary
Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
told me to withdraw Motion No. P-11. He showed me a return from
the justice minister that was the response to Motion No. P-11 saying
that there are no papers. The return has not been tabled and the
table clerks do not have it.
I have a November 22, 1999 memo from the parliamentary secretary
to the government House leader asking me to withdraw my motion. I
regret to conclude that it seems there is a deliberate delay of
the response to my request. I have been waiting since 1998. If
there was a problem with the reading of my motion, I should have
been told long ago. However the motion is clear.
Further, I am seeking your assistance, Mr. Speaker, to dispel my
conclusion that I have been misled. Everyone knows there are
papers. Why am I the only one, except the parliamentary
secretary, to have seen the ministerial return, the response to
my motion, indicating that there are no papers?
I have the appropriate citations referring to contempt if you
wish me to continue, Mr. Speaker. May I continue?
The Speaker: I ask the hon. member for Surrey Central to
wrap it up.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I
will quote from Erskine May, which describes contempt. It reads:
Any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of
Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which
obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the
discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or
indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as contempt,
even though there is no precedent for the offence.
Beauchesne's sixth edition, page 27, citation 97 states—
The Speaker: I am aware of the citations without your
reading them and of course I am taking them into consideration.
On this particular matter I see the parliamentary secretary
rising to his feet. Perhaps he could provide some kind of
explanation.
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do
not think we want to take up too much of the time of the House on
this issue.
The member made a Motion for Papers many months ago. He appears
to have been the author of his own misfortune by withdrawing his
notice of motion at the time. As I understand it, he was not
aware that he was withdrawing his motion at the time.
Regrettably some months passed before he realized he had
withdrawn his motion.
1510
In this parliament he reintroduced a motion which when read in
the English language clearly requests information related to
prosecutions arising out of the Air India tragedy. As you will
know, Mr. Speaker, there were no prosecutions arising out of that
tragedy.
The member has urged upon the government another interpretation
of the English words that he used in his notice of motion. As a
result if one were to accept that I am sure, as the member has
already admitted, it would take a couple of truckloads to deal
with the amount of paper he has requested.
At the end of the day I was not aware that the member was about
to rise. I assumed that further discussions would be had in
relation to the volume of paperwork he was seeking. I suggest
there is absolutely no contempt here at all. There were ongoing
discussions until a week or so ago. The member is at least in
part misinformed by himself and misrepresented by his own
language in his motion.
The government would wish to make every attempt in good faith to
respond to his need for papers. I am certainly ready to continue
with that at this time.
The Speaker: I will rule that what we have here is
not a contempt of the House. I would invite the hon. member to
do two things.
First, there has been an open invitation to more consultations.
He might consider that. However, if he wishes to go another
route, I suggest he consult the table officers and he will find
there are other avenues open to him to get this type of
information.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
AN ACT TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR CLARITY AS SET
OUT IN THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA IN THE QUEBEC
SECESSION REFERENCE
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, an
act to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in
the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec
Secession Reference, be read the second time and referred to a
committee, and of the amendment.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be
sharing my time with the member for Brossard—La Prairie.
I am proud to speak today to Bill C-20 since this debate is very
important to me. In addition to the issue of the majority and
the clarity of the question, this debate deals with a
particularly important point, namely what would be at stake
should there be a referendum, namely the breakup of Canada.
We have to put forward this legislation because the choice the
people of Quebec would have to make for the third time in 20
years is fundamental. We have to make sure our democratic ideal
remains untarnished.
[English]
We are doing what we are doing because we owe it to all
Canadians. In a word, we owe it to Canada. When our country is
envied around the world, the world can expect no less than that
we ensure the transparency of the referendum process.
We do not want to determine the question because that is the job
of the national assembly, but we have the responsibility and the
duty to ensure that the process does not give rise to the
underhandedness we saw in 1980 and in 1995.
We need to set the criteria that will guide the conduct of the
House of Commons and the Government of Canada in determining what
constitutes a clear question and majority. That is our duty as
Canadian parliamentarians.
[Translation]
The people of Quebec have the right to determine their own
political future. Nobody on this side of the House is denying
it. All we want to do is ensure the choice they would make
through a referendum is a fully informed one, which means the
question must be clear.
1515
What we want is for their choice to be shared by a sufficient
number of supporters, and for it to be the unequivocal
expression of the will of the people, which implies a clear
majority. It is not surprising that under such conditions the
supreme court in its opinion insisted to such an extent on the
concept of clarity.
Our determination to act is based on the parameters set by the
supreme court with regard to the referendum process. We have
been blamed countless times for having asked the supreme court
to clarify certain aspects of the referendum question. We did
it, fully aware that some people would not be pleased.
We decided to do it anyway because we do not see democracy as a
toy or as a credit card one can use as one pleases without being
accountable.
Democracy finds its true meaning when it allows people to have
real influence on their future. That must be the objective
pursued in any referendum. Was it the objective pursued by the
PQ government in the 1980 and 1995 referendums? We all know the
answer to that is no. The objective was to find a question that
would allow the PQ government to get as many votes as possible.
That is why we have no choice but to step in to ensure that the
basic requirements of democracy will be met in a possible third
referendum.
[English]
I would be lying if I said we get any pleasure in doing what we
are doing today. Canada is a country that works well, but it is
also a demanding country to govern. It faces many challenges at
the dawn of the new millennium. We would far prefer to devote
all of our efforts to the substantial challenges of economic
growth and jobs but we would be derelict in our duty to Canadians
if we did not deal with this question.
Democracy consists of giving the people a voice, but in a
referendum on secession everything has to proceed in a context
of clarity with a clear question and a clear majority. All of
the trumped up precedents and arguments used by the separatist
leaders to advance their cause are now coming home to roost
because their initiatives have been based on ambiguous and
misleading questions. That is what has to change if the Bouchard
government, which certainly has no lack of other issues to deal
with, goes ahead with its plan to hold another referendum during
its current mandate.
[Translation]
This debate could have taken a totally different turn had Mr.
Bouchard responded positively to the Prime Minister's proposal.
What was that proposal? The Prime Minister of Canada proposed in
good faith to set aside the referendum debate and to work
together toward solving the problems that really concern
Canadians. What was the answer given by the Premier of Quebec?
True to form, he said no.
Should we be surprised? No. Mr. Bouchard is a prisoner of his
option. He is a prisoner of his party, which wants a third
referendum at all costs.
I cannot accept the breakup of my country, of our country. We
are all Canadians.
We are part of a large family, and it is our ancestors, mine and
those of the members over there who are trying to break up our
country, who helped to build this great country.
1520
As a francophone member from northern Ontario, I am proud of my
language and I am proud of my beautiful country, and that is why
I support this bill.
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. In the spirit of the holiday season, I would like to
point out that the good people of Surrey Central will very much
appreciate the gesture by the parliamentary secretary to the
government House leader on my question of privilege. I am
counting on the parliamentary secretary to put the glasses on
issues rather than on political stripe and to try to help me. I
appreciate that.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Very well. Questions
and comments, the hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by the
hon. member, who pointed out that three referendums were held on
this issue in the last 20 years.
Let me remind the House that the 1992 referendum was held at the
request of the federal government in an attempt to renew the
federal system, and it did not work.
The 1980 and 1995 referendums were held by governments that had
received a mandate to do so, and every time they acted they had
the support of the people.
The Bloc Quebecois members sitting in this House were elected in
1997 and make up the majority of elected representatives from
Quebec. They received their mandates after the 1995 referendum.
The current Quebec government was elected last year, just a year
ago, and clearly stated its determination to have a referendum
on sovereignty, because it is the only way for Quebec to sort
out its relationship with the rest of Canada and to break out
from under the yoke of the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs.
Is the hon. member not aware that the will of Quebecers is being
systematically ignored by the federal government, which is
making no attempt to find some way to keep Quebec within
the federation?
The federal government is making no effort toward this end. It
only tries to confine Quebec in a neat little box, which
explains why all Quebecers are expressing their dissatisfaction.
What does the hon. member have to say to Quebecers about this?
Hon. Diane Marleau: Madam Speaker, I am really saddened by the
remarks of the hon. member from Kamouraska. I gather from what
he said that Quebecers never got anything out of Canada and are
denied prosperity.
It is particularly painful for me to listen to that, because my
own ancestor landed in Kamouraska in the mid-1600s, around 1642
or 1652. He founded a family, the members of which settled in
all parts of the country, not only in the Kamouraska and
Rivière-du-Loup area.
Today I am a Franco-Ontarian member of parliament, and I am
proud of the work my ancestors did. We share the same ancestors.
They were the founders of a great region of this country. The
hon. member's remarks are unfortunate, because, to us, a country
is something very important. We should not take lightly the
breakup of a country. And we do respect democracy.
How many referendums shall we have? Quebecers have said no twice
already. This is hardly respect for democracy. But since the
Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois have decided to keep
talking about referendums, we have a duty to put forward clear
rules in order to protect democracy.
1525
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a question—
An hon. member: The ex-minister.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: That is right. The ex-minister. If the
promotion of the French cause was so important for her, why did
she pick an unilingual anglophone as her chief of staff? She
also chose to receive her correspondence in English.
Nor does she mention the assimilation of francophones. In the
city of Hamilton, which the Minister of Canadian Heritage
represents, there was, according to Statistics Canada, an 80%
assimilation rate.
When she talks about the great French Canadian family, I would
like to remind her that her predecessors at the Association des
francophones hors Québec, representing francophones from the
rest of Canada, supported the yes side during the 1980
referendum.
Hon. Diane Marleau: Madam Speaker, we have to stop playing
games. We are talking about a country.
There are two official languages in our country. In some
regions we speak French; in some we speak English.
An hon. member: We are talking about democracy.
Hon. Diane Marleau: The referendum that will take place in
Quebec is not only for those who speak French. Are they trying
to tell me that only francophones are entitled to being listened
to in Quebec?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Diane Marleau: Absolutely not. And as far as I am
concerned, it has to be clear. It has to include every citizen.
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Madam Speaker, no
one will dispute the fact that everyone in this House was
elected on the basis of a platform they presented to the public.
My own included the following: first, as a Quebecer I believe in
Canada; second, as a Quebecer I believe in its democracy; third,
as a Quebecer I believe in its future; fourth, I believe that in
spite of all the flaws that our country may have, these flaws
should not affect our future prospects.
These are the convictions that I expressed to the voters of
Brossard—La Prairie, and they gave me the mandate to promote
these convictions, because they share them.
This is why day after day, if not hour after hour, I strive to
fulfil my responsibilities with integrity, decency and fairness.
It is in that context that I rise today to support the clarity
bill.
Let me briefly explain how I view the role of the Canadian
parliament in this regard, a role in which parliament must
respect the Quebec national assembly as much as it must respect
itself.
The Quebec Referendum Act passed by the national assembly in
December 1977 allows a government—in this case the Quebec
national assembly—to consult the population on a specific
issue. The national assembly has an indisputable and essential
right in that regard.
It can, very legitimately, decide alone to hold a referendum.
It can, very legitimately, decide alone which question it will
ask. It can, very legitimately, note the results of that
consultation. However, after that public consultation the
Quebec national assembly must make a political decision.
After the consultation a political decision must be made. Under
the circumstances, the issue for the Quebec government then
becomes the following: on the basis of the public vote on the
question that was asked, can we legitimately undertake
negotiations on the secession of Quebec?
To illustrate my point, let me quote Robert Burns, who was a
minister in the government of Mr. Lévesque in 1977. He said:
This is why, in the current situation, a referendum can only
have a consultative value, even if this consultative value does
not diminish in any way the moral value of a referendum with the
government, which will not, I believe, override with impunity
the clearly and widely expressed will of the people.
This is exactly what the Parliament of Canada is doing.
1530
We, like Mr. Burns at the time, make a connection between the
“clearly and widely expressed will of the people” to the
legitimacy of our decision, as political actors, to enter into
negotiations for Quebec secession.
Consequently, it is clear that this bill does not aim in any way
at giving a framework to the national assembly. It aims at
giving a framework to our role, as the federal parliament, in
case these conditions on clarity are fulfilled.
Quebec has some institutions, laws and processes to allow it to
fully assume its rights and responsibilities.
These are exactly the same rights and responsibilities that I am
claiming on behalf of the Parliament of Canada, the right to
interpret the legitimacy of the political approach as a
political actor having responsibility for Canada.
In Quebec, it is the same voters who elect Quebec members to the
national assembly and to the House of Commons. Voters have
given to all of their elected people different but complementary
responsibilities.
Today I am taking the responsibilities given to me by my
constituents. I am taking them by supporting a bill that is
necessary today, but which I hope will never be used. Let us
never again remain silent when myths are spread around. Let us
never again remain silent in the face of what I perceive as
manipulation. Let us never again remain silent in the face of
what I perceive as exclusion policies.
As a Quebecer, to counter myths, I propose transparency.
As a Quebecer, to counter manipulation, I propose clarity. As a
Quebecer, to counter exclusion policies, I propose Canada.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker, with
all due respect for members opposite, I think the speech we just
heard is incredible.
Surely, most members present in the House today know that,
whatever manipulation there is, is coming from that side. It
takes quite a nerve to rise in the House, claim to be a Quebecer
and say that the national assembly manipulated people, because
that is what our colleague said.
We represent those who are for democracy. No member on this side
has any fears about our project. What we want is for Quebecers
and Quebecers alone to decide on the question and to determine
their own future. That is what is at stake.
The hon. member quoted Robert Burns.
I happen to be the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve and I want
everyone to know that each time the people of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve
had a chance, they always voted for sovereignty, and I am proud
of that.
Today is a sad day for democracy. I hope the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs is not very proud of himself. One can
be a federalist. There is no question about that. Of course,
Liberal members from Quebec are elected just as we are, but what
is not on is suggesting that Quebecers cannot by themselves
decide on the clarity and the legitimacy of the question. Let
there be no mistake, there is not a single Bloc member who will
agree to this.
I am extremely saddened by the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs' speech, because convictions are not at issue here. We
are speaking of people who are against democracy. Today, when
the minister rose and when our hon. colleague rose a moment ago,
they said they were not democrats. They are not democrats,
because if they were, they would recognize the integrity, the
legitimacy and the validity of the referendum process.
1535
Is my colleague going to rise and say, as a Quebecer, that
Quebecers sitting in the national assembly and those who will
vote on this question are the only ones who can decide the
clarity of the referendum question? Is he going to say that?
Mr. Jacques Saada: Madam Speaker, first, I noticed that, as the
hon. member for Québec did informally yesterday, it is very
difficult for my colleague not to hesitate to consider me a
Quebecer. I have a lot of problems with that, in terms of
democracy, since I took the initiative to come here, live here
and do my part for society here. I have a lot of problems with
that. Second—
Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I never
said that our colleague is not a Quebecer. He is misleading the
House—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): This is not a point of order
but a point of debate.
Mr. Jacques Saada: Madam Speaker, through his question my
colleague spoke to me—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Jacques Saada: I suppose this is what they call democracy
and respect for the right to speak.
My colleague spoke about our right to be federalists. I am happy
to know that. However, how can he reconcile this statement with
the refusal, clearly expressed by a majority of Quebecers on two
occasions, of the option to make me lose my Canadian identity,
and come back again with this same question? There is an
inconsistency here.
Third, my colleague talks a lot about the legitimacy and
integrity of the national assembly. I would like to mention to
him that my speech was mainly concerned with the fundamental
right to recognize this essential quality of the national
assembly. According to me, the House of Commons must have for
the whole country the same powers and the same rights as those
exercised by the National Assembly of Quebec.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is with great respect for the debate
that we are having here this afternoon that I am honoured to
partake.
We have seen in the House just how emotional this issue is, not
only for the people who live in the province of Quebec, but for
all Canadians who have lived in harmony for over 130 years,
trying to resolve through the democratic process the differences
which the provinces have.
We have been faced more than once with a province which has
addressed the issue of separation to leave the country we know as
Canada. I do not for a minute think that this will not occur
again.
In anticipation, the government took the issue to the supreme
court and asked it to make a decision as to whether a province
could unilaterally leave the country. The supreme court was very
clear that it is the democratic right of provinces to address the
issue of separation, but that it could not be done unilaterally.
It was quite clear that the court felt that if there was a clear
question and a clear majority the federal government and the
other provinces would have a responsibility to negotiate with
that province which chooses to leave the country.
That brings us to the bill which was introduced by the
government yesterday. It is a bill which, I presume, tries to
strike clarity. It may strike a degree of clarity when it
addresses the question, in that it outlines a question that would
be considered clear; however, what it does not outline, and
perhaps should, is what is a clear majority. It is very hard to
play a game, it is very hard to be in a game of this nature, when
we do not know where the goal post is. We only find out after
the game is finished where the goal post is. Therefore, I would
suggest that the government, in looking at this legislation,
attempt to reach some clarity as to what is a clear majority.
If the government feels that a clear majority of 50% plus one is
not good enough to leave the country, then it should state what
it considers to be a good enough majority. I think it is unfair
to continue this process without that clarity, without the rules
of the game being known before the game is played.
1540
I do not think there is anybody in the country who does not
agree that the rules of the game have to be laid out in the
beginning. The Reform Party tried to lay out some rules with the
20/20 discussion paper of 1994. We took a lot of heat as a party
for bringing clarity to what the understanding of Canadians was
when we talked of separation. We took a lot of heat for raising
the issue at that time. I find it a little ironic that we raised
the issue when the debate was hot and heavy and the government
waited until everything had quieted down and the separatists were
busy trying to run a province, rather than a referendum, to
revisit the issue.
One could question the timing, but I do not think one could
question the need for establishing clear rules to the game so
that there is clarity in the question that is asked and there is
clarity in the result that is delivered.
Another concern that I have is that the federal government in
the process, for whatever reason, seems to have walked away from
plan A; plan A being the reasons that we would give to the people
of Quebec to choose to stay in Canada, developing a new
relationship between the federal government and the provinces
which would enable them to have more control and a greater
ability to define what the future of the provinces would be,
based primarily on those jurisdictions that were given to them at
the time of Confederation.
The federal government had an opportunity with the social union.
I would argue, and I know it is debatable, that the federal
government blew it. It had an opportunity at that time to show
Quebec how we could change the federation to allow the provinces
to have greater certainty and greater control over the delivery
of social programs without the intrusion of the federal
government in provincial jurisdiction through its spending power.
The social union, originally developed by the premiers,
developed some controls or guidelines with which they could all
agree, a dispute mechanism and an understanding that if a
province wanted to withdraw or not take part in an agreed
program, it would have the right to do so and still get the
dollars that should go to the people of that province.
For whatever reason, the federal government felt that allowing
this change in the relationship between the federal government
and the provinces was not okay, that it was more important that
the federal government retain its control and its power over
provincial jurisdictions, primarily through its spending power.
As I said earlier, I think the federal government blew it. I
think that it walked away from a prime opportunity to show the
province of Quebec that it would be much better to remain in
Canada and that in working with other provinces Quebec could
achieve the best that is possible for that province.
The government, again for whatever reason, walked away from
developing this new relationship with the provinces. Instead it
decided to come down heavy with plan B. The timing is confusing
to me. I am not sure this is the time one wants to confront the
issue. I would have thought this would have been a more
appropriate time to talk to Quebec about the division of powers,
about respecting what is the federal government's responsibility
and respecting what is the provincial government's
responsibility.
1545
I would even suggest that it is time to introduce a new concept.
There are some grey areas where neither the federal government
nor the provincial governments have been given the jurisdiction,
and where there is a real need to collaborate and negotiate to
come up with some means of working together.
One area is national standards. It is not right for a federal
government to impose national standards on the provinces. What
is more appropriate is for the provinces to negotiate with the
federal government and with each other to come up with those
standards they feel are appropriate for all concerned.
Interprovincial trade is another example of the need for
provinces to work together with the federal government to
overcome the barriers. Because it is province to province the
federal government has to be involved.
There are laws like the criminal code which is a federal act and
jurisdiction but it is applied through the provincial
governments. The provincial governments are the ones that apply
the criminal code to their citizens.
It would seem to me that rather than confront the province of
Quebec, the federal government should have put more time and
energy into trying to find new and better ways of working with
the province. But the government decided to go to plan B.
Having its concept of plan B of clarity before us, we have
to debate whether or not this piece of legislation is going to
make it clear to the people of Quebec that if they decide to
leave Canada, there will be some consequences in doing so.
During the 1995 referendum I was amazed to see that poll results
showed that 25% of Quebecers thought that they would still send
representatives to the House of Commons in Ottawa and that there
would not be any change in representatives sitting in the House
of Commons. Over half of Quebecers thought that they would still
maintain their Canadian citizenship.
It has to be very clear to the people who will vote on whether
or not to leave Canada just what in fact they are leaving. The
Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois owe it to the citizens of
Quebec to be honest and up front with them.
Having sat in the transport committee and having listened to the
debate in the House and in the committee, it was interesting to
see how the Bloc represented the debate on restructuring the
Canadian airline industry. Canadians have indicated a bit of
concern that Air Canada's headquarters by legislation are located
in Montreal. It was interesting to see that the Bloc Quebecois
wanted to protect that. It wanted to protect the 10% ownership
in Air Canada and leave the foreign ownership at 25% in the
airline industry. I do not know if the Bloc Quebecois
understands that if Quebec leaves Canada, then any shareholders
who own shares in Air Canada in Quebec become foreigners and
would be limited to the 25% that it was arguing for. I do not
know if the people in Quebec understand that.
I would suggest that the illusion the Bloc members are creating
in Quebec that the separation will be like a velvet glove, that
there will be no upset and that there will be no extreme changes
to the way they deal with Canada is a fallacy.
If Bloc members honestly feel that the rest of the country will
allow Quebec to leave without any kind of consequences, they are
fooling themselves. And they are certainly not doing anything
positive for the people of Quebec who have to make that choice.
1550
This legislation is at least a start in the direction the
government has to go. The government does have to establish
clarity of the question, what question would be acceptable, what
result would be acceptable, which is still unclear. The
government has to at some point address what a clear majority—
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The member's speech is very interesting and it would be
greatly appreciated if the Liberals could hear it. Thus, I would
like you to check the quorum, because obviously there is no
quorum in the House.
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We now have quorum in the
House.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith: Madam Speaker, it is interesting that
Bloc members are concerned about the government being here, but I
think it is more important that the Bloc members be here to
understand how the rest of the country feels about their intent
on removing Quebec from Canada.
I spent three months travelling in the province of British
Columbia listening to how concerned the people of B.C. were that
Quebec was thinking of leaving the country. It is not too much
to ask that the people from Quebec who are talking about taking
Quebec out stay to hear the debate and to hear the emotion and
the concern that the rest of Canada has that they reconsider the
direction in which they want to go.
There are those of us in this country who feel that there is a
better federation and that we can establish better working
relations between provinces and the federal government. Yes, it
may take a change in government, but it is possible for the
provinces to find a better way of working within the federation.
It is equally important that the people of Quebec understand
that there is no certainty of the rest of Canada that in the
event that Quebec leaves, they cannot depend on the rest of the
country remaining intact, they cannot depend on this nice cozy
relationship with the rest of Canada. They cannot depend on the
75% of Canadians who live outside Quebec treating them as equals.
If they honestly believe that, they are fooling themselves.
It is important that they take reality checks to the province of
Quebec so that the people who have to vote on a clear question
and the people who have to make up the clear majority, whatever
that might be, clearly understand the repercussions of deciding
to leave the country.
I do not think that the Bloc members have been honest with the
people of Quebec. I do not think that their intent is to be
honest to the people of Quebec, because I do not think the people
of Quebec would accept the reality that a clear question would
put them in.
It is important—
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. If I understood the interpreters correctly, it would seem
that the member said that the members of the Bloc Quebecois have
been dishonest with their voters. If that is what she said, I
would like her to withdraw that.
1555
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I believe what we have here
might be a slight problem with the translation. In my view, the
word “malhonnête” in French is a lot stronger than what the
member said in English.
I can have a look at the blues if the member so desires, but
this is what I think.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Madam Speaker, am
I to understand that from now on the word “malhonnête” will be
acceptable in this House? If the word “malhonnête”, be it in
French or in English, is acceptable, say so now, because we will
use it on a regular basis both for the Reform Party and the
Liberals.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We are going to have a look
at the blues to see exactly what was said in both languages.
We will get back to the House with a ruling in a few minutes.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith: Madam Speaker, I guess it is a touchy
issue as to whether there is a clear message being delivered.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Madam Speaker, with all due respect, the
member might be willing to admit she used this word, and
consequently to withdraw it.
We might not have to wait until we read the word in question in
the blues, if the member recognizes she did indeed use it.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): At this point, I really want
the blues to be read.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith: Madam Speaker, if I used the word
dishonest, I meant misleading, that the Bloc Quebecois has been
misleading the people in Quebec with regard to what the
ramifications of a clear question would be.
This legislation would help the Bloc in making a clear question
and putting a clear question before the people of Quebec. Let
them decide if they agree with the direction the Government of
Quebec and the Bloc Quebecois want to take the people of Quebec,
which is out of Canada, away from the things we share as
Canadians and to have a new nation.
This legislation is a beginning. It does not go far enough.
Certainly the government should do more to clarify it.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Madam Speaker, I find our
friends in the Reform Party and those across the way, the
Liberals, do not have very thick skin. They are rather
thin-skinned.
The member said earlier that the morning after
Quebec's secession Air Canada could find itself with a
majority of shareholders, maybe more than 25%, who would be
Quebecers.
This, however, is what the member for Vaudreuil wanted for the
Americans a few days ago. He said we should not allow the Caisse
de dépôt et placement du Québec or the Société générale de
financement to become majority shareholders in Air Canada; that
it would be better to raise it to 50% and sell to the Americans.
For a Quebecer to say that, he must really hate himself.
As for the clear question, I remember these people opposite in
1980—thank God, I was young but I was there—who were saying “A
yes means a no and a no means a yes”. They were the ones who did
everything they could to make the question unclear and who made
all kinds of false promises. We saw the results.
Our Prime Minister, just as a sow bug—you know those small bugs
you find in damp places—ran all night through the hotel
corridors during the “night of the long knives”, as it is
called, to stick his longest knife in Quebec's heart.
It is strange that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
all members opposite were not offended by that.
1600
In the 1995 referendum Quebecers could just as well have been
asked if they liked apple pie. Everybody would have known what
the question meant. Then the federal government sent its bigwigs
to Quebec to say that a yes meant separation from Canada and a
no—same song, same tune—meant a renewal. Everybody knew and
understood the stakes.
Do Reformers think that Quebecers are somewhat lost today and
that they do not understand the true meaning of the decision
they will be called upon to make someday? I hope they will
make the right one.
They must come back to earth. I saw how Reformers treated the
Nisga'a. I have no illusions about the way they will treat us,
whether we vote yes or no.
If our fate depended on the Reform Party it would be even worse
than what we have seen so far. It would be horrible. They have
absolutely no consideration for people in their own province,
let alone for Quebecers.
I ask the hon. member to rethink her position, to look at the
person in front of her straight in the eye. He can do the dirty
work. She should ask him whose interests he is defending when he
does that to Quebec. That is the sense of my question.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith: Madam Speaker, I do not think it is up
to the government to tell the people of Quebec what it is
planning to do. The Prime Minister has laid out in the
legislation the expectations of a clear question.
The Bloc should, through a clear question put by the Parti
Quebecois, the Government of Quebec, ask the people of Quebec
whether they wish to leave Canada and start a new country.
Instead of playing around with the business of sovereignty
association and the warm and fuzzy relationship with the rest of
Canada, it is not being clear. The issue is about putting the
question clearly to the people of Quebec and letting them decide.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Madam Speaker, this is
totally unbelievable. How could the Liberal members, English
speaking Canadians for the most part who do not read Quebec's
French newspapers, who do not watch Quebec's French television
or listen to Quebec's French radio stations, manage to
understand the question better than the people who live in
Quebec, who watch television every day, read the papers, listen
to the radio and have followed this debate for many generations
now?
How can the people in the rest of Canada have the gall to
believe that they are smarter than the average Quebecer and are
in a better position to interpret and understand the meaning of
a question?
Do they consider the people of Quebec to be idiots who are
unable to understand the meaning of a question? Should we have
to answer on the ballot the question “Do you understand the
question you have just answered, yes or no?”
This is exactly what the people across the way want us to do.
After the referendum, they are going to try to determine if the
average Quebecer knew what he or she was doing when answering
the question. Do they think we are stupid or what?
They should think it over for a moment. This is not a clarity
bill, it is a bad faith bill, and I would like the Reform member
to tell us how she reacts to the fact that this bill makes me
feel isolated from the rest of Canada.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith: Madam Speaker, alienation from the rest
of Canada is not unique to Quebec. The hon. member should try
living in British Columbia on the other side of the Rockies to
know what real alienation is all about.
If the Bloc members feel so strongly about the people of Quebec
knowing what the issue is, why would they argue about putting a
clear question before the people?
Why would they feel that there is something wrong with saying to
the people of Quebec “Do you want to leave Canada or do you want
to stay in Canada?” If they do not have a problem with the
discussion they are having with the people of Quebec, then why
not put a clear question that everybody can live with?
1605
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Madam Speaker, I am a bit, quite a bit, astonished,
surprised, shocked—I am not sure what—when we are told that
Quebecers are not capable of understanding a question, when we
are told that the questions they were asked on two occasions, to
which they replied in very great numbers, 93% in the 1995
referendum, were not clear.
How can the rest of Canada be allowed to say that it will show
us what a clear question is, that it will explain it to us
because we are unable to understand?
Do people realize where this view of society can be found? It
can be found in Alfred Memmi's Portrait d'un colonisé. What I
have against all the federalist members here is that they think
they can ask the questions, define the debate and set all the
borders, and determine how things should be done for Quebec's
native peoples. They are saying that they will set the
conditions for Quebecers and that we will not be allowed to
decide on the question.
The question is not an easy one. Quebecers have to come up with
a blueprint for a country, a society, that may include an offer
of partnership with the rest of Canada. We must set out a
course of action so that we can finally leave this
constitutional debate behind, and Quebec and Canada can live
side by side.
The present federal government is proposing to limit us to one
vision: the status quo or this unhealthy obsession with
separation, as the Prime Minister of Canada sees it.
Can the members of other parties not understand that Quebecers
are adults and are able, through their national assembly, to put
an intelligent and carefully considered question on the table?
This question will resolve the constitutional problem in Canada
and will allow Quebecers, as a founding people, to become a
nation. They are fully capable of making their own decisions.
They possess the intelligence required to do all these things. In no
way do they need a framework from the outside created by people
who are dead set against letting them leave Canada.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith: Madam Speaker, I do not think the
proposed legislation is imposing a question.
It is quite clear that the province of Quebec can place a
question on a ballot. The question this deals with is whether or
not negotiations will follow the question and the referendum. I
believe it has to be clearly stated as to what question is
acceptable.
If the courts have said a clear question and a clear majority,
then we have to determine in advance what a clear question is. It
is based on the supreme court decision of a clear question that
negotiations would begin with the rest of Canada and the province
of Quebec or any province that chooses to leave.
This legislation, to my understanding, does not prevent the
province of Quebec from drafting its own question. It is a
question of whether it will be clear about the question it puts
before—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member
for Mount Royal.
[Translation]
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am glad
to intervene in this debate on the bill that would give effect
to the principle of clarity described by the supreme court in
the reference regarding Quebec's right to secede because I
want to talk about the clarity of the principles described in
this bill. I will try to deal with five or six of these
principles.
The first principle is the following: Mr. Bouchard says, and I
agree with him, that it is the prerogative of the national
assembly to prepare the referendum question and to decide on it.
The prerogatives of the national assembly must be respected.
[English]
However, that referendum question must also respect the
principle of clarity, that there must be a clear question on
secession.
In other words, constitutional rights carry with them
constitutional responsibilities. Nor is the principle of clarity
a matter of constitutional law theory or a narrow technical
requirement. Rather, it is a principle that goes to the core of
the rule of law.
1610
[Translation]
It is the principle of the rule of law that has to be respected.
He was saying, and I quote “I am all for the principle of the
rule of law. Rights must be respected”.
[English]
The clarity of the question is a condition of due process of
procedural and substantive justice necessary for the referendum
process and without which the referendum process would itself
lack basic legitimacy. And more, the principle of clarity is at
the core of the democratic principle.
Unless the question is clear, the people of Quebec cannot give
authentic expression to their democratic will. Unless the
question is clear, the people of Quebec cannot give expression to
their right to self-determination. Unless the question is clear,
the people of Quebec are denied the right to pronounce themselves
on this most existential of concerns.
[Translation]
As Mr. Bouchard said, and I quote “The question must be clear so
that we receive a clear answer, a significant answer. I do not
like the idea of an ambiguous response to an ambiguous question,
which would lead to a new debate on the meaning of the answer”.
[English]
The national assembly has the constitutional right to frame the
referendum question, but it also has a constitutional
responsibility to respect the principle of clarity. The litmus
test of democracy will be determined by whether Quebecers will
have a right to express their democratic will on a clear question
of secession.
The second principle: Mr. Lucien Bouchard has said, and I
agree, that as a result of the supreme court reference, “there
is a duty on the federal government to negotiate secession, and
that duty has constitutional status”.
However, that duty to negotiate has constitutional status only
because the judgment of the supreme court as a whole has
constitutional status. That judgment stated unanimously that the
duty to negotiate presupposes that two conditions of
constitutional obligations have been satisfied: one, that there
is a clear question on secession; and two, that there is a clear
majority in favour of a clear question on secession.
As the supreme court put it:
The referendum process, if it is to be taken as an expression of
the democratic will, must be free of ambiguity in terms of the
question asked and in terms of the support it received.
This projet de loi du gouvernement fédéral is nothing more and
nothing less than an attempt to give effect to the supreme court
judgment, to the principle of clarity, to the rule of law, to the
democratic principle. For Mr. Bouchard or anyone else to call
this projet de loi “an affront to democracy” has the effect of
impugning the very supreme court decision which Mr. Bouchard has
rightly said has constitutional status and should be respected.
[Translation]
The third principle is as follows. Mr. Bouchard said, and I
quote “that the doors will be wide open for a unilateral
declaration of independence, based on the authority of the
supreme court”.
[English]
The point is that there is no support in the supreme court
decision for any unilateral declaration of independence. On the
contrary, the supreme court has said, unequivocally and
unanimously, that there is no right to a unilateral declaration
of independence either under Canadian constitutional law or under
international law.
In other words, even if the two principles and conditions of
clarity and democracy are met, this does not authorize or
legitimize a unilateral declaration of independence. What is
affected by respecting the principle of clarity is the right of
the secessionist party, whatever it may be, to negotiate terms of
secession but not to treat secession as if it is already a matter
of fact and a matter of law. Secession is not self-executing.
A clear majority in support of a clear question on secession
triggers a right to negotiate and a duty to negotiate, a duty
that the federal government has said it will respect if the
principle of clarity is respected, both in the question put and
in the majority secured.
1615
The fourth principle is that Quebecers may be said to constitute
a people historically, culturally, politically. As a people
Quebecers have a right to self-determination, but that right to
self-determination, as the supreme court put it, does not include
a right to secession under international law unless there exists,
also as the court put it, a situation of colonial domination or
gross violations of the rights of Quebecers, something that the
Supreme Court of Canada and Mr. Bouchard himself have
acknowledged is not the Quebec reality.
On the contrary, where there exists a free and democratic
society like Canada, albeit with its imperfections, albeit with
its inequities, the international law principle, as the court put
it, is organized around the protection of territorial integrity,
not its dismemberment.
This has emerged not only as a foundational principle of public
international law but of international human rights law in
particular. Indeed, not only does international human rights law
not authorize secession in the absence of a state of colonialism
or repression of fundamental rights, but it considers that
secession from an existing free and democratic society may itself
breach the foundational principle of our constitution, the
principle of the rights of minorities and in particular the
rights of aboriginal peoples.
The fifth principle is that if the Quebec people are permitted
to democratically give expression to their will and if there is a
clear majority in favour of secession, that will give rise to a
right to negotiate and to a corresponding duty on behalf of the
federal government to negotiate. However, that negotiating
process as the supreme court put it, and as it appears to be
forgotten in this debate, will be governed by four basic
principles.
[Translation]
The issue will be settled by the four basic principles. These
principles are: federalism, democracy, constitutionality and the
rule of law, and protection of minorities.
[English]
Again, secession is not self-executing. The negotiating
process, if it even gets to that, will not only be governed by
these four foundational principles but it will involve protracted
and painful discussion of final status questions: borders, the
debt, assets, the rights of minorities, the rights of aboriginal
peoples, and the like.
The sixth and final principle, as the supreme court put it, is
“any attempt to effect the secession of a province from Canada
must be undertaken pursuant to the constitution of Canada or else
violate the Canadian legal order”.
In a word, the right road to secession presupposes that a
legitimate, democratic, constitutional referendum process has
taken place as follows: first, that the right of the national
assembly to formulate the referendum question is respected;
second, that the referendum question respects the principles of
clarity enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada; third, that
the Quebec national assembly respects the constitutional role as
authorized by the supreme court of other political actors just as
other political actors must respect the rights of the National
Assembly of Quebec; fourth, that constitutional rights come with
constitutional duties; fifth, that, as the supreme court put it,
there is no right to unilateral secession either in domestic or
international law; and, sixth, that if there is a clear majority
in support of a clear question on secession that gives rise only
to a right to negotiate pursuant to the four fundamental
principles I enunciated earlier.
The secessionist outcome can only be reached, if it is indeed
reachable at all, after a protracted and difficult process in
juridical terms and a painful and wrenching process in human
terms. If the threads of a thousand acts of accommodation are
the fabric of a nation, it would take a thousand cuts to
dismember it. Accordingly, Quebecers and Canadians are entitled,
if the referendum process proceeds, to express their will on a
clear question on secession.
That is what the principles of la primauté de droits, la justice
fondamentale et la démocratie as enunciated by the Supreme Court
of Canada require. This is what is required for the authentic
expression of the democratic will of Quebecers.
1620
[Translation]
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 Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Culture; the hon.
member for Cumberland—Colchester, Airline Industry; and the hon.
member for Halifax West, National Defence.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Madam Speaker, during
his speech, the member repeatedly talked about a clear question,
a clear question.
I would like to ask him a very clear and brief question. Does he
recognize the existence of the people of Quebec?
[English]
Mr. Irwin Cotler: Madam Speaker, as I said in my remarks,
I recognize the existence of a Quebec people historically,
culturally and politically.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker,
first of all, I did not have the opportunity to congratulate our
colleague on being elected and I would like to do so now. I was
told he is a jurist, but I have the impression he has not reread
some of his notes recently.
I have three brief questions for him.
I recognize, as all of my colleagues do, that the federalist option
is a legitimate one. My problem is, and I would like the member
to be quite clear on this point, I wonder if he is concerned
about the way we treat our minorities and the way we will treat
our minorities in the future.
Does he acknowledge that the Taylors, the Smiths and the English
speaking community are part of the history of Quebec and that we
stated in the 1995 agreement that we would recognize them as a
founding minority, give them all the rights they enjoy now and
continue to grant them, in a sovereign Quebec, the status of a
national minority?
As a democrat well versed in law and history, does the hon.
member recognize that, on this planet Earth, Quebec is among the
communities that have every reason to be proud of the way they
treat their minority?
Would the hon. member, first of all, recognize this?
Second, the hon. member is wrong to be concerned about the role
we want to give our native fellow citizens.
Can he also recognize, as a democrat and a jurist, that there
was in the history of our province a remarkable man, René
Lévesque, who rose in the national assembly—he was among the
first to do so in America—to recognize not only the natives'
right to self-government but also the fact that they are, based
on a number of clear principles, a people?
I would ask the hon. member to act in good faith and recognize
that the sovereignist option is just as legitimate as the
federalist one. Also, those who are concerned about the future
only have to look at how we have treated our minorities so far.
The conduct of the sovereignists in this regard is beyond
reproach.
Mr. Irwin Cotler: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member
for his congratulations.
As for the issue of the minority rights and status after
secession, I am only saying that minorities in Quebec have a
right to a clear question on secession just like the other
citizens of Quebec.
Concerning the relations between René Lévesque and aboriginal
peoples, like all Quebecers I have much respect for Mr.
Lévesque and his approach to aboriginal peoples. At the same
time, I must repeat that the question is this: Will Quebecers
get to answer a clear question on secession?
1625
[English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, this debate is a matter of concern for all Canada and
not simply a dispute or discussion between Quebec and Ottawa. It
is in this larger optic, because many people in western Canada
are also following the debate, that I intervene.
The question itself involves a mixture, sometimes not clearly
defined, of constitutional law, international law and politics.
In the straight limited issue of the constitutional power I did
give the opinion in 1980 as an a priori abstract legal question
that the issue of holding a referendum on secession from a
federal country, the issue of the nature of the referendum
question, the content and the timing, was a question of plenary
federal powers, not of provincial powers. In this context a
federal government would have the right to disallow or bar
constitutionally the holding of a referendum, or even to
interpose its own referendum.
This was a statement of the law, but I also said at the time
that it was a political decision whether and to what extent to
use legal powers. The House remembers in the context in 1980
that the then prime minister decided not to exercise his constitutional
options but to meet the challenge politically to enter the
referendum debate and to win it.
With respect to the particular situation we are facing today, in 1994 I
repeated the views that I had expressed in 1980. I repeated them
one year before the second Quebec referendum in an article in the
autumn 1994 edition of Canadian Parliamentary Review. I note
simply that it was adopted by the Reform Party. The best and
brightest of the Reform Party spokesmen on constitutional
questions, the member for Calgary West, Stephen Harper, picked
them up in interventions.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I do not see a quorum.
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): There is a quorum.
[English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Madam Speaker, I mention this simply
because Reform Party members in interventions in the House on
October 17, 1994 and May 13, 1996, as reported in Hansard,
repeated my constitutional positions as their own but without
adding the political limitation that I had applied.
Let me state what is clear on reading the bill. It is a very
modest law. It is facultative in legal terms, not coercive. It
reflects the obvious political fact of life that any breakaway
from an existing multinational or constitutionally plural state,
unless it is to be determined by force majeure, by force of arms
as in many cases it has been, must be consensual. This is a
position reflected in the United Nations General Assembly
declaration on friendly relations and co-operation among states
of 1970. It is even reflected in terms in the famous UN General
Assembly resolution of 1960 on independence for colonial peoples.
Therefore the emphasis is on consensus. This is what this law
says. In the words of the popular tango, it takes two to tango.
If you are going to break away you cannot do it unilaterally. You
have to get consensus. The federal government says if you wish
to have a referendum on secession and you wish it to be taken
positively in its result by the federal government, if you want
the federal government to negotiate in good faith in response to
it, then you must be able to demonstrate that it is a proposal
that has been arrived at in its result by what we may call
constitutional due process, fair and open means which genuinely
reflect Quebec public opinion.
I think this law states that, no more and no less.
1630
I find it difficult to see how any good constitutionalist could
object to this prescription because it goes to the foundations of
the open society upon which Canada is based.
I would cite what is I think the most remarkable feature of this
law. It is not like the Stalin constitution of 1936, which said
that any state may secede from the Soviet Union. Everybody knew
that the cynical Mr. Vyshinsky had written it and he did not mean
a word of it, and neither did Stalin. It stated for the first
time in a democratic society that one part had the right to break
away, provided it achieved an expression of opinion which
conformed to the due process of law, with proper consultation on
a representative basis.
The federal government in this bill does not stipulate a
particular content, of whatever nature, for any future Quebec
referendum question. It does not even try to impose a particular
majority. These are questions which, following Kelsen and the
pure theory of law, a good jurist would say are metalegal in
character. In more popular terms, one might say it was like King
Canute trying to legislate the impossible.
The European Union, in a cognate situation trying to establish
ground rules for recognition of new states, wisely limits itself
to what it calls the normal standards of international practice
and the political realities of each case.
The rest of the present bill goes on to list elements that would
be relevant in any post-referendum federal-provincial
negotiations on a possible secession. These correspond to
classical international law prescriptions for state sucession and
would be determined at any such ensuing negotiations.
What we have here is a continuance of that opening to
participatory democracy which began when Prime Minister Trudeau
opted not to use his constitutional choices to bar a referendum
but to enter into the political debate in the political arenas.
This is the situation. If these conditions, conformably to what
the supreme court has laid down and established in the federal
law, are met then it would be possible to obtain that genuine
nationwide consensus that is a necessary precondition to
effectuation of any political secession.
The positive thing is that the Government of Canada has taken
the forward step of saying “Yes, we would regret anybody going,
but if they go let us be sure that there was a clear question,
honestly expressed and honestly presented and accepted by a
fair majority of the population concerned”. That is an opening
to democracy. It is not coercion. It is facultative in its
nature.
There are several conditions. If a result were to be obtained
in which those conditions were met, I think I could persuade my
colleagues in my part of the country to accept it in good faith.
It is an invitation to members of the opposition to meet the
spirit of the law. It is not a coercive law; it is a facultative
law. It opens the way to constitutional due process, to a
measured approach in good faith to effectuation of popular will
when that is determined.
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Madam
Speaker, I was listening very attentively to the words of my hon.
friend from the Liberal Party, for whom I have the greatest
respect. If the hon. member believes in this bill so much, would
he be willing when his boss, the Prime Minister, decides that
the House of Commons will vote on it to say that on the Liberal
side a free vote should be allowed?
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Madam Speaker, as a freely elected
member of parliament, I can speak only for myself. I have
studied the bill. I am satisfied that it conforms to the basic
principles of a free and democratic society and I will support
it.
1635
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Madam Speaker, when we
talk about a clear question, we presume that those who will have
to answer it will understand not only the question, but also the
stakes involved.
It so happens that the stakes will be refined during the debate.
I will give a relatively simple example. Let us say that someone
who is renting an apartment in a building is considering moving
and buying a house. The question that person will ask is “Do I
want to buy a new house?” This is a clear question.
But in order to decide whether to do it or not, that person will
have to weigh the pros and the cons of each alternative. “What
are the pros and the cons if I remain a tenant, and what are
they if I become the owner of my home?”
In the process that concerns us, there is a fundamental aspect
that is mentioned nowhere in this bill: the arguments of the
manager of the building. You see, the last time, the question
was clear. But how many persons voted against it because the
manager of the building promised to give them a new paint job
and to make the place comfortable so that they could enjoy a
good quality of life and feel at home? The manager did not
deliver.
The bill before us does not mention this aspect.
Consequently, if the question is clear, it should also involve
clear commitments, commitments which will be met and not broken,
commitments which will not trick the people. Obviously, this bill cannot be
honest if it does not address these issues.
Does the hon. member agree with me that this bill is incomplete
because it does not deal with the basis of the democratic
debate which is supposed to follow, the democratic debate where
the real issues are explained by both sides so that the promises
can be met?
[English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Madam Speaker, I will return to a time
when I was a trusted constitutional adviser to several successive
Quebec premiers of different parties. I am very familiar with
the actors in previous referenda debates.
I remember in 1980 that the actual question was preceded by a
poll conducted by the minister in charge, Claude Morin, who was a
very brilliant man. I think there were no less than seven
questions put as likely to get the best majority. It is that
sort of action that I would have great difficulty in selling to
my electors in British Columbia.
On an issue like this we have to have a nationwide consensus to
allow negotiations to take place. If the secession vote allowed it
to be accepted, I could not sell what I would call clever action
by a governmental minister in charge. What is the problem with
Quebec presenting a clear question?
The law makes very clear that Quebec can vote on any question it
likes, but if it is to be taken seriously in the rest of the
country, and that is the necessary action to trigger a favourable
response to be legally enacted, it has to be one that people are
satisfied is a fair question.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise in the House today. I originally decided to seek
a seat in this House to come face to face, in this democratic
forum, with opponents of sovereignty, opponents I respect and
will continue to respect because, in my view, the real opponents
of sovereignty are to be found in this House. They are those who
have a different plan for Quebecers, who claim too often they
have fulfilled their promises regarding renewed federalism, and
who have trouble convincing Quebecers they fulfilled their
promises in this respect.
1640
I did not think when I came to this House that I would have to
fight against enemies of democracy; enemies of Quebec's
democracy, a democracy which was built and is still based on a
parliament, a national assembly we are very proud of.
A senator told me some time ago that it was the Westminster-style
parliamentary institution in Canada that had evolved the best,
modernized its practices, and resolutely entered into the modern
age while other houses, this one included, revel in traditions
that ought to be inspired by the new traditions created by
Quebec's national assembly.
It is a government that has transformed Quebec, bringing it out
of a great darkness, built an effective and competent public
service, provided Quebec with progressive laws, laws we are very
proud of; courts which apply the rule of law, making Quebec a
constitutional state we are also very proud of; courts that in
part are outside the jurisdiction of Quebec, its assembly and
its government because, in some cases, and in most cases in
Quebec's superior courts, judges are still appointed by the
federal government, which is contrary to the federal principle.
It is a democracy based on a charter of rights and freedoms
under which everybody has an equal vote in elections as well as
in referendums and on a referendum act that was adopted in 1979
to give Quebecers a say on important issues, including issues
relating to their political status. Three referendums were held
to date under the Quebec Referendum Act.
The strong criticism I address today to those who choose to
support the government with regard to Bill C-20 has nothing to do
with a lack of respect on my part for those who want to change
the federation, but I can tell the proponents of this bill—with
all due respect for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, a
professor at the University of Montreal—that it has to do with
the fact that I think that, far from recognizing the right of
Quebec to become a country, far from recognizing, as was said
many times today, the right to secede, to use the same
expression used by the supreme court, this legislation will
prevent Quebec from choosing to become a country.
[English]
This week a commentator wrote: “If we are now bold enough to
rule out secession in practice, why must we pretend to allow it
in principle?”
[Translation]
That is what it is all about. This bill suggests that it would
respect the will of Quebecers to build a country, but in fact it
wants to deny them the right to choose that option.
I think this legislation, which, according to its proponents, is
based on the opinion issued by the supreme court on August 20,
1998, does not respect the main requirements of that opinion. We
believe that opinion has been misinterpreted in many ways.
1645
Absolutely nowhere in the supreme court's opinion could we find
the basis for the authority given to the House of Commons to
determine how clear the question is and how clear the majority
is. One wonders why the government wanted to give the House of
Commons authority in this area, whereas the supreme court
recognized no such authority.
Over the last few weeks we have set out the views of several
famous jurists, such as Professor Henri Brun from Laval
University and Professor Andrée Lajoie from the University of
Montreal.
Only a few minutes ago I cited the opinion by Alain Pellet,
professor at the University of Paris-Nanterre and a member of the
International Law Commission. They are all of the opinion that
the government is on the wrong track when it claims it has found
in the supreme court's opinion some comfort and some
justification for the provisions in this bill.
I invite hon. members to look particularly at Mr. Pellet's
opinion, which is probably one of the first comments on the
draft bill, and Bill C-20 as it is now, since he feels that
Bill C-20 gives the federal government a triple veto with regard
to the future of Quebec.
Thus, I want to comment on the three clauses of this bill which
give this veto to the Canadian government and to those who will
be consulted by the Canadian government.
The first clause of this bill concerns the question that the
national assembly could or would ask Quebecers about
their political future.
It is peculiar, even indecent, to propose a formula that would
allow the House of Commons to rule on the clarity of a question
during a referendum campaign because the 30 days following the
tabling of a question at the legislature of a province would, in
Quebec, cause the debate on the clarity of the question to occur
during the referendum campaign.
Besides this intrusion, this involvement of the House of Commons
in the referendum campaign itself, we cannot help but recognise that
clause 1(4) of the bill limits the jurisdiction of the national
assembly when it comes to determining the question to be asked
Quebecers, since it excludes any mandate to negotiate or any
reference to an economic or political agreement or partnership
of any kind.
If that is not limiting the jurisdiction of the assembly or
dictating the phrasing of the referendum question, I do not know
what is, or what this clause means. To say that with this act
the Canadian parliament would be respecting the autonomy of the
national assembly in this respect is totally inaccurate.
The second clause, concerning the majority, is probably the one
which poses the greatest threat to democracy in Quebec.
It is a weapon handed to the Parliament of Canada and especially
the House of Commons to veto the referendum results.
In fact, I feel that in many ways this bill brings back the
veto. What is the power to veto a question because in the
opinion of the House of Commons of the Parliament of Canada it
is not clear and what is the power to veto the results because
it is felt that a clear majority was not reached if not a new
veto granted to the federal parliament?
1650
I will comment further on these provisions in the weeks and
months to come. Last, I want to point out briefly that
clause 3, which refers to the matters that could be negotiated,
implies that some issues like borders will be subject to
negotiation.
I was glad when the minister told us today—and it was duly
noted—that he thinks this provision does not deal with the
partition of Quebec, but that it could include changes to
borders, like what was done in Lithuania and Czechoslovakia,
according to the example the minister gave us yesterday.
I conclude by reminding hon. members that the debate we are
beginning today is an important one in the political history of
Canada and of Quebec. It deals with the way we view democracy in
a democratic country and the way we review it.
However, the revision the government is proposing with Bill C-20
ends up telling Canadians and Quebecers that there is a higher
authority in this country, a supreme authority, which is the
House of Commons. The House of Commons can veto a question
approved by what we call a national assembly, and what the
Calgary declaration only called a legislative assembly, by what
is considered an inferior assembly, since the question can be
vetoed by this House.
The question could be rejected by this House where there are 75
members from Quebec who have a legitimate voice here, as
recognized by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
However, among those 75 members from Quebec, there are 44
members of the Bloc Quebecois, one independent member who will
certainly vote against this bill and four Conservative members who
will also vote against this bill, as they said they would.
It is a House of Commons that, when it rises to pass this bill,
although we hope that, in the course of this debate, the
government will realize it is making a mistake and should
withdraw the bill, will once again seek to base its authority on
members who should not have a veto over Quebec's political
future before a referendum is held.
In the weeks and months to come we will see Quebecers tell
those who want to have this bill passed that it is out of order,
that it is a rejection of our institutions and our democratic
practices in Quebec, that parliament, that the House of Commons
of Canada does not have precedence over the National Assembly of
Quebec on issues relating to Quebec's political and
constitutional future.
When members of the national assembly, members of this House
from Quebec, civil society and the other political actors in
Quebec decide that this initiative is out of order, our friends
opposite will certainly realize that they were wrong, that they
made a bad choice, that they did the same thing in the past when
they forced a constitution down our throat in 1982, just as they
are trying now to put us in shackles with regard to the future
of Quebec.
In closing, I will quote another commentator who reminds our
friends opposite of what could happen. He said:
[English]
“Mr. Chrétien has bludgeoned dissent within his party and
cabinet”, bien que ça ne paraît plus.
“He won't get away with it in Quebec. People there may be tired
of constitutional wrangling, and who could blame them? But they
are proud and democratic. In their own way and time, they will
let Mr. Chrétien know”.
1655
[Translation]
This being the end of my speech, I would like to propose a
motion to adjourn the House.
I move:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the yeas have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1745
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Anders
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
|
Brien
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grewal
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Jaffer
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Turp
| Venne – 50
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bennett
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brison
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casey
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Doyle
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Epp
| Finlay
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Grose
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
|
Harb
| Hart
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jones
|
Karetak - Lindell
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
|
Marleau
| Martin
(Winnipeg Centre)
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Muise
|
Nault
| Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Power
| Pratt
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Reynolds
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Sgro
| Solomon
| Speller
| St - Jacques
|
St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(New Brunswick Southwest)
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vellacott
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Williams
| Wood – 178
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Order, please. It
being 5.47 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration
of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
MINIMUM SENTENCES
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the
government should impose minimum sentences for those involved in
people smuggling, with the highest minimum sentences for those
who profit the most, including organized crime bosses,
“snakeheads” and those who carry out the actual smuggling
operations.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased today to have a
chance to present my private member's Motion No. 20.
In my presentation today, I will first read my motion so that
people listening and watching will know what this is about.
Second, I will explain why the motion is very necessary when we
consider what is happening in the country in terms of people
smuggling. Third, I will explain what I am calling for in the
motion and what I see resulting from the motion. Last, I will
explain the current situation with regard to what happens right
now in Canada with people smugglers.
As people watch this story unfold tonight, they will recognize
that the state of our current law and what the government has
allowed to happen in the area of people smuggling is truly
disgusting. It is unacceptable, not good for Canadians and not
good for the people being smuggled.
It is only good for the people smugglers themselves who are most
often involved in organized crime. As I will explain later, the
organized crime activity of people smuggling is encroaching on
drug smuggling because it is very profitable and the penalties
for getting caught, especially in countries like Canada, really
are minimal.
1750
Motion No. 20 reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should impose
minimum sentences for those involved in people smuggling, with
the highest minimum sentences for those who profit the most,
including organized crime bosses, “snakeheads” and those who
carry out the actual smuggling operations.
What is this motion about? From reading the motion, we can tell
that it is about imposing minimum sentences in the area of people
smuggling and to apply them to those involved in people
smuggling. I am talking about those key organized crime figures
who organize and spearhead these operations, those people who
actually organize the people smuggling operations and those
people who physically carry it out. For example, the crew on a
ship or on an airplane might be involved or those who drive a
vehicle across a border.
I am saying all this partly because of the current law but more
importantly because of the way our judges have been interpreting
and applying the law to people involved in smuggling other humans
into our country. The sentences that have been given out have
been weak. It is necessary to put minimum sentences in place
along with the maximum sentences.
As I go through the information on the current situation, we
will see very clearly why this is the case. Statistics from the
Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics show that there have only
been 14 charges made under the Immigration Act between 1995 and
1998 that apply to people smuggling in any way. All charges were
made under subsection 94.1 of the Immigration Act, which states:
Every person who knowingly organizes, induces, aids or abets or
attempts to organize, induce, aid or abet the coming into Canada
of a person who is not in possession of a valid and subsisting
visa, passport or travel document where one is required by this
Act or the regulations is guilty of an offence and liable
(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding one
hundred thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding five years, or to both; or
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding ten thousand
dollars or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or
to both.
That is the current law that is in place. Let us take a closer
look at it. In the last five years not one day has been served
in jail by those convicted under subsection 94.1 of the Immigration
Act for smuggling people. This is unbelievable for a crime that
has extremely serious consequences for the people being smuggled,
for Canadian society and for the taxpayers of this country and
other countries that may be involved in this crime.
Of the 14 charges that have been laid, there were only 12
convictions, 11 of which were in the fiscal year 1996-97.
There have been no convictions under subsection 94.2 which deals
with organizing the entry of groups of 10 or more, nor under
subsection 94.4, disembarking people at sea in order to help them
evade the requirements of the law.
1755
According to the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, the
toughest sentence handed down under subsection 94.1 of the
Immigration Act for those convicted of a crime of this severity
was a fine of $4,000 and one year's probation; no time in jail.
Subsequently, foreign nationals who were convicted of this
serious offence were allowed to remain in Canada to serve their
sentence with the minimal supervision of our federal probation
system. This means that they were given a little slap-on-the-hand
fine, which is peanuts in the scheme of things. Let us
consider the example of the almost 500 people who came illegally
by boat this summer. They paid about $50,000 American per person
to the smugglers who helped them come to our country. That is
only the tip of the iceberg. Those who came by boat are roughly
2% of all those who came illegally to our country in this past
year. The rest came through our airports, by airplane, or across
our border from the United States. That is how the other 95%
came here.
We can talk a bit more about that layer, but as we can see
clearly, our judicial system and the government are not taking
this situation seriously.
When we look at this situation, where people have only received
fines and probation when they have been convicted of people
smuggling, does it sound like those signs are appropriate? I
have clearly stated that I do not think so. What I have heard
from Canadians across the country over the summer and through the
fall is that they do not think so. To be fair, I have heard from
the minister and from others that they do not think these
sentences are in line. I guess my question is: Why has the
government not done anything about it?
I am here today with my private member's motion because the
government will not do anything about people smuggling. However,
we are getting used to that, especially on justice issues and on
defending the sovereignty of our country. I and the Reform Party
feel that we have to fill in and take the responsibility for the
government. It is okay by us because we are fully planning on
taking over government after the next election. We are the ones
who will act responsibly on issues like this. I believe that is
what will happen.
That is the situation now in terms of sentencing. We can see that
there is a great lack of seriousness attached to this issue. We
may have government members standing, as they take part in the
debate, saying “But the solicitor general came up with a
document last January to deal with organized crime. We believe
in protecting Canadians and we are going to get tough on
organized crime”, generally on organized crime, not just people
smuggling.
The previous solicitor general last January came up with a
10-page document generally laying out the problem with organized
crime. He even mentioned people smuggling and how serious it
was. What action have we seen over this past year? We know the
answer to that. We have seen no action on that whatsoever. It
is discouraging, disgusting and it has to change.
Today I am focusing on one aspect of organized crime, people
smuggling, which is an area of crime that is growing. People
smuggling now, according to some estimates, involves $10 billion
a year. It is so serious that it is adding to the current
organized crime activity in the drug trade. They are moving
their efforts to organized crime because very little happens to
them if they get caught.
1800
In other countries the sentences involved are a lot more
serious. For example, the United States has a minimum sentence
and, depending on the level of involvement, those who are found
guilty of people smuggling can be sentenced to three to five
years. The maximum sentences in Australia, New Zealand and the
United States are much higher than in Canada. This points out
the relative seriousness that those governments place on the
issue of people smuggling.
In Australia the maximum penalty for people smuggling is 25
years. In Canada it is 10 years. But what is the use of having
a 10 year sentence? It sounds like a pretty serious sentence,
and it would be if it were applied, but in Canada there is no
jail time. We do not want to get tough with anybody who is
caught smuggling people, even if they are involved in organized
crime. We just give them a little slap on the wrist.
That has made the government, in effect, a partner in organized
crime. We send that kind of signal to people involved in
smuggling human beings, causing the pain and the sorrow that goes
along with people smuggling. The people who are being smuggled
find themselves working in sweat shops, often in prostitution and
drug trafficking. If that is as serious as the government takes
these types of activities and this type of enslavement, then it
should be ashamed of itself.
I look for quick action on this issue. Today, again, I am
offering this private member's motion. It should go to
committee. It should be fleshed out and it should provide a
minimum sentence for those involved in people smuggling.
My motion does not provide a means by which to seize the
proceeds of crime achieved by those involved in people smuggling.
That is certainly something which must be dealt with.
The motion does not deal with any other area of organized crime.
It does not deal with some other very serious issues involved in
people smuggling.
People smuggling does not only cause pain to those being
smuggled, it encourages and accommodates those who would like to
come to our country illegally. When we have large numbers of
people coming to our country, often undetected, then I would
suggest that is a threat to the very sovereignty of our nation.
That speaks to the importance of this issue, which the government
must deal with, and I would encourage it to do that now.
I have not even touched on the cost to taxpayers. I will talk
about that later, as well as the many other serious issues which
are involved.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am very
pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this motion.
Before I start, let me tell the hon. member, in all fairness,
that the minister has been very active in this area. It is
important for members opposite to know that we have a policy.
When boats come to our shores, we detect them, we apprehend and
detain the people and then they are put through the process of
adjudication to determine if they should be charged with criminal
activity.
1805
Canadians are concerned about a growing international trade in
human smuggling and trafficking. This motion helps to focus our
attention on that, but it also focuses attention on our strategy
of penalizing those who profit from human suffering.
It has become evident that a global movement of people has been
accelerating. In spite of international efforts to eradicate
poverty, the gap between have and have not countries is fostering
a new wave of people who are desperately seeking the means to
establish themselves in North America. The United Nations
estimates that 125 million people are currently outside their
home countries in search of an improved economic situation or a
more stable political environment.
In conjunction with this international reality there is a
growing effort by organized crime to exploit these people.
Canada is not the only country that is facing this problem. The
United Nations estimates that annually four million people are
smuggled across borders by a global business valued at $9 billion
a year. Australia alone has seen 2,500 hopeful migrants arrive
on 70 boats this year. Over 1,000 of these people were on 12
boats that arrived on Australia's coast in November.
The boats that arrived on our west coast during the summer are
the most recent and visible manifestations in Canada of a larger
international problem. Moreover, there is every reason to
believe that people smuggling and trafficking will increase
unless Canada, in concert with other nations, adopts effective
measures to discourage it. The question is: Which measures?
It is important that we not react in alarm or haste. We must
avoid simplistic responses which may compromise Canada's
humanitarian traditions and its obligations under the Geneva
convention. Such was the case with a senator's private bill
introduced last month in the House. The bill proposed the use of
legislation to direct away from Canadian waters a ship carrying
suspected migrants. A measure to turn boats back, which recalls
some of the darker moments in Canada's past, would run the risk
of denying protection to people who could be determined, through
our hearings, to be genuine refugees.
Some 60 years ago Canada, among other countries, turned back a
ship full of Jewish refugees seeking to escape Nazi Germany.
That these people were forced to return on the St. Louis to
Germany and the horrors that awaited them remains a shameful
episode in our past. In 1914, 376 East Indian immigrants were
forcefully confined for two months aboard the liner Komagata
Maru as it lay off Vancouver harbour. The B.C. supreme court
eventually upheld a federal exclusion order and the boat,
escorted by a Canadian warship, was forced to sail back to
Calcutta. On arrival 29 people were shot and 20 eventually died.
We must learn from these and similar mistakes.
Such measures would not deal with the root of the problem, which
is the international trade in people smuggling. However, in my
view, the motion currently before the House is closer to the mark
because it focuses more directly on the real culprits, those who
profit from this hateful crime.
In so doing, the motion anticipates but one aspect of a broader
range of measures that the government is currently considering.
What is needed to deal with this international problem is a
multifaceted approach adopted by Canada and other nations in the
context of an international solution.
For example, Canada is taking an active role in the development
of two UN protocols concerning the smuggling of migrants and
trafficking in women and children. A G-8 senior expert group on
transnational organized crime is also addressing these issues. In
this regard the Department of Citizenship and Immigration chairs
a G-8 subgroup on alien smuggling and trafficking in human
beings.
In addition, efforts are being made by Canada to deal with
people smuggling and trafficking at the source by co-operating
with other countries, including China, to combat crimes relating
to the violation of border controls and illegal immigration.
Canada is committed to strengthening its worldwide intelligence
and tracking systems to see that smugglers and traffickers are
intercepted. These actions are proving effective. Chinese
authorities intercepted six migrant ships this year, four of
which are believed to have been destined for Canada, and over
6,000 people lacking proper documentation were prevented from
getting into Canada last year alone.
1810
However, the government is fully conscious that additional
measures are necessary. In January of this year the government
proposed several legislative directions to improve the integrity
and effectiveness of our refugee determination system. These
proposals are being reviewed to determine what additional
measures should be taken.
We already have among the severest penalties in the world for
people trafficking, up to 10 years of imprisonment and fines of
up to $500,000. We are using these tools to prosecute the crew
of the second boat to arrive in British Columbia last summer.
As the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has already
signalled, we are reviewing a number of options to deal with
migrant smuggling and trafficking in consultation with other
governments and other departments and agencies of our own.
The minister has outlined a series of proposals which could
include penalties for human trafficking at least as tough as our
penalties for drug trafficking. We are also looking at taking
more aggressive steps to seize property used in the course of
such operations. The minister has also offered safety to anyone
who will testify against smugglers as a way to keep smugglers
from abusing our system.
Another proposal being considered is the imposition of a
screening mechanism for criminality and security considerations
at the very beginning of the refugee determination process to
identify criminals earlier and prevent them from using the system
for reasons other than protection.
We are also looking at clarifying our three existing grounds for
detention to better deal with people smuggling and trafficking in
Canada.
The Immigration Act currently permits three grounds for
detention: inability to establish identity, reasonable concern
for public safety, and warranted fear of flight.
The minister has proposed consolidating the refugee
determination process to make it faster but fair.
Citizenship and immigration officials are currently consulting
with their colleagues in the Department of Justice to determine,
along with other anti-smuggling initiatives, if minimum sentences
will be an effective deterrent against traffickers and whether
such sentences will be in accord with the charter of rights and
freedoms.
In the meantime, we have a commitment from the Immigration and
Refugee Board to accelerate refugee hearings for those who
arrived on our west coast this summer, providing a fair but
accelerated process to determine who are genuine refugees and who
are not. Legitimate refugees among them will be allowed to stay
in Canada. The rest will be removed as quickly as possible.
Canadians can now be proud of our international record of
tolerance and compassion toward genuine refugees from all parts
of the world.
Over the decades since the 1950s we have honoured our commitment
to the Geneva convention by welcoming and protecting Eastern
Europeans, Asians from Uganda, Indochinese refugees and South
Americans fleeing persecution, among many thousands of others.
This attitude of compassion continues, as shown by Canadians
opening their hearts and their homes to the Kosovar refugee
families earlier this year.
People who arrive in Canada seeking protection are now entitled
to fair hearings to determine refugee status under our laws. Our
sense of compassion and fairness is enshrined in our
constitution, our charter of rights and freedoms, our immigration
and refugee laws and our own judiciary.
Canadians will not be taken advantage of by those who would
traffic in human misery.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am very
pleased to rise today to speak to the motion put forward by my Reform
colleague with whom I am fortunate to sit on the standing
committee.
My speech will be divided into four parts. First I will
elaborate on the text of my colleague's motion. Then I will state
a number of facts, including those concerning the arrival of
illegal immigrants. If the Reform Party is introducing this
motion today it is due mainly to the fact that we recently saw a
number of immigrants arriving in Vancouver by boat. I will state
a number of facts. Second, I will elaborate on immigration in
Canada, with regard not only to immigration per se, but also to
refugees.
1815
I will draw attention to one analysis. A couple of months
ago I asked the standing committee, on the occasion of the
renewal of the Immigration Act, to conduct a real comparative
analysis of what is done in other countries so that I could
properly criticize or improve the bill that is supposed to be
introduced very shortly.
I will talk about the whole aspect of organized crime and people
smuggling, as compared to what is done in Belgium and Germany.
Third, I will state our position on minimum sentences, as we have
criticisms in this respect.
My Reform colleague's motion reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should impose
minimum sentences for those involved in people smuggling, with
the highest minimum sentences for those who profit the most,
including organized crime bosses, “snakeheads” and those who
carry out the actual smuggling operations.
I believe it is important to remember that the motion before us
today is mainly the result of events that occurred last summer,
namely the arrival in Vancouver of boats carrying illegal
immigrants from China.
I remind the House that 123 immigrants arrived at the port of
Vancouver on June 19, followed by 131 more on August 12 and 190
on August 31, for a total of 444 illegal immigrants who landed
in Canada.
In 1998 the minister of immigration had a goal for Canada
to welcome between 176,000 and 193,000 immigrants. That was the
goal officially announced by the minister. The minister was
unable to reach her goal, and only 151,300 immigrants chose to
settle in Canada. That is the example I have for 1998.
As far as refugees are concerned, the estimated number of
refugees for 1998 was between 24,000 and 32,300. Unfortunately,
according to the most recent data we have for 1998, only 22,644
refugees came to Canada.
In these two areas the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
was unable to reach the goal she set for herself, and that is
truly unfortunate.
First of all, what we need to remember about those three
dilapidated ships that showed up at the port of Vancouver
crowded with illegal immigrants is that these 444 refugees who
landed in Canada only account for 1% of the annual estimated
number of refugees who come to Canada. It was a spectacular
event, but that does not reflect the day-to-day reality.
Let us consider what is being done elsewhere. First of all, I
want to point out to the House what is going on in Germany.
Germany has taken a series of initiatives to fight illegal
immigration.
The crime fighting act passed in October 1994 brought changes to
the foreigners act. These changes made it possible to punish not
only those who enter the country illegally, but also those who
help them do it. Illegal entry carries a maximum penalty of two
years in jail.
The new offence, facilitating the illegal entry of foreigners,
carries a penalty of five years in jail if the smuggling
operation is carried out in exchange for financial benefits, or
if it is done repeatedly, or if it involves more than five
people.
1820
Even attempting to facilitate the illegal entry of foreigners is
punishable. The harsher penalty is when the illegal entry is
orchestrated by a criminal organization or by someone who does
it on a regular basis and for compensation. In these cases the
maximum penalty is 10 years.
An amendment to the foreigners act and to the asylum procedures
act, adopted in 1997, made it possible to punish those who
attempt to enter the country illegally. Moreover, facilitating
the illegal entry of more than one person now carries a penalty
of five years in jail, whereas the previous legislation provided
for such a penalty only in cases involving more than five
people.
This encouraged the development of organized networks. They
made sure to smuggle no more than five people at a time, using
private cars.
I must point out, however, that maximum penalties are provided
for in the legislation but that German authorities are rather
lenient. For example, minors under 16 years of age and nationals
from certain countries were exempted under article 2.2 of the
1990 order. For example, young people from various states of the
former Yugoslavia, from Morocco, from Tunisia and from Turkey
were not required to have a visa to enter Germany when one of
their parents stayed in Germany regularly.
This provision resulted in a significant increase in the number
of entries of unaccompanied minors from those countries. I will
provide some figures: in 1994, 198 minors; in 1995, 881 minors;
in 1996, 2,068 minors, 1,800 of whom were from Turkey.
Fearing that this exemption would encourage illegal child labour
and prostitution, the government amended the order at the
beginning of 1997. From now on all minors, wherever they come
from, need a visa. For children living in Germany, the visa
would, exceptionally and until June 13, 1998, be granted
automatically.
Since 1998 there has been a fine for illegal child labour. Businesses
are forbidden to bid on public tenders for two years if they
illegally employ foreign workers.
I would like to point out one thing about the concept and the
rationale stated by my colleague from the Reform Party. Minimum
sentences should be used carefully.
The process of imposing minimum sentences bypasses the courts'
discretion in assessing the circumstances surrounding each
offence. These circumstances are particularly important in
matters of people smuggling.
As it is written, the motion is designed for those involved in
people smuggling. However, no one is more involved in this than
the people themselves. They are the victims of an intolerable
situation that should never escape
examination by the courts. More generally, minimum sentences are
reserved for the most serious offences.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Madam Speaker, I
am very pleased to take part in this debate on an issue which I
feel very strongly about. I want to thank the hon. member for
Lakeland for putting forward Motion No. 20. He has hit the nail
on the head. It is something which many Canadians are very
interested in and concerned with.
My only regret is that the motion was not deemed votable. I
wish we had the opportunity to debate this for three hours, not
one hour, and ultimately to vote on the motion because I feel it
is that strong an issue.
I feel strongly as well, though, that one of the reasons this
motion was not deemed to be votable was that it is so incredibly
flawed and poorly crafted. Without being rude, it honestly seems
as if the hon. member wrote it on the back of a napkin in a
doughnut shop because it is clearly one of the shoddiest pieces
of work I have seen introduced in the House of Commons.
1825
It is no surprise to me that the committee would not allow this
motion to be votable because it is so fundamentally flawed at
almost every level. It is simply so casual that no wonder the
committee would not deal with it that way.
One thing we all can agree on is that there is nothing more
reprehensible in the world than the trade or traffic in human
beings, the buying, selling, trading, transporting or smuggling
of them as a marketable commodity. We all agree that it is
fundamentally wrong. Although many governments are, this
government and all governments around the world should be
cracking down on the trafficking of human beings and driving a
stake through the heart of that horrible occupation.
Most Canadians shudder when they think of how awful the
conditions must have been in the most recent example of the four
desperate ships which drifted up on the west coast of British
Columbia. I venture to say that we would not be having this
debate had those four sorry looking vessels not drifted up on the
west coast of British Columbia. It raised this whole issue in the
minds of people.
Some chose to overstate the issue and made far more of it than
it really was. Let us bring it down to perspective right now.
There were 599 people in four boats over the course of six or
seven weeks. Canada allows 23,000 to 25,000 refugees into the
country every year. Almost 100 refugees a day come to Canada.
The fact that 500 or 600 drifted up on the west coast over the
course of five or six weeks is not a matter of national security
or an emergency.
Our borders are not a sieve. The Reform Party and all the
fearmongers on the west coast can calm down. We are not being
invaded. The yellow peril is not upon us. They should chill out
a bit. This is not an emergency. I hope that the rest of
this debate can take on a tone that is a little more realistic
about what is happening.
We were so concerned about the overstating of this case that we
started to do a little more research into what motivated this
group of migrants and what motivates migrants all over the world.
Let me back up a little by saying that over 100 million people
the world over are moving usually for economic reasons to places
of better opportunity. That has happened throughout history.
People have followed capital and opportunity to build better
lives for themselves.
At this point in time we are seeing an escalation of that
movement. Transportation is more readily available than it might
have been hundreds of years ago. Also, the third world, the
underdeveloped nations, know how we live. How do they know?
They watch TV. They watch Dallas reruns and stuff like
that on television. They know how the west works, lives,
operates and the wonderful opportunities we have here, and guess
what? They want a piece of it because they love their children
too. They are willing to do anything to provide a better
opportunity for their families and drag them out of the despair
they live in to the wonderful opportunities that we enjoy.
It is no mystery to me, but it is a fact of life. I predict
that we will be facing a day of reckoning very soon as many more
hundreds of millions of people make that realization, decide to
pull up roots and do anything to get to the first world where
they and their families might have an opportunity. Frankly, that
is why the world is seized of this issue. That is why the member
for Lakeland should be complimented for raising it.
I just came back from Washington, D.C. On Saturday we were at
an international conference on this very issue, the mass movement
of people around the world and what to do about it as developed
nations. Norway, Germany, the United States, everyone was
represented. Canada was very proudly represented by our minister
who spoke very eloquently to the group. These are some of the
things that come to mind.
Again, the research we did was to try to understand the current
boatloads of people who drifted up on the coast of B.C. We
started to scratch the surface of where these people came from.
They were from the Fujian province in China.
The Fujian province is the first place in China that had free
economic trade zones, something that anybody who deals with
international trade is very familiar with. They are fenced
compounds where western corporations can go and act free of any
of the labour laws in that country. Manufacturers can find cheap
labour and manufacture the products for the west in these free
economic trade zones.
The Fujian province was the first. Now there are 200 of those
free economic trade zones making The Gap jeans, Wal-Mart
products, Liz Claiborne and J. Crew clothes. Maybe the clothes I
am wearing right now were made in a free economic trade zone
sweatshop in the Fujian province.
1830
The research that we did indicated that the International Labour
Organization said it cost 85 cents an hour. A living wage in
that part of China would be 85 cents an hour. These free
economic trade zones pay their people 18 cents an hour to build
the western products that we enjoy here.
These people have made the natural connection. They are earning
18 cents an hour, or one-fifth of what it costs to be a Chinese
peasant, making Gap blue jeans that will sell for $50 or $75 to
the western world, and they want a piece of that. People are not
stupid. Those are some of the things that came to light as we
researched this subject.
I recommend that we should not dwell on the crime and punishment
side of trying to build higher and higher walls around our
country to keep these people out. That is the same thing we were
accused of with free trade. If we have the globalization of
trade and the globalization of capital we should also have the
globalization of human rights, the globalization of improving
wages, labour standards and standards of living. All those
things should be part and parcel of globalization.
We do not want to build walls around the country like the hon.
member for Lakeland is suggesting. He says that we should build
higher walls to keep these people out because it is our stuff and
they are not going to get any of it. His recommendation is
bigger and better penalties.
I suggest the inverse is true. We should be working to elevate
the standards of wages and working conditions of the Chinese
peasant who lives in a free economic trade zone in the Fujian
province and makes 18 cents an hour. That is what the real shame
is and that is where we should be putting our energies. In other
words, we should stop criminalizing the victims.
The Reform Party was screaming, when these people drifted on to
the coast of B.C., to lock them up. There were photographs in
the paper of children in shackles, 12 year old children who just
came off a harrowing six week journey on the open seas, because
members of the Reform Party demanded it. They did not feel safe
if these people were in their midst.
We should not criminalize the victims; we should go after the
criminals. We should go after the snakeheads, the smugglers and
the people who exploit the human condition and the human misery
that the free economic trade zone, our western world, has created in
the Fujian province in China. It is about time we started taking
some responsibility for what our standard of living costs.
If we are to take the route of elevating their standard of
living to something that is a little more decent, let us look at
the practicality of that. David Suzuki says that for all of us
on the planet to enjoy the same standard of living Canadians
enjoy we would need six more planets. There are not enough
resources to go around so we cannot simply hope that every person
in China has two cars and all our western consumer products. That
will not happen either. There is an environmental factor as
well.
I would hope that some reason, sensitivity, research and intelligence would
prevail in the whole debate about the mass migration of people.
Maybe even some quality bills and quality motions could be put
before the House so we could have a proper debate and a proper
vote instead of something that was clearly written on a paper
napkin in a doughnut shop.
The solution is not to build higher walls. The solution is not
to criminalize the victims. The solution is to bust the
criminals and get them out of our country like we have been
doing. We have been busting the smugglers and sending them back
where they came from. Let us look at the larger global picture
of why there is mass migration. It has to do with our western
standard of living and we have to get sensitive to it or it will
be at our peril.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Before recognizing
the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, I must warn him
that he will only have seven minutes so that the member for
Lakeland will have five minutes in which to reply.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to take part in the
debate. It is certainly an issue that is becoming one of great
national concern, more and more so with each passing day, to the
alarm of many Canadians.
Smuggling has been going on in Canada for over a century. In my
home province of Nova Scotia, which was very famous for rum
running during the days of prohibition, there is a strange aspect
of human nature. There has been a bit of romanticism about that
aspect of smuggling.
1835
It has been a problem of law enforcement. Stepped up efforts
have managed to bring this problem under control in some parts of
the country. Nowadays smuggling is becoming more and more a high
tech and dangerous issue of drugs, guns and pornography. Some
days we hear time and time again on the news that Canadian
coastlines are being besieged with these kinds of contraband
material.
Romanticism is certainly lost in this debate, particularly when
we hear stories of human smuggling and the slavery of Chinese
migrants trying to gain access to Canada. Thousands are
brought in, as people are being constantly reminded through the
daily media.
One specific problem gaining media attention involves Asian
criminal gangs known as snakeheads, which are referenced in this
motion. It seems more reminiscent of a James Bond film when we
hear the facts of this case. There have been claims of an RCMP
cover-up after files were deleted from the immigration computer
at the Canadian commission, now the consulate general in Hong
Kong. There are intriguing words like triads, Chinese Mafia,
snakeheads, people smugglers and project Sidewinder. There are
local staff with high level security clearance using their posts
to accept bribes in return for distributing approximately 2,000
blank visa forms. The allegations are being made against the
RCMP by one of its own, which has made this case all the more
chilling and disturbing.
RCMP Corporal Robert Read has made the allegations that the RCMP
is covering up aspects of a visa scam at the Canadian diplomatic
mission in Hong Kong. Read has been suspended for talking to the
media in the Vancouver province about this Hong Kong
investigation and is now subject to investigation. It has all
the makings of an espionage thriller that would make a John Le
Carré novel seem unbelievable.
Sadly it is not the case that we are able to look at a movie and
hopefully come to some sort of happy ending. In the real world
the RCMP corporal is being discredited while his legitimate hard
earned evidence is being ignored.
Poor Chinese migrants are being treated as human cargo as they
spend their life savings trying to get to Canada, only to find
themselves in slave labour in return for this passage to Canada.
Snakeheads and triads are making a fortune smuggling bodies and
providing slave labour to their triad connected businesses in
North America.
It is unthinkable to most Canadians that this could be
happening, and meanwhile the federal government has failed to
take decisive action. This past summer snakehead boats with
their human cargo continued to besiege the B.C. coast, and the
government had no plan of action other than waiting for the
weather to change.
With no budget for the coast guard, deep cuts to the RCMP and
sparse navy patrol on the water to intercept these vessels,
Canadian coastlines are vulnerable. Refugee status to migrants
being granted while still onboard is one way to approach the
problem but with sparse resources we are unable to do it. No
moneys from the government can be spent in this area. Yet it
appears that the government will continue with funding for gun
registration and funding for other programs that pale by
comparison when viewed in terms of the seriousness of the issue.
This is a human tragedy, and yet the government has not taken
meaningful action on this specific problem. It was a Bloc motion
that forced the government into accepting the idea of putting the
matter before the justice committee as a start. Sadly we know it
will take the committee a long time to address the matter, given
the agenda it is currently faced with.
As we have seen with other RCMP officers like Corporal Read,
when they find themselves in conflict with their political
masters or the high ranking brass in the RCMP, they are
castigated, singled out and then abandoned.
An initial investigation into this possible cover-up of project
Sidewinder was surprisingly stopped shortly after it began in 1992
due to lack of evidence. As we have seen in other investigations
like Bre-X or Air India, when they are cut short the public is
left to wonder what is the true outcome and what is really at
work. Yet we know in other investigations that are politically
motivated, like the creation of the Airbus scandal, that the money seems
to be there and the investigation seems to go on endlessly.
When RCMP officers like Corporal Read are assigned to a file
they are not given the support they need. Read made some very
significant discoveries and found gaping holes in the original
investigation. He was completing a report into why 788 files
containing sensitive background information on businessmen and
criminals had been deleted from the computer assisted immigration
processing system, CAIPS, but was yanked off the case at the last
minute just as he was beginning to get close to the truth.
He protested and continued to repeat his allegations in an
attempt to have the RCMP reopen and continue the case, yet they
fell upon deaf ears.
1840
Read was suspended for speaking to the media. Out of
frustration he turned to the media. The RCMP is not actively
investigating the triads. Instead it has begun to investigate
him. It is the irony of ironies.
Even as late as the end of November the solicitor general was
oblivious to the issue. As he stated in the House, it is up to
the RCMP to decide what measures to take. He suggested that
Corporal Read should take this issue to the Public Complaints
Commission. Little did he know that Corporal Read had already
done this and was told by the commission that his case was beyond
its purview.
Again this is a clear indication that the solicitor general is
sadly lacking in some of the fundamentals of his own department.
If this is a case of RCMP misconduct then the solicitor general
should look into Corporal Read's request to have his complaints
addressed by an independent commission.
Read said that he had already brought his complaint of the
alleged RCMP cover-up to the Public Complaints Commission, the
auditor general and CSIS, and yet there is still no
investigation. It is a shocking revelation.
For that reason I commend the hon. member for Lakehead for
bringing this issue before the House of Commons. It is hoped
that in listening to this debate perhaps the Liberal government
will realize that its inaction has aided the proliferation of
snakehead-triad organized crime in this country.
These are all important messages that are being transmitted. We
have yet to see the government react. Will it receive this
message? Time will tell.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
delighted to have the last five minutes to wrap up. I thank all
members who spoke to my motion. I could have been blown over
with a kiss when the member for Kitchener—Waterloo, from the
governing party, admitted that there was a problem and
acknowledged that something must be done.
He did say that I had anticipated something the government was
already doing. I look forward to that. I have been waiting six
years for legislation to deal with it. I have been calling for
action on this matter not just since this summer but for six
years. I encourage him to carry on beyond what he said into
taking some action and bringing it about very quickly.
The Bloc MP for Rosemont generally supported the concept. He
expressed some concern about minimum sentences, but a motion is
just meant to indicate what issue is being dealt with so that a
committee can work on the details. I would be glad to work with
members from all parties at committee.
The member for Winnipeg Centre, the NDP representative in this
debate, quite shocked me. I will be sending out a press release
to his constituents tomorrow. I just cannot believe what he
said. He said that only 500 people came in over the summer and
that was no problem. We are not only talking about those 500.
They amount to only 2%.
Clearly the debate is not focused on the people coming in as
much as on the people smugglers. We have all focused on that. We
all support accepting refugees into our country. That is not the
issue. Why is the hon. member trying to make that the issue? He
is the kind of member who makes me ashamed because he attaches
labels to political parties and to individual politicians for
strictly partisan reasons instead of dealing with the issue. It
is very disappointing.
He basically said that we should open up our borders for anyone who
wants to come. There are 1.2 billion Chinese alone and I am sure
a couple of hundred million would love to come to our country. I
wonder if Canadians support his stand in that regard. I doubt it
very much. He ought to listen to the NDP government in British
Columbia and what his own colleagues say about it. They say
something entirely different.
The Progressive Conservative member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough talked about the human tragedy,
the seriousness of the problem, and said that he supports the
motion. I appreciate that.
I acknowledge up front that imposing minimum sentences is only a
small part of the solution to the problem. A large part of the
problem is that those who are smuggled into our country by human
smugglers end up going through our refugee determination system,
and that is a disaster. I will just throw out a few statistics
to demonstrate that, because I think Canadians ought to know
them.
1845
Canada has become a favourite destination of people smugglers
because in fact our acceptance rate for refugees is in effect
80%. I will explain that in a minute. In the United States it
is 17%, Germany 7%.
Of course Canada is going to be a prime destination if they are
planning to have people go through our refugee system, which is
what they do. Many may be smuggled in unknown to us. That is a
distinct possibility. We found out this summer and in the past
that it happens on a regular basis. Certainly immigration
officials told me that they may catch 3% of those who come in
illegally through our airports, most with the help of people
smugglers. They are smaller numbers at a time but far more
overall. It is the same across the borders.
In our refugee determination system the acceptance rate is high.
That is not the formal acceptance rate. If we ask the
government, it will say 44%. Last year there were 23,838 people
who claimed for refugee status inside Canada and 6,200 withdrew.
Only 5,000 are known to have left the country and 13,000 were
actually accepted as refugees. That is the 44% the government
talks about. That means that 5,000 out of the 24,000 have
actually left the country as far as anyone in the immigration
system knows. That means we have an effective acceptance rate
for refugees of about 79%.
If we want to look at solving the problem of people smuggling,
we have to put in place the minimum sentences I am proposing in
the motion. We should go far beyond that and fix the refugee
determination system which has failed Canadians so dramatically.
It has failed refugees because we are not getting people who are
clearly refugees from camps overseas in the numbers that we
should. Our system is failing us because of those who apply
inside the country.
Let us start by fixing that. Then let us put these minimum
sentences in place as soon as we can. Let us work at both of
these things together. If we do that, we have made progress.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time provided for
the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
The order is dropped from the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
CULTURE
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I had the opportunity to raise the question some time
ago with the Minister of Canadian Heritage about what measures
the government is taking to protect culture in the country, in
particular against the influence of its erosion in connection
with what we loosely call globalization.
This is a matter which was raised by our committee and by the
heritage committee and is of great concern to all Canadians.
People in my own riding are very concerned about what measures we
are taking in Ottawa to ensure that the cultural diversity and
strength of the country remains in the face of what is going on
outside our borders and throughout the world.
[Translation]
We know very well that in the province of Quebec people have
succeeded in preserving a vibrant cultural life that is unique
in North America, that enriches our country and that encourages
us to also preserve and promote the use of French in the other
provinces.
[English]
Cultural diversity when seen in the context of the integrated
world in which we live is a very complex issue. When we look at
the Internet, when we look at new means of telecommunications, we
see on the one hand tremendous opportunities. We see
opportunities for Canadians to participate in exporting our
cultural products and with them our values and our sense of what
we are about ourselves. On the other hand they serve also as a
vehicle by which other cultural products and other visions of how
the world is seen come into our society and come into our homes
and influence.
Our neighbour to the south is the most important producer and
largest exporter of cultural products in the world. It is
naturally to the Americanization of the world of culture that we
look with some concern and ask ourselves what our government is
doing and what we as legislators can do.
1850
The Minister of Canadian Heritage is to be particularly
congratulated on having held last year a very interesting
meeting of cultural ministers. It brought ministers from
countries as diverse as France and Mexico, as well as others,
to discuss how to work together to preserve the nature of
cultural diversity in this world. This was in the interests of
all citizens of the world, not just some. The minister followed
the meeting with an interesting meeting with the UNESCO
culture ministers. I know she has been pursuing this with some
aggressive action.
We also know that the ability to protect culture today is linked
to trade rules. There was the famous magazine case. We have had
to look at the effectiveness of the articles in NAFTA and the
free trade agreement which raise a form of cultural exemption
which some people today are telling us does not work in the new
environment in which we operate.
As I said before, we must recognize that the Americans are the
most aggressive at pursuing the export of their cultural products
and at resisting any suggestion that trade rules would reflect an
opportunity for those of us who feel vulnerable in this area to
protect ourselves.
We have allies in France and other countries but we still wonder
what is taking place. That is why I am rising again today and
taking this opportunity to ask the government what took place
after the Seattle meeting.
We called for new measures in our committee report on the WTO.
We called for the government to look at creating a new
international cultural instrument. We recognize that this issue
raises complex matters, differences between goods and services,
but we believe that this must be accomplished in the WTO context
and we look forward to knowing that the government continues to
pursue this agenda aggressively and in the interests of all
Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I thank you for this
opportunity to follow up on the question raised on October 10 by
the member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale.
I would like to quote from a speech the Prime Minister gave a
couple of months ago on the current government's commitment to
preserve Canadian culture. He said, and I quote “We must work
together to protect this diversity. We must recognize that
cultural goods and services are much more than mere goods. They
deal with a fundamental and indefinable thing, our identity”.
Nobody can doubt the commitment of the current government to
preserve and promote cultural diversity both in Canada and
abroad. Since the government stresses the importance of this
issue, as witnessed in the last throne speech, we will work to
develop, at the international level, a new approach to support
the diversity of cultural expression throughout the world.
As indicated in the government's answer to two standing
committees, the heritage committee and the foreign affairs and
international trade committee, the federal government is
considering a new international instrument to promote cultural
diversity.
The purpose of such an instrument would be to set clear rules
that would allow Canada and other countries to retain policies
promoting culture, while respecting the rule governing the
international trade system, and give cultural products access to
export markets.
During the initial stage of the discussions, both here and
abroad, on this new international instrument, Canada will keep
on insisting, in every relevant international agreement, on
maximum flexibility in order to reach its objectives with regard
to cultural policy.
For several years now this government has been defending the
importance of cultural diversity as an international policy
issue, and we have tried to strike the right balance between
participating in the “global culture” and leaving enough room
for Canadian culture.
[English]
AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Madam
Speaker, I rise as a follow-up to a question I asked on October
21, a long time ago. A lot of things have happened in the
aviation industry since then but my question is still valid.
My question on October 21 referred to a report written in 1993
and that report is still valid. It was based on the concept that
if Canada had one major airline, we would have very little
competition and no protection for consumers.
That was valid in 1993 when the Competition Tribunal wrote it.
It was valid on October 21 when I brought it up, and amazingly
enough, we are right back where we started. The government is
now considering what conditions it will apply in the event of a
dominant carrier and one airline in Canada.
1855
Considering that everything is the same as it was in 1993 and
back in October, I would like the very distinguished
parliamentary secretary to address my question about what is
happening right now. What assurances are being demanded by the
federal government and the federal minister in his negotiations
with the successful dominant carrier in respect to divestiture of
regionals, for example, to allow for competition throughout the
country?
What protection is being given to discount airlines against this
giant monopoly that we will have? What conditions is the
minister demanding of the dominant carrier insofar as slot
availability, ticket counter availability and all the other
things necessary at airports across the country? What is he
demanding from Air Canada in the interests of consumers? What
demands is he making of Air Canada about price gouging?
We recently noticed that Air Canada increased the prices by 3%
to address the increased fuel costs in Canada where there is no
competition, but it did not apply the increases to international
flights where there is competition. This is a very serious issue
that is already coming to the table.
The minister, as we speak, is negotiating behind closed doors
with Air Canada to determine what concessions will be made to
protect consumers and what regulations will be devised to assist
Air Canada to become the national airline that it wants to be,
and that is a monopoly.
Just exactly what conditions is the minister demanding of Air
Canada with respect to divestiture of regional airlines, price
protection for consumers, protection for regional airports,
protection for discount airlines and all the things that we need
in the country to protect consumers and make sure that we have a
good, viable format for airline passengers to travel in the
country at competitive prices?
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the government has been
entirely clear and transparent in its approach of using the
Competition Tribunal, not only while the section 47 order is in
place, but in the future.
On August 30 the government sought the advice of the
commissioner of competition on how to address competition
concerns under the most likely scenarios. The report was made
public on October 26.
The government policy framework, which the Minister of Transport
announced on October 26, proposes a permanent process for dealing
with mergers and acquisitions involving Air Canada and Canadian
Airlines in which the Competition Tribunal will play a major
role.
The new review process foresees a proposal being tabled
simultaneously with the Competition Tribunal, the Canadian
Transportation Agency and the Minister of Transport.
The Competition Tribunal will make its findings known to the
Minister of Transport. Armed with this information from the
tribunal, the Minister of Transport will determine what
additional conditions would be required to address transportation
public policy objectives and the general public interest.
With this information as a guide, the Competition Tribunal and
the Minister of Transport will proceed to negotiate remedies
directly with the parties. The applicants will then revise their
proposals to include undertakings to meet remedies negotiated
with the tribunal and the conditions negotiated on behalf of the
minister. This process will only be completed if the applicant
has successfully demonstrated to the Canadian Transportation
Agency that it was owned and controlled by Canadians.
The minister will complete the process by preparing a
recommendation to the governor in council for approval. It is
clear that it is not the Minister of Transport who will have the
final say on major airline restructuring. It is the government
itself.
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Madam Speaker, on
October 21 of this year in the House the Minister of National
Defence stated:
Scientific studies to this point have not indicated that depleted
uranium and illnesses including cancer are in fact related.
Is the minister aware of what the famous epidemiologist, Dr.
Rosalie Bertell, has to say about depleted uranium? She says:
DU is highly toxic to humans, both chemically as a heavy metal
and radiologically as an alpha particle emitter which is very
dangerous when taken internally.
Upon impact, the DU bursts into flames. It produces a toxic and
radioactive ceramic aerosol that is much lighter than uranium
dust. It can travel in the air tens of kilometres from the point
of release, or settle as dust suspended in the air waiting to be
stirred up by human or animal movement.
It is very small and can be breathed by anyone from babies and
pregnant women to the elderly and the sick. This radioactive and
toxic ceramic can stay in the lungs for years, irradiating the
surrounding tissue with powerful alpha particles. It can affect
the lungs, gastrointestinal system, liver, kidneys, bones, other
tissues and renal systems.
1900
The A-10 Warthog is capable of firing 4,200 rounds of this
abomination every minute. The U.S. government has suggested that
almost one million rounds of this radioactive toxic casing were
fired in Iraq during the Gulf War. Iraq has witnessed explosive
rates of stillbirths, children born with defects, childhood
leukemia and other cancers, in particular near the Basara region
where these shells were fired.
Dr. Bertell states the following about DU:
It is most likely a major contributor to the Gulf War Syndrome
experienced by the veterans and the people of Iraq.
NATO launched a potentially devastating environmental offensive
in Kosovo. It bombed the largest medical factory in Yugoslavia
when it bombed the Galenika pharmaceutical complex, releasing
highly toxic fumes. NATO bombed the petrochemical complex in
Pancevo, releasing huge amounts of chlorine, ethylene dichloride
and vinyl chloride monomer. The same day it hit an ammonia
supply company.
In his response to my question on this issue at an earlier date,
the government representative even admitted “Some of our NATO
allies are using this type of ammunition”.
That says it all. We are a part of NATO and thus we are
responsible for NATO's actions. It is up to the government to do
the right thing and say no to the use of this deadly toxin in any
and all of NATO's actions.
Furthermore, the Minister of National Defence should commit to
Canadians that he will do everything in his power to ensure that
NATO fully complies with the UN Balkan environmental task force
investigation into depleted uranium use in Kosovo.
This was the essence of my question to the minister. What were
we doing to ensure that NATO complies with that investigation?
Anything less than the minister doing this is simply deplorable.
But this crisis is not relegated only to foreign soil. It is
despicable that our government some years back had been silently
disposing of toxic and lethal nuclear waste by firing it into our
coastal waters off Halifax and therefore into our food system.
I ask that this government produce a complete and public
accounting of all DU stocks, including every instance that DU
shells have been fired in Canadian territory or by Canadians
abroad. I further call upon the government to follow up on any
public health risks or concerns with respect to those Canadians
who may have been exposed to depleted uranium while serving our
country.
I would hope that the parliamentary secretary, in response,
would give an update as to the UN Balkan environmental task force
investigation and what the minister has done to ensure that NATO
complies so that the health and safety of human beings in Kosovo
is respected.
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am sure that
everyone in the House would join me in expressing our gratitude
and admiration to all Canadian forces personnel deployed in
Kosovo.
Canada's contribution to the air campaign was significant and
our NATO allies recognize the role played by our CF-18s. This
conflict proved that the Canadian forces have the training and
the equipment necessary to participate in an intensive and
complex military campaign alongside our allies.
Multipurpose combat capable forces are the cornerstone of
Canada's defence policy. Canada's operations in Kosovo
demonstrate the real payoffs resulting from the investments the
Canadian forces have made in equipment, such as precision guided
munitions for the CF-18s, as well as our Coyote reconnaissance
vehicles, Griffon helicopters and Bison armoured personnel
carriers.
Today more than 1,400 Canadian forces personnel are deployed in
Kosovo as part of the Kosovo force, KFOR. They are working hard
to create a stable and secure environment through policing,
implementing UN mandated arms control agreements, delivering
humanitarian aid, restoring public services and helping to
re-establish civilian institutions.
1905
There have been concerns raised over the use of depleted uranium
ammunition in Kosovo. It should be noted that Canada's CF-18s
have never used depleted uranium munitions. Moreover, there are
no plans to purchase or use such ammunition in the future.
None of the scientific work published to this day supports a
link between exposure to depleted uranium munitions and illness
in the gulf war veterans, including cancer and birth defects.
Ensuring the safety and well-being of the men and women in the
Canadian forces is one of our highest priorities. An
environmental assessment was conducted at all camps used by
Canadian forces personnel in Kosovo to ensure that their living
quarters are safe.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): A motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House
stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing
Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.06 p.m.)