36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 46
CONTENTS
Thursday, February 10, 2000
1000
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Tabling of Documents
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
1005
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1010
| Mr. Yvan Bernier |
| Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Mrs. Pierrette Venne |
| Mr. Louis Plamondon |
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
| Mr. Maurice Godin |
1015
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
| Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
1020
| Mr. Ghislain Lebel |
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
| Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| Motion
|
1110
(Division 666)
| Motion agreed to.
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| AN ACT TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR CLARITY AS SET
|
| Bill C-20—Time allocation motion
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1200
(Division 667)
| Motion Agreed to
|
1205
1210
| The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland) |
| Second Reading
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
1215
1220
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1225
| Mr. André Harvey |
| Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
1230
1235
1240
| Mr. Raymond Bonin |
1245
| Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1250
1255
| Mr. John McKay |
1300
1305
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1310
1315
| Mr. Nick Discepola |
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
1320
1325
| Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire |
1330
1335
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
1340
1345
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1350
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| BLACK HISTORY MONTH
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| POLISH COMBATANTS ASSOCIATION
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
1400
| ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
|
| Mr. Hec Clouthier |
| ANNETTE HELENE AUGUSTINE
|
| Mr. Stan Dromisky |
| CANADIAN FORCES
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| DR. JOCELYN DEMERS
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
1405
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| GLOBAL ENERGY REGULATION FORUM
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
| MEMBER FOR AHUNTSIC
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| FARM AID
|
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
| BILL C-20
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
1410
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| PORCUPINE CARIBOU AGREEMENT
|
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
| BILL C-20
|
| Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand |
| FISHERIES INFRASTRUCTURE
|
| Ms. Angela Vautour |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1420
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| BILL C-20
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1425
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1430
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| BILL C-20
|
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1435
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. John Williams |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. John Williams |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1440
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1445
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| CONFERENCE OF WOMEN IN THE FRANCOPHONIE
|
| Mrs. Carolyn Bennett |
| Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
1450
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Gary Lunn |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
1455
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| HOME CARE
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1500
| PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
| The Speaker |
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
1505
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Tabling of Document
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| AN ACT TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR CLARITY AS SET
|
| Bill C-20. Second reading
|
| Mr. Paul DeVillers |
1510
1515
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1520
1525
1530
| Mr. Mark Muise |
1535
1540
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1545
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1550
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1555
| Mr. David Pratt |
1600
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1605
1610
1615
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
1620
1625
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
1630
1635
| Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1640
1645
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1650
1655
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
1700
1705
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
1710
1715
1745
(Division 668)
| amendment negatived
|
1755
(Division 669)
| Motion agreed to
|
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| LEUKEMIA AWARENESS MONTH
|
| Motion
|
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
1800
1805
1810
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1815
1820
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1825
1830
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
1835
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
1840
| Mr. Joe Fontana |
1845
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1850
| Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
1855
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 46
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, February 10, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1000
[Translation]
POINTS OF ORDER
TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
today we will be once again debating the infamous Bill C-20.
Following the tabling by the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs of this bill denying the fundamental rights of
Quebecers, I ask for unanimous consent of the House to table a
document that will enlighten it.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Intergovernmental Affairs having tabled Bill C-20, denying the
fundamental rights of Quebecers, I want to table a document that
could greatly enlighten the House. It is an article that was
published in the December 14 edition of Le Quotidien newspaper
and entitled “Chrétien and Dion, names that history will not
remember”. I seek the unanimous consent of the House to table
that document.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1005
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, further
to the introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
of this bill, which is revolting and unworthy of this place, I
ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table a document
entitled “A separated Quebec morally and legally entitled to use
the Canadian dollar”.
This article will enlighten the House and shed new light on the
future of a sovereign Quebec.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that the hon. member
table this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
further to the tabling by the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs of a bill denying the basic rights of Quebecers, I seek
the unanimous consent of the House to table a document that
could enlighten the House.
It is an article that was published in Le Devoir on January 27,
under the title “Ontario after a yes vote”.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Further to the tabling by
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of a bill denying the
fundamental rights of Quebecers, I seek the unanimous consent of
the House to table a study conducted by the C.D. Howe Institute
on the currency of an independent Quebec.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that the hon. member
table this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
have here an extremely important document that can enlighten our
Liberal friends on the discussion on Bill C-20 initiated before
Christmas.
I ask for the support of my colleagues opposite to table this
document which, I am sure, will enlighten them on this issue.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to table
this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
following the tabling by the intergovernmental affairs minister,
an unsavoury individual as you know, of a bill denying the
fundamental rights of Quebecers, I ask for the unanimous consent
of the House to table a document that will enlighten the House.
This is an article published last November 29 in Le Quotidien
and entitled “Sovereignty, Chrétien fights against a shadow”.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of
the House to 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,
in the weekly paper La Voix de l'Est of last December 31, there
was an article entitled “When clarity becomes obscure”.
I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table this
article.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to table this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to ask for the
unanimous consent of the House to permit these members to table
whatever they have in their hands this morning and then let us
get on with the show.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the consent of the
House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, before
members on the other side bark no, I would like them to let me
read the title of my document.
Following the tabling by the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs of a bill denying the fundamental rights of Quebecers, I
ask for the unanimous consent of the House—
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Before barking no, let me finish. I seek
unanimous consent to table a document that will enlighten the
House. This is a document on the Canadian dollar and Quebec
separation.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of
the House to table this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, following the
introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of a
bill denying Quebecers their basic rights, I ask the unanimous
consent of the House to table a document that could enlighten
the House.
It is the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada relating to
the Quebec Secession Reference.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that the hon. member
table this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1010
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be recognized along with my
colleagues. I too would like to table a document, one entitled
“An Historical Overview of Monetary Unions Between Sovereign
Countries”, following the introduction by the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs of his bill denying Quebecers their
fundamental rights.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, following
the introduction by the ineffable Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs of a bill denying Quebecers their fundamental rights, I
ask the unanimous consent of the House to table a document that
could enlighten the House.
It is an article from La Presse, published on December 24 and
entitled “Quebec's reply to Chrétien”.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
following the introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs of a bill denying Quebecers their fundamental rights, I
ask the unanimous consent of the House to table a document that
could enlighten the House.
It is a document entitled “Quebec Today”.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
following the introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs of a bill denying Quebeckers their fundamental rights, I
ask for unanimous consent to table a document which will
enlighten the House.
This is an article which was published in—
An hon. member: No.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne: I am not done yet, Mr. Speaker. My
colleague says no, but he does not even know what I will be
tabling.
An hon. member: It shows how serious they are.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne: This article published November last in Le
Soleil is entitled “Chrétien turns rug salesman”.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, further to the introduction of Bill C-20, I wish to
table an article from La Presse in order to enlighten the
ignorant people on the other side—
The Speaker: My dear colleague, would you please refrain from
using the expression ignorant people. It is unacceptable. I ask
the hon. member to give us the title of the document.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I used the
expression ignorant people and you accepted it. I would like to
replace the French term ignorant by the French term innocent.
I would like to quote the dictionary, which I happen to
have here. The word ignorant means: lacking knowledge—uninformed—
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent from the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know your
decision following my reading the definition for the word
ignorant in the dictionary. I was not using it in a derogatory
manner, but rather within the meaning given in the dictionary,
which is lacking knowledge.
The Speaker: That is exactly why, dear colleague, I did not ask
you to withdraw it.
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, following the
introduction by the Prime Minister and the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs of Bill C-20, which denies the
fundamental rights of Quebecers, I ask for the unanimous consent
of the House to table the report of the chief electoral officer
of Quebec on the results of the referendum—
The Speaker: Does the member have the unanimous consent of the
House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, following the
introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs of a
bill denying the fundamental rights of Quebecers, I ask for the
unanimous consent of the House to table a document, which will
enlighten the House.
It is an article published in Le Devoir on December 1. Its
heading is as follows “Chrétien's Hard Line and Bouchard's
Response”—
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of
the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1015
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have here
a document which my friends across the way will certainly find
interesting.
It is a quotation from the memoirs of Pierre Elliott Trudeau,
the former Prime Minister of Canada and the mentor of the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table the
document.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have here
an article published in La Presse on November 29. In order to
enlighten members across the way, I ask for unanimous consent to
table this article, entitled “Chrétien's outburst helps out
Bouchard, says Dumont”.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, following
the tabling by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who
never smiles, of a bill denying the fundamental rights of
Quebecers, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table
a document that will enlighten it. It is entitled “Quebec, the
partner of the future in America”.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
last time I wanted to table a document, members opposite
rejected my request without giving it proper consideration,
since you asked for unanimous consent before I could even say
what it was all about. I hope to have more luck this time.
Following the introduction by the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs of a bill denying Quebecers their basic rights, I ask
for the unanimous consent of the House to table a document which
could enlighten members in this House. This is an article
published on February 1 in Le Devoir and entitled “Quebec made
its nest in Davos”.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have here an
article which will certainly enlighten members in this House.
This article was published on January 6 in Le Soleil and is
entitled “Bill on rules for referendum”.
So, following the introduction by the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs of a bill denying Quebecers their
basic rights, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to
table this document.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for
the information of the government House leader in particular, I
would like to table a document, which is a speech made by his
friend Mr. Jean Charest, leader of the opposition in the Quebec
National Assembly, showing how undemocratic Bill C-20 is.
I ask for unanimous consent.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on this
day when the government intends to gag the House at the second
reading stage, and in the presence of the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs and the government House leader, I ask
for the unanimous consent of the House to have Bill C-20
withdrawn.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1020
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, following the
introduction, by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, of a
bill denying the fundamental rights of Quebecers, I ask for the
unanimous consent of the House to table a document that will
enlighten it. It is an article published in Le Devoir last
January 27 and entitled “Ontario after a yes vote”.
The Speaker: Does the member have the unanimous consent of the
House to table this document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I have here a document entitled “Le maintien d'une union
monétaire avec un Québec séparé”, in which Bernard Landry said
that, if Austria or Belgium can have their own currency, why not
Quebec. I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to table
this document.
I ask this as a result of the introduction, by the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, of a bill denying the fundamental
rights of Quebecers.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, before you
interrupt me, with your permission, I would like to read the
introduction to my document entitled—
The Speaker: Dear colleague, I believe the title will be enough.
Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs introduced a bill denying the
fundamental rights of Quebecers, I ask for the unanimous consent
of the House to table a document in order to enlighten the
House. It is entitled Petite histoire du Québec and it is very
interesting.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I know you have a great
sense of justice. Therefore, since you gave my colleague
permission to read the title of the document he wanted to submit
to the unanimous consent of the House, you will surely allow me
to read the title of the article I wanted to present to the House
earlier.
The Speaker: We will do that tomorrow. The hon. member will
have the opportunity to do so tomorrow. Members have the floor
once, and that is enough.
We will now move on to Routine Proceedings.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[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, I have the honour to table in both
official languages the government's response to nine petitions.
I move:
The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
1110
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on
the following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Boudria
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Copps
|
Cotler
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Matthews
| McCormick
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 140
|
NAYS
Members
Anders
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bellehumeur
|
Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Brien
| Brison
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Casson
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Dockrill
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Dumas
|
Epp
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Hardy
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marceau
| Marchand
|
Mark
| McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Morrison
| Muise
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Price
| Proctor
| Reynolds
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Williams – 95
|
PAIRED
Members
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the motion
carried.
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
BILL C-20—TIME ALLOCATION MOTION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
move:
That in relation 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, not more than
one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration
of the second reading stage of the said bill and, fifteen
minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government
business on the day allotted to the consideration of the second
reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House
shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order,
and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the
stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put
forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
Some hon. members: Shame, shame.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order, please. 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 of the
motion 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 nays have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1200
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Copps
| Cotler
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guarnieri
|
Harb
| Harvard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marleau
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Proulx
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Serré
| Sgro
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Volpe
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood – 141
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Anders
| Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Brien
| Brison
|
Cadman
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Davies
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Epp
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Hardy
| Harris
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Konrad
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marceau
|
Marchand
| Mark
| McDonough
| Ménard
|
Mercier
| Meredith
| Morrison
| Muise
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Price
| Proctor
|
Reynolds
| Riis
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| Williams – 102
|
PAIRED
Members
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the motion
carried.
[English]
Mr. David Chatters: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The government has just closed off debate for the 59th
time. Before we proceed any further, the public needs to know
what the government is doing to its opposition.
Thanks to our new procedural book, which I thank the clerks for
putting together as I think it is truly a masterpiece, I draw
your attention, Mr. Speaker, to page 563 by Marleau and Montpetit
which says:
While the term “time allocation” connotes ideas of time
management more than it does closure, a motion to allocate time
may be used as a guillotine by the government.
They got it right. While the government House leader tries to
convince us otherwise, we all know—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair provided a
fair amount of time for the member for Athabasca to make his
point of order because he had the wisdom to introduce his point
of order in referring to the new book on procedure as a
masterpiece. How could I interfere?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I will also compliment the
table and the authors of this new book, which will, I am sure,
give all members of the House and all Canadians a greater
understanding of procedure.
My point of order refers to the legislation on which we have
just seen the debate slammed shut. This legislation is supposed
to be so important to the country that the Prime Minister seeks
to foist it on the country.
We have just debated legislation over the past number of hours
and on one previous occasion in the House that was, in essence,
changed by a recent amendment by the Bloc. We all know the
Bloc's intention is to remove the legislation for a separatist
cause.
There has been no opportunity to debate an amendment brought
forward by a federalist party, the Progressive Conservative
Party. I seek unanimous consent to move an amendment from a
federalist party so that we can debate this in a way that
Canadians will understand that this legislation has nothing to do
with clarity. It is about furthering the separatist cause.
1205
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am not sure if
that should be taken as part of the time for debate. It is
certainly not a point of order.
The hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough has the
right as a member to move a motion and request unanimous consent
at any time. We will move the motion formally.
Does the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough have
the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion?
An hon. member: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
would like to draw to your attention two points of order. I
refer you to Erskine May, 22nd edition—on the same point as the
other day, but never mind that—page 498.
Essentially, this deals with the title of a bill and the
corollary that should be found in the contents of the bill. I
will read it, and please excuse my accent, because it is in English.
There is no French edition.
[English]
The title of the bill must correspond with the notice of
presentation, or the order of leave, and the bill itself must be
prepared pursuant to the order of leave or resolution and in
proper form. If it should appear that these rules have not been
observed, the bill cannot be proceeded with, if the irregularity
is in any way substantial. Where the title of the bill as
presented to the House refers to purposes which are found not to
be mentioned in the clauses of the bill submitted for
publication, the proper course is to withdraw the original bill
and present a new one with an appropriate long title.
[Translation]
The title of the bill refers to the secession of Quebec, but the
word “Quebec” does not appear in the body of the bill. There is
reference to clarity, but according to the Supreme Court, there
is no element of clarity.
I would also like to point out, also in Erskine May, 22nd
edition, on page 46, under “Form of a bill”, something that is
important and ought to be taken into consideration. It is very
important.
[English]
A public bill is in the form of a draft statute, and when first
printed should therefore be consistent with existing law—
—les lois existantes en vigueur au Canada—
[Translation]
In Bill C-20, the government has even restated that there is no
legislation in Canada allowing a province to secede, nothing in
the existing legislation of Canada nor in the Canadian
constitution.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask, through you, that this bill be
withdrawn. It is contrary to the rules established by this
House, the statutes of this country and the Constitution of this
country.
[English]
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I will respond to both
points raised by the hon. member. On his first point, he said
that he wants to introduce a reasoned amendment to amend the
bill. An amendment to be introduced while we are at second
reading is a reasoned amendment.
Having settled that and to prove my point, someone no less than
a former prime minister, the Right Hon. Joe Clark, otherwise
known as the member for opposition gallery southeast, has written
to the Prime Minister on this very topic referring to this as a
reasoned amendment.
We cannot, by way of a reasoned amendment, amend a bill. A
reasoned amendment does not amend anything except the motion of a
bill not the bill itself. That has to be done either in
committee or at report stage. Therefore, the amendment that the
hon. member is referring to is impossible under the rules.
I will cite our new procedural manual, which is now being
referred to as the M and M. It states that a reasoned amendment,
another type of amendment that may be moved at second reading,
allows a member to state the reasons why he or she opposes the
second reading of the bill. In other words, we cannot amend a
bill by doing this, we can only oppose it.
1210
I think that disposes of the first issue because we cannot amend
a bill by way of an amendment at second reading. An amendment at
second reading is a reasoned amendment, the effect of which is
only to oppose a bill.
On the issue of the title of Bill C-20 in reference to Erskine
May, the hon. member across refers to page 461. The citation
states “A public bill is in the form of a draft statute, and
when first printed—”. It only becomes a statute once it has
received royal assent and then it needs proclamation by His
Excellency pursuant to an order in council, unless it is in the
bill, in order to become law. It goes on to say it should “be
consistent with existing law or contain such amendments—as are
necessary—”.
The reference here is that if we have a bill that amends an
existing law it must state in it which existing law it amends.
Therefore, if we did not have that, there would be no way of
reconciling the bill with the statute to which it will be later
appended. As it pertains to a bill creating new law as opposed
to amending existing list, this of course does not apply.
In reference to how the title itself works, this is an act to
give effect to the requirement for clarity, which is
self-evident, and the reference to Quebec secession is the
reference of the supreme court. This is to give effect to a
supreme court issue and this is the greater explanation of what
the supreme court reference is about. That is the reason why it
is stated that way. I submit that this bill is perfectly in
order.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I would like to
thank hon. members for participating in this and enlightening
everyone else, including those of the television audience who are
still awake.
We have already dealt with the first part of this in the request
for unanimous consent, which was not forthcoming.
The second part of this has to do with the nature of the title
and content of the bill. As members know, during clause by
clause in committee the title is dealt with and may or may not be
amended at the pleasure of the committee, so that would be dealt
with in committee.
In the opinion of the Chair, the bill is in order and we will
proceed to debate.
SECOND READING
The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the
amendment.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
Monday of this week the Bloc Quebecois, between points of order,
the seeking of dozens of unanimous consents and the refusal to
extend hours of debate created a clear impression that they are
afraid of debating Bill C-20. We will see whether the Bloc
members are still afraid of debate today, and I mean democratic
debate in this Chamber.
On December 10, 1999 the member for Roberval spoke on this bill.
I would like to devote a few minutes to some of his arguments.
The member for Roberval evoked 1982, he made reference to the
so-called night of the long knives, and he evoked events about
which very few are actually qualified to speak with credibility.
One who is qualified is former Prime Minister Trudeau, who writes
in “Against The Current”, a book edited by Gérard Pelletier,
apropos of the night of the long knives:
During the 1980-82 constitutional exercise, the federal
government proposed to cut the Gordian knot by arguing that the
sovereignty of Canada ultimately resided neither in the provinces
nor in the federal government, but in the Canadian people.
The provincial governments collectively rejected that view, even
objecting to the use of the words “the people of Canada” in a
preamble to the constitution, and proposing instead a description
of Canada as a country made up of “provinces...freely united”,
thus returning to the selfsame concept that had prevented
patriation in 1927.
1215
In his speech the member for Roberval went on to invoke
democracy. He spoke of the sword of Damocles hanging over the
heads of Quebecers. Evidently he does not see democracy as an
inclusive word for all citizens affected within the entire nation
where a separation is being proposed. In fact, the sword of
Damocles of which he spoke hangs over everybody's head: his,
mine and everyone else's.
In his speech the member for Roberval also announced that the
responsibility for the clarity of the question rests with Quebec.
Such a responsibility was not famously discharged the last time,
was it? Actually, it was so badly done that the supreme court,
whose declaration was welcomed even by the present premier of
Quebec, found it necessary to explicitly stress the importance
that such a question in the future be put clearly. Evidently the
supreme court was not impressed with the clarity of the question
in 1995.
The level of indignation of the member for Roberval, who is
otherwise a very likeable fellow, reached stratospheric heights
when he said that never again would the members of the Bloc
Quebecois allow the federal government to try to take away
responsibility from the National Assembly of Quebec. What
nonsense. No responsibility has been taken away.
Carefully read the first line of the bill. It states: “An act
to give effect to the requirements for clarity as set out in the
opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada”. Yes, the Quebec
national assembly is referred to in the first paragraph of the
preamble, where we find a very important democratic point. It
says that there is no right under international law or under the
constitution of Canada for the national assembly, legislature or
Government of Quebec to effect the secession of Quebec from
Canada unilaterally. Why is the word unilateral so important?
Because any proposal to break up Canada is a matter of the utmost
gravity and is of fundamental importance to all of its citizens.
Hence the importance that the question when asked be free of
ambiguity and the answer be supported by a clear majority.
I do not want to cause the member for Roberval a heart attack by
saying what in the view of many a clear majority should be, but
because the matter is of grave importance to all Canadians a
truly democratic approach would be to consult all Canadians from
coast to coast. The same should apply to British Columbia,
should one day the spectre of separation appear there, or any
other province for that matter.
The member for Roberval accuses the federal government of
wanting to make sure Quebec cannot “democratically” overcome
certain obstacles. I respectfully submit that it is the Bloc
Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois that are actually acting in an
anti-democratic fashion. I say so for two reasons.
First, in their view the Quebec nationalists see the referendum
question as a provincial matter only, but it is not. It affects
the entire nation because it means the amputation of a very
important and significant part of the national body. Before an
amputation takes place we must consult all parts affected, not
just the part to be amputated. This elementary democratic
principle has not yet penetrated the collective brains of the
Bloc Quebecois.
Second, Canada is a country which consists of aboriginal people,
immigrants and their descendants. Let us take one group, the
immigrants. I belong to that group. At least five million
post-war immigrants have come to this country. Have they come to
Ontario? No. Have they come to Quebec? No. Have they come to
British Columbia? No. They and I have come to Canada. We have
chosen Canada as a whole.
We have settled in Canada because we were attracted to Canada,
its spaces, mountains, forests, oceans and rolling hills. We
became Canadian citizens not by accident of birth but by choice.
We can see why it is unconvincing, for a party which claims to be
democratic, to become indignant, as in the case of the member for
Roberval.
1220
Instead of putting up obstacles, the federal government is
acting on behalf of all Canadians, as directed by the Supreme
Court.
The Bloc Quebecois is losing touch with reality. Gone are the
times of Duplessis. Today's Quebec is highly educated, modern,
with tremendous cultural, technical and industrial strength, and
of course economic potential. Quebecers understand the
advantages of a bilingual Canada which is capable of speaking to
the world in two major trading and cultural languages.
It seems to me that the member for Roberval and his colleagues
are underestimating Quebecers, their intelligence and their
vision of Canada and the world. If Quebecers are still being
victimized it is by the Bloc and the Parti Quebecois.
Pierre Elliott Trudeau wrote these words, which I mentioned
earlier, and they still apply today:
So it goes that, with myths and delusions, the Quebec nationalist
elites falsify history to prove that all Quebec's political
failures are someone else's fault: the conquest, the
obscurantism of Duplessis' times, slowness to enter the modern
age, illiteracy, and all the rest. It is never our leader's
fault; it has to be blamed on some ominous plot against us.
There is a message here for the member for Roberval and his
colleagues. I urge them to get with it, to enter the 21st
century, to take their families to see the Rocky Mountains, the
Pacific coast, the Arctic Ocean and the beautiful maritimes.
These regions belong to them, the members of the Bloc Quebecois,
every square centimetre, in the same way as every square
centimetre of Quebec belongs to the other 29,999,000 Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I will try to contain my reaction somewhat. However, the Liberal
member who just spoke is essentially saying one thing: he is
accusing us of allegedly not wanting to debate the bill.
The fact is, he is the first member of his party to speak after a gag
order was imposed to limit second reading today. This is a
patent contradiction. What does he have to say on this?
How can he accuse the Bloc Quebecois of shying away from debate
when he just voted in favor of time allocation? Incidentally,
his party is the only one to have done so. This is undemocratic.
Besides, we in the Bloc Quebecois wish that a parliamentary
committee would travel to Quebec and elsewhere to hear what
Canadians and Quebecers have to say on this matter.
I would like his opinion, as one who seems to think of himself as
a great democrat. It is time for him to prove it by saying “Yes,
I agree that a committee should travel to hear people on this.
This is highly democratic.” He who spoke in favour of debate
should be all for it, since debate is so important.
I also react to hearing over and over speeches like the ones
Trudeau used to make. He would say things like “Ours is such
a beautiful country, with the Rockies and Atlantic salmon.
Why would you want to leave?”
I sincerely hope that we will hear better arguments than those.
Hon. Charles Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I obviously touched a nerve
with the member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.
1225
I am pleased to answer his question by saying that last Monday,
in this House, during the debate on Bill C-20, members of the
Bloc Quebecois started rising on points of order, making
dozens of requests for unanimous consent of this House to table
documents. They even rejected a proposal by a government member
to debate Bill C-20 into the evening, all night if necessary.
This is on record in the House of Commons Debates.
The Bloc Quebecois members clearly gave me and all those who
have been following this debate the impression that they are
afraid to have a democratic debate, because they tried by all
possible means to interfere and prevent members from speaking—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to interrupt the
hon. member. There are two minutes left for questions or
comments from the member for Chicoutimi, and one minute for a
response.
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Without any partisanship,
Mr. Speaker, I bet this bill will barely live long enough for
the committee to complete its consideration of it.
In its advisory opinion, the supreme court stated that all
political actors in Canada should be involved in the process:
the Senate, provincial legislatures, the national assembly
naturally, and aboriginal peoples.
Since all these partners in the Canadian federation should be
asked for their views both on the question and on the majority,
how are we going to reconcile potential diverging views? The
bill does not say a word on the way diverging views should be
reconciled. We are left in the dark, because there is nothing in
the bill on this.
Hon. Charles Caccia: Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of
respect for the hon. member for Chicoutimi, but his question is
an hypothetical question, and I do not intend to answer
hypothetical questions in the House.
I should finish my earlier remarks by saying that when we
debated Bill C-20 on Monday, the Bloc Quebecois resorted to the
most ridiculous tactics to slow down the debate. That is the
answer I can give.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must advise hon.
members that debate will now be limited to 10 minutes, with no
questions and comments.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to Bill C-20, which
has become known thus far as the clarity act.
While I believe that many aspects of this bill are important and
even sound, I intend to show that referring to any clarity in
this bill, as the government has tried to do in recent months, is
a profound misnomer.
The central purpose for Bill C-20 is to give effect to the
requirement for clarity, as set out in the 1998 opinion of the
Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec secession reference. As
well, this enactment provides for the House of Commons to
determine the clarity of a referendum question on the secession
of a province and sets out some of the factors to be considered
in making this determination. This has become an important part
of this debate, which I will address later in my remarks.
Further on that point, this bill prohibits the Government of
Canada from entering into negotiations on the terms on which a
province might cease to be a part of Canada if the House of
Commons determines that the referendum question is not clear. As
well, Bill C-20 allows parliament to determine, following the
referendum on secession in a province, if a clear majority of the
population of the province has clearly expressed a will to cease
to be a part of Canada, and sets out the factors to be considered
in making its determination.
This bill would enable the Government of Canada to enter into
any negotiations with the province in the event that a clear
majority of the province's citizens clearly expressed a
province's will to secede.
1230
In the event that all the above conditions were satisfied in a
yes referendum vote on secession, the bill recognizes that the
secession of a province from Canada requires an amendment to the
Constitution of Canada, which in turn would require negotiations
involving all provincial governments and the Government of
Canada.
The bill recognizes that there is no current provision in the
constitution to effect the secession of a province from Canada
unilaterally and that an amendment to the constitution would be
required, which in turn would require negotiations involving at
least all the governments of all provinces and the Government of
Canada.
To summarize, the goal of the so-called clarity act so far is
supposedly to provide a clear question in a referendum on a
province's secession from Canada and to identify a clear majority
in such a referendum. Yet neither of these issues have been
clarified by the government in the bill.
Beyond these questions the official opposition, along with
Canadians, is wondering why the government has not focused more
constructively on plan A, that is to say why the Liberals are
stubbornly refusing to make effective changes to the federal
system. Canadians really have no idea where the government is
coming from nor where it is going within the so-called clarity
act.
What is clear to anyone who has witnessed the history of the
last five to ten years of this debate is that the Reform Party is
the only party that has offered a constructive and a consistent
position on how Canada's federation could be renewed. It is
unfortunate that this cannot be said about the federal Liberals.
Before I go any further to address the bill in particular, I
think it would be instructive for the House to revisit the recent
history of this debate. I am sure the House remembers the advice
of the Prime Minister leading up to the 1995 referendum on
sovereignty. “Don't worry, be happy”, was his favourite
slogan. At the same time the official opposition stepped up to
the plate trying to advance serious debate about what Canadians
should be aware of in the event of a yes side majority.
However, back in 1995 the Reform Party was criticized by many
for showing leadership and courage on the issue, and mostly by
the members of the current government. Lo and behold it was this
government which, in the Prime Minister's own words, has decided
to get tough with the separatists. Instead of getting tough the
Prime Minister should get smart and start offering real solutions
to real problems facing the provinces. Does he not see that his
get tough approach in Quebec is only fanning the flames of a
dying fire?
Getting back to the 1995 referendum it was the Reform Party that
led the debate. While we were trying to enlighten the government
on the growing malaise in Quebec, the Prime Minister was
repeating his don't worry, be happy mantra. As we all know, his
inexplicable inaction almost produced a devastating result in
that referendum.
Following the referendum it was again the official opposition
which led the debate, turning the focus of the debate away from
the negative results from secession into positive nation building
efforts by trying to reconstruct the federation.
We introduced the new Canada act which I had the pleasure of
debating in Quebec last year with my dear friend from
Témiscamingue. The new Canada act offers many solutions that
would end the problems of regional alienation within this great
nation. I am sure that it will be a matter of time, or at least
another five years, until the Liberals decide to adopt our
position once again.
Thank goodness Canadians will not have to wait five years. With
the creation of the Canadian alliance a few weekends ago it will
not be long until the government will be brought to its knees by
a government with integrity, a government committed to lower
taxes, democratic reform and reforming the federation. The
official opposition through the Leader of the Opposition and our
critic on intergovernmental affairs, the member for Macleod, has
made our position crystal clear on the two parts of the proposed
legislation.
[Translation]
First off, what is a clear majority? The official opposition
recognizes the rule of 50% plus one and has done so since the
process started. It would be shameful and certainly
questionable if the government were to change a universally
recognized rule at this point. The rules cannot be changed in
the middle of the game.
This government's poor administration has dissatisfied Quebecers
to the point that they felt they had no choice but to separate
from Canada. Since the start of this upheaval the government
has caused, the rule of 50% plus one has never been questioned.
1235
It would be a huge mistake and irresponsible if the government
were to change its position now. I have also heard the argument
that 50% plus one would not be enough to break up the country.
A number of members opposite have also said repeatedly that,
within the Reform Party, it takes a two-thirds majority of all
members to make significant changes. So they wonder how the
Reformers can support the concept of 50% plus one.
If this government wants to follow the Reformers—and I know it
does because it is constantly doing it—then it should submit the
issue of a clear majority to all Canadians through a national
referendum. Why? In the case of our party, it is the grassroots
that decided that a two-thirds majority would be required. Unless
this government is prepared to ask Canadians whether they want
to change the foundation of democracy, a 50% plus one majority
must be the rule.
I want to go back to what constitutes a clear question. There
are two important issues here. The first one concerns the
procedure for drafting the question. The second one has to do
with the very substance of that question.
Before discussing these two points, I want to refer to an aspect
of the supreme court opinion on this issue. As I mentioned
earlier, the supreme court ruled that Canada would have an
obligation to negotiate if there were a clear majority on a
clear question.
Should the yes side win, this bill provides the House of Commons
with the necessary basis to debate the question and determine if
that question and the outcome of any future referendum on the
secession of a province reflects the legitimate and democratic
will of the population.
The problem is that I wonder if the government can debate openly
and in good faith in this House. Such an exercise would probably
prove to be yet another masquerade, another scheme of the sort
that the Liberals have become experts at over the past seven
years.
This then begs another question. If the Liberals are—
Mr. Daniel Turp: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
If the debates are so important for the future of Quebec and of
Canada, there should at least be a quorum in the House. I note
that there are few members across the way.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I will check for quorum
immediately.
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I see that we now have a
quorum. The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.
[English]
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Madam Speaker, I will go through some
more points, especially when they refer to the question. This
brings me to the important point of the clear question. The
official opposition believes that if we get the process right we
will also arrive at the right questions.
What is the process to a clear question? I believe there is a
common sense approach to getting the process right. I believe
that true clarity in a question can only be achieved through a
consensus drive approach, which would see the federal government
co-operate with the province to write a question. A question
cannot and should not in fairness be unilaterally written by
either the federal government or a province. Only through a
consensus approach will there be a clear question to the
satisfaction of both the federal government and the province.
It is important that the government take note of the importance
of getting the process right. The government must make the
connection between the process and the question. It is in the
best interest of both parties to have some consensus on a clear
question.
Why do I believe this? Suppose for a moment that the yes side
were to win a referendum. In order for this result to be
respected, I believe it would be critically important for the
rest of the country to have seen the process in both asking and
answering the question being carried out in good faith.
1240
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I do not
think that we have a quorum. I would like to know whether a
government that is imposing a motion—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We will check immediately.
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I see that we now have a
quorum.
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Madam Speaker, there are
a number of reasons I wished to take part in this debate on the
bill 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 possible secession of a province is
something to which we cannot remain indifferent.
Our government believes that it must ensure that there are clear
procedures in place for the conduct of any referendum having to
do with the separation of a province. Our determination in this
regard is justified by the very importance of what is at stake.
Our government's position is based on the opinion released by
the Supreme Court of Canada on August 20, 1998. This opinion
urged us, as politicians, to assume our responsibilities. That
is what our government is doing.
The principal points in the opinion were as follows: neither
international nor Canadian law gives Quebec the right to secede
unilaterally.
Secession of Quebec from the rest of Canada cannot be achieved
unilaterally, that is to say, without negotiations according to
the Canadian constitution.
In international law there can be no right to secession by
virtue of the principle of self-determination of a people except
in the case of a people that is governed as part of a colonial
empire, subject to foreign subjugation and domination.
According to the court, “such exceptional circumstances are
manifestly inapplicable to Quebec”.
The other political stakeholders would not be obliged to
negotiate except if a clear majority in Quebec were to clearly
express its desire to no longer be part of Canada.
It is up to all of the political stakeholders to determine what
is a clear question and what is a clear majority in a vote on
secession.
The purpose of the court opinion was not to contest the
legitimacy of a referendum consultation, nor to prevent
Quebecers from speaking out on their political future. Nor did
it in any way question the right of Quebecers to decide their
future. Its purpose was, instead, to obtain clarifications on
certain matters of law.
We do not wish to deny Quebecers the right to make the choice to
leave Canada. We do, however, believe that the process should
be clear and should allow Quebecers to express their wishes in
total clarity. The supreme court opinion contributes to this.
The important element of the court's opinion concerns the
requirement of a clear question and a clear majority. The
expression clear question comes up no fewer than 18 times in the
opinion, and clear majority 19 times.
The court makes the obligation to negotiate conditional on a
clear majority having voted in the affirmative in response to
a clear question on secession. It is the job of the political
actors to determine the clarity required. This is why the
federal government has a role to play in this matter.
The clarity of the question is essential to the functioning of a
democratic referendum. Public consultation in the independence
process elsewhere in the world has always involved a simple and
clear question. There is in fact no example of successful
secession based on a small majority in a referendum.
The potential consequences of Quebec's secession are such that
they require the clearest possible referendum process.
Quebecers must not lose their country on a misunderstanding,
through ambiguity.
We cannot ask them to sign a blank cheque. This is in fact what
nearly happened in the last referendum campaign.
We must avoid this in the future. Quebecers are entitled to
know the scope of the decision they will have to take in a
future referendum. And it is the responsibility of the
political actors, including the Government of Canada, to see to
that.
1245
The court confirmed that all political actors have the
obligation to negotiate in good faith the terms of Quebec's
secession, in the event of a clear question and a clear
majority. This is in paragraph 88. But it is also very
specific in paragraph 96 about the difficulties that such a
scenario would create. I quote:
Of course, secession would give rise to many issues of great
complexity and difficulty. These would have to be resolved
within the overall framework of the rule of law, thereby
assuring Canadians resident in Quebec and elsewhere a measure of
stability in what would likely be a period of considerable
upheaval and uncertainty.
This is paragraph 96. The court mentions that the negotiations
that would follow a clear majority vote in favour of secession
“would address the potential act of secession as well as its
possible terms should in fact secession proceed”. This can be
found in paragraph 151. These negotiations would therefore be on
the process leading to secession, not on a hypothetical project
of association, as claimed by some secessionist leaders. The
reference makes no mention of association.
Rightly so, the court says there is no “assumption that an
agreement reconciling all relevant rights and obligations would
actually be reached”. This is paragraph 97.
The court's opinion suggests that everything would be on the
table should there be negotiations on secession, including the
division of the national debt, the protection of linguistic and
cultural minorities, aboriginal peoples, et cetera. The bill confirms
that view.
The opinion also alludes to territorial integrity, and I quote:
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.
As we can see, a secession would have major and multiple
consequences. To go that route by relying on ambiguity would be
extremely irresponsible.
The supreme court opinion protects the legal and democratic
rights of Canadians for the future. It defines the legal
framework within which democratic decisions must be made.
It clearly states the principles under which Canada has evolved
and prospered, namely, federalism, democracy, constitutionalism,
the rule of law and respect for minorities.
We care too much about our country to lose it because of a
misunderstanding. The supreme court opinion has clarified
certain points of law, but it cannot in and of itself create a
framework for the responsibilities of the Government of Canada,
should it have to, unfortunately, begin negotiations which could
lead to the separation of a province.
Separatists criticize us for doing our duty. Yet, those who
elected us are asking us to do our duty. This is what we are
doing by introducing this bill.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Madam Speaker, this
bill is too important to let pass some of the observations made
here since the debate first began.
The bill referred to so casually by the members opposite as the
clarity bill is in fact a bill whose requirement is the docility
of Quebecers, docility because the question in the next
referendum will no longer be decided upon freely and
democratically by representatives of Quebecers in the national
assembly, but will be submitted under the terms of clause 1 to
the House of Commons 30 days after it is decided upon in the
national assembly.
If we go by what happened in 1995, this means that right in the
middle of a referendum campaign, when Quebecers have agreed,
through the national assembly, on a referendum question, and
have begun to debate that question and what it means, the House
of Commons, the majority of whose members represent the rest of
Canada, and not Quebec, the English Canadian majority, will have
decided that this question is not valid.
1250
Quebecers are not being taken seriously. Their intelligence is
being questioned. That too is the result.
This bill introduced by the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs, a Quebecer, tells us that Quebecers are not intelligent
enough to decide whether or not a question is clear or to make
an informed choice in any referendum debate concerning this
issue.
This is one of the worst blows inflicted on Quebecers in the
history of Canadian federalism and one of the worst threats to
Quebec's freedom to decide its own future.
Under clause 2, the Quebecers' decision would have to be
approved by the Canadian House of Commons, with an English
Canadian majority. After the national assembly has adopted a
question that it considered clear, and after Quebecers have had
a clear debate on a clear issue, the House of Commons could
determine, under clause 2, whether the majority in a positive
referendum on sovereignty, according to particular criteria, is
acceptable or not for the majority in the rest of Canada.
That is also another blow for freedom and democracy in Quebec.
There are all kinds of cloudy criteria. They call this a bill on
clarity. It could be called a bill on variable cloudiness.
They talk about the size of the majority, the percentage of
eligible voters voting for the referendum, and any other factor
considered relevant.
It is another way of saying that no majority of any size will
ever be acceptable for parliament, for Liberals and for all
other federalists in the House. For these people, the democratic
rule of 50% plus one is not valid any more.
On top of that, the clause says that various views will be
considered both on the clarity of the question and the results
of the referendum. They will take into account views of
political parties in the national assembly, of provincial and
territorial governments throughout Canada, and of the Senate.
Many people find this last point revolting.
They would ask the views of the Senate, an archaic institution
which is undemocratic and even antidemocratic, on a fundamental
issue of democracy concerning Quebecers and their freedom of
choice. We have never seen the like in the short history of the
Canadian parliament.
This is an all out attack against the national assembly.
Bill C-20 is also an attack on the quality, the honesty and the
intelligence of Quebec voters. It is a serious infringement of
democracy.
Let me set out a scenario that could have happened in an
imaginary world. If the Quebec National Assembly, under a Parti
Quebecois government, had wanted to pass similar legislation to
set the parameters for the federalist vote—as Bill C-20 is setting
parameters for the sovereignist vote, but not for the federalist
vote—to provide that the small majority of 50,000 federalist
votes in Quebec that defeated the sovereignist proposal in 1995
had to be reviewed and monitored to be found acceptable, that
would have been called racist.
There would have been outraged headlines everywhere in the
media, first in the anglophone media and then in the others.
Most of them, except for Le Devoir, have federalist owners and
their columnists are often federalist too.
If the national assembly had decided to set parameters for the
federalist vote and to question the majority vote of 50,000
against sovereignty in 1995, if it had reviewed the majority
votes to see whether there was a clear enough opposition to the
creation of the new country that Quebec would have become and if
it had questioned the results and rejected them, I bet it would
have made the front page and that the Bloc Quebecois and the
Parti Quebecois would have been called racists.
However, that is what Bill C-20 does, through a token Quebecer,
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, and 25 other
accomplices.
1255
To present things this way is unacceptable. This bill is almost
racist. It tells us that Quebecers are not intelligent enough to
choose a question and to make decisions on the future of Quebec
on their own.
It seems that the same definition of democracy does not apply to
Quebecers and the rest of Canadians, because only the
sovereignist vote, the vote on the future of the Quebec
province, is being limited in such a way, not the federalist
vote, and not a vote taken outside Quebec.
It is unfortunate because, throughout history, officials,
members of conquered people, hastened to do the dirty work of
the conquerors or their descendants. Here in the House of
Commons, we have 26 Liberal members from Quebec, two of whom,
the Prime Minister and the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs, are doing the dirty work of the majority of English
Canada against Quebec.
It pays to spit on Quebec. It pays to stomp on Quebecers. During
the last referendum campaign, when did the Reform Party start to
gain popularity? When it began to stomp on Quebecers. And now,
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, opposite, is turning
into a hero in English Canada.
Why? Because he stomps on Quebecers. He is a Quebecer, just like
the Prime Minister of Canada. He does the dirty work against
Quebec, stomps on Quebecers and he once said that to be forced
to stay in Canada Quebecers had to be hurt economically.
Sadly, no Liberal member from Quebec has spoken in the House
against such practices, against such an affront to Quebec
democracy and such a breach to Canadian democracy.
Do not think that foreign observers have not done the same
analysis I just did by reversing roles and saying “The national
assembly is setting parameters for the federalist vote”, and
this brings us back to the House of Commons.
How is it that it is more acceptable in Canada, through the
media, which are controlled mainly by federalist interests, to
have a bill against Quebec, Quebec democracy and Quebecers'
freedom of choice rather than the other way around?
Do people not believe that this sort of bill goes against the
tradition of democracy in Canada?
I ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, since he is
here—even if he does not seem to be listening because he is
better off to do so—why does he not respond favourably to the
request made by the Bloc Quebecois? If he will not withdraw this
bill immediately—which we all wish he would, because it is an
objectionable bill—at least will the legislative committee that
will be struck to study the bill be allowed to begin its work by
hearing from everybody in Quebec and in Canada who wants to
address this issue?
There are Canadians who do not agree and who came to tell us so,
including a group of 90 intellectuals, and representatives from
lobby groups. They said they do not agree with this undemocratic
breach by the federal government. The Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs should allow this committee to hear
from all witnesses across Quebec and Canada.
Second, this committee should travel across Quebec and Canada
and, third, all these hearings should be televised to really
inform the public about this breach of Canadian democracy and
Quebecers' freedom of choice.
If the minister tells us, with his Prime Minister, that Quebec
is behind him, he should stop being afraid and he should travel
with us.
We will then see if, at the end of the process, he will still be
self-confident and as arrogant as he was this week, calling
women's groups, unions, teachers' groups and writers' groups
“mothball groups”.
[English]
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
welcome this opportunity to speak.
[Translation]
Unfortunately, my French is not good enough for me to make a
speech in that language on an issue as important as the clarity
bill.
My riding of Scarborough East is home to more than 100,000
people, 40% of whom have neither English nor French as their first
language.
1300
My constituents are very confused. They came to Canada from
other countries because Canada is the best country in the world.
They cannot understand the problem.
[English]
Many of us who have lived here for generations share that
confusion and also do not understand the problem. Endless
referenda on vague questions about what?
The confusion of the people of Scarborough East is
understandable. In fact I note that even Mario Dumont was
confused, one of those who signed the so-called deal referred to
in the question. He now says that he has not nor has he ever been
a sovereignist. If he is confused, one can imagine what the
people of Scarborough East feel like. Are they going or are they
staying? Are they merely voting for strategic purposes? For my
entire lifetime as a Canadian, this debate has gone on and
frankly, in our neck of the woods people keep asking what will
make Quebec happy.
There is a malaise in the land. There is a desire to bring some
finality to the debate. I for one welcome the resolution and
therefore see the introduction of this bill as a welcome first
step in moving the debate forward.
Madam Speaker, I do not know if you have had an opportunity to
read the book Reflections of a Siamese Twin by John Ralston
Saul. One particular quotation struck me as unique:
We are gripped by a fear of non-conformity. We are overcome by a
desperate desire to present ourselves as a natural and completed
experiment, monolithic, normal, just another one of the standard
nation-states. It is as if we were Siamese twins, with one body,
two heads and two separate but interrelated personalities.
Together they are very interesting. But in some way most people
want them to be separated or deny the importance of one or the
other. They want us to be normalized. Banalized. We are unable
to accept the remarkable originality of the Canadian
experiment—to accept that Canada's central characteristic—its
greatest strength—is its complexity.
Therein summarizes some of the frustrations that make Canada
what it is today. It is a unique country in that it has two
founding races, two founding cultures and two founding languages.
I also take the opportunity to quote from the minister in his
introduction of the bill:
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 plan for
political independence can only be realized in clarity and
legality. To act otherwise, 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.
I always find it useful to read the bill, a strange concept I
realize, and review the preamble as it provides guidance to those
of us who wish to debate it and to try to understand what is in
the mind of the mover and ultimately of parliament. I refer to
three of the whereas clauses:
Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that there is
no right, under international law or under the Constitution of
Canada, for the National Assembly, legislature or government of
Quebec to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada
unilaterally;
Whereas any proposal relating to the break-up of a democratic
state is a matter of the utmost gravity and is of fundamental
importance to all of its citizens;
I would emphasize all of its citizens and as I represent the
riding of Scarborough East, the people of Scarborough East,
because any breakup of our country would have a significant
impact on all of Canada and its citizens.
1305
What is the problem? Can anyone really be against clarity?
Apparently they can.
In my view, the bill is profoundly democratic. It sets out a
process without predetermining a result. It allows for the
constituent assemblies to express themselves. By the constituent
assemblies I mean all of the democratic institutions that we have
in this country. We have had 150 years of democratic government.
If we decide we are going to break up, then all of its
constituent assemblies need to decide that. It avoids the
limitations of referenda which are necessarily simple questions
and simple answers. It recognizes that breaking up a country is
a very serious business. It gives all Canadians a voice in the
process through their members of parliament.
I know it is heresy among some members opposite that other
Canadians should have an opinion, that they should have a say,
that they should have a vote in the breakup of their country
which they and their ancestors worked so hard to make work and
built together as a unique country, one well worth saving. In
our own strange way if we choose to break up, surely the process
should be clear and free of ambiguity.
Therefore, I find myself in support of the bill and have a great
deal of support from the constituents of my riding. I
congratulate the minister for bringing forth this bill. Hopefully
it will bring us one step closer to a resolution on this issue.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
rise today on behalf of the constituents of Calgary East to
participate in the debate on Bill C-20, the clarity act.
Frankly, I believe that the vast majority of Canadians would
like to see a resolution of the unity debate one way or another.
Since I arrived in this country, like thousands of other
immigrants who now call Canada home, I have been mesmerized by
this debate.
In many ways the debate on separation is unique to Canada. In
other countries of the world, when a group of people threaten to
separate, they are labelled as traitors. Many countries have the
death penalty for that, but in Canada the debate has been held in
a civil manner and the issues are on the table for discussion.
This is a credit to the Canadian people and to this country.
It is impossible to deny the seriousness of the potential
breakup of our country. That is precisely why it is absolutely
necessary to have clarity on this issue, to have the pros and
cons clearly set out so that Canadians and Quebecers both know
the result of their decisions and that it is seen as a fair and
equitable process. If in the end it is not seen as a fair and
just process, it will not be viewed as legitimate and will lead
to a negative and confrontational attitude which will further
divide the country.
There has been no doubt in the minds of most Canadians that the
last referendum question had a double meaning and did not
adequately define what separation from Canada would mean.
The Reform Party said that there was a need for a clear question
for legitimacy and a plan B approach should Quebecers express
their will to separate from Canada. This was attacked by
advocates of the soft approach to federalism. The PC Party and
its leader Joe Clark are advocates of this soft approach.
Canadians view the soft approach as the main reason the 1995
referendum was as close as it was. The 1995 referendum was a
wake-up call to the Prime Minister and to the Liberal government.
1310
I remember that night. As most Canadians did, I watched the
results at home with my family. I watched with tremendous
apprehension not fully understanding what it would mean if
Quebecers voted to leave Canada. I think pride in our country won
that night but it was a dangerous point in our country's history
and a wake-up call for the country.
We cannot deny the tremendous contributions Quebecers have made
to this country since Confederation. We cannot deny that French
Canadians are the proud builders of this nation. Their cultural
and language diversity have enriched our nation and I hope they
will continue to do so. But it is the belief of the official
opposition that this can best be achieved by expanding provincial
powers and not through federal government handouts and
legislation.
Quebec has the right to constantly challenge the federal
government on areas of jurisdiction but in the case of the
clarity bill, I believe Canadians through parliament have the
right to ask Quebecers for a clear question and to define what it
means to have a clear majority should another referendum be held.
The clarity bill does improve the chances that a referendum on
secession by any province will be conducted fairly. That is why
my colleagues and I have agreed to support the bill.
The official opposition has suggested what a possible question
could be. I believe it is a reasonable question and that it
should be inserted into the bill as an example. The question
simply states: Should, insert the name of the province, separate
from Canada and become an independent country with no special
legal ties to Canada, yes or no?
On the issue of what constitutes a clear majority, the
government owes Canadians an answer. The Prime Minister and the
intergovernmental affairs minister are quick to say that a clear
majority is a number greater than 50% plus one but they are not
prepared to say what that number is. Again the official
opposition is prepared to be clear on this issue and to put the
number at 50% plus one of the ballots cast. Of course the flip
side of this is simply that if 50% plus one of the vote can split
the country, then 50% plus one could split the province as well.
Quebecers' aspirations must be met as must the aspirations of
other provinces and the first nations. It is important for there
to be measures in the bill to improve the federation. The
official opposition and specifically the Leader of the
Opposition, the member for Calgary Southwest, have done a
tremendous amount of work on developing ideas on reforming the
federation. These ideas are at the core of the Reform Party and
of the new Canadian alliance.
Our plan for renewing the federation is contained in part A of
the new Canada act. The fundamentals of the new Canada act are
designed to treat all Canadians with fairness and equality, to
promote equality of opportunity for all Canadians, to respect the
equality rights and the dignity of all Canadians as well as their
various needs, and to recognize that all provinces despite their
differences have the same legal standing.
The new Canada act contains provisions for a better sharing of
powers under the constitution; reduced federal spending powers in
areas of provincial jurisdiction; a dispute settlement mechanism;
a change in policies and programs for the aboriginal people; and
democratic reform of federal institutions, especially the House
of Commons, the Senate and the supreme court to make these
institutions more accountable to Canadians.
I believe along with my colleagues in the official opposition
that these changes are required to improve the federation and to
create conditions in this country that are not limited to
separation or the status quo. They are changes that would
improve the federation by placing more power in the hands of the
provinces.
I personally think the federal government can do a great deal
more to promote the benefits of remaining in Canada to Quebecers.
Clearly the economic benefits of being in Canada are already
having a positive impact on the province of Quebec. Montreal is
sharing in the economic boom of North America. Jobs are being
created, investment dollars are pouring in and real estate prices
are climbing.
These are positive signs for federalism and working together to
ensure a strong Canada for the future of our children and
grandchildren.
1315
To conclude, I with my colleagues will support Bill C-20 because
it sets out clear and fair rules for a referendum.
[Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Madam Speaker, we
have just set foot into the 21st century, and I would like to
take this opportunity to speak to Bill C-20, which deals with the
requirement of clarity in the event of a referendum on the
secession of Quebec.
I would, moreover, invite all my colleagues here in the House to
reflect seriously on this matter and to bring their reason and
good judgment to bear in understanding the legitimacy of this
bill and in putting an end to the troubling ambiguity of the
sovereignist project.
Bill C-20 is a call for clarity, clarity in our individual and
collective choices, clarity in our feelings, and clarity above
all in the expression of our will to all Canadians, to remain
united in order to face the economic, social and cultural
challenges facing us.
I would like to remind all members of the House of Commons that,
in bringing in this bill, the Government of Canada is acting
responsibly and with the greatest respect for Canada's political
institutions. This bill does not in any way represent a threat
to the integrity of either the national assembly of Quebec or
any other legislative assembly in the other provinces and the
territories of our country.
In its opinion on the secession of Quebec, the Supreme Court of
Canada stated, and I quote:
However, it will be for the political actors to determine what
constitutes “a clear majority on a clear question” in the
circumstances under which a future referendum vote may be taken.
The Government of Canada being one of those actors, it therefore
has a responsibility to ensure that the integrity of our country
is neither threatened nor, indeed, made to disintegrate as a
result of political manipulation and semantics concealing the
true intent and scope of the referendum choice.
In the throne speech of last October 12, our government
reaffirmed its commitment to all Canadians in Quebec and all
other Canadians to ensure that the principle of clarity set out
by the Supreme Court of Canada is respected.
For our government, there is no doubt that the most sensible and
reasonable way to meet its commitment is to include in an act of
parliament the requirement for clarity set out by the Supreme
Court of Canada with regard to both the referendum question and
the result of the vote.
Therefore, the Government of Canada is just doing its duty to
the people of Quebec and other Canadian provinces and
territories by making sure that the spirit of the supreme
court's decision is reflected in legislation designed to remove
any ambiguity as to the choice that could be made by the people
of part of its territory in a referendum.
The legitimacy of Canada's decision to embark on this path
cannot be challenged.
Need I remind the House that the court's task was to clarify the
legal framework within which political decisions must be made
under the constitution and not, as some would have us believe,
to usurp the prerogatives of the political forces acting within
that framework?
The Canadian government's approach does not threaten the
integrity of provincial institutions, including the National
Assembly of Quebec. On the contrary, it is aimed at preserving
the integrity of the parliament and the government of all
Canadians.
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Madam Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who
is the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, has introduced a
bill that concerns Quebec.
1320
I see that the Liberal Party members are not interested in the
minister's bill. They are absent.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member knows very
well we do not comment on—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Order, please.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Order, please.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Order, please. That is
enough. The hon. member who rose on a point of order knows full
well that we do not comment in the House of Commons on the
absence or presence of members. So we shall resume debate with
the hon. member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges.
Mr. Nick Discepola: I will continue with my remarks, Madam
Speaker. Such a statement in support of clarity in a law voted
on by the representatives of the people of Canada, who are all
democratically elected and who, therefore, speak for the people,
cannot but serve democracy and the rights and freedoms of all
the citizens of our country.
In its opinion, the supreme court reminds us of the issues of a
decision on the secession of a province or a territory of
Canada, and I quote:
In the 131 years since Confederation, the people of the
provinces and territories have created close ties of
interdependence (economically, socially, politically and
culturally) based on shared values that include federalism,
democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and respect
for minorities. A democratic decision of Quebecers in favour of
secession would put those relationships at risk.
This statement reflects the true impact of a secession, which
would affect not only the social, political, economic and
cultural fabric of Quebec, but of all of Canada. It would be an
irreversible decision which could not, for all intents and
purposes, be reconsidered in any way, in spite of what the Bloc
Quebecois leader may have said about this in the past.
When a portion of a country's population decides to separate
from the rest of the population, it is because that group
believes, rightly or wrongly, that it is impossible to continue
to live in that country, that its living conditions and the full
enjoyment of its rights and freedoms are in jeopardy. Is this
currently the case in Quebec? I doubt it very much. Are the
talents, skills and pride of Quebecers not drawn on, and are
they not, as they should be, a fundamental component of our
country's success and of its recognition around the world?
Our entry into the 21st century is marked by an economic, social
and cultural interdependence that is essential to the
development of our resources and to our quality of life. Is the
success of each region of Canada, which are all so unique and
distinctive, not a guarantee of our country's economic, social
and cultural success?
Our country is a whole in which all the parts contribute to its
identity and to the promotion of its values. Bill C-20 ensures
that it will only be possible to alter our country's integrity
if one of its regions were to decide unambiguously, through the
expression of the will of a clear majority of its population on
a clear question, to separate from the rest of the country and
to assume the economic, social, cultural, political and
financial responsibilities resulting from such a decision.
This is what we would call a clear choice, void of any
ambiguity. It would be a choice based on reason, good judgement
and intelligence.
It would not be a choice made as a result of manipulation to get
the public all confused about its deep convictions and its
interests.
The Government of Canada sincerely believes that we must claim
the right to preserve the integrity of all the institutions on
our territory. We must also, and I say it again because this is
critical, preserve the integrity of the rights and freedoms of
all those who live in our country, regardless of their origin
and beliefs.
1325
All political actors agree that clarity is essential in a
referendum about secession. A clear question is one which
leaves no room for doubt in the mind of the person who must
answer it.
All political actors also agree with the supreme court's opinion
that the principle of clarity also applies to the result of a
referendum vote on secession. A clear majority is the
expression of a will that leaves politicians and all citizens in
no doubt as to how results are to be interpreted and what the
vote means. One does not half leave a country. One leaves it
completely, forever, irrevocably.
One leaves because the decision taken by a large majority of the
population prevails on any legitimate opposition to secession
and because the government is accordingly justified in giving
effect to that will, without irreducibly threatening social
order.
Any negotiations that would end this union, that would destroy
the links uniting us all, would certainly not be easy and would
leave their share of wounds and bitterness.
With Bill C-20, however, our government wants to ensure that, in
the event of secession, both the public and the so-called
political actors will base their actions on reason, good
judgment and common understanding.
Today our country is a world leader in its efforts to build a
new economic order that will benefit us all.
Let us stop wallowing around in the murkiness of the Parti
Quebecois' political project and unite forces to take up the
major education, health and economic development challenges
awaiting us in all communities in Canada.
Reason and common sense must prevail. Let us leave behind the
ambiguity of the Parti Québécois' project. We all stand to gain.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to take the floor, even on such a very sad day. In
fact, to be perfectly honest, it is not so much the day that is
very sad as the parliamentary record of the government over
there.
I would never have believed I would be rising to speak to a bill
like Bill C-20, boldly titled 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 contents of this bill are despotic in themselves, and its
principle alone is sufficient to justify our vehement
opposition. If the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs wants
to talk of clarity, yes his bill is clear. There is not even
any subtlety in it. The federal government wants to prevent the
Quebec people from freely deciding its future. In my opinion,
what is clear is that the bill is nothing less than a coup
d'état aimed at Quebec democracy.
This bill questions the basic rules of democracy. In
introducing Bill C-20, the Canadian government is trying to
impose a veto on the decisions Quebecers will be taking
democratically on their political future. Such a thing has
never been seen.
Canada struts about on the international scene loudly
proclaiming its democratic principles, while not even bothering
to respect them at home. What a fine example.
Just about three years ago now, when I chose to get into
politics, my purpose was of course to promote sovereignty, but
also to come here to Ottawa in order to defend Quebec's
interests.
I can remember how hopeful I was at that time. Yes, hopeful
that we would manage, as people motivated by democratic
principles, to exchange views and reach agreement that Quebecers
had to be allowed to decide their own future according to their
own will.
Democratically elected, a legitimate mandate in my hands, I
never thought I would be participating one day in this sham of
democracy.
May I remind the House that, as John F. Kennedy put it so well,
the true politician hangs on to his ideals as he loses his
illusions. Thanks to the government opposite, I have lost my
illusions. However, I am keeping my ideal, which is
independence for Quebec.
In 1997, I still thought that words like right, equality,
respect and justice meant something to the people of Canada and
their representatives.
1330
I thought, naively perhaps, that these principles were worth
something. Well, today, with Bill C-20, the government across
from us is proving the opposite: in any case, certainly the
Prime Minister and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Bill C-20 constitutes a serious and unprecedented attack against
the democratic principles Quebecers have set for themselves and
against the institutions they have created. It is an attack
against Quebec's freedom of choice. And yet, for the past 30
years the political debate over the future of Quebec has been
marked by a profound respect of the rules of democracy. Today
the Liberal government is denying this democratic tradition.
But really, what else can we expect from a party governing with
arrogance and disdain for so many years? What can we expect
from a government that has no sense of justice? Should we
really be surprised by the tactics of the Liberal government,
since the current Prime Minister is behind all the attacks
against Quebec and was more importantly one of the artisans of
the night of the long knives? Can we expect anything else?
This is a government that has proven its lack of any sense of
democracy, preferring to manage the country's business without
consultation, without transparency and without concern for the
opinion of others.
This government is trying to make political gains in the rest of
Canada on the backs of the people of Quebec and to the detriment
of the most basic respect for democracy.
I remind the House that the sovereignist movement has great
respect for democracy and for the state of law. There is a
broad consensus in Quebec in this regard.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, would
it be possible to ask the good member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges to
be quiet, to listen and to learn something?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): As always, I call on all
members on both sides of the House to listen respectfully, along
with me, to the member speaking.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire: Madam Speaker, not only do they wish
to gag us but they are all but preventing us from speaking in
this institution, which is very disagreeable. I continue.
No interest is more important than freedom, including freedom of
speech. This freedom is the ability of Quebecers to decide
their collective future, the freedom to elect a responsible
government in Quebec—even if it is sovereignist—the freedom to
have the Government of Quebec considered responsible and
legitimate, the freedom to decide on the referendum question
that suits us, the freedom not to be confined by an untenable
status quo, the freedom to choose a country. These are the
values to which I and my country, Quebec, subscribe.
No obstacle to this freedom can be accepted or imposed by
anyone, particularly not by the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs.
The Bloc Quebecois, all its members, all its supporters and all
democrats in Quebec, intend to rise up against this assault on
Quebec. There is no question of the people of Quebec agreeing
to bow down to the shameless and disrespectful tactics of the
Liberal government.
Agreeing to Bill C-20 would be agreeing to sell one's soul, to
turn one's back on democracy.
I am deeply convinced that no one in Quebec wants to remain in a
country that bears more of a resemblance to a dictatorship than
a country that respects democratically elected institutions and
the will of the people.
The true meaning of democracy for the young people of my
generation, and what I wish for Quebec, what I wish for my
country, Quebec, is different from what the people over there
are proposing. Seeing just how far the federal government is
prepared to go to deny the legitimate right of Quebec to decide
on its own future and to deny the most basic rules of democracy,
I am convinced that the Quebec people, with pride in their
values, will soon choose—clarity law or no clarity law—to have
their own country.
More than ever, I am convinced that sovereignty can truly change
and improve things, for the foundations of our project are built
on an affirmation of the democratic principle, although the same
cannot be said about the people across the way.
To see how the federal government is acting, can my generation,
or the population in general, really be faulted for no longer
believing in the world of politics and its present institutions?
In referring this issue to the supreme court, in presenting Bill
C-20, a bill that is against all international precedent, the
federal government is merely making many members of my
generation even more cynical about politics. Shame on the
federal government.
1335
Shame on the government for its refusal to listen to reason, for
its refusal to respect democracy, for its rejection of the right
of the Quebec people and its worthy representatives to be
listened to and respected. By systematically denying the
existence of the Quebec people, the federal government is
denying the vital democratic principle of the right of peoples
to decide their own future.
Democracy is meaningless without true representation and true
debates. Democracy must not simply be a principle to which lip
service is given. It must also be a principle which is
respected. It must be present in actions as well. The federal
government has no right to ignore democracy with impunity
whenever it suits it to do so.
And this is what it is doing with Bill C-20. In so doing, the
government is giving the rest of Canada a new form of veto on
the political and constitutional future of Quebec. Never.
With Bill C-20, the federal government is on the wrong track and
there will be no turning back. What will there be left to do
after Bill C-20? What is the next step for the Liberal
government? To lock the doors of the national assembly to
prevent Quebecers from being represented? To flood the whole
province with Canadian flags carrying the message “Thou shalt
honour Canada”? While the federal government is at it, why not
ask members of the national assembly to sing O Canada at the
beginning of their proceedings? No way.
What will happen after this show of force? The public can expect
the worst from the government opposite.
We Quebecers still believe that democracy is what binds our
society. If Canada no longer believes in democracy, it is its
own business, but it is also a good reason for us Quebecers to
become sovereign.
It is now clear that the federal framework is keeping us from
truly thriving. To me, democracy is not a technical issue that
only concerns a small elite, but the affirmation of a common
will to live. It seems clear that if there is such a common
will, it is in Quebec.
Quebec's sovereignty is above all an act of freedom. To long for
sovereignty is to want Quebecers to have full control over their
destiny through transparent institutions where their officials
will debate the real issues.
Again, the federal government is on the wrong track with Bill
C-20.
There will be no turning back but, above all, the government is
admitting that it has nothing to propose to Quebecers and that
it is unable to meet their fundamental aspirations.
Quebec's sovereignty is a democratic, modern and unifying
project.
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to
begin with a statement made by a well-known politician, who said
in 1992 that for a win by the yes side to be legitimate it must
have at least 58% of the votes to take into account the votes of
anglophones and allophones.
Before our friends opposite start criticizing this statement, I
will tell them that it was made by none other than the present
Deputy Premier of Quebec, Bernard Landry.
This statement should surprise no one in this House. In 1992
the referendum campaign on the Charlottetown accord was in full
swing. The separatists were on the no side at that time and told
anyone who would listen that a 50% plus one majority would not
be enough. Why? Because, as Mr. Landry said, the votes of
anglophones and allophones, which he already considered lost,
had to be taken into account.
According to him, a win by the yes side would have been
justified in this case only if such a level of support was to be
found among the francophone population.
This is not the first time we have the opportunity to ponder
such statements which, members will admit, are somewhat cynical.
To all intents and purposes, taking into account the votes of
anglophones and allophones is tantamount to weighing the votes,
meaning that the vote of a francophone is worth more than the
vote of a Quebecer from a different cultural community.
Personally, I always believed that, from the moment they are
granted Canadian citizenship, voters are all subject to the same
rules and their votes all have the same political weight. To
consider people according to their race, their language or their
religion is to play a dangerous game with feelings that lead to
intolerance.
This type of statement says a lot about the PQ's idea of
democracy.
1340
In the eyes of separatists, there will always be two kinds of
Quebecers: the real ones, who are for the independence option,
and the imposters, who consist, on the one hand, of the
francophone group which rejects separation and, on the other, of
Quebecers from all corners of the international community.
This is why they cannot identify with the independence project
and refuse to listen to the siren call sent out with each
passing referendum.
The bill before us, as its name indicates, seeks to clarify the
rules that would guide the Government of Canada in its actions
if a province proposed a secession project to its citizens.
This bill is a necessity and that is why we are so determined to
have it passed.
Statements such as those by Bernard Landry, which I have already
cited, cannot fail to move those for whom democracy is truly
important. In our view, it is unacceptable to say that 50% plus
one is enough to separate, when a constitutional reform project
would require, as Mr. Landry said, applying some sort of twisted
logic, 58% of the vote.
This is a criticism levelled by separatists themselves. They
criticize us for maintaining that the majority required for
secession must be greater than that required to join a
federation, to take one example.
In effect, that is our belief, and I will illustrate with an
example that the separatists frequently trot out in support of
their argument, the case of Newfoundland. In a nutshell, if 52%
was good for Newfoundland, why is 50% plus one not enough for
Quebec to secede?
Let us agree on one thing from the start. The two situations
were very different. In 1949 Newfoundland was a colony of
Great Britain. There was, so to speak, not the solid
interdependence between Newfoundland and Great Britain that
exists between Quebec and Canada. And so, Quebec's separation
would be much more complex than was Newfoundland's joining
Canada. The risks of injustice would therefore be much greater
as well.
We must not confuse the 52% of Newfoundlanders already mentioned
with the very great majority of those who voted in favour of
breaking with the United Kingdom. In fact, the separatists
never say that an initial referendum held on June 3, 1948
proposed three options to Newfoundlanders: extension of their
dependence for an additional five years; independence without
financial assistance from London or entry to the Canadian
federation.
Barely 14% of the electorate voted to extend dependence. In
other words, 86% of the electorate voted in favour of breaking
colonial ties with London. That, it must be said, was quite
clear.
Another referendum was then held on the two remaining options:
independence without financial assistance from London or joining
the Canadian Confederation. On July 22, 1948, 52% of
Newfoundlanders chose one of the two radical changes—Canadian
Confederation. Under the circumstances, the Canadian
authorities decided to welcome Newfoundland and today still we
know we made the right decision.
So, as we have just seen, the essential difference between
Newfoundland in 1948 and the separatist option in Quebec today
is that Newfoundland did not break up a country when it joined
Canada. It terminated a temporary colonial link. Quebec's
secession from Canada would break up Canada, permanently.
This is one fundamental reason the same percentage cannot be
sought in two such different cases.
Another reason has already been cited by a number of my
colleagues on this side of the House—international precedent.
Since 1945, in 13 cases of moves to independence in which a
referendum was held, excluding colonial contexts, the average
majority obtained was 92%. I did indeed say 92%. The lowest
was 72%. This is a long way from the 50% that Messrs. Bouchard,
Parizeau, Landry and company are so desperately clinging to.
Another reason I have not much time to spend on, but which
precludes too quick a comparison between the cases of
Newfoundland and Quebec: the questions put to Newfoundlanders
were clear; those put to Quebecers in the last two referendums
on sovereignty were not.
1345
Quebecers are entitled to know that they will not lose Canada
without clearly renouncing it. Secession could not be
negotiated without the assurance that secession is really what
Quebecers want. This is why the government must establish the
rules to govern its conduct in order to ensure that Quebecers
should have nothing less than a clear question to answer.
Secession is unthinkable without clarity of the referendum
result, clarity of the question and clarity of the support
obtained.
That is why it would be far preferable, if not essential, for
the question and the majority to be sufficiently clear to leave
no doubt as to the meaning to be taken from any referendum that
might be held. This is why we have this bill before us.
I have trouble understanding the separatists' argument. Do they
really believe that we would wait with our arms folded for
Canada to come to an end, without ensuring that this was what
Quebecers wanted? We are on the side of democracy. We are in
favour of clarity, not confusion. We are not ones to make use
of all manner of strategies, with varying degrees of subtlety,
to accomplish our ends, unlike some.
The Supreme Court opinion clearly specified that, as political
actors, it was our duty to ensure that if there were a
referendum it would be held in clarity and that the issues were
very clear for everyone.
As we keep on saying, Canada is too wonderful a country to be
lost on the basis of a misunderstanding.
We are betting on clarity, and on democracy. We have no fear
that, with clarity, Quebecers will resolutely choose to remain
within Canada, the best country in the world.
[English]
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I want to say a few words in this debate as I believe
the debate on Bill C-20 is a very important one for the House.
This is a very serious bill because it contemplates the potential
breakup of our country. It is a very serious debate. Not too
many years ago the House of Commons would not have even debated a
bill of this sort without contemplating, in terms of legislation,
the process of breaking up the country.
I remember very well back in 1981 when the constitution was
patriated with the charter of rights. I was a member of the
committee. A deliberate decision was made not to put a formula
in it on amending process in order to have part of the country
exit from Canada. There is no constitutional means to exit from
the country in terms of the constitution. That was deliberate.
In those days we would not have contemplated a bill like this one
before the House of Commons. We are doing something here that is
very serious in terms of the future of Canada.
I was disappointed today when the government brought in time
allocation for one reason. I think we need a lot of time to have
a proper debate, a proper consultation about this very serious
issue before the House. Our party is in the process of
consulting members and constituents across the country, chaired
by the member for Palliser, about what probable amendments we
could move to the bill to make it a better bill that is good for
all of Canada.
The minister and the House know that we support the bill at
second reading in principle, but it is our obligation as
parliamentarians to make sure we have the best possible bill for
the future of the country. I say that because we have had many
potholes along the constitutional trail in the past. Members
will recall that patriation was very divisive.
The prime minister of the day, Mr. Trudeau, came in with a bill
originally supported by the provinces of Ontario and New
Brunswick but opposed by the other eight provinces. After a
great debate in the House of Commons and a special Senate-House
of Commons committee, the bill ended up being challenged in the
Supreme Court of Canada.
The supreme court deliberated on the bill for quite some time
and came down with a decision that the bill, if I remember
correctly, was legal in terms of the constitutional changes but
did not follow proper convention or practice in terms of the
constitution of the country.
1350
That forced the prime minister of the day to come back to the
House of Commons and introduce several amendments to the
patriation act which had been suggested by people across the
country. That could have been done before being forced to do so
by the Supreme Court of Canada, but it happened only after the
intervention of the supreme court. After about a year or so it
got through the process. I think there is a danger here that
this bill could be expedited too quickly through the whole
process.
In terms of the alligators in the constitutional swamp, the
Meech Lake accord also taught us quite a bit about the need for
as much constitutional consultation with the people of the
country as possible. That failure was very unfortunate back in
June 1990 because it was the failure of the Meech Lake accord
that sprung the birth officially of the Bloc Quebecois in terms
of the disappointment of a lot of Quebecers to the accord not
going through. It also set us back constitutionally a long time.
Eventually that led to the Charlottetown agreement. Again I
think the House and the players at that time tried to put too
much in the accord, and eventually of course it did not pass. It
led to the spring of the Bloc Quebecois. It led to I suppose the
first big jump in support across western Canada of the Reform
Party in response to a backlash against what happened in
Charlottetown.
If we look throughout history there are many examples of
mistakes that were made, partly because there was too much haste
and the lack of consultation along the way with the people of the
country about proper amendments and a proper process that should
be adhered to in any kind of serious constitutional change. This
is in many ways the most serious of all. Even although it is not
constitutional, it contemplates the potential road map to the
breakup of our country, which indeed is extremely serious.
This bill is in response to the supreme court. That is what we
are debating today. The bill tries to implement the supreme
court decision about a clear question and a clear majority, but
one should also say that one mistake that has been made in the
past is that too many people have not, I suppose, adhered to what
I think is the basic fundamental principle of the legitimate
self-determination of the people of Quebec. There is the right
of self-determination of a people in this country.
I do believe also that we have to recognize the uniqueness, the
differences and the distinctiveness of the province of Quebec.
There is some evolution in that direction, I know there is, but I
think those things have to be said at the outset when we are
debating a bill of this sort.
We should keep in mind that the bill tries to balance what I
think are two very fundamental principles and tries to recognize
the co-existence of those two fundamental principles. One
principle is the right of the National Assembly of Quebec to ask
any question any time it wants on any particular issue. This
bill does not thwart the ability of the National Assembly of
Quebec to ask any question it wants at any time and in any
wording it wants on any particular issue. It can do that.
On the other side, the bill says that the Parliament of Canada
also has an obligation on behalf of all of Canada before the
parliament contemplates a negotiation that may lead to the
secession of our country and the separation of our country to
determine whether or not that question has been clear vis-à-vis
secession and whether or not that question has had a clear
majority in terms of the expression of the people of the province
of Quebec. These two fundamental principles co-exist and it is
important to acknowledge that.
I do not have much time this afternoon so I want to raise four
questions which I think we should look at very carefully as we
consult our constituents and people across the country and move
into the committee phase.
First, the way the bill is worded, does it suffice in terms of a
clear question? In my opinion it does. Others may not agree,
but I think that is a question we have to look at. Is the
question clear in terms of how the bill is worded? Is it the
proper way of doing it?
Second, we must look at what the bill says in terms of what is a
clear majority. Here I think the answer is more vague. It
leaves it up to future parliaments to determine whether or not
there is a clear majority. Maybe that parliament would make a
wise decision. Maybe that parliament would not be responsible. I
do not know. We should look at whether, within the confines of
the supreme court decision and within the confines of fundamental
democracy, we can more clearly define what a clear majority might
be.
I will give hon. members an example of what I mean.
1355
We could have a referendum question passed by 50% plus one, with
a 90% turnout, meaning 45% of the people in Quebec said yes to a
clear question on separation. We could also have 80% of the
people say yes to a clear question but only 50% of the people
turn out, which means 40% of the people voted for separation.
How do we decide which of those is the most clear expression? I
do not know the answer to that question, but I think the
committee has an obligation to see if we can define a bit more
clearly what a clear majority should be for any future referendum
that might be held in the province of Quebec.
In my remaining two minutes I want to make two more points. A
fairly direct amendment could be made to this bill. I think the
minister may agree to this one. The first nations people, the
aboriginal people, should be given higher recognition in terms of
the role they would play in a potential process of consultation.
That is something we should do. Any division of the country will
affect the aboriginal people, particularly those in the area that
would be divided. I do not think their role is high enough and
prominent enough in the consultation process. That is one
amendment we should look at to make sure that they are properly
and fully consulted.
The last point is that one institution the minister is to
consult fully is the unelected Senate. In a democracy, for a
question this important, this is giving an unelected body a role
that is much too prominent. That should be changed.
In terms of trying to refine and define them in accordance to
what is best for our country, these are four areas we should look
at in committee.
[Translation]
The Speaker: It being nearly 2 p.m., the House will now proceed
to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
BLACK HISTORY MONTH
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise today to acknowledge Black History Month and
to congratulate Canadians from coast to coast celebrating in
communities with a variety of cultural events.
In 1995 the Government of Canada declared February to be Black
History Month. This gives us the opportunity to celebrate
cultural, social, economic and political contributions of blacks
and to celebrate the 166th anniversary of the abolition of
slavery in British colonies.
I am pleased that in my riding of Kitchener Centre and in the
surrounding area a number of special events are being planned.
The Black History Association of the Waterloo—Wellington region
are sponsoring lectures at Holy Trinity Anglican Church and
Maranatha Evangelical Church in celebration of this month.
The Congress of Black Women are sponsoring a story telling
evening and the Caribbean Canadian Cultural Association will be
holding a who's who in the black community event to honour young
people, especially those who are contributing significantly to
the Kitchener community.
I encourage all members of the House to take some time to
participate in black history events that are being hosted across
the country.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the HRDC mess developed with prime ministerial approval
during the tenure of the member for Papineau—Saint-Denis. Now
he is safely out of range as Minister for International Trade and
the hapless member for Brant has been left to carry the can.
Like the Conservatives' unfortunate Kim Campbell, this poor soul
is the chosen patsy for her predecessor and her party. All the
time we thought that her ministerial appointment was a perk based
on cronyism and nepotism when in fact it appears that she was
actually set up by the Prime Minister.
* * *
POLISH COMBATANTS ASSOCIATION
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, 60 years ago more than 1.7 million Polish soldiers and
citizens were arrested and deported simply because they were
Polish. The men and women who were taken by the Soviet Secret
Police were sent to the far reaches of the Soviet Union to work
in forced labour camps or placed in political prisons where many
were executed or died of hunger, cold, disease and exhaustion
during the second world war.
Tonight at the Polish Combatants Association, the Toronto branch
of the Alliance of the Polish Eastern Provinces and its
president, Mr. Wladyslaw Dziemianczuk, as well as the Polish
Canadian community of Parkdale—High Park, will commemorate this
tragic event at a ceremony where a memorial plaque will be
unveiled.
1400
Dedicated to all those who made the ultimate sacrifice for
freedom, it will serve to remind future generations of the
horrors of war and the cost of the freedoms that others are able
to enjoy today because of their sacrifice.
* * *
ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour and a privilege to rise today
to welcome all Canadians into the second century of the atomic
age.
The atomic age was born in Canada 55 years ago when the first
peacetime reactor in the world came into operation at Chalk River
in my great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. In 1952
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited became a crown corporation to
develop peaceful applications of nuclear energy for Canada and
the world.
AECL built the town of Deep River, and feelings run deep about
the benefits of AECL and CANDU technology. The proposed Canadian
neutron facility, with support from the National Research
Council, will provide much needed material research and
development to ensure that Canada continues to dominate in the
atomic age.
Our sagacious Prime Minister has stated: “As the millennium
dawns, I remain convinced that the future of CANDU is bright
indeed, both at home and abroad”.
* * *
ANNETTE HELENE AUGUSTINE
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to pay tribute today to Mrs. Annette Helene
Augustine, an exceptional member of the Thunder Bay community.
Yesterday, among her friends and family, Mrs. Augustine received
the Order of Canada in recognition of her achievements and
unselfish contributions.
Beginning in the 1960s she displayed remarkable courage, lobbied
tirelessly for improved social services and the establishment of
first class educational, recreational and cultural facilities in
northern Ontario.
With her husband, Dr. John Augustine, they worked diligently for
the provincial recognition and programs for perceptually
handicapped children, the Thunder Bay museum and the Thunder Bay
National Art Gallery for Native Art.
Mrs. Augustine has devoted countless hours and energy to the
enhancement of the quality of life in Thunder Bay, and is a most
worthy recipient. I invite all members of the House to join me
in congratulating this wonderful Canadian, Annette Helene
Augustine.
* * *
CANADIAN FORCES
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the final edition of the Fraser report on change in the Canadian
Forces was issued yesterday.
I am disappointed that such a prestigious committee chairman was
mandated not to look at the real problems in the military but to
tinker with a decaying force structure. The result is a report
that is irrelevant and out of touch.
Why did the government shackle this committee? Though I applaud
the notion of monitoring change in our military, this report will
not lead to any of the changes that are desperately needed to
save the Canadian Forces from oblivion.
The Fraser report does not even identify the two fundamental
problems that are destroying our military: chronic underfunding
and demilitarization.
For decades social experimentation has impaired combat
capability. The government has treated military personnel as
civilians in uniform. This report is about changing oil when the
engine requires a complete overhaul.
* * *
[Translation]
DR. JOCELYN DEMERS
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, Dr. Jocelyn Demers, a resident of Boucherville, was
honored for a prolific and brilliant career dedicated to
fighting cancer, particularly childhood cancer.
His skills, superior expertise, determination and love of life
and human nature are widely recognized. Dr. Demers, who is a
member of the Conseil québécois de lutte contre le cancer, is
leading a relentless fight against this terrible disease.
One of the most eloquent illustrations of his desire to promote
the well-being of sick children and their families is undoubtedly
the building of the Manoir Ronald McDonald, in Montreal. Thanks
to Dr. Demers and to many other stakeholders, the families of
sick children can now stay at a facility that is very close to
the hospital.
The professionalism demonstrated by dedicated specialists like
Dr. Demers enables countless people to continue to believe that
life is beautiful in spite of all the hardships.
Dr. Demers, congratulations and thank you.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today 173
more workers were pushed out the door at the CBC, following 3,000
who have already gone down the road.
The mother corp says it is due to money problems, but people
know that it is due to a government which ignores culture and the
role it plays in a nation. Now is the time to reinvest in the
CBC, not stand by as cuts tear out our cultural bones.
1405
The CBC is our largest stage, our most loved book, our most
revered painting and our most recognized song. It is where
Canadians tell each other stories.
For Canada to have an independent future in a world of
globalization and media convergence we need to strengthen public
broadcasting. We need to invest resources in protecting culture.
We need to invest our surplus in protecting culture.
To all who listened to the CBC this morning or who watched
The National last night, please do not sit idly by and let
our public broadcaster die on the vine. Please protect our
culture.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
agriculture is in a crisis. Currently in Saskatchewan there is a
sit-in in the provincial legislature.
The causes of the crisis are numerous. International subsidies
by the Europeans and the Americans place our farmers at a
competitive disadvantage. We have a grain transportation system
that is broken and needs to be fixed. Grain marketing problems
and the monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board are preventing value
added processing. User fees imposed on farmers by the Canadian
Grain Commission and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency could be
removed by the government. Most of all, the high taxes that the
government imposes are directly faced by farmers. As the end
users they have no place to pass on their costs. Half the cost
of farm inputs, such as fertilizers and chemicals, consists of
taxes.
Why does the government not act immediately to cut taxes to take
the burden off farmers, to remove the unfair user fees which they
are paying, to reform the marketing system and to fix the grain
transportation system?
* * *
[Translation]
GLOBAL ENERGY REGULATION FORUM
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in May, Montreal will host an international forum on
energy regulation, which will be attended by industries,
regulatory agencies, consumer associations and experts in
economy.
The purpose of this forum is to exchange ideas on the various
mechanisms to regulate energy efficiently. Globalization,
deregulation and environmental issues will also be on the
agenda.
This is an important event, considering the challenges facing
every sector as we enter into this new millennium, including the
energy sector.
Canada is a key player internationally in the areas of energy
and economy. Montreal has every reason to be proud to have been
selected to host this important gathering.
We wish good luck to the organizers of that forum.
* * *
MEMBER FOR AHUNTSIC
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last Sunday
in Montreal, the Greek community gathered to pay tribute to the
member for Ahuntsic, who was awarded the Order of the Phoenix,
presented by the ambassador of Greece on behalf of the president
of the Hellenic Republic.
[English]
We, the Liberal caucus of the House, are proud to have among our
ranks a member such as her.
[Translation]
All our congratulations.
* * *
FARM AID
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
point out how the Government of Canada works with the provinces
to help farmers manage the risks inherent in agriculture.
Last year, the Government of Canada committed a maximum of
$1.1 billion for 1998 and 1999 to help farmers deal with the
revenue crisis.
On January 13, our government announced additional spending of
up to $500 million a year for two years to establish a new shared
cost national disaster relief program.
As we can see, the Government of Canada is acting effectively
and creatively to help Canadian producers and ensure a quality
of life for them.
* * *
BILL C-20
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, after a quick
look at Bill C-20, you will agree with me that it smacks of
improvization and shows a lack of respect for Canadian
federalism, the Parliament of Canada, the national assembly and
provincial jurisdictions.
Furthermore, the bill is poorly drafted, and looks more like an
election platform than a serious piece of legislation. The
Liberal cabinet is ignoring major issues in its desire to
achieve its political ends at all costs.
Is Quebec's desire to separate a priority for Quebecers and
Canadians? No.
According to the results of an Angus Reid poll released Monday,
only 11% of people gave national unity as their priority,
putting it in eighth place. The number one priority for 55% of
Canadians is and remains health.
The present government is obviously not listening to Canadians.
It should withdraw its bill and redo its homework so that it
responds to the real needs of Canadians.
* * *
1410
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when the Conservative Party was thrown out of office in
1993 it left a sorry legacy of high unemployment, high taxes,
high deficit and high interest rates. Canadians had lost
complete confidence in the Conservatives' ability to manage the
economy and further the interests of our nation. The
unemployment rate was 11.4% and Canadians faced a $42 billion
deficit, the highest in Canadian history.
Today, after six years of Liberal management, the country has
turned around. The unemployment rate is 6.8%, 4.6% lower than
when we took office. Over 1.7 million jobs have been created in
the private sector since this Liberal government took office.
Our government's jobs and growth strategy has created more jobs
in just six years than in nine years under Tory prime ministers
Mulroney and Campbell—
The Speaker: The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine
Coast.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, if Canadians think that the one billion dollar
boondoggle at human resources smacks of political payoff, they
should also know that questionable use of taxpayers' resources by
way of grants is not exclusive to HRDC.
At a time when the RCMP has faced budgetary cutbacks of $169
million and some 430 frontline B.C. RCMP positions go lacking,
affecting their ability to investigate and fight crime, the
Minister of Justice has $32 million to spend on crime prevention.
Guess where $2 million of this is going. It is going to none
other than national lobby groups, no doubt with impeccable
Liberal credentials.
The Minister of Justice gave $2 million to such crime fighters
as the Canadian Bankers Association, the Canadian Automobile
Dealers Association, the Insurance Council of Canada and the
Retail Council of Canada.
Maybe an audit should be conducted into the crimes they solved.
Maybe the Liberal House leader has it in his binder.
* * *
PORCUPINE CARIBOU AGREEMENT
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, for centuries
the lives of the Gwich'in people of Yukon and Alaska have been
ecologically connected to the migration of the porcupine caribou
herd. Their name means people of the caribou.
Now, while the caribou are safely in their wintering grounds, it
is a little known fact but the Gwich'in people themselves have
been making an annual migration to the southern United States.
They have been going there for years to lobby to preserve the
calving grounds of the caribou and they just left Washington
yesterday.
In 1987 the Porcupine Caribou Agreement was signed by both
countries to protect the herd. Canada created two national
parks, Aulavik and Vuntut, to safeguard the calving grounds.
The U.S. still allows oil drilling in the Arctic wildlife refuge
and these sensitive and ancient calving grounds are under
unnecessary pressure. Just 2% of the refuge needs to be
protected and it needs to be done now.
Canada has been true to its word. We must make sure the U.S. is
true to its commitment. I implore all members of parliament to
think about the Gwich'in who need our help and to raise this
issue until the caribou are safe.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-20
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec East, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
sovereignists are not alone in denouncing Bill C-20 as
anti-democratic. Early this week, they were joined by other
Canadians.
Now a former U.S. diplomat has criticized the federal government
for its anti-democratic tactic. David Jones says that the
purpose of Bill C-20 is to strengthen the legal chains binding
Quebec to Canada.
The former minister, an advisor to the American Embassy in
Ottawa, wonders about the concept of majority as understood in
Bill C-20. Is a clear majority 50% plus one, 66%, or 75%, he
wonders, and says that nobody knows.
He even concludes that, with this bill, no referendum results
will be accepted as clear.
In short, another person who thinks that the bill on clarity is
a masterpiece of ambiguity.
* * *
FISHERIES INFRASTRUCTURE
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, PC): Mr. Speaker, on
January 21, southeastern New Brunswick was struck by a severe
blizzard with high winds. Several docks sustained heavy damage,
possibly thousands of dollars worth.
The disaster happened three weeks ago and yet the federal
government continues to ignore the extent of the damage. The
department's silence on this is just one more example of its
lack of understanding of the fishing industry and of its
importance to our communities.
Today the fishers again feel that they have been abandoned by
this government. We must not lose sight of the fact that
this is the same Liberal government that shirked its
responsibility by abandoning the docks.
1415
Abdicating its responsibilities with respect to the fishing
wharves resulted—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[English]
Ms. Angela Vautour: Mr. Speaker, I find it very difficult to
speak when everybody in the House is screaming.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. I agree with the hon.
member. She has every right to be heard. She may continue with
her statement.
[Translation]
Ms. Angela Vautour: Mr. Speaker, the government's abdication
of responsibilities with respect to the fishing wharves resulted
in serious problems, which persist today. It must be not be
forgotten that an unsafe wharf is a danger for fishers, for
tourists, for the general population who use it.
The port authority committees are calling for repairs to be made
as well as for an action plan to be put in place immediately so
that their fisheries infrastructure will be operational and
ready for the opening of the spring fisheries.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the HRDC audit took a random sampling of only 1% of the
department's total cases. It uncovered a billion dollar bungle.
With that, we can just guess where it will lead.
The Prime Minister likes to pretend that those 37 cases cited
are the limit of its problems. Unfortunately, we know it is just
the tip of the iceberg.
Yesterday he claimed that the total overpayment was simply $251,
that the protection of taxpayers was okay and that everything was
going to be all right. My foot. How were taxpayers so protected
when $2 million went to self-confessed embezzler, Pierre
Thibault, in his own riding?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, by her question,
continues to show the House that she does not understand the
intent of the audit we are speaking of.
This audit was undertaken to check the administrative practices
of grants and contributions in the Department of Human Resources
Development. What it said was that our administrative practices
needed to be improved.
Today I was at the committee where I made it clear that we have
a six point action plan that will fix this problem. I know it is
going to work.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister talks about administrative deficiencies. We are
certainly seeing a whole lot more than that. The Prime Minister
has doled out cash in his own riding for years. It is hard to
expect high standards from ministers when their boss is breaking
the rules left, right and centre.
Pierre Thibault was promised $600,000 of that money without even
filing any paperwork with Human Resources Development. That was
the same month the 1997 election was called.
Is the Prime Minister protecting his minister because he knows
he has been directly involved with this billion dollar bungle?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member's insinuations are totally unwarranted
and baseless. The Prime Minister is not personally doling out
money. He is not directing any improper conduct. He wants
things to be done properly.
If one listens to the Minister of Human Resources Development,
one will see that she has in place a six point program approved
by the auditor general to deal with any administrative problems
that have been identified.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the six point plan sounds like a miracle. It should have been in
place a long time ago. This has been going on for years.
There is a huge correlation here between who gets grants and who
makes donations to the Prime Minister's campaign. Thirty-three
per cent of those donors to the Prime Minister's personal
campaign can be linked to grants, contributions or contracts.
That is one-third or one out of three.
I would like to ask this again and we would like an answer. Is
he protecting the minister because he knows he had a hand in this
boondoggle, or is he just afraid that he is going to kill the
goose that lays the golden egg? Which is it?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, day after day the hon. member is laying eggs with her
questions. Furthermore, they are definitely not filled with
gold.
1420
On the other hand, if we look at the Globe and Mail and
the Reform Party's own chart on the transitional jobs fund it
shows that grant approvals under the transitional jobs fund
actually went down before the last election. Does this party not
believe in its own report? The Reform members do not know what
they are talking about.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has a shameful record of interfering
in HRDC handouts and he does share the blame for this billion
dollar bungle.
For example, an HRDC memo directed that Thibault be given money
because the Prime Minister asked for it. It says “It is a
difficult decision as we depart from regional guidelines. I
would like to give another answer but I have no choice”.
How can the Prime Minister justify using public moneys as his
private slush fund?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again the assertions of the hon. member
are totally unfounded and incorrect.
Let us understand that she is talking about the transitional
jobs fund. There are many partners involved in those projects.
In every case the province, the Government of Quebec, has to
approve these projects.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, what does the minister mean by unfounded? I read from
the memo sent out of her own office. It says “It is a difficult
decision as, in the two cases, we depart from regional
guidelines. Sometimes difficult choices have to be made but in
this case we have to maintain the proposed level of financing. I
would like to give another answer but I have no choice. The
Prime Minister promised this at a press conference”.
How can the minister stand up and say that these charges are
unfounded and blow them off?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is talking about the
transitional jobs fund, she will know that the federal government
is just but one partner in all those undertakings. She will also
know that in every case the Government of Quebec must concur. We
know that government is no friend of our Prime Minister.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-20
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
have received the answer of the leader of the government in the
House regarding the committee on Bill C-20.
The government refuses to let the committee travel throughout
Quebec and Canada. Yet, committees often travel across the
country to discuss various issues. I can think of the prebudget
consultations, the Nisga'a treaty and the free trade agreement.
There was even a committee that visited prisons. Soon a
committee will leave to discuss fisheries, and it will even go
to Washington.
Why does the government refuse to allow the committee on Bill
C-20, a bill dealing with the democratic rights of Quebec, to
travel throughout Quebec and Canada to hear what the public has
to say?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the hon. member
opposite and to his parliamentary leader, the decision in this
regard is made by the whole House, but there must first be a
recommendation from the parliamentary committee.
I also stated the government's position regarding that issue. We
feel that we can adequately deal with this issue right here in
parliament, given all the resources available, the broadcasting
of committee hearings, the parliamentary resources at our
disposal, and we can also deal with all the other important
issues—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
have negotiated often enough with the leader of the government
in the House to know that, once the government has made a
decision, its members toe the line or else they get shoved
aside.
In the letter that he sent to us, the government House leader
says that the government is convinced that holding hearings in
Ottawa will allow the committee to hear quality witnesses,
without any waste of time.
What the government is saying to all the groups and individuals
who appear before a travelling committee is that it is a waste
of time. Is this what the House leader is telling us?
1425
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is hardly in a
position to talk about people shoving others aside. As regards
this issue, we feel that we have all the resources necessary for
that committee to do a good job.
We agree with the broadcasting of committee proceedings. We have
already agreed to ensure a good representation of witnesses,
without causing delays, and the member should recognize that we
are in good company when it comes to not letting a parliamentary
committee travel.
Indeed, we need only think about Bill 99, which is now before
the Quebec National Assembly—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
remind the leader of the government that if the committee on
Bill 99 is not travelling, it is the fault of the Quebec
Liberals.
This government wants to use its bill to give the Government of
Quebec lessons on clarity.
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
How can the government claim to give such lessons in clarity to
the Government of Quebec when, in a referendum it is organizing
itself on February 27 and 28 regarding the Montagnais in Lac
Saint-Jean—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.
Mr. Daniel Turp: I repeat my question for the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs.
In a referendum to be held on February 27 and 28 regarding the
Montagnais of Lac Saint-Jean, the government is asking two
questions that contain nearly 200 words in three paragraphs with
reference to an agreement and with a single response choice. Is
this the government's clarity?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have to look at the question, but I can tell the
member that, even if he is right, he cannot shroud the choice of
a country in confusion.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
minister insists that all of the information about HRDC grants
and contributions on a riding by riding basis is public and that
all you have to do is ask.
I am asking on behalf of Canadians who want that information.
Will the minister table now the information on the master list of
up to date, comprehensive information on grants and
contributions? Will she table the master list now?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I want to convey to
the House that there is no master list because grants and
contributions change on a day by day basis. We are talking about
individual projects that may be approved one day and then
completed in a week or a year.
Today in committee I made the commitment to work with members of
parliament to ensure that they get the information they want
through their local human resources development branch office.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I guess
we now know what the minister's notion of efficiency is. Every
single Canadian who wants this information should charge around
the country and request it on 301 separate ridings. Surely that
is part of what is wrong with what is happening.
Would it not be more efficient for the minister to simply table
the complete, up to date information in the House of Commons now?
Canadians have a right to know. That is what we are here for.
1430
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member could make it easy for us
all if she would just put a question on the order paper and
detail the kind of information that she wants, for what day and
for what project. I would be glad to respond to it.
[Translation]
The Speaker: I forgot a question, I am sorry. The hon. member
for Beauharnois—Salaberry.
* * *
BILL C-20
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is
another question about clarity and who can teach whom what.
With respect to the Montagnais referendum, article 8.3 of the
proposed agreement, on which the Montagnais are going to vote
later this month, defines majority as 50% plus one.
If 50% plus one is good for Newfoundland, if it is good for the
Montagnais, why would it not be good for Quebec?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, naturally, in a democracy, the more important the
decision, the higher the bar must be set. There is no decision
more important than breaking up a country. The bar for making
such a decision must be set very high.
In the case of this sort of agreement, as in the case of the
Nisga'a, it would not have been 50% plus one at all. Nor is it
50% plus one in Mont-Tremblant.
It would therefore be wrong to reduce democracy to a simple
formula of 50% plus one. And this is what the supreme court
pointed out in the opinion it released on August 20, 1998.
* * *
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, departmental officials have confirmed that the
minister received extensive briefings when she took over the
department in August. The minister's executive assistant also
confirmed that an extensive briefing took place in that month.
This morning the minister herself confirmed that she received
extensive briefings in August. Yet she has stood in the House
and repeatedly stated that she knew nothing of any problems until
the date of November 17.
Would the minister have Canadians believe that she knew there
were no problems in her department until the date of November 17?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I will confirm is that the final
internal audit that looked at the seven programs, grants and
contributions in my department as we have shared with the House
over and over again was presented to me in its entirety on
November 17.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, it is not even close. I am not asking about the
audit. I will ask the minister again, when was she first made
aware of problems within her department? There is an absolute
inconsistency here. When was she first made aware of problems in
her department?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, which specific problem is the hon. member
referring to?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that
answer was absolutely disgraceful. Let us see if we can get a
straight answer now from the minister.
The memo from Robert Thériault made it very clear that the
Department of Human Resources Development was willing to bend the
rules specifically for the Prime Minister.
My question is when will the minister admit that her department
knowingly broke the rules so that there could be tax dollars
funnelled to the Prime Minister's riding for his political slush
fund?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is no
evidence that rules were broken.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
memo was very clear. It says specifically that “it is a
difficult decision as we depart from regional guidelines”. This
is from Robert Thériault in her office.
How can she get off saying that there is no evidence that any
rules were broken? It is very clear.
1435
When is she going to quit hiding and being evasive and stand up
and act like a minister and tell Canadians the truth, that her
department funnelled money to the Prime Minister because he
wanted to make sure pork got to the people in his riding? That
is all it is.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I categorically reject the premise of the
hon. member's question.
When we talk about transitional jobs funds, we find those
projects in ridings of members of all political stripes. We find
those projects in areas of high unemployment. We know that those
projects have made a difference in the lives of Canadians who
otherwise would not have opportunities to work.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development
read the damning report on her department on November 17, 1999.
Yet, on December 16, she said in this House, and I quote:
How could the minister make such a statement when the report was
full of examples of projects regarding which many mistakes had
been made in terms of their approval?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said on a number of occasions,
the question to which the hon. member refers came from the
opposition about a specific project. In that specific case no
moneys flowed until the appropriate approvals were made.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, what can the minister say to justify her
December 16 statement in this House, considering that a list
provided by her department mentions the case of Bas Iris in the
riding of Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, which received $5.9 million
in grants in 1997-98, but for which approval was only given
several months later, on February 4, 1999?
The Speaker: As I said yesterday, the questions are very
specific. If the hon. minister wishes—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. If the minister wishes to answer the
question, she may do so.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, only to say that I agree with you and
that I would be glad to take the details from the hon. member and
respond to that.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
have documents that we have talked about which say that right in
the minister's office the rules have been broken. The rules have
been waived to put money into the Prime Minister's riding.
Is the minister prepared to show up before the public accounts
committee which I chair with a document in her hand to tell me
why the rules were not broken and why she should not resign?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify again that the
transitional jobs funds in which we have invested and
participated in the Prime Minister's riding were approved by a
number of partners. They were approved by private sector
investors, by public and private financial institutions, by
provincial governments as I have recognized before, by local
communities. These projects are not just supported by the federal
government but by the communities, by the private sector and by
the provincial government in the province of Quebec.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
not sure if that was a yes.
Is the minister trying to say that the other people who
participated in this grant application were duped into paying
their share of the funds when the rules were being broken right
in her office?
Again, will the minister come to the public accounts committee—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. The question, please.
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, my question for the
minister is will she come to the public accounts committee and
explain why the rules were broken or offer her resignation?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I say again that when we look at these
jobs funds we know there are other partners that are there.
These are not the full and single decision of investment by the
federal government.
1440
I have great respect for the committees of this House. Indeed I
was before the human resources committee this morning and will be
returning there next week and again after that.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Human Resources Development learned of the mess in her
department on November 17, 1999, she says.
Why, one month later, did she tell us in this House that no
money had been paid out before it was authorized, when
Industries Franc Bois in the riding of Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle
had received $400,000 in 1997-98, funding that was not approved
until much later, namely, on February 1, 1999? Why did she tell
us that?
The Speaker: Once more, the questions are specific. If the
hon. minister wishes to respond, I give her permission.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again there are two things. One, with
reference to my comments in the House on December 16, they were
made in regard to a specific project. Two, if the hon. member
would like to table the details of his particular project on the
order paper, I would be glad to respond.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on the subject
of specific projects, the Prime Minister, like the minister,
like the government, never hesitates to cite specific examples
in the ridings of opposition members.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: When we want answers, it is too specific.
We do not take that, Mr. Speaker.
She must know what is going on in her department. She will tell
us why she told this House it did not happen when it did in
dozens of cases, not in just one, in dozens.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the hon. member wants details on this specific case, I will try
to help him.
I have in hand a letter that says “I fully support the project
submitted”. And it is signed by Roger Pomerleau, a former Bloc
Quebecois member.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[English]
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday we discovered that TJF lists are being altered and
manipulated.
The Somalia scandal proved that this government cannot be
trusted to protect against the destruction of important
documents. The HRD minister and her officials who were
responsible for this billion dollar bungle are still in custody
of all that relevant data.
What measures is the minister putting in place to ensure that
this does not become Somalia II?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I reject the premise of the hon. member's
question.
I want to recognize that it is the Reform Party that says that
my department, the Department of Human Resources Development
Canada, is the best department in responding to access to
information requests.
1445
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
to see the smirks of Liberal members opposite over the last
couple of days about a billion dollar absconding of Canadian tax
dollars is enough to make me puke.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I think we are ratcheting up the rhetoric. I
would ask members to please cool it down, and I would ask the
hon. member to please go into his question now.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: This minister is in a position to
destroy or alter the documents that could cost her her job. Under
any other circumstance, people under investigation lose their
access to that potentially damning evidence. She has tried to
cover up this billion dollar bungle for months now—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The question, right now.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Why should we trust this minister
to guard the documents that could seal her very fate?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over the course of the day there are
issues about information and lists and all kinds of things. What
I would like to ask the hon. member to do, if he wants particular
and specific information, is to let us know what it is he wants.
Put it on the order paper. Initiate an access to information
request.
When people just say “give us information” it is very
difficult for me to satisfy their wishes when I am not sure what
they specifically want.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
panicked as they are, the members opposite are trying to shift
the responsibility to those who sponsored the projects. The
responsibility lies with those who administer them. She is the
one responsible.
She makes statements here in the House on her honour, invoking
her ministerial accountability. We have given several examples
that contradict what she said on December 16, and I quote:
That is what she said. She can laugh and be smug all she wants,
but if she has an ounce of pride left, she should resign.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would only ask that the hon. member and
others in his party go back a few questions in Hansard and
they will see that the response was made to a particular project
that was raised, if I am not mistaken, perhaps by their
opposition.
My response was to that particular project, and I say again in
that case that no moneys were transmitted until the appropriate
approvals were in hand.
* * *
[Translation]
CONFERENCE OF WOMEN IN THE FRANCOPHONIE
Mrs. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada was
represented at the first conference of women in the Francophonie
in Luxembourg. Could the Secretary of State responsible for
Francophonie tell us what commitments were made at this initial
meeting?
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Western Economic
Diversification) (Francophonie), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I took
part, along with my colleague, the Secretary of State for the
Status of Women, and our partners from Quebec and New Brunswick.
Canada undertook to step up its efforts to promote
democratization, human rights and equality of the sexes. Canada
also undertook to eliminate the obstacles to women's
advancement, such as violence and limited access to political
positions.
Canada is a leader in this area. It intends to continue to
exercise that leadership.
* * *
1450
[English]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is no wonder that HRDC is in such a sad state. The Prime
Minister set the standard in his own riding. He announced grants
before they were even approved. They did not even exist. They
did not even have applications.
The captain of the ship sets the standard for its crew. It is
painfully obvious that the mess we are in today started in
Shawinigan at the orders of the Prime Minister. Is that why he
is so desperate to keep his first mate, the minister, afloat?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister, the Liberal caucus and the
government believe the Minister of Human Resources Development is
doing an outstanding job and should continue with her duties.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will notice something very
interesting. The Reform Party has completely abandoned any
questions on the audit report. They are trying to raise
questions about something that was satisfactorily answered before
Christmas. It shows the bankruptcy, the emptiness of the
Reformers' attack, because they have admitted that when it comes
to the audit report what the Minister of Human Resources
Development has said is totally—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): I am glad
you think the minister is doing a great job because you are the
only one.
The Speaker: Order, please. All remarks should be
directed through the Chair.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, political interference in the
granting process has cost taxpayers millions. We know the Prime
Minister has interfered with the awarding of grants and
contributions. We know the minister of human resources has
awarded grants to her own riding even though it did not qualify.
Political decisions forced officials to break the rules. Why
were these officials not insulated from this undue—
The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, no wonder the hon. member refuses to deal any more with
the audit report. The audit report in question found that $1
billion had not been lost, that the department knew where the
money went. It did not find any misappropriation. Furthermore,
it did not find any political interference.
If the hon. member wants to pay attention to the audit report,
the subject of questions all week, then why does he not go back
and read it and admit that the premise of his questions is
entirely wrong?
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
today in committee I asked the Minister of Human Resources
Development why she was covering up information by refusing to
give full disclosure to the Canadian people of the government's
master list of all grants and contributions. The minister would
not commit in committee to a full disclosure.
I would like to ask the minister again why she is hiding behind
this information, because clearly a master list exists. Is it to
prevent a full comparison and disclosure of the political
management of this fund?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that it is a
matter of record in the public accounts, all the expenditures in
the ridings and the grants and contributions from my department.
All the expenditures, over $100,000, are there. They are public.
In committee today I offered to members that if they wanted more
detailed information I would be glad to satisfy their request as
long as I know the specifics of what they are looking for.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, what
Canadians want is honest answers, not creative accounting. Not
accounting for over $30 million of public money is a serious
breach of trust. The only people who do not think it is serious
are the cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister.
I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. How much
money do his cabinet ministers have to mismanage before he thinks
it is a problem: $50 million or $100 million? How badly does a
Liberal cabinet minister have to mess up before she is asked to
resign?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has said, and she agreed, that there
are problems of administration, of record keeping. The Minister
of Human Resources Development has put in place a six point plan,
approved and supported by the auditor general, to deal with these
problems.
Furthermore, the auditor general is carrying out his own audit
and he will be reporting in the fall, including to the public
accounts committee. We consider every dollar of taxpayers' money
to be important. The premise of the hon. member's question is
therefore quite wrong and she should withdraw that premise.
1455
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, this
morning, the minister continued to say that she had not been
informed of the problems at HRDC until November 17.
This morning, in committee, an official chose his words very
carefully and said that she had not been informed of the report
until November 17.
When was the minister informed that there were problems with the
transitional jobs creation fund?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are more important details to be
understood here. When the hon. member is speaking about the
transitional jobs fund, that is one of the programs that was
reviewed under the internal audit.
With reference to the transitional jobs fund, I have answered
numerous questions in the House about specific projects in that
regard. If the hon. member checks Hansard he will see that
I was also forthcoming about administrative problems with that
program; but with regard to the internal audit, that is about the
grants and contributions in seven large programs, and that
information I received on November 17.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
let me try the question in English. I will try to ask it slowly
and I will try to be specific, if I can.
We are looking for an answer, not for when the minister found
out about the report. We want to know when she found out that
there were problems with the transitional jobs fund.
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out, I was answering
questions in the House about the transitional jobs fund and I was
always forthcoming.
I want to remind the hon. member about the importance of this
program. I will quote back to him his own words when he wrote:
I'll tell you in my riding TJF works quite well. I have a high
unemployment level in my riding and TJF has proven to work and
the bureaucrats certainly in my riding work very hard and they
are very transparent.
* * *
HOME CARE
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, research shows that current home care
policies and practices have in many cases contributed to the
impoverishment of women.
How is the Secretary of State for the Status of Women committed
to ensuring that women are not adversely affected by the home
care system?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, recent research has shown that
women are adversely affected in many ways by home care because of
the amount of care they do in the home in unpaid work.
Status of Women Canada is leading the world in research about
unpaid work. In the 1998 budget the Minister of Finance did
commit to give tax credits to those who did unpaid work in the
home looking after those who were chronically ill.
The issue of home care policies is a provincial one. At the
federal-provincial-territorial ministers' meeting my colleagues
are committed to bringing these issues to their specific
provincial colleagues.
* * *
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, one of
the worst abuses of HRDC money was the grant for $2.3 million
handed out to an unknown recipient. Nobody knows who got that
money.
What is even more interesting is that this unknown recipient
just happened to be living in the minister's riding. How can the
minister justify taking hardworking taxpayers' money and turning
around and writing cheques to persons unknown?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member can provide me with
the details of the information he has then I would be glad to
respond to him.
* * *
1500
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: Today is a very special day for us. I
would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence
in our gallery of a group of truly extraordinary Canadians. They
are the recipients of the Order of Canada.
[Translation]
Thanks to their exceptional achievements in various fields,
these people have really made a difference for our country and
their successes enhance the life of all Canadians.
[English]
We have invited the recipients to be with us. I am going to
call out their names and I would ask them to stand and remain
standing. I would ask hon. members to withhold their applause
until I have introduced all of these extraordinary Canadians.
They are: Boyd M. Anderson, Annette Helene Augustine, Glen
Merlyn Bagnell, Geoffrey E. H. Ballard, William John Antliff
Bulman, Howard Reid Cable, Michael Christian de Pencier, France
Gagnon Pratte, Sheldon Galbraith, André Jacques Galipeault,
Irving Russell Gerstein, Elva Kyle, Gisèle Lamoureux, Reverend
Garth Warren Legge, Helen Manyfingers, John Reid Morden, René
Racine, Stanley George Reynolds, Marie Ada Shales, Shirley
Sharzer, John Hebden Todd, Jocelyn Demers, Henri Dorion, Frank
Hayden, Eva Sophie Prager, Donna M. Scott, Jeffrey Simpson and
Robert Daniel Steadward.
These are the recipients of the Order of Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: I will be holding a reception in Room 216
for these extraordinary Canadians and I would invite members to
attend.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if the government House leader could share with
the opposition what legislation he plans to place before the
House for the next week or so. As well, could he enlighten us as
to just when he plans to use time allocation to shut down debate
for the 60th time in this place.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot predict
when the opposition will cause obstruction the next time. It is
pretty hard for me to predict obstruction by the opposition, so I
will not be able to answer in any great detail the last point.
1505
Dealing with the agenda, I would like to share the weekly
business statement with all of my colleagues in the House, and it
is as follows.
This afternoon we will conclude the second reading debate of
Bill C-20, the clarity act.
Tomorrow morning we will consider Bill C-10, dealing with
municipal grants, and in the afternoon we will consider the
Senate amendments to Bill C-7, the criminal records act, which we
began and unfortunately were not able to conclude yesterday.
With time permitting, we could consider Bill C-6, but more than
likely we would delay that in an effort to complete Bill C-7. As
a matter of fact, we could delay consideration of Bill C-6 for
another day.
Next Monday we will return to report stage of Bill C-2, the
elections bill. Hopefully we will complete that bill on Monday.
The Minister of Justice intends to introduce tomorrow an omnibus
bill which deals with modernizing benefits. I expect that the
House will commence debate at second reading on the omnibus bill
on Tuesday.
Next Wednesday we will likely debate Bill C-11, respecting the
Cape Breton Development Corporation.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
TABLING OF DOCUMENT
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The hon. Deputy Prime Minister quoted from a letter earlier
today.
[Translation]
I would like to table that letter from former MP Roger
Pomerleau, who very much insisted that we support that industry,
Bas Iris, in the riding of Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies. I am sure
the House wants to see that document and that is why I am happy
to table it.
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.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wanted
to contribute to this debate because I firmly believe that, as
indicated in the title of the bill, we must give effect to the
requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion offered by the
Supreme Court on August 20, 1998.
However, I notice that, in this debate on the possibility of a
future referendum, political observers tend to ignore one
question that is at the heart of this debate: Why hold another
referendum?
The only thing that motivates separatist leaders is that they
are convinced that the small gap that separated the yes from the
no on October 30, 1995 could be filled in a future referendum.
You will certainly agree with me that it is not the best of
reasons. So I will explain, in the time available to me, why
another referendum should not be held in Quebec.
Let us agree on one thing. In the minds of separatists, it is
absolutely essential to hold another referendum because Quebec's
situation within Canada is unbearable, or so they say.
This is false. Quebec was able to develop in every sphere of
human activity and to assert its distinctiveness, particularly
in terms of language and culture. Quebec has become a dynamic
and modern society within Canada. In short, Quebec can be itself
and develop within Canada.
Since it took office, our government has undertaken several
initiatives to modernize the Canadian federation. Here are a few
examples.
1510
First there is the limit on the federal spending power, to which
the government committed in the 1996 throne speech. The social
union agreement reached on February 4 of last year actualized
this commitment and restricted the federal spending power.
This agreement, into which the Bouchard government refused to
enter, will nevertheless ensure the viability of our social
programs. It highlights principles which are based on
fundamental Canadian values such as equality for all, respect
for diversity, fairness, human dignity, individual
responsibility and solidarity.
The agreement provides, among other things, that new social
policies should not hamper mobility. Also, governments undertook
to be more transparent and accountable to Canadians.
Then there is the regional veto legislation and the distinct
society resolution. This resolution recognizes that Quebec is a
distinct society within Canada, with a French-speaking majority,
a unique culture and a civil law tradition.
Moreover, the primary federal transfer to the provinces was made
less uncertain through the creation of the Canada health and
social transfer.
Equally important are the agreements entered into with the
provinces and territories, including Quebec, in the area of
labour and on the implementation of the national child benefit
system, to say nothing of the harmonization of the federal
legislation with the new Quebec civil code.
The agreement on internal trade is another accomplishment our
government is very proud of, as we are of the very successful
infrastructure works program.
In the area of international trade, team Canada efforts have
resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in business for our
companies.
The constitutional amendment regarding school boards in Quebec
showed that we do not hesitate to go the constitutional way when
warranted.
As you can see, we did not idle, watching the train go by. We
took action, and Quebecers know it. What is very clear is that
Quebecers do not want another referendum. Should there be
another one, Quebecers want the question to be very clear. This
is what recent polls have shown.
[English]
On October 30 a CROP poll released by the federal government
revealed that 93% of Quebecers feel it is reasonable to require a
clear question and 72% a clear majority. Sixty-one per cent
believe that the 1995 question was not clear and 60% feel that
50% plus one does not constitute a clear majority. In my
opinion, those numbers speak volumes about Quebecers' opinions on
a future referendum.
Other data from the poll shed some light on Quebecers' so-called
right to declare independence unilaterally. On November 23, Mr.
Bouchard claimed that the supreme court's opinion opened the door
to such a possibility in the event of bad faith on the part of
the Government of Canada and that Ottawa's desire to have the
requirement for clarity respected was an example of such bad
faith.
Nevertheless, the majority of the CROP poll respondents, 66%,
believe that it is reasonable that Quebec conclude an agreement
with the rest of Canada before declaring independence. Only 23%
felt otherwise.
A majority of 68% believe that the opposition parties in the
National Assembly of Quebec should have a say in how the question
is worded.
Fifty-eight per cent believe that the Government of Canada has a
role to play in that regard, as do 56% with respect to the rest
of the country. Sixty per cent of Quebecers feel that a slim
majority for the yes would leave the province deeply divided.
Eighty-four per cent believe that it would be difficult to effect
secession under those conditions.
1515
[Translation]
These figures show the deep confusion generated by the
separatist proposal. Since they refuse to banish the spectre of
the referendum, the federal government has no choice but to
remove any ambiguity, should another referendum be held. It is
in this context that the government wants to make clear under
which conditions it would have to negotiate the secession of a
province.
Mr. Bouchard has reiterated his commitment to hold another
referendum. Mr. Facal has said that he is working on this full
time. In a speech delivered on November 28, the Prime Minister
has encouraged the Bouchard government to set aside its
referendum plans for the next four years.
The PQ government and the Bloc Quebecois immediately refused.
But, according to a CROP poll carried out last September, a
strong majority of 71% of Quebecers do not want another
referendum.
Quebecers do not want another referendum, and they do not want
separation. They have the right to demand that governments deal
with their everyday problems. That is what our government is
doing with determination, but, because of the referendum
obsession of separatist leaders, we have no choice but to deal
with this issue that concerns the survival of our country.
[English]
We believe that our country is worth saving and that the
well-being of Canadians is worth addressing, not in a spirit of
division but in a realistic and constructive way. A referendum
would only divide the population. Instead, we should be devoting
all our energies to children, to education, to the environment
and to all the challenges of the next century.
We have a duty to clarify the circumstances under which our
government would feel bound to negotiate the secession of a
province. I am convinced that on a clear question, Quebecers
will say, for a third time, that they do not want to separate
from Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as a
teenager, I was drafted by my aunt Annette to campaign for the
Liberal Party of Quebec and I had the opportunity to get to know
the Prime Minister when he was first elected in Saint-Maurice.
In those days, his local opponents were the Creditists led by
Réal Caouette. As early as 1963, I was barely 17 years old then,
the Prime Minister was known to go after his fellow Quebecers
pretty hard. As the years went by, he even spit repeatedly on
his people, the people of Quebec.
I also remember when he was Minister of Finance in 1977 and
wanted to interfere in matters of provincial jurisdiction and to
deal directly with the municipalities. The government of the day,
under the direction of René Lévesque, was adamantly opposed to
it. Reaffirming his intention to humiliate his people even more,
he directly distributed cheques in the amount of $85 to all
Quebecers.
1520
When he was Minister of Justice, a few years later, in 1982, the
Prime Minister worked with Pierre Trudeau—the ineffable Trudeau
to whom no one is indifferent in Quebec—to patriate the Canadian
constitution, with complete disregard for Quebec, even though he
knew that a resolution had been passed almost unanimously by the
national assembly condemning the Trudeau government.
In those days the Prime Minister was the Minister of Justice
and he was right beside the Queen to sign the patriation papers.
We remember him on the pictures.
In 1990, with his two faithful allies, Clyde Wells, the premier
of Newfoundland, and Sharon Carstairs, the leader of the Liberal
Party of Manitoba, he succeeded in aborting the Meech Lake
accord, which included only the five minimum conditions, as the
then Quebec premier, Robert Bourassa, liked to described them.
That was a minimum. The Prime Minister, the then leader of the
Liberal Party of Canada, succeeded in aborting the Meech Lake
accord.
No wonder this Prime Minister is so unpopular in Quebec. Some
will say: “Sure, but he succeeded in getting elected in the
riding of Saint-Maurice”. We know that his election in the riding
of Saint-Maurice has had a very high cost for Quebec taxpayers.
Besides, the Minister of Human Resources Development is now
disclosing little by little what has been the cost of the 1997
election in the riding of Saint-Maurice to allow the Prime
Minister to win his seat, by a very narrow margin incidentally.
He was very grateful indeed for, a few months after becoming
Prime Minister here in Ottawa in 1993, he appointed Sharon
Carstairs to the Senate. As you know, this is a very nice gift.
She is still young. Up till the age of 75, she will enjoy job
security and a nice income with great working conditions.
In 1992, what role did he play in the referendum on the
Charlottetown accord? The trademark of this Prime Minister, the
hon. member for Saint-Maurice, has always been that of spitting
on and belittling his people, the Quebecers.
I also like to recall, in case some of my colleagues opposite
might have forgotten about it, the famous legislation initiated
by the Senate, Bill S-31, which forbid the Caisse de dépôts et
placements du Québec to take control of Canadian Pacific. A
ceiling of 10% was set. Shareholders could not hold more than
10% of the shares.
This same Prime Minister was willing to change this agreement,
this legislation, to allow his friend Schwartz from Toronto to
take control of Air Canada and Canadian. When it is good for
others, he agrees. His trademark has always been to clobber
Quebec to gain important supporters outside Quebec.
In 1982, while 73 Liberal members agreed to the patriation of
the constitution here in the House of Commons, elected
representatives in the Quebec National Assembly voted almost
unanimously to condemn this unilateral move.
Today, fortunately, there are 45 BQ members from Quebec in this
House who will oppose Bill C-20 as strongly as they can and try
to bring amendments to the bill. After that, we will hope
Quebecers will decide their own future.
In 1968, the Liberal Party of Canada took office with a
francophone, Pierre Trudeau, at the helm. Our country has been
run by a francophone from Quebec, a Quebecer, for the past 32
years, except for the nine months during which Joe Clark was in
office. Of course, there were a few prime ministers who were
designated, but I am talking here about those who were elected.
1525
Once again, Bill C-20 was initiated by one of our own, and this
is sad for Quebecers. It was initiated by the Prime Minister,
the hon. member for Saint-Maurice, and his colleague and friend
whom he recruited in 1995 in a byelection and who serves as
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, a distinguished
professor. Both are francophones from Quebec, and they are
clobbering us.
Bill C-20 is undemocratic. It does not respect the will of the
people.
It is an undemocratic bill because it makes the democratic will
of Quebecers dependent on all of Canada.
At present, 101 of the 103 hon. members on the Liberal side are
from Ontario. If we were to follow the spirit and letter of the
Prime Minister's bill, the Ontario members of this House would
have a veto over Quebec's future. That is undemocratic, because
the federal government gives itself the right to refuse to
recognize the vote of Quebecers.
If 56% of Quebecers voted yes, the very next day they would say
that 57% was required. If we had 57%, they would say that 58% was
required.
Earlier, a member from Ontario said “We have the right to do
everything we can to keep Canada as it is right now”. Everything
we can.
That “everything” is a very dangerous word in the mouth of that
man. We do not know to what extremes that government may be
prepared to go to try to keep Canada as it is right now.
Bill C-20 is also undemocratic because it gives more weight to a
federalist vote than to a sovereignist vote. With 50% plus one,
one person equals one vote. However, if the limit is set at 60%,
a federalist vote is worth 1.1 or something like that. At 70%,
that vote would be worth 1.2. That does not make any sense.
In my family, we are seven. There is one federalist and six
sovereignists. The federalist could boast “It takes two of your
votes to cancel mine”. That does not make any sense.
In the co-op system, the rule was “one man, one vote; one woman,
one vote”, and now the government wants to change this rule. I
hope we will not let it do this.
I would like to quote what Mackenzie King said after the 1949
referendum in Newfoundland, where 52.3% of the people voted to
join Canada. Incidentally, the other provinces had not been
consulted to know if they wanted to have Newfoundland join the
Confederation.
So, shortly after the Newfoundland referendum that showed 52%
support for that option, Mackenzie King, then Prime Minister of
Canada, said “The result of the plebiscite in favour of the
union between the two countries is clear beyond any potential
misunderstanding”. Mackenzie King was satisfied with 52.3% and
did not see any reason to persist in believing there might
possibly be some disagreement.
I suggest the Prime Minister take a look in the mirror tonight,
that he think, get out of his official residence and travel to
Quebec. If he is afraid to go to Quebec, he should at least visit
his riding of Saint-Maurice. He should go to restaurants in
Shawinigan and have breakfast with Quebec people to hear what
they think of his Bill C-20.
1530
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This
debate is so important to the governing party that I can see
three of its members on this side of the House. Besides, I do not
see a quorum.
And the count having been taken:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: I now see a quorum. We may resume debate.
[English]
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is with
sadness that I have to participate in the debate on Bill C-20, a
bill designed to promote the breakup of Canada. We have much
more serious problems.
Mr. John Bryden: Yes, Joe Clark.
Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague across the
way made a speech earlier and I listened intently even though I
was not in agreement with what he was saying. I would like him
to offer me the same courtesy.
We have much more serious problems, such as child poverty,
health care, the fisheries crisis on the east coast and many
other issues that this intellectually bankrupt government is
ignoring by putting up this smoke screen called the clarity bill.
[Translation]
Since the beginning of Confederation, every one of our
distinguished prime ministers, whether Liberal or
Conservative, all worked very hard to strengthen and improve
the Canadian union.
Every one of these great individuals managed to understand that
Canadian unity must prevail over everything else. Of course,
there have been many difficulties, but thanks to their tenacity
and that of the Canadian people, those difficulties were
overcome.
Bill C-20 is nothing but an insult to all Canadians who devoted
themselves to making Canada the best country in the world. For
the first time in our history, a Canadian government has
introduced a bill describing how a province can separate from
Canada.
Would it be that this Liberal government is more interested in
finding ways to break up than to strengthen the union?
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I would like you to call for
a quorum. I find it improper that this government, which says
that this bill is the most important—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis
knows very well that the rules do not allow us to mention the
absence of members of the House, and the Speaker must always
apply the standing orders in that regard.
And the count having been taken:
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: There is no quorum. Call in the
members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: I see a quorum.
Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, there is currently no
provision in our Canadian constitution for the separation of a
province from the rest of Canada but for the first time in
history this bill would have Ottawa spell out the steps toward
secession.
1535
Our Prime Minister is playing a very dangerous game with this
unity bill. Not only is he taking a very confrontational
approach with the people of Quebec, he is also encouraging the
rest of the Canada to take a similar stand.
If one of the reasons the people of Quebec wanted to separate in
the first place was because they felt alienated by the rest of
Canada, this clarity bill will certainly add to their sense of
frustration and isolation.
Like many Canadians, I keep asking myself why the Prime Minister
would introduce a clarity bill at this time when support for
separatism in Quebec is dwindling. When the Quebec economy is
struggling and support for Premier Bouchard is on the decline,
when Quebecers are concerned about the economy and the Quebec
government is struggling to find solutions, what does our Prime
Minister do? He purposely decides to antagonize the people of
Quebec. He graciously gives Premier Bouchard an issue that will
deflect—
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it seems
we are the only members in this House listening to the hon.
member's speech. Out of respect for our colleagues who have a
few things to say, I think it would be appropriate if we were
all here or, at the very least, if there was a minimum number of
members in the House. Therefore I ask you to check to see if we
have a quorum.
And the count having teen taken:
The Deputy Speaker: I see that we have a quorum. The hon. member
for West Nova.
[English]
Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Speaker, it is quite difficult to
keep one's train of thought when one keeps being interrupted.
Mr. John Bryden: It is okay, you are reading a speech. It
is easy to read a speech.
Mr. Mark Muise: I have a point of view and I
wish my friend would respect it.
What does the Prime Minister do? He purposely decides to
antagonize the people of Quebec. He graciously gives Premier
Bouchard an issue that will deflect attention away from the
economy.
[Translation]
The Prime Minister says that he wants a clear question should
Quebec decide to hold another referendum. That is his excuse for
introducing Bill C-20.
Is there anyone in this House who can explain, or even better,
show the clarity in this bill? The Prime Minister says that a
50% plus one majority is not enough to destroy our country. I
ask him what is a sufficient majority. Is it 65%, 75%, 80%? Who
knows? Who can answer this question?
Is the Prime Minster afraid to indicate a percentage to
Quebecers? Is he afraid of their reaction? If the answer to this
question is yes, why did he introduce this bill?
[English]
I certainly do not oppose the need for a clear question.
Quebecers and all Canadians deserve a clear understanding of the
consequences associated with separation. However, we must
continue to focus our undying attention on uniting all Canadians
rather than focusing on ways of dividing us as a nation.
Yesterday in question period, our Prime Minister was responding
to a question put forth by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, when
he said “We hope that the bill will be passed as quickly as
possible because it is not a major concern of the public right
now. The public wants us to address other problems, such as job
creation, health, tax relief, things of interest to Quebecers and
the rest of Canadians”.
Truer words were never spoken. If the Prime Minister really
believed what he said in question period, why on earth did he
introduce Bill C-20 in the first place? The Prime Minister
himself said that we have much more serious problems in the
country than the need for a clarity bill. What about the crisis
in health care, the farm crisis or the crisis in the Atlantic
Fishery? What about child poverty, homelessness, the crisis in
education and the huge student loan debt? What about the crisis
in the Human Resources Development Department?
The only reason the Prime Minister introduced the clarity bill
is because he is somehow looking for some kind of an achievement
that he can leave behind as his legacy.
From the serious problems I have just mentioned, the Prime
Minister will have a legacy. He will be known for leading
Canadians into one crisis after another.
[Translation]
Our Prime Minister himself admits that we have much more urgent
problems than Bill C-20.
Why then are we spending so much energy on Bill C-20 when the
health system in Canada is on the brink of disaster?
1540
Do we think a sick person whose case is a medical emergency and
who cannot find a doctor cares about Bill C-20? Do we really
think our children who suffer and live in poverty care about
Bill C-20?
Do we think the lobster fishermen in Atlantic Canada who are at
risk of losing their livelihood care about Bill C-20? Do we
think the western farmers who are at risk of losing their farms
care about Bill C-20?
I am positive the answer to all those questions is no.
[English]
When I was reading this piece of legislation and thinking about
what it means, I had difficulty believing that I was in Canada,
this great country that we all work and strive to keep strong and
make better. I just cannot imagine that we are dealing with this
piece of legislation when we have so many other more serious and
pressing issues to deal with. When is the government going to
start focusing its attention on the real problems facing the
country?
Let us go back for a moment and focus our attention on the
question of clarity. The bill is supposed to clarify the rules
in the event of another referendum, but what exactly does it
clarify? We have already said that it fails to define what
constitutes a clear majority. Bill C-20 does not even come close
to defining what a clear question would be. What would happen if
a province were to secure a clear majority in support of a
question not approved by the House of Commons? Does anyone know?
These are but a few of the many questions that the so-called
clarity bill fails to answer.
[Translation]
As I said before, Bill C-20 is a very dangerous bill, which
threatens the future of our country. I am against it and I
invite all members in this House to vote against it.
Let us work together to strengthen our country, not destroy
it.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to touch on a couple of issues surrounding this debate
that I, and probably many of my constituents, find somewhat
puzzling.
The first issue was made by the speaker representing the Tory
Party who just spoke. Many people in Ontario and in my community
are asking why Joe Clark is opposed to this and why the Tory
Party is divided on this particular issue.
If we take a look at this historically, we should ask ourselves
why Brian Mulroney invited into his bed—
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Speaker, we have important things to say
about Bill C-20 and there will be a very important vote on it
later this afternoon.
If Liberal members are interested in knowing what we have to
say, if they are serious, I would ask them to help maintain the
quorum and be present in this House.
I ask you to check that we have a quorum.
And the count having been taken:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: We have a quorum.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I will try to keep some
kind of flow. It might be difficult if this is the game we are
going to be subjected to all afternoon. Members know full well
that members are busy in committees and in meetings doing the
work they were sent to Ottawa to do. A member's job is not just
to sit in this place and participate by listening to a speech. As
we all know, these speeches are available in Hansard.
It is available electronically as it is occurring and we know
that.
1545
Tactics which simply waste the time of the House by continually
calling quorum are silly. They do a disservice to the Canadian
people and the people of Quebec who want to know what other
parliamentarians from around the country think about the bill. I
would hope members opposite would allow all members in this place
to at least finish their speeches so there is a flow to their
comments.
I was making the point that historically it is easy to
understand why the Bloc members are against the bill. It is what
they are dedicated to and there is no puzzle there.
It is difficult to understand what the problem is with the
Conservative Party. But if we look back in history, we realize
the deal Prime Minister Mulroney made with the devil when he
invited the current premier of the province of Quebec to sit at
the cabinet table. It is not hard to understand the current
leader of the Conservative Party who has yet to show enough
courage to stand for election to come into this place. There is
a byelection coming up in the not too distant future in St.
John's. Member after member of that party are defecting and
resigning because they cannot tolerate the positions being taken.
It is not hard to understand if we look at it from a historical
perspective where the current leader of the Conservative Party is
coming from, but it is shameful.
Tories in my riding ask me what in the world is going on and why
they are doing this. It is obvious what the strategy of the
leader is, even though he did not have the courtesy to discuss it
with his caucus prior to announcing it to the rest of the world.
His strategy seems to be that maybe the Conservatives can get
some votes in Quebec and try to rebuild the party if they oppose
this bill. It is shameful politics of the worst kind that they
would play with the future of this country and the future of that
province by taking that kind of a position.
What is it that really upsets the separatists and keeps them
motivated? I think about the united alternative conference to
which I unfortunately was dispatched as a representative, as a
spy for the Liberal Party. It was like sticking a thousand pins
in my eyes but I went. I was astounded to see separatists were
actually invited to be headline speakers at the united
alternative—
An hon. member: We invited you.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: You did not invite me. Had they
invited me, I would have been delighted to deliver a calm and
rational speech on exactly what they should be doing with their
united alternative.
The people in Quebec remember the advertisements the Reform
Party ran in the last election. They attempted to suggest that
somehow one's place of birth should disqualify one from standing
to be prime minister. People remember that. I know Reform
members have attempted to distance themselves from that. I know
that by coming up with some new party whatever it is called, that
again they are going to try to distance themselves, but the
people of Quebec will not forget that.
I do not know which is the right word, sympathy or empathy, but
having been here for two years and having worked with members of
the Bloc and knowing them, I have a much better understanding of
what it is that motivates them. They get motivated tremendously
when they see the kind of intransigent position that a party like
the Reform Party takes in relation to what amounts to a third of
the country which is obviously and arguably one of the most
important parts of the country. The province of Quebec provides
us—
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order, as you can see, once again the members
of this government do not even have the decency to be present to
listen to their own colleagues who want to speak to Bill C-20. I
ask you to check that we have a quorum.
And the count having been taken:
The Deputy Speaker: I see that we have a quorum. The hon. member
for Mississauga West.
1550
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, maybe they could learn to
count. They are worried about 50% plus one but they cannot even
count how many members are in the House.
To get back to the point, I have developed some understanding.
In fact one of the members of the Bloc who I met outside asked me
if I was going to speak. When I said yes, he said to please stay
calm. So I will because there are some things that must be said.
I hear Bloc members say in the House that it is undemocratic to
require a clear question. My constituents do not understand that
and ask what is wrong with that and why would they object to the
question being clear? They say that 50% plus one should be the
deciding factor. If in fact they believe that 50% plus one should
be the deciding factor, why do we continue to debate another
referendum?
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): You are a block head.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney: I am not a square head as the member
seems to indicate.
Let us go back to the results in 1980. The results were that
59.6% said no. I do not know what part of that they do not
understand; 59.6% said no and 40.4% said yes. That is more than
50% plus one.
The question was quite remarkable in the 1980 referendum: “The
Government of Quebec has made public its proposal to negotiate a
new agreement with the rest of Canada based on the equality of
nations; this agreement would enable Quebec to” and it goes on
and on. It asks if the people agree with giving the Government
of Quebec the authority to negotiate some kind of arrangement
with the rest of Canada.
The answer was clear then. The separatists did not agree with
the answer. They did not agree with the results so they worked
over a 15 year period to develop another question. That question
is shorter and a little more clear. Remember that those members
are asking for 50% plus one. The question is: Do you agree that
Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer
to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the
scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the
agreement signed on June 12, 1995? Yes, 49.4; no, 50% plus one.
If they agree that it should be 50% plus one, if that is the
argument, then they should accept the results. The results are
very clear.
I do not accept the premise that anybody wants a referendum
other than Premier Bouchard, a few of the henchmen that work with
him and perhaps the members of the Bloc. In all of the polling
results we have seen, it is absolutely clear that the population
of Quebec does not want it. They want to get on with other
things in their lives. They are the same as everybody else.
Their Visa cards are overextended. They are trying to get the
kids through school. They have to buy a new car or get the old
one fixed. They have the same problems everybody has whether they
are in St. John's, Newfoundland or Victoria or Saskatchewan.
I believe that they are saying, “Once and for all, would you
people in Ottawa put a question that is clear and let us get an
answer to this”. That is what this bill says. It is absolutely
beyond me why anybody would object to that.
The history of this issue is quite interesting. People talk
about the recent history. They talk about the referendum when
Mulroney tore the paper in half and caused people to get upset.
They talk about the closeness of it, but this has been going on
in this great country for years and years and years.
I consider myself to be a Pearsonian Liberal. Lester Pearson,
the great prime minister of this country, did some things but I
am out of time and I cannot share those comments about the Right
Hon. Lester Pearson.
1555
I will say that it is fair to have a clear question and it is
absolutely fair to have a clear result. Finally, if we are going
to have a referendum, once and for all we can put this issue to
bed and get on with developing the greatest nation in the world.
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is an honour and a pleasure for me to rise today in the House to
speak to Bill C-20, the clarity bill. The full title of the bill
is 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. That title explains very well the objective
of this legislation. However, I think the bill could just as
easily be entitled an act to respect the rights of Quebecers and
the rights of Canadians in any future referendum on Quebec
separation.
As the justices of the supreme court noted, the subject matter
of this issue “requires us to consider momentous questions that
go to the heart of our system of constitutional government”.
Momentous questions indeed. There are few topics that this House
of Commons has dealt with that touch the fibre of our
constitutional being more than the bill we have before us today.
This bill speaks to an issue that is fundamental to Canada and
Canadians. As the justices stated, the court is engaged in
rendering an advisory opinion on certain legal aspects of the
continued existence of the Canadian federation.
At the risk of being somewhat literary, this bill grapples with
the age old question raised in Hamlet's soliloquy, to be or not
to be. That is indeed the very real question. If the Canada we
know, one of the great democracies of the world, an oasis of
tolerance and compassion, a respected leader in the family of
nations, is not to be, then the process by which we arrive at
that tragic conclusion and the implications of such a decision
must be absolutely clear to each and every Canadian.
If one sets out to dismantle one of the greatest countries on
the face of the planet, there is no room for confusion. There is
no room for obfuscation, wiggle room or interpretation. At every
step of the way there must be the very highest level of clarity.
Clarity is not something that is simply owed to the people of a
province wishing to separate. It is owed to the people of Canada
and indeed the international community. No country exists in a
vacuum, so the precedent that is set by the enactment of this
legislation forms an important contribution to the body of
international law on the issue of secession.
There is no doubt that, as they said at the U.S. Democratic
convention in 1968, the whole world is watching. The issue of
secession is one which the international community has a great
interest in. There are few areas in the world which have not
been affected by both successful and unsuccessful secessionist
movements. The recent developments in Chechnya or the other
former Soviet republics, East Timor, Eritrea, Slovakia, the
breakup of the former Yugoslavia, Kosovo, and Catalonia in Spain
illustrate the importance of this issue to the world at large.
A recent article in the respected British magazine The
Economist dealt with the issue of secession. Among the points
this particular article made on secession were:
It should be carried out only if a clear majority (well over 50%
plus one of the voters) have freely chosen it, ideally in an
unbiased referendum held in tranquil circumstances.
The Canadian principles of peace, order and good government are
deep democratic traditions. Our federalism and constitutionalism
are expressed throughout this five page bill.
As I mentioned earlier the purpose of this bill is to give
effect to the requirement for clarity set out in the opinion of
the Supreme Court of Canada. I believe it would be helpful to
understand precisely the nature of the questions which the
supreme court addressed and some of the other comments that the
court made. There were three questions.
Question number one: Under the constitution of Canada, can the
national assembly, legislature or Government of Quebec effect the
secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?
Question number two: Does international law give the national
assembly, legislature or Government of Quebec the right to effect
the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally? In this regard
is there a right to self-determination under international law
that would give the national assembly, legislature or Government
of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada
unilaterally?
Question number three: In the event of a conflict between
domestic and international law on the right of the national
assembly, legislature or Government of Quebec to effect the
secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally, which would take
precedence in Canada?
How did the court answer the questions? On question number one
the supreme court response was unequivocal. It stated:
The Constitution vouchsafes order and stability, and accordingly
secession of a province `under the Constitution' could not be
achieved unilaterally, that is, without principled negotiation
with other participants in Confederation within the existing
constitutional framework.
Again on the question of unilateral secession the court made
some statements that may be of particular interest to those on
the Bloc and Reform benches.
The court stated:
Democracy...means more than simple majority rule. Constitutional
jurisprudence show that democracy exists in the larger context of
other constitutional values.
1600
At another point in the judgment the court stated:
The referendum result, if it is to be taken as an expression of
the democratic will, must be free of ambiguity both in terms of
the question asked and in terms of the support it achieves.
On question number two the court is again unequivocal, and I
quote the reference:
The National Assembly, the legislature or the government of
Quebec do not enjoy a right at international law to effect the
secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally.
Interestingly the court does note the possibility of what it
describes as “an unconstitutional declaration of secession
leading to a de facto secession”.
However, I believe with great conviction that Canadians
regardless of what province they live in have the unassailable
right to expect that their provincial government will in every
instance respect the rule of law and the constitution. To do
otherwise would turn a secessionist initiative into an illegal
and unconstitutional activity that could very well have
unfortunate and unintended consequences.
On question number three the court stated that since there was
no conflict between domestic and international law there was no
need to address that issue. In reading the judgment of the
supreme court one is struck by how reasonable the court's
conclusions were. In every respect the court has provided a
judgment that is in keeping with the letter and the spirit of the
constitution.
What precisely does the clarity bill do? It provides for the
House of Commons to determine the clarity of a referendum
question on the secession of a province and sets out some of the
considerations to be taken into account in making its
determination. It prohibits the Government of Canada from
entering into negotiations on the terms under which a province
might cease to be part of Canada if a referendum question was
unclear.
Following a referendum on secession in a province the bill
provides for the House of Commons to determine if a clear
majority of the people in that province had clearly expressed a
will to cease to be part of Canada, and it sets out factors to be
considered in making its determination. It also prohibits the
Government of Canada from engaging in negotiations with a
province unless a clear majority had clearly expressed its will
to secede.
Finally the legislation recognizes that the secession of a
province requires an amendment to the Constitution of Canada,
which in turn requires negotiations involving all provincial
governments and the Government of Canada. It also requires that
certain matters such as the division of assets and liabilities,
border changes and the rights of aboriginal peoples and other
minorities must be addressed before a constitutional amendment is
proposed by a minister of the crown.
The clarity bill is about honesty. It is about providing the
conditions for an honest result on any future referendum. If one
takes the time to read the supreme court judgment, one will find
the document explains our rich constitutional history and
analyzes our most important constitutional principles. The
inherent duty of our constitution is that it provides and
protects fundamental rights within the framework of federalism,
the rule of law, democracy, the protection of minorities and
constitutionalism.
I would like to end my remarks with a statement that is referred
to in the supreme court judgment from one of our most illustrious
Fathers of Confederation, Sir George-Étienne Cartier. Those
opposite who oppose this measure would do well to reflect upon
his words when he said:
In our federation, we will have Catholics and Protestants,
English, French, Irish and Scots, and everyone, through his
efforts and successes, will add to the prosperity and glory of
the new confederation. We are of different races, not so that we
can wage war on one another, but in order to work together for
our well-being.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
honoured to stand in Canada's parliament to speak in this very
important debate. Frankly I wish sincerely that all members of
the House would pay very close attention to what is going on.
This is as important a matter as I believe we can ever face in
this country. It is the existence of our country itself. For
some members of our assembly not to be paying full attention, not
to be involved and not to be thinking this through is
unfortunate.
I recognize that some are in committees and others have
constituency work in other parts of the country. That is part of
the role of a member of parliament. Perhaps it would have been
better had we given more time to debate. I cannot but help begin
my intervention this afternoon by pointing out to everyone who is
listening that once again the government has invoked a form of
closure.
1605
Technically it is called time allocation, which is worse than
closure, because it gives us less time for debate than closure
does. I cannot understand. On an issue as important as this one
we need to give ample time for not only parliamentarians to speak
to it but for Canadians in general to become involved in the
debate to discuss the issues, the pros and the cons, and to seek
input into study of the bill. We need to travel across the
country to see what Canadians want or aspire to in their country.
I am disgusted at the Liberal government and its total disregard
for the democratic process in the House. It has a bill that is
supposed to be related to a democratic process with respect to
the possible secession of a province, yet it has trodden on the
ability of parliamentarians to debate it fully not only here but
around the country. It is very distressing. Although many
members cannot possibly be here today, I know they would be here
tomorrow, the day after, and on other days to take their turn
expressing themselves.
This bill is called the clarity bill in its vernacular. I have
heard several speakers say this afternoon that the bill lacks
clarity. I am afraid I have to agree. Basically all it says is
that there shall be clarity in the wording of the question and
there shall be a clear majority. Neither the wording of the
question nor the level of the majority nor the number of voters
who have to participate in a vote for it to pass are spelled out.
It is a very undefined bill. All it says is that after the
decision is made by the province choosing to secede parliament
will study the question within certain time limits. It is not
clear to me whether the bill even says that the threshold will be
declared in advance. I think that is the intention of the bill
but it could be interpreted otherwise. That is not a very good
way of handling it.
I am certainly not willing right now to speculate on what a
clear question should be. I can think of some things that
perhaps one could put forward, but I hesitate to do it because of
the possible ramifications of not making a wise choice. This
needs a lot of careful thought. The question should be clear and
succinct. When it is determined it should be included in the
bill and debated in the House. The kind of question that would
be considered clear should have been in Bill C-20.
Then there is the question of what proportion of the people
should vote for it. Some said 50% plus one vote. Some said 58%.
Some said two-thirds and so on. The goal of Bloc members is to
separate from Canada. I accept that as their goal but I dislike
it. One thing I must say about them is that in the six years I
have observed their work in the House they have not wavered from
their goal. Pretty well in every speech on no matter what topic
they are able to weave into it that they want to get out of
Canada. I regret that. If they ever do that it will pull out
part of the heart of this country.
I am with members who say it is regrettable that we have to have
this bill. Yet the reality is that a number of citizens,
primarily in Quebec, have sent more separatists members here than
other members.
1610
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, what
is happening today in this House is appalling. It shows contempt
for the Quebec people and it is an insult to democracy. Where are
the Liberals who want to shut down debate on this bill? We are
debating Quebec's future—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The hon. member knows it is improper to make reference to the
absence of members. I hope he will comply with the standing
orders.
Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Mr. Speaker, I ask you to check that we
have a quorum.
And the court having been taken:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: I see a quorum.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, when one talks about democracy
not all votes require a simple majority. For a number of years I
have been chairman or president of different organizations and we
used Robert's Rules of Order, which are quite different
from the rules here. In Robert's Rules of Order there are
a number of occasions where an action to be taken requires more
than 50%. For example—
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Fournier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order
again, we still do not have a quorum. I do not know who has been doing
the counting. I was told we needed 20 members to have a quorum
and at present we do not have 20 members in the House.
And the count having been taken:
The Deputy Speaker: I see that we have a quorum. The hon. member
for Elk Island.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, this is difficult. I do not
use notes when I speak. I try to use my head instead. It is
difficult to keep the train of thought of going but I think I
will manage.
There are a number of occasions in those rules when two-thirds
are needed. For example, a motion that has already been dealt
with cannot be revisited unless two-thirds of the people present
in the meeting vote in favour of it. Some instances require more
than 50%.
The requirement is clear. The people of the province proposing
a question should know in advance what is the number. We expect
at least 60% of people vote. We will not consider this a clear
vote, an expression of the people, unless there is at least 50%
plus one, 60% or 66%. Whatever it is, it must be determined in
advance and it must be fair.
This is a slight diversion from the topic but it has to do with
the mathematics involved. We very seldom have a 100% turnout at
an election. Sometimes it is as high as 80% in some ridings and
it is less than 50% in others. The question in a democracy is
how to represent the will of the majority. It is possible, if
people do not show up to vote in an election, that the proportion
of those who do show up could be a skewed sample.
One could use a truly random sample. For example, we could look
at the HRD scandal before us these days. Apparently the auditors
there used a random sample. Then it is quite accurate to
attribute the characteristics of the sample to the whole
population. However, in a general election we do not have a
random sample. People come out to vote if they feel strongly
about an issue. Those who do not feel very strongly might just
not bother. They are not as highly motivated to attend.
For example, in some ridings people who are really against the
government might show up in greater numbers to vote to kick the
government out than those who are tepidly in favour of the
government. That poses a risk to the sitting government member
in a riding because he or she may not get supporters out in the
same numbers as those who want to arrange for the turfing of that
member.
That happens particularly in an election or in a vote which is as
emotion bound as that of a secession vote.
1615
I know that my time is almost up, but I want to use the closing
minutes to say a few words to the people of Quebec. I do not
think I will be successful in persuading the separatist members
here, although I wish I could.
Physically we have to live together. We cannot take a giant
chainsaw, cut around Quebec and float Quebec away so there will
be some distance between us. Physically we will stay together,
no matter what kind of political arrangement we have. We need to
make sure that we have the best possible political arrangement
for that situation.
I believe that people in the province of Quebec, as in all other
provinces, should be able to so arrange their affairs within
confederation so they do not want to leave. The policies of the
Reform Party, the policies of the new Canadian alliance, are such
that I believe Quebecers could live with them if they took the
time to read them, study them and give them careful thought, and
not simply say with a prejudiced point of view “We are not going
to listen to them”.
I plead for a fair hearing of what we are actually saying. They
can look it up on the website and ask for literature. We are
certainly willing to share it. I know that we can come to a
place where we can live together co-operatively.
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to speak about the events which led to Bill
C-20. Before I do so I would like to inform the House of a
message that I received from my constituents during the recess.
They were strongly in favour of this bill. In fact there were a
number of my constituents who came to me and asked why it had
taken our government so long to table this legislation.
I would like to look back to the circumstances of the 1995
referendum to explain why our government decided to table Bill
C-20. I note that some of my colleagues noted that we do not
take great joy in having to take such a step, but we do so
because the separatist leaders continue to brandish the threat of
another referendum on separation.
Let us look back for a moment to the 1994 general election in
Quebec, which was won by the Parti Quebecois. At that time the
PQ strategy was to jumpstart the process leading up to Quebec
separation, even before Quebecers had a chance to vote on it in a
referendum. Then Quebec Premier Jacques Parizeau claimed that
Quebec had a right to self-determination, which would allow it to
separate from Canada unilaterally. Draft legislation along those
lines was actually tabled in the national assembly.
In an attempt to whip up support for its option the Parizeau
government struck numerous political commissions in every region
of the province. Following several weeks of so-called
consultations the commissions reported back to the national
commission on the future of Quebec, which submitted a report to
the PQ government on April 19, 1995. That was also the time of
the notorious Le Hir reports, which would become one of the most
incredible propaganda exercises ever undertaken in Quebec's
history.
In the spring of 1995 Mr. Parizeau's Parti Quebecois changed
tack regarding the referendum question, deciding to adopt a vague
concept of association included in an eventual question. And so,
the sovereignty partnership was born.
It is noteworthy that Mr. Parizeau had hitherto opposed any such
concept, wanting instead to concentrate on sovereignty. In an
interview in 1990 he stated:
As far as I'm concerned, the question that should be asked the
next time around ought to be on Quebec sovereignty, not on “Do
you authorize us to negotiate to see whether....” No, no. I
think it has to be clear....We've now come to the point where we
have to ask Quebecers how they feel about sovereignty.
Faced with certain defeat in the referendum, he chose instead,
for political reasons, to adopt this concept of partnership.
On June 12, 1995, Jacques Parizeau, Lucien Bouchard, then leader
of the Bloc Quebecois, and Mario Dumont, leader of the Action
démocratique du Québec, signed a tripartite agreement on that
basis.
Under that agreement the Government of Quebec, following a vote
in favour of its option, would undertake negotiations with the
rest of Canada to establish a political and economic partnership.
Those negotiations would be limited to one year at the most, at
which time sovereignty would be proclaimed whether or not a
partnership had been concluded. The agreement also stipulated
that the Government of Quebec could terminate the negotiations at
any time if it deemed they were not progressing quickly enough.
1620
After having told a diplomat that the referendum process was
like a lobster trap that Quebecers could not get out of, Mr.
Parizeau was now hiding his true intentions. Despite this new
partnership spin, all he really wanted was a yes vote that he
could then use to make a unilateral declaration of independence.
This is not conjecture on my part. The proof is there.
On the very day of the referendum, Mr. Parizeau taped a
televised message to the population in which he clearly stated
his intention of going ahead with a unilateral declaration of
independence. He confirmed that intention in his memoirs. It is
there in black and white on page 286. He stated:
It will be noted that any speeches I have made pertaining to
negotiations with Canada have been so worded to allow for such a
declaration of sovereignty. And I have never made any
undertaking, either in public or in private, not to make a
unilateral declaration of sovereignty.
That is what the famous concept of partnership really boiled
down to.
Anybody could have had their own interpretation of this concept,
but Mr. Parizeau would have thrown the concept out the window at
the first opportunity. Fortunately, he never got that chance
because a majority of Quebecers refused to fall into that trap.
The confusion surrounding a unilateral declaration of
independence says a lot about the agreement of June 12, 1995,
which was one of the cornerstones of the yes side's referendum
campaign in 1995. Mr. Dumont, who was one of the signatories to
the agreement, stated recently that he has never been a
sovereignist.
As for Mr. Parizeau, he went on to make yet another statement in
his typical style. He wrote:
It's often been said that the question in 1995 wasn't clear.
It's true, as I've said many times, that the question I would
have preferred was the following: Do you want Quebec to become a
sovereign (or independent) country as of...?
There we have Mr. Parizeau's deep-rooted conviction about the
concept of partnership. It is noteworthy that the only time Mr.
Parizeau ever toned down his hard line separatist rhetoric was at
the very time he was in a position to put it into practice.
What was the question that was asked in the end? It was set out
in Bill 1, an act respecting the future of Quebec, and it reads
as follows:
Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having
made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political
partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of
Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?
Right away we can see a key difference in comparison with the
referendum process that was undertaken in 1980. Unlike that
earlier process, the Government of Quebec provided for only one
referendum in 1995. Let us bear in mind that under the latter
formula sovereignty was not conditional upon a political and
economic partnership with the rest of Canada. Whether or not any
agreement were reached with the rest of the country, sovereignty
would be inevitable. It would come about no matter what
happened, and Quebecers would have no say on the final product.
There would be no second vote.
In an attempt to clarify the question, the Quebec Liberal Party
proposed a number of amendments to Bill 1. All of those
amendments were rejected by the PQ government. At the same time,
the Prime Minister of Canada stated that the question was
ambiguous and that a majority of 50% plus one would be too small
to effect sovereignty. We all know the outcome.
On October 30, 1995, 50.48% of Quebec voters answered no, while
49.42% voted yes. Of special note are poll results obtained in
the last days of the campaign, indicating that one out of five
yes voters truly believed that Quebec would still remain a
Canadian province in the event of a yes victory.
The separatist leaders' campaign of smoke and mirrors worked
very effectively.
1625
For all of those reasons our government is duty bound to act now
to ensure that Quebecers will not have to bankroll yet another
misinformation campaign to get them to support separation, an
option which they have twice rejected.
The purpose of the bill tabled by the intergovernmental affairs
minister is to ensure that the referendum process is clear and
that Quebecers can make a choice secure in the knowledge that all
the cards are well and truly laid on the table. They have the
right to vote on a clear option and a crystal clear question.
They are entitled to the assurance that they will never lose
their Canadian citizenship and all of the other advantages they
enjoy as Canadians, unless they have renounced Canada loud and
clear.
This is the purpose of the clarity act. As its name suggests it
seeks to ensure that the choice to be made is clear to everyone.
Since the separatist leaders will not support that objective, our
government has decided to enact legislation to ensure that our
democratic tradition is not usurped by double talk and double
dealing.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the
hon. member for Mercier—East Timor.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak on behalf of a vast majority of my constituents.
In everyday life, a number of them are political opponents of
mine who do not necessarily share my burning desire to live in
my own country, Quebec, as soon as possible. However, this time
they share my opposition to Bill C-20, introduced in this House
on December 10 by the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, the
Canadian Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. The bill is
entitled 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.
Moreover, what happened this morning in this very House shows
that the members of the Liberal Party of Canada, the party in
power, have completely lost track of what it means to be
democratic.
Democracy is first and foremost a concept that people must have
between their ears. If it is not there, they can talk about it
all they want, but they will not change anything in reality. They will
then adopt undemocratic behaviours while pretending to serve
democracy and to defend the public good. Moreover, they will do
as this government is doing. They will become arrogant and go as
far as to prevent their opponents from expressing their views on
what the government considers to be a decisive issue for the
future of Canada through a gag order.
I regularly hear on the radio or on TV and read in the
newspapers, both English and French, statements by the
member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville saying that Quebecers do not
want to hear about a referendum in the foreseeable future.
Has this member, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs,
already forgotten that he himself revived the debate on this
issue in Quebec and Canada? If this minister is as sensitive to
public opinion as he claims to be, why did he introduce a bill
that nobody wants in Quebec?
We will conclude today the debate at second reading of Bill C-20.
Unfortunately, I will not have time to get to the core of the
issue because I have no choice but to express my outrage at a
government that, day after day, tramples on democracy and never
misses an opportunity to lecture other countries. The people of
Canada and Quebec must keep a close eye on their federal
government, because the absence of democracy originates in its
own backyard.
In the last general election, in June 1997, if the Liberal Party
of Canada had won only 151 seats, the leader of this party and
member for Saint-Maurice would have agreed to form the government
on the basis that his party had a majority. A majority of 50%
plus one would have been enough to take office.
The Prime Minister, the member for Saint-Maurice, and his Minister
of Intergovernmental Affairs find that a majority of 50% plus
one is not enough, while they belong to a party that got only
38% of the vote in the last general election.
The government must stop adding fuel to the flame. The hon.
member for Saint-Maurice and the hon. member for
Saint-Laurent—Cartierville must stop antagonizing the people of
Quebec.
The Prime Minister and his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
must stop trying to gain the support of the Canadian people by
denigrating the men and women of Quebec.
1630
With Bill C-20, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs wants
to define the rules of the next Quebec referendum. This is clear
interference in the democratic process that Quebec has put in
place to decide its own political and constitutional future.
Also, the minister would have us believe that his government now
recognizes the possibility for Quebec to break away from Canada
when in fact his legislation is designed to make it increasingly
difficult, if not impossible, to hold another referendum in
Quebec.
Obviously, the former great professor will claim that I am not
interpreting his bill properly and that he never intended to
prevent Quebec from holding a referendum when and as it sees
fit. But in reality, and notwithstanding what he claims so
loudly every chance he gets, should Bill C-20 be passed, any
potential referendum Quebec may want to hold would have to
take into account the minister's wishes as set out in Bill C-20.
Accordingly, I call upon members opposite who are moderately
intelligent and who did not enter politics to be the sidekicks
or the puppets of the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville. I
call upon the intelligence of those members across the way who
still know the meaning of the word “liberal”. I call upon those
who are still able to express themselves within the Liberal Party
and have not fallen victims to the gag order their party leader
or their House leader imposes on them.
When the people of Canada and Quebec have fully understood how
horrible this bill is, they will know what to do at the
ballot box at the next general federal election, as they did
regarding employment insurance at the last general election.
But it will be too late for our colleagues opposite, who will be
sorry they did not have the courage to speak up.
There is still time for the government majority to intervene and
make its Prime Minister and his Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs see reason. There are at least three good reasons
the government should withdraw Bill C-20.
First, Bill C-20 is designed to give the House of Commons the
power to disallow a legal and legitimate act of the national
assembly and decision of the Quebec people.
We talk about a right of disallowance because Bill C-20 gives
the House of Commons the power to determine by resolution
whether it pleases the House to find that the question is clear
and that a clear majority of the people of Quebec have clearly
expressed their will to separate from Canada.
We talk about a right of disallowance because Bill C-20 accords
the House of Commons the power to reject a motion by which the
national assembly would adopt a referendum question and to
censor the result of a referendum without a clear majority,
again in the opinion of the House.
Considering the intentions of the government on clarity and the
question to be put to the aboriginal people on the Pointe-Bleue
reserve in Roberval, no wonder doubts are cast on this
government's ability to assess clarity.
Here is the question to the voters in the band:
Do you accept and approve the settlement agreement dated, for
reference purposes, the 14th day of December, 1999, between the
Montagnais band of Lac-Saint-Jean and Her Majesty the Queen in
right of Canada?
Do you agree to sanction, pursuant to sections 38(1) and 39 of
the Indian Act, the absolute transfer to her Majesty the Queen
in right of Canada by the Montagnais band of Lac-Saint-Jean all
rights and those of its members pertaining to all parcels of
reserve lands on concession IX of the Ouiatchouan township?
By voting yes, you authorize the Chief of the Montagnais band of
Lac-Saint-Jean or any other member of the band council duly
authorized by resolution to sign on behalf of the band council
and its members all documents and to take all measures required
to put into effect the settlement agreement and the absolute
transfer of all parcels of the reserve lands on concession IX of
the Ouiatchouan township. “Yes or no?”
So much for the clarity of this government.
Second, Bill C-20 denies Quebecers the freedom to choose their
political destiny, and particularly the freedom to include in a
referendum question—if such is the desire of the national
assembly—an offer of partnership with the rest of Canada.
1635
Bill C-20 is an attack on Quebec's freedom of choice because it
limits the constitutional and political options for the future
of Quebec by rejecting partnership outright.
In section 2 of Bill C-20, particularly subsections (4) (a) and
(b), we see that the real political objective of the Liberal
Government of Canada is to deprive the Government of Quebec of
the possibility of presenting to the people of Quebec a modern
version of independence and sovereignty.
The purpose of Bill C-20 is to prevent Quebec from extending its
hand to Canada with the offer of a form of partnership which
would be fully compatible with the new status of a sovereign
Quebec.
As several analysts have pointed out, we are dealing with a
strategy, a ploy of the Prime Minister and his Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, intended to place before Quebecers the
following alternative: status quo or secession.
The third reason is that Bill C-20 denies the universally
accepted rule of 50% plus one for the majority, and the
fundamental rule of the equality of votes.
Since you are signalling that my time is nearly up, I would
like to repeat that this bill ought to be withdrawn before the
institution that is the House of Commons is condemned for having
broken an essential principle, the equality of everyone before
the law.
[English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we will have completed writing in the days ahead yet
another chapter in our nation's history, a chapter that would
make the fathers of Canadian Confederation proud of us, knowing
that their legacy cannot be undone under a cloud of confusion and
uncertainty of the people's will and outside our shared societal
values.
I refer to Bill C-20 before us, also popularly known as the
clarity act. It is a bill that sets clear parameters under which
Canada would negotiate the secession of a province from our
federation. The bill clarifies the binding relationship among
the provinces and between them and Canada as a whole.
Fate would have it that we are here on this premiere sitting of
the House in the new century debating a bill that our forefathers
surely would not have anticipated in 1867 when they began to
build a country called Canada. Nor could their wildest
imaginations have foreseen that a nation so young would twice
face the possibility of the breakup of our country, but prouder
still are we that we should twice withstand the challenge.
Thus I submit that past referenda on the secession of Quebec
speak not of a weakened country, although it is my fervent hope
that such activity will not continue indefinitely from time to
time. Rather, they speak to the will of the Canadian people to
stay together when presented anew with a question.
Yes, they speak to the strength of our nation's democracy. Yes,
they speak to the societal value of respect that we as Canadians
hold for our shared values. In addition to democracy, these
values include federalism, constitutionalism and the rule of law
and respect for minorities.
We need only look at the make-up of the representation in this
House to appreciate how that respect for values is manifest. In
what other country in the world will we find a political party
sitting in the country's highest law-making body and yet
unashamedly bent on separating the province from the country?
Ironic as it sounds, it speaks to our respect for democracy in
this country. It speaks to our respect for democracy in the
House of Commons.
And so it is that the clarity act before us reflects this very
shared value, including respect for minorities. Yes, respect and
not merely tolerance. Unlike tolerance, respect is a more
profound societal value, for it brings with it a sense of justice
and human dignity.
Democracy is abundantly evident in Bill C-20 for it safeguards
the rights of the governed against the totalitarian rule of their
government.
1640
Even as it protects the rights of citizens to have their
citizenship and their province within Canada against the
misguided wish of their provincial government, the bill respects
at the same time their rights to secede from the rest of the
country should they clearly express that will by a clear majority
vote on a clear question.
However, these two expressions of democracy alone, a clear
majority on a clear question, are not sufficient basis for a
unilateral declaration of independence on the part of any
province.
The Supreme Court of Canada says “Democracy means more than
simple majority rule”. It further says “Democracy exists in the
larger context of other constitutional values”, to which I
alluded to earlier. Negotiations, therefore, have to take place
following a clear vote on a clear question of secession from
Canada.
In clear words, the Supreme Court of Canada holds that:
...the democratic vote, by however strong a majority, would have
no legal effect on its own and could not push aside the
principles of federalism and the rule of law, the rights of
individuals and minorities, or the operation of democracy in
other provinces or in Canada as a whole.
These democratic tenets link rights with obligations. While
these tenets recognize the constitutional right of the members of
our federation to initiate constitutional change, there is the
reciprocal duty on the part of other participants to engage in
discussions to address any legitimate initiative to a change in
constitutional order.
However, exercise only of rights without discharging one's
reciprocal obligation puts at risk the very legitimacy of that
exercise.
On the issue of a clear majority, members of the opposition have
argued that 50% plus one is sufficient. If it were so, it would
make it absurd to consider what then would constitute an unclear
majority.
It is obvious that clear majority should mean more than 50% plus
one. In addition to requiring that the vote be a clear majority,
it is also crucial that the question be clear. That is, the
words should mean the same thing for everyone.
Does the bill provide a mechanism for the measurement of
clarity? Yes. The more the question makes clear the will to no
longer remain in Canada and become an independent country, the
more clear the question is. The further it strays from this
requirement of the Supreme Court of Canada, the less is the
question's clarity.
Bill C-20 is a reasonable bill. This is not merely a statement
by the Government of Canada. A cross-section of the national
media has acknowledged this affirmation: from Quebec's La
Presse,, Le Nouvelliste, the Montreal Gazette and
La Tribune to the Halifax Daily News, Fredericton's
Daily Gleaner, the Toronto Star, the Globe and
Mail, the Ottawa Citizen to the Winnipeg Free
Press, the Regina Leader Post, the Saskatoon Star
Phoenix, the Calgary Herald, the Vancouver Sun and
the Victoria Times Colonist.
Truly we can take pride that the federal government has deemed
it proper to bring forward the legislation before us, a bill that
champions the respect for democracy and the rule of law and the
operation of our shared values as Canadian citizens when any
province contemplates permanent departure from the Canadian
family.
This move on the part of the Government of Canada attests to its
decisive and bold leadership on this issue. This was the same
leadership that was evident when the government referred this
issue to the highest judicial tribunal of the land, the Supreme
Court of Canada, and that judgment was applauded even by the
incumbent premier of Quebec.
In conclusion, Bill C-20 exudes the fullest expression of
responsible democracy and reasonableness. It is all these and
more. It embodies the advisory judgment of the Supreme Court of
Canada respecting the reciprocal rights and obligations of the
federal and provincial governments and to govern within their
respective jurisdictions. It embodies in clarity the binding
relationship and shared values among them and among us; a
relationship and set of values that must be considered when a
province contemplates secession from Canada.
A Canadian I am not by birth. A Canadian I am by choice.
Truly, our country was created on mutual consent out of the
diversity of our people, a diversity that has made our nation
rich and from which we continue to draw strength.
Bill C-20 reminds us of our diversity in origin, culture,
language and faith.
1645
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order,
I would ask you to check if we have quorum.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have had a call
for quorum. We do not have quorum.
Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have quorum.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-20 reminds us
of our diversity in origin, culture, language and faith. It
reminds us of the journey of Confederation we have travelled
together, of the pain and suffering we overcame jointly as a
people during that journey and of the societal values we have
come to cherish and nurture as a nation of diverse people.
It is within our gift that we affirm our faith in ourselves as
one people and in our country as one Canada.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to take part in the discussion of this bill to give effect
to the requirement of clarity in the opinion of the Supreme Court
of Canada on the Quebec secession reference case.
This caucus has announced its support in principle. That is not
to say we are not concerned about some aspects of the bill. We
have concerns that in fairness have been heightened by what we
can only see as the shenanigans today of the government members
opposite with the imposition of time allocation. I note that I
will be the second and probably the last speaker of the day from
our caucus that will have an opportunity to participate.
I wonder whether other members do not see and share the
hypocrisy in all of this. After all, here we are with a piece of
legislation that purports to recognize the need to consult all
Canadians as opposed to just those living in the province of
Quebec on this critical issue of secession. And the government
says, “Oh, by the way, we are introducing closure and time
allocation and we have a mere day to debate it”. It is
hypocritical and offensive to all democratically elected members
in the House regardless of which side of this issue members are
on.
Surely there are very few issues in any democracy that are more
important than keeping the country together. To deny hundreds of
democratically elected members the opportunity and the right to
speak in the House of Commons about an issue as fundamental as
this one, I find to be deeply offensive.
We in the NDP caucus approach this piece of legislation with
some regret because it does contemplate the breakup of Canada. We
would have preferred to concentrate on the very many positive
aspects and proposals to strengthen national unity, to improve
democracy and the way in which the country works.
As an aside, I would invite listeners and members opposite to
have a look at the social democratic forum on Canada's future
which the New Democratic Party caucus and party worked on last
year and presented at our convention of August 1999.
In short, we think Canada could do much better and to no small
extent we hold the government responsible.
Some of us remember and were observers in person at what can
only be described as the pathetic performance of the now Prime
Minister when he was running for the leadership of the Liberal
Party in Calgary almost 10 years ago. Who can forget him
welcoming to the box in the Saddledome the then premier of
Newfoundland hours after Mr. Wells had done his bit to sabotage
the Meech Lake accord? I note a causal effect of that was the
immediate creation of the Bloc Quebecois and the resurgence of
discussion of separatism and separation in the province of
Quebec.
The rejection of the Charlottetown accord two years later gave a
boost to the other extreme party in this parliament, the Reform
Party. As a result, any prospects for a plan A have now gone out
the window and we are firmly charted on a plan B course.
1650
Since the election of the government in 1993 we have seen
devolution of powers conferred to the provinces. We have not
witnessed to my recollection any first ministers conferences to
try to resolve some of our problems on the national unity issue.
The social union framework from our point of view has failed to
deal adequately with social rights and certainly does not
accommodate Quebec's desire to opt out of most national programs
with full compensation.
The bill itself talks about two things, a clear question and a
clear majority. In speaking to constituents in my riding of
Palliser, there is not much debate around the clear question. I
think there is a lot of merit in that. A clear majority and what
constitutes that however does give rise to more discussion and
division of opinion. Certainly the bill to that extent does
correspond to the two conditions set out by the supreme court
that would have to be met before the rest of Canada is to be
obliged to negotiate.
The bill is supposed to address what would need to occur for
there to be an extraordinary constitutional negotiation leading
to the secession of Quebec or any other province for that matter.
The court said a clear majority vote in Quebec on a clear
question in favour of secession would confer democratic
legitimacy on the secession initiative which all of the other
participants in Confederation would have to recognize. However,
the court also made a second equally important point, that
Quebec's right to self-determination must be exercised within the
Canadian constitutional framework.
We see in this decision, or opinion more correctly, that
Quebec's right to self-determination must be respected by the
other partners of Confederation, but that this right must be
exercised with respect for the other democratic values that have
guided this country for more than 130 years. In striking a
balance between these two key principles, the supreme court
specified a clear role for the federal parliament in any
secession bid.
As a key actor in the constitutional procedure, parliament does
have an obligation to negotiate in good faith should it be
confronted with a clear will to secede. It has an obligation to
represent the rights and interests of all Canadians in any such
negotiating process.
What needs to be debated, and I assume we will now have to rely
on doing this at the committee stage, is whether parliament in
exercising that right has set the bar on the issue of clarity and
majority too high or whether the bill acts in some other way that
can be judged as unfair or prejudicial to the freedom of the
Quebec people or the rights of minorities in Quebec, such as the
aboriginal community. That is what both our party's consultation
process and parliament's legislative committee need to address.
I do want to recognize and express the concern we have for the
rights of aboriginal people because we do not feel that they are
protected adequately in this bill. Clearly, existing
constitutional protections for aboriginal rights would be
threatened by the secession of any province. The bill does
specify that the question of aboriginal rights would need to be
addressed, but it does not specify a basic level of protection
for these rights that would need to be achieved before parliament
could agree to the secession of any province.
The bill also identifies various actors whose views parliament
must take into consideration in its deliberations on a secession
bid. Unfortunately and notably, aboriginal peoples are not among
those specifically involved. New Democrats will therefore be
seeking ways to ensure that aboriginal peoples are meaningfully
involved in Bill C-20 and that there is stronger protection
provided in the bill for their rights.
We find this absence particularly ironic given the fact that
there is recognition in the bill to the unelected Senate. As
hon. members know, New Democrats on this side of the House have
long argued that an unelected, unaccountable Senate has no place
in a modern democracy.
We see again the hypocrisy of ignoring aboriginal Canadians while
involving the Senate in a way that we think is unconscionable.
1655
Over the years New Democrats have often had to take positions on
so-called national unity issues. I am very proud of the fact
that even at the founding of the New Democratic Party back in
1961 New Democrats affirmed the right of Quebecers to determine
their own future freely and democratically. The NDP is proud to
have been the first federal party to recognize that right.
At the last convention in August 1999 we did adopt a paper that
advocated recognizing Quebecers as a people not in the ethnic and
therefore inappropriate nationalistic sense, but rather in the
sense of recognizing that Quebecers are one of the two linguistic
and cultural realities within which most Canadians live and move
and have their social being.
On these occasions, last year being the most recent, we have
been able to play a constructive role in forcing improvements to
various constitutional initiatives. With the clarity bill New
Democrats are presented with another such opportunity. We
approach this bill in the same spirit of good faith with which we
have approached other initiatives in the past.
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will take the opportunity during this debate to discuss the
legitimacy of the role of the House of Commons in setting rules
that would guide the conduct of the House and of the federal
government within a process that could lead to the secession of
one of our federation's provinces.
On January 19 La Presse published an article by Mr. Claude
Castonguay who incidentally was the minister of health and social
services in the first Robert Bourassa government. He has taken
part in all of the debates on the political future of Quebec
either as a minister, a senator or a concerned citizen.
In his article Mr. Castonguay stated, “Quebec independence
would have profound repercussions for all of Canada and its
citizens, including those in Quebec who want to remain Canadian.
So it should be no surprise that the federal government wants to
set some rules of conduct that it intends to follow in the event
of another referendum on sovereignty. That is the objective of
the recent bill on clarity tabled in the House of Commons”. He
went on to say, “I find it difficult to see this bill which in
no way limits the prerogatives of the national assembly as an
attack on Quebec”.
These are the words of a great Quebecer with vast experience in
political and federal politics whose integrity and political
judgment have earned him the esteem of his fellow citizens
regardless of political stripe.
Mr. Castonguay chose to reflect carefully on the clarity bill
before entering into the debate. More than a month after the
bill was tabled, he acknowledged loudly and clearly what many
believe in their hearts but do not dare to say in public.
It is perfectly legitimate for the Government of Canada, while
respecting the powers of the provincial legislative assembly, to
set rules that would guide its conduct within a process that
could lead to the secession of a province.
Mr. Castonguay's statement is at odds with the many objections
that were raised when the draft bill was introduced and which
have been raised since the bill was tabled that challenge the
very legitimacy of the role of the House of Commons in this
affair. Those secessionist critics are trying to convince people
not only in Canada but on the international scene as well that
the House of Commons is usurping its powers when it takes the
necessary measures to set rules that would guide its own conduct
and that of the federal government in the event that a province
initiates a process that could lead to secession.
Those critics claim that we, the members of parliament
representing all Canadians, are subject to unilateralism of the
secessionist leaders and have no choice but to stand idly by
should our federation break up. Wanting to reduce the members of
this House to mere spectators belies the profound ignorance of
the origins of the Parliament of Canada.
It flies in the face of our political traditions and practices.
1700
I think a little history 101 is in order. In the introduction
of the reference regarding the secession of Quebec, the supreme
court in its wisdom provided some historical background. In the
courts own words:
Confederation was an initiative of elected representatives of the
people then living in the colonies scattered across part of what
is now Canada. It was not initiated by imperial fiat.
The justices of our federation's highest court went on to
describe the circumstances in which our federation was born:
In March 1864, a select committee of the Legislative Assembly of
the Province of Canada...began to explore prospects for
constitutional reform. The committee's report, released in June
1864, recommended that a federal union encompassing Canada East
and Canada West, and perhaps the other British North American
colonies, be pursued—
An opening to pursue federal union soon arose. The leaders of
the maritime colonies had planned to meet at Charlottetown in the
fall to discuss the perennial topic of maritime union. The
Province of Canada secured invitations to send a Canadian
delegation.
On September 1, 1864, 23 delegates—five from New Brunswick,
five from Nova Scotia, five from Prince Edward Island, and eight
from the Province of Canada...met in Charlottetown—The delegates
reached agreement on a plan for federal union...featuring a
bicameral central legislature.
As we know, this plan would take the form of the 72 Quebec
resolutions. Those resolutions were debated and in March 1865
approved by the Canadian Legislative Assembly with the support of
a majority of members from both Canada East and Canada West.
Our parliament and the House of Commons was born out of the
desire of elected representatives of what were then British
colonies to establish a federal government. The federal
parliament and the House of Commons is the tangible expression of
that union, which was freely approved by elected representatives.
As Mr. Lucien Bouchard pout it so eloquently on July 1, 1988,
“Canada was born 121 years ago, as the result of a process that
drew on the sources of dialogue, negotiation, and openness”.
Since 1867 the House of Commons has been made up of members
representing the constituent entities of the federation. Since
1867 members of this House have always taken pains to fulfil
their responsibilities under section 91 of the Constitution Act,
1867, of which the preamble stipulates that they are free “to
make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Canada”.
Yet some people claim that we, the elected members of the House
of Commons, have no say, have no right to take tangible measures
when faced with a threat of secession. If there were to be a
secession they try to deny our role to the point of relieving us
of our responsibilities toward all Canadians.
This line of reasoning by the secessionist leaders is the result
of such mental acrobatics and such twisted logic that the hon.
member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, an academic and expert in
international law, sometimes finds it difficult to endorse it.
On December 8 in an interview on RDI he declined to give a flat
no to the following question:
When pressed by the interviewer to clearly state his position he
had this to say:
The supreme court suggests that Canadian political actors, which
may include the House of Commons, can assess the clarity of the
question and the majority, but not before the referendum.
In closing I would like to quote from an interview in Le
Devoir on January 27 by Mr. Benôit Lauzière who was the
paper's editor from 1986 to 1990. In that interview Mr. Lauzière
described Canada in this way:
It is above all a generous idea...and in my opinion, therein lies
the principle of a modern citizenship. I almost want to say that
we are condemned to ensuring that it works. Because what is the
alternative? The resurgence of every sort of nationalism.
We would be running counter to the western world. There aren't
many places like it in the world. As a citizen, I don't detest
having several orders of government. It comes back to the idea
of checks and balances—
1705
The secessionist leaders must acknowledge that we have the right
to take the measures necessary to prevent our federation, “a
generous idea” wherein “lies the principle of modern
citizenship,” to use the words of this former editor of Le
Devoir, from disintegrating following a referendum with an
ambiguous question and an ambiguous result.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with
emotion and gravity that I take part in this debate.
I will begin by quoting René Lévesque, a former member of the
Liberal Party of Quebec, who said as follows:
We believe that it is possible to avoid the shared impasse of
Canadian confederation by adapting to our situation the two
predominant movements of our era: the movement toward freedom of
peoples, and the movement toward freely negotiated political and
economic groups.
The spirit and the letter of this statement, which can be said
to underlie the evolution of the sovereignist movement in
Quebec, is being questioned, denied and rejected in the supposed
clarity bill.
By its very wording, Bill C-20 entitled “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”
misleads those listening or watching. Never did the supreme
court say or write that for a question to be clear it could not
be associated with an offer of partnership.
Recently, we have had the support of the researchers at the C.D.
Howe Institute, who confirmed that they did not understand why
the government was saying this in its bill.
Not only does this bill lack clarity, but the only thing it does
do is preclude any other negotiation than secession negotiation.
It does not state clearly what kind of majority Canada would
require before entering into negotiation. After playing around
with all kinds of numbers, it does not dare setting a specific
one because it knows full well it would not have the support of
the international community.
Neither does it say what a clear question would be. The only
thing the bill is very clear about is that the question could
not envisage other possibilities in addition to the secession of
the province from Canada, such as economic or political
arrangements with Canada, that obscure a direct expression of
the will of the population of that province on whether the
province should cease to be part of Canada.
The Government of Canada missed the opportunity to show some
openness and a modern attitude toward the Quebec issue. This
government, which wants to be the most forward looking on this
issue, is embracing the most conservative views imaginable.
1710
During the 20th century, particularly during the second half,
the people of Quebec became increasingly aware of who they were,
of their culture and also of the fact that, as a small minority
within North America, they needed protection. For that, they
could only count on themselves. Progressively the people of
Quebec—very progressively and more widely—awakened to the idea of
sovereignty.
The bill is entitled “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 word secession
does not belong to the vocabulary of sovereignists. The word
secession refers to a Quebec surrounded by walls.
Nothing could be further from what sovereignists have in mind.
The Liberals who, today, support free trade with the whole
world, with the exception perhaps of a sovereign Quebec, should
remember that it is thanks to sovereignists and Quebecers that
the free trade agreement that they now want to extend to the
whole world was passed, this at a time when their leader was so
bitterly opposed to the idea.
Sovereignty is an open and modern project by a people which,
while being sovereign, would want to renegotiate its economic
ties with Canada. To me, it is very significant that the only
clear thing in this extremely confusing bill is that Canada
refuses this renegotiation of the relations between the two
great peoples, and also with the aboriginal people. This is
shameful.
The more this government opposes a democratic debate, the more
its bill—I do not wish that, but when we see how they are
behaving, we cannot help but think that it is likely to
happen—will become illegitimate, obsolete, reactionary and
conservative. This bill, which does not propose any renewal of
the relations between peoples, can only be considered a
meaningless document.
It is our hope that the sovereign people of Quebec will be able
to count on the sovereign people of Canada to understand that
the future does not lie in conflict or confrontation, but in
negotiation, that it does not lie in a refusal to negotiate, in
a refusal to accept reality and in an idea that some people have
in their head about Canada. We hope that Canadians will have the
intelligence to see that, north of the United States, it is
better to negotiate together to be stronger than to continue to
get deeper and deeper in the common impasse described by René
Lévesque.
Bill C-20 is a denial of the Canadian attitude that we have
always known.
It is a denial of democracy in Quebec and of its history. Let us
not forget that Robert Bourassa is the one who passed Bill 150.
People can say what they want, but the Quebec National Assembly,
under the Liberal premier of the day, passed a law providing for
a referendum, with rules defined by the national assembly, to
get out of that impasse.
The 1992 referendum did not get us out of there, since the
negotiations were grossly inadequate.
In 1995 we almost got there. We think that at the time we could
have negotiated.
1715
Finally, this bill seems to be a desperate attempt to prevent
something, the sovereignty of Quebec, which will happen, I am
absolutely certain, even if I do not know when or how.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.15 p.m., pursuant to order made
earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and
put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second
reading stage of the bill now before the House.
[English]
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment
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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
1745
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Brien
| Canuel
|
Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| de Savoye
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Guimond
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Loubier
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Rocheleau
|
Sauvageau
| St - Hilaire
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Venne – 42
|
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Augustine
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bakopanos
|
Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Benoit
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
|
Byrne
| Caccia
| Cadman
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Casey
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
|
Collenette
| Cotler
| Cullen
| Desjarlais
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duhamel
|
Duncan
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Epp
|
Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Gruending
|
Guarnieri
| Hanger
| Harb
| Hardy
|
Harris
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
| Limoges
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
|
Manley
| Marleau
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
Meredith
| Mifflin
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Morrison
| Muise
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
| Sgro
|
Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
St - Jacques
| St - Julien
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 179
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The 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:
1755
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Augustine
| Bakopanos
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Brown
|
Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
|
Cadman
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Casey
| Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Collenette
| Cotler
|
Cullen
| Desjarlais
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Doyle
| Dromisky
|
Duhamel
| Duncan
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Epp
| Finlay
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Hanger
| Harb
|
Hardy
| Harris
| Harvard
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Kenney
(Calgary Southeast)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
|
Limoges
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
|
Manley
| Marleau
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
Meredith
| Mifflin
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Morrison
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Nystrom
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Obhrai
| Pagtakhan
| Pankiw
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Proulx
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Sekora
| Sgro
| Shepherd
| Solomon
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| St - Julien
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 168
|
NAYS
Members
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bellehumeur
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bigras
| Brien
|
Brison
| Canuel
| Cardin
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
|
Crête
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desrochers
|
Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guay
| Guimond
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Loubier
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Marceau
| Marchand
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Muise
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Price
| Robinson
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
St - Hilaire
| St - Jacques
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Venne – 55
|
PAIRED
Members
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried. The
bill therefore stands referred to a legislative committee.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6 o'clock, the House will
now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as
listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
LEUKEMIA AWARENESS MONTH
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
recognize the month of June as Leukemia Awareness Month.
She said: Mr. Speaker, the results of the vote would indicate
that clarity is a good thing, and we also think that awareness is a
good thing. Awareness is as much a motherhood issue as is
clarity. We find it quite astounding that our colleagues across
the way in the Progressive Conservative Party find that clarity
could be a bad thing.
There is no question that there has been a proliferation in the
use of “the week of”, “the month of” and “the year of” in
terms of all kinds of diseases, but particularly those concerning
cancer.
1800
The month of April has already been proclaimed cancer awareness
month and as all hon. members know, October is breast cancer
month. Having proclaimed April as cancer month has benefited all
cancer sites. June is already the month for ALS, thyroid and
spina bifida.
Although we think the competition among diseases has been
uncomfortable when it comes to AIDS versus breast cancer versus
prostate cancer, the politicizing of those diseases in terms of
fundraising has been problematic sometimes. In times of
awareness, more is better. We need to do whatever we can to
raise the awareness of Canadians of these diseases in three ways:
that of patient and caregiver, that of advocate and that of
citizen.
The organizations that deal with health issues find that
focusing all their efforts on one month of the year works for
them. We therefore support the Leukemia Research Fund of
Canada's interest in having June proclaimed leukemia awareness
month.
What is interesting when we talk about awareness of leukemia
that usually we are talking about an understanding of the
disease, which is obviously a good thing. We are trying to
develop an understanding of things that reflect early detection.
For leukemia it is things such as fatigue and bruising. We are
obviously trying to raise the awareness of the public for dollars
for research and support which is also an extremely good thing.
With this disease more than any other, it is also imperative that
Canadians come to understand the importance and effectiveness of
becoming a bone marrow transplant donor so that we can move to
the next step in terms of the success that already exists in
leukemia treatment.
In 1974 I graduated from the University of Toronto medical
school. Back then leukemia was a virtual death sentence. Since
then treatments have evolved, such as chemotherapy and bone
marrow transplantation. At the 25th anniversary of our
graduation from medical school last June, my classmate, Dr. Mark
Minden, made a presentation. He is now the chair of the Leukemia
Research Foundation's scientific review panel and one of the most
pre-eminent researchers in leukemia and bone marrow
transplantation.
His presentation was astonishing to those of us who may not have
focused on just how far we have come in the last 25 years. The
motto of the Leukemia Research Fund of Canada is “We are getting
closer every day”. It was impressively underlined by Dr. Minden
as to how close we really are.
Unfortunately well over 3,000 Canadians will be diagnosed with
leukemia this year and over 2,000 will die. It is important that
Canadians understand that the cure rate is 70% in children and
that 50% of adults affected reach disease remission lasting one
to five years or more. Leukemia is the only form of human cancer
where such advances have been realized. Leukemia research really
does save lives.
As an overview, we should note the fact that leukemia is a
disease of the white blood cells. Indeed it comes from two Greek
words meaning white and blood. It is a cancer of the blood cells
or of the blood-forming tissues of the body, the bone marrow, the
spleen and the lymph nodes.
Leukemia affects individuals of all ages, of either sex and of
every background. It is not contagious nor hereditary, but the
more that we understand about the genetic disorders, the better.
There is now a Philadelphia chromosome that is implicated with
one of the chronic leukemias. We know it is more common with
things like Down's syndrome, which is a genetic condition.
We know that exposure to certain chemicals and radiation may
increase susceptibility. This means that not only can we
understand where it comes from genetically but maybe we could
find out how it could be prevented by understanding the chemistry
and radiation problems.
1805
Chemotherapy, radiation and bone marrow transplants are working,
but leukemia continues to cause the death of more children than
any other disease.
I would like to highlight one of the most common leukemias in
children, acute lymphoblastic leukemia or ALL. It represents more
than three-quarters of leukemias in young people. It develops in
the immature lymphoblasts or young lymphocytes. It seems to be
caused by immunological factors. In this millennium immunology is
probably the area which needs the most work.
There is evidence of a high risk for this disorder in people
with immunodeficiency disorders. Apparent clusters of ALL are
age specific at two or three years of age. Differences in this
sub-type by age suggest that we still do not even know whether
this is a disorder in the initial development of the immune
system or whether it is an unusual immune response to infectious
agents. There is no question that if we came to understand this
better, we would be able to treat lots of conditions caused by
abnormal immune systems much better.
These young people usually need chemotherapy for at least two to
three years. It is a treatment intended to achieve a remission
by eliminating all leukemia cells. But as we know, the drugs
that are used to kill leukemia cells also kill healthy cells. It
means that cells are killed in the hair, the skin, and the
linings of the stomach and the intestine. At times this
successful drug therapy is devastating even though the disease is
cured. The side effects to the child are really difficult. It
is sometimes necessary to receive radiation therapy to the brain
and the spinal cord and the children are extraordinarily
uncomfortable.
Before 1970 few children or teenagers with leukemia were cured.
Survival improved when treatments changed from single to many
agent chemotherapy. But when leukemia cells are still present
around the brain and the spine, they are not able to be reached
by chemotherapy.
This treatment has dramatically increased the cure rate of
children and 95% of young people with ALL are now reaching
remission after their first month of chemotherapy. In Canada an
estimated three-quarters of all young people diagnosed with ALL
between 1985 and 1988 were alive five years and most were
considered cured.
About 30% of these kids experience a relapse or a return of the
disease. Then the help of Canadians is needed in terms of bone
marrow transplantation. This has been shown to improve survival
and is offered to many children with ALL in their second or
subsequent relapses.
We need Canadians to sign up as bone marrow donors. Because we
need to match donors on all six of the immunological markers,
siblings have a one in four chance of being a perfect match. If
they do not match, the sometimes dying patients must turn quickly
to other blood relations, bone marrow registries and pleas
through the media. In about 40% of cases these searches fail.
Scientists have discovered a new method to transplant bone
marrow from a mismatched donor, meaning almost anybody can have
the potentially life-saving procedure.
It has been almost five years since our family's best friend,
Phillip Borsos, died of leukemia. Phillip had had Hodgkin's
disease and his leukemia was caused by the treatment he received
for the Hodgkin's, an unfortunate and rare side effect but one
nonetheless that happened.
His wife Barret, and his two sons Angus and Silas whom I had the
privilege of delivering, are now hoping that we in Canada will
not take away other fathers when we are so close to the cure.
1810
Phillip Borsos was one of Canada's finest filmmakers. He made
amazing documentaries: Cooperage; Spartree, and
received an Oscar nomination for his documentary Nails. He
then went on to direct The Grey Fox and Mean Season,
One Magic Christmas, Bethune and Yellow Dog and
then he died at 40 years of age.
Already the Leukemia Research Foundation has made huge progress
and it is continuing the ongoing struggle to develop greater
awareness. Last June during leukemia awareness month Leukemia
Research Fund of Canada flags were flying over the city halls in
major cities across Canada.
We are asking for the month to be designated by the House which
would make it even more important. More awareness would be
raised. The purpose of the awareness strategy is to spread the
message that leukemia must be eradicated and that the Leukemia
Research Fund of Canada exists for that purpose.
It is extraordinarily important that we have good messages like
the national campaign entitled “We are getting closer every
day”. We have a vehicle with which to inspire Canadians to do
all of those things, to understand the gravity and how prevalent
leukemia is, to understand that donating to leukemia research is
extraordinarily important, and to sign up as a bone marrow donor.
In Canada health care is so important to people. Canadians are
always reassured in the three roles they can play, that of
patient and caregiver, that of advocate for the diseases, and
that of citizen. For us to designate the month of June as
leukemia awareness month would go a long way to that end. I hope
there is support for this.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
honoured to have the privilege of standing again in our House of
Commons to talk about an issue which is very important to
Canadians.
First of all I commend the hon. member who has brought this
motion forward. I have a great deal of respect and interest in
people who pursue research into finding the cure for many
different diseases, so I am on the right wavelength in terms of
supporting the intent of such a motion.
One needs to ask how one can best promote both the awareness of
any particular disease or situation, and how one can best foster
an environment both economically and academically to search for
cures for these various diseases. This one focuses on one
particular disease, blood cancer or leukemia.
I was asked to represent our party in this debate tonight. I
stopped to think of how many people I know who have had leukemia.
I may be wrong but I thought of four. I have been wracking my
brain trying to think of whether or not there are more. In all
instances, as the hon. member stated, when the news is first
given, it is like a death sentence. Several people in our own
family have had cancer: both my wife and her father and several
others.
It is devastating because it is a disease for which at this stage
there is no known cause. Hence there is not a cure that has any
degree of certainty, although they have been doing research and
great strides have been made. It is very encouraging to realize
that now some 70% of children who are diagnosed with leukemia
actually will be survivors.
1815
I have thought of two people who as young adults were diagnosed
with leukemia and who are still living. Two have gone into
remission of the four I was able to think of. One is a person in
my community who has a wife and two young children. Frankly when
he got the word that he had leukemia it blew this young family
away. He went for treatment and I believe with his extraordinary
faith in God for his divine healing he has been in remission now
for a number of years. I saw him not long ago and I was very
pleased with his appearance. I do not know if it is possible but
he even looked healthier than I do. He is a little less rotund
but is very healthy. We are grateful for that.
There were two young fellows on my list both of whom were
diagnosed in their late teens and neither of whom survived. Both
young men were very close to us. They were friends of ours. They
were contemporaries of our children. They did not make it. They
were diagnosed, went through the treatment regimen with a lot of
agony and suffering and eventually did not make it.
No doubt this is a disease which requires urgent attention. As
a government we must promote research and development in these
medical areas. We need to concentrate on pockets of research in
the country so that people who are of like mind can share their
ideas and promote their research. I would like to see that
happen.
With respect to calling a month of awareness, I am neither here
nor there on it. The member is proposing that June be declared
leukemia awareness month. April already is cancer awareness
month. We are very aware of it.
In fact, I go to jail every April for the annual jail and bail
fundraising that the Cancer Society does in our area. I have
had the misfortune the last couple of times of having the Liberal
candidate whom I defeated be the judge when I was arrested. When
they bring me in he is not very kind to me. He always sets the
bail really high.
Last April when they took me in, they arrested me and put
handcuffs on me. As I said, I am rather rotund and the handcuffs
actually dug into my skin and pushed right against the bone. I
stood in front of the judge and said, “This is prisoner abuse”.
He said, “That will be $500 for speaking disrespectfully of
our police force”. I said, “That's not fair”. He said,
“Five hundred dollars for talking back to the judge” and then
he put me into the jail. I said, “This is no real jail. If it
was a real jail there would be a colour TV”. He said, “Another
500 bucks”.
I had to raise $1,500 for bail to get out of jail which of
course my friends helped me to do and I was able to get out of
jail. All of these different activities not only raise awareness
of the disease but they also raise money in order to promote
research.
I have an inclination to say that leukemia awareness month
should be tied in with the general cancer awareness in April.
That would be my preference.
1820
However, I would have no objection to setting aside a separate
month even though we have only 12 months and, as has been
mentioned, every month is an awareness month for more than one
cause at this stage.
The message I would like to leave is one that has more to do
with government involvement than with declaring a month a
particular month. We all have to do as much as we can to promote
research and development, to educate particularly our young
people, and to provide a climate for them that promotes research.
Perhaps I should not say this in the context of this debate but I
cannot stay away from it. We need to reduce taxes so that our
research scientists and our young people can find greater
motivation to stay here and work together to find cures for
diseases.
Leukemia is an interesting disease because considerable progress
has been made in this area. Perhaps the research in leukemia
will eventually be the key that unlocks the door to wider
research and gives us more clues on how to attack cancer
generally.
I commend the member for bringing forward the motion. Even
having this one hour of debate in the House today helps to
increase the awareness of people.
There are two kinds of people in our country. Those who have
had experience with cancer, perhaps leukemia, are very aware of
the disease and the need for research. There are others who fall
into the category of “it will not happen to me or to my
family”. Those are the ones we should target. Those are the
ones all of us should help to make more aware. We should appeal
to them to work together as Canadians. Whether it be through our
tax system or voluntary charitable donations, let us all work
together to find a cure.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, allow
me to congratulate our colleague from the government majority,
the hon. member from Ontario, who I gather from her preliminary
remarks is a physician by trade, on her sensitivity to a form of
blood cancer that is obviously a very trying disease, which, as
you know, affects all too many young people.
Of course, I cannot congratulate her on her preliminary remarks
on the clarity bill. She will understand that, as far as that
goal is concerned, I do not share her views and do not believe
this is a bill we should promote, because we on this side agree
it is really undemocratic.
That being said, I do congratulate her wholeheartedly for the
sensitivity she has displayed toward the fight against
leukemia. We will indeed support her motion, while I realize it
is not a votable item. The hon. member has suggested that there
are three approaches to overcoming leukemia.
She reminded us that, at the time when she was a medical student
in 1974—I was barely a teenager then, as you can imagine—for all
intents and purposes, leukemia was a terminal disease with very
little hope of remission and with very few drugs available of
course.
I believe I am correct in saying today that, while there is
still no satisfactory treatment and today still people—again too
often children and young people—die from leukemia, there are a
number of drugs available and treatment is possible.
I think that the hon. member's motion, which is primarily
designed to raise awareness, is also a call for research and for
partnership between public funding agencies and the
pharmaceutical industry.
1825
I am pleased to tell her that we on this side believe that her
call should be heard. I think that research is important and can
make a difference. When we talk about the pharmaceutical
industry, there are two main industrial clusters, so to speak.
There is the generic drug industry, which is based mainly in
Ontario, in the Toronto and Mississauga area, and the brand name
drug industry, based in Quebec.
We must bear in mind that the fight against leukemia or cancer
in general cannot be won without co-ordinating the research
effort.
I met recently with representatives of the association formerly
known as PMAC, the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of
Canada, whose name has been changed to Rx & D. Under this new
designation is a long-established group of about forty companies
essentially involved in producing brand name drugs.
The brand name drug industry told us that a research cycle of
more than 10 years may have elapsed between the time a molecule
is isolated for research and the time a drug becomes available
on the consumer market. Between the time a molecule is isolated
for research and the time the drug becomes commercially
available, an investment of nearly $500 million is required.
We are talking about huge investments, so much so that the
legislator—I think we have to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's
and unto Ménard what is Ménard's—Patent protection was initiated
under the Progressive Conservative government.
If I am not mistaken, it was introduced in 1991 or 1992, under
Bill C-22. The legislator found it necessary at the time to
provide some form of protection and incentive to research,
because to this day—and let us never forget it—it is our best and
most legitimate hope to overcome disease, particularly
debilitating diseases like leukemia.
Research has to remain our greatest hope. It is important to
recall that, with the motion tabled by our colleague, a member
from Ontario and a physician by trade, we as parliamentarians
must implement the most effective, forward-looking and discerning
tools to make research possible.
I have just reviewed actions taken under the Mulroney
government, which my seatmate, the hon. member for Chicoutimi,
was part of in the good as well as the bad times. Of course, he
is convinced that the good times were more important than the
more difficult ones, which is totally his right.
We are in favour of this motion. We agree that awareness is
required. This brings me to the third aspect raised by our
colleague, namely, support for caregivers.
When someone in our family has an illness, this is not an
isolated situation which has no effect on our ability to cope.
Awareness means understanding what the illness is, understanding
what medications are available, understanding that prophylaxis
is available, but it also means adopting a certain behaviour
when we know people with leukemia.
1830
Both members who spoke before me, the motion's sponsor and our
colleague from the Reform Party who alluded with great humour to
his stoutness—which, I must tell him, makes him very likeable and
very endearing to us—referred to the importance of showing
solidarity as caregivers. Awareness also means providing
information on what type of behaviour to adopt.
I thank our colleague for her motion. We are showing solidarity.
If the motion had been deemed votable, we would have voted for
it as a group, as we must do in some circumstances.
[English]
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to support the motion to recognize the month of June as leukemia
awareness month as this would increase our awareness of the
disease.
One of the things we need to be aware of is that 2,000 people
will die from this disease. We also need to know what causes the
disease and why it affects some people but not others. What are
the implications concerning our environment? What are the
environmental factors that may or may not play a part in this
disease? What are the genetic factors?
There is so much to know but so little that people in general do
know about this disease because of their busy lives. They only
find out about it if someone they know and love is suffering from
the disease, but they do not know enough to be of any help.
We have to be aware of what we can do as a community and what we
can provide in terms of medicare and home care. We need good
hospitals and good research.
The whole cycle of research that was just described may take a
long time. If we want to decrease the number of deaths from this
disease we must always be proactive and one step ahead. We want
to prevent those 2,000 deaths as a country, but more importantly,
the deaths that each family may have to face.
The idea of cancer alone induces fear in people. The more
awareness we can bring to them, the more we can help our
communities. Most people think of cancer as a deadly disease.
Hopefully, as we move further along in our research, there will
be far fewer deaths and far fewer children being taken away from
their families and out of our lives.
The fact that this disease affects so many children and is the
leading cause of death in children is enough for us to single it
out as being a disease for which people need to develop an
awareness. As a mother of four children and having seen families
lose their children, it is our deepest fear that our children
will die ahead us. I do not know how a family would cope with
that. The loss of a child to a family and to a community makes
us want to take the extra effort to become more aware of this
disease and to bring the issue forward.
Last year a man in our community died. A lot of treatment
cannot be done in the north so people have to fly out, which is
quite a difficult endeavour in itself. It means the waiting
period can be far longer for people in the north than for people
who are in a community where treatment can be easily accessed.
The man who died had left the Yukon to undergo a bone marrow
transplant. Unfortunately, it was too late for Ben Sheardown.
I will say a few words about Ben because he was an integral part
of our community. He was a a coach, an athlete, a teacher, a
counsellor, a husband and a father. To every person he came into
contact with, he was far more than that. Anyone who met him
could not help but be inspired by his kindness, his passion and
his ferocious nature.
Anyone who had the chance to meet him in the last month of his
life knew immediately how privileged they were. He went through
incredible suffering with tremendous grace and almost transcended
the daily world that we live in. I think he attained a different
spiritual level, one which we all would like to bring to our
lives.
1835
The worst part is that he left us too soon. He still had so
much of himself to give to his children, his wife and his
community. He was someone I had known throughout my whole life as
a teacher, a neighbour and a friend. He is still deeply missed.
If we could have prevented his death or given him even a few more
years of life we would have all benefited.
Just last month I had to say goodbye to a friend who died of
leukemia. She did not even have a chance for a bone marrow
transplant. Her name was Effie Croft and she had started a small
community newspaper in Faro. She found out quite late that she
had the disease because she would never have imagined herself
sick no matter how tired she was. She was a counsellor, but more
than anything she brought an incredible joy to the people around
her. Even through the time of her whole town's decamping and
moving away when the mine closed she was a real source of energy
and great love to her town.
When people found out how sick Ben was with leukemia and that
they could possibly donate bone marrow, there was a huge
outpouring of people wanting to do that. As was described by the
member of parliament who is also a doctor, it is a long process
and it is not easy to find a match. People were not aware that
if they had made themselves available to a donor bank beforehand
they could have helped. It could have been easily accessible to
Ben and anyone else who might need a bone marrow transplant.
There is another thing about organ donations, bone marrow
donations or donations of whatever piece of our bodies we are
able to donate. People need to know that in the case of donating
bone marrow we do not have to die to do it. There is a lot of
fear for people trying to come to grips with what it means to be
a donor, with what it means to be able to help each other. Canada
does not have a good record for doing that, but I know people
would do it if they were only aware of how to do it. Then they
would be more than generous in any way they could to help their
fellow citizens.
Sometimes when we talk about diseases we talk about them in
terms of numbers and names instead of in terms of individuals,
children, friends, parents, sisters and the other people they
affect. If we appeal to the better instincts of our friends and
neighbours in our communities I know they would respond.
This idea deserves action. We can do no wrong by tightening the
awareness of this terrible disease. If we help just one family
it would be worth it, but I think this awareness will help our
whole country.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to enter the debate on what is a great motion moved
by the member for St. Paul's who is a physician and is probably
very aware of this troublesome disease.
Approximately 3,300 people will be diagnosed this year with
leukemia and 2,100 will die from it. This is a sad reality but
it certainly hits home in a lot of families in Canada. Many
families are probably saying goodbye to loved ones who are
leaving us because of this disease.
We must continue working together in partnership to develop
cures for diseases such as this one. It is not the only one.
Before my life in politics I was very involved in the community.
I started the Alzheimer's society in my region, another disease
that is hitting a lot of people.
Leukemia also hits young people as well. The cure rate for
young people today is 65% but 35% do not make it. This is very
difficult especially for parents. It is important to make sure
Canadians are aware of what is going on here and to make sure
that everything possible is being done.
1840
[Translation]
It is therefore important to raise the awareness of this
disease, which takes lives every single day across Canada, from
coast to coast. Indeed, 35% of children with leukemia will not
make it. They will die.
As parents, it is very hard to see these sick children on
television or when visiting a hospital.
I want to thank the member for St. Paul's for taking the
initiative of raising this very important issue in the House.
I would also like to thank all the volunteers who work day and
night from coast to coast and who, as such, are not paid of
course. In my riding, in the Campbellton area, I went to visit a
prison with them to help raise money for cancer. These people
are always there, without fail. A knock on the door and they are
ready to help fight this disease.
Shortly before Christmas, our family was stricken, not by
cancer, but by heart disease. My father died in October 1999; it
has been extremely hard on all of us. But I am thinking about a
family in the Dalhousie area, in Restigouche, the Perry family,
whose 18 year old son has leukemia.
[English]
There is no warning. It can hit very quickly. That was exactly
what happened to the Perry family, a young family in Dalhousie,
New Brunswick. One of the children was diagnosed with leukemia
just before Christmas. He is 18 years old and is receiving
treatment as we speak. If he is listening today I want to tell
him, on behalf of the House, not to lose faith. There is always
hope. Sixty-five per cent of people make it through. We are all
thinking of him and his family. Hopefully, he will get through
as well.
[Translation]
Once again, I would like to thank the hon. member for St. Paul's
and all the volunteers. We are still asking the government for
its partnership and effort to develop the drugs we need.
Last week, health ministers and premiers met in Quebec City and
asked for more money for health care. We need money for
development, but we also need money to care for the sick. We
really need to put the emphasis on health. I think this is a
consensus throughout Canada.
The ball is in the government's court. We need to put pressure
on the finance minister and the Prime Minister to put more money
in health care, because we know health is a priority in Canada.
I congratulate once more the member opposite. We will gladly
support this motion.
[English]
Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to applaud the member, the good doctor from St. Paul's. I
rise today to add my support to a very worthwhile motion to
declare the month of June as leukemia awareness month.
As the son of a leukemia survivor, I know how important this
motion is. It really touches my heart. My mother, thank God,
has been in remission for six years. Not only did it take the
good efforts of the medical fraternity and the research which has
been done so far on leukemia, but also the caregivers and the
families, which provided the strength and the love that allowed
my mother to survive. The quality of life may not be perfect,
but it is a very good life and one that we would hope for every
person who has been stricken with leukemia.
1845
Leukemia affects all ages, both sexes and every background.
Every 10 minutes another child or adult dies from leukemia or a
related cancer. In 1999, as we have already heard, 3,000
Canadians were diagnosed with leukemia and 2,100 died of this
devastating disease. Leukemia is the number one killer of
children. Leukemia is a destroyer of families and as we have
heard a devastator of dreams.
Despite these staggering odds, as the doctor, the member for St.
Paul's, and others have said, we are winning important battles in
the fight to save lives. With the best treatment 73% of our
children with childhood leukemia will now survive. That is a
great step forward. The overall survival rates have doubled in
the last 30 years.
These are important victories with human faces. Yet we must
continue to work to win the war. Yes, we all agree that medical
research is an important component. We must provide Canada's
researchers with the support and the financial resources they
need, as well as the opportunity to be able to research in Canada
and stop this terrible disease.
We must raise public awareness. This is what June is all about.
It is to make it possible for people to become aware of those
around them who have leukemia and to make it possible for the
volunteer sector to raise the moneys along with governments to be
able to continue their fine work on research. It is also an
opportunity to thank those men and women in the hospitals and in
the homes who provide the love, nurturing and caring that are
important parts of the well-being of people.
While medicine is very important, caring and compassion are also
important. I must give accolades to those people, for example,
Dr. Barr at University Hospital in London, Ontario, and those men
and women who looked after my mother and made it possible for her
to continue, as so many hundreds and thousands of people work
very hard to do.
This motion is essential so that the public understands and
knows our commitment as a parliament to the eradication of
leukemia and that we will continue to work with all our partners
in our communities to ensure that we can stop this disease and
make it possible for all those people to dream the possible dream
and not to have to suffer the affliction of leukemia.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion
brought forward by the member for St. Paul's asking the
government to recognize the month of June as Leukemia Awareness
Month. I congratulate her as well as all the other members from
the various parties who were involved in this initiative.
All over Canada, the public supports the campaign that was
launched to find ways of preventing or treating leukemia,
lymphoma, myeloma, Hodgkin's disease and other blood diseases.
Leukemia affects people of all ages, of both sexes and from all
backgrounds.
It was described at length by several of my colleagues who have
spoken on this issue during the last hour. I would add one fact:
in Canada, every ten minutes, a child or an adult dies from
leukemia or a related form of cancer.
[English]
In their homes and communities all across the country thousands
of Canadians are living with leukemia and many Canadians are
working to provide support and comfort to those affected by these
forms of cancer.
Recognizing the month of June as leukemia awareness month will
help to acknowledge the important contributions of families,
health professionals, researchers, educators and the thousands of
other Canadians whose every day efforts help to reduce the
incidence and impact of this disease.
Closely related to program delivery is public information and
education. Voluntary groups have the unique ability to reach
deep into society to ensure that the public as a whole knows
about particular services that might benefit them.
1850
Now the government has the opportunity to help with this public
awareness campaign by recognizing June as leukemia awareness
month. Volunteers by the hundreds are coming forward to help
with every kind of fundraising event, and great progress is being
made.
[Translation]
Lives are saved and treatments are improved while researchers
are working to find a permanent cure.
The volunteer sector plays a crucial role in the pursuit of
these objectives for Canadians and in the efforts to maintain a
high quality of life. The volunteer sector has become the third
pillar of Canadian society, with the public sector and the
private sector, helping to make Canada a country that is more
humanitarian, more prosperous and more attentive to the needs of
others.
Volunteers can help in many ways each year, and the volunteers
with the Leukemia Research Fund of Canada collect over $3 million
for research, that saves lives.
Today, 70% of children affected are cured, and over 50% of
adults with the disease go into remission for five years or more,
thanks to all these efforts.
Other volunteers help people with leukemia by giving them
psychological support or temporarily relieving those caring for
them. Canadians do their part, but this deadly and challenging
disease continues to take lives, and every life lost is a
tragedy.
This is why we must all support research for a cure and support
this motion, which calls on the government to make June
Leukemia Awareness Month.
[English]
Canadians want all levels of government to work collaboratively,
to work in partnership to address this important need. Canadians
support the investment that the federal government has made in
research, education and funding of the health care system.
We have done much but more could be done. Through the creation
and funding of Canadian institutes on health research, through
promotion and prevention campaigns, and through investment in the
Canadian health and social transfer we will all be providing much
needed assistance to Canadians living with and supporting those
with leukemia.
Recognizing the month of June as leukemia awareness month will
also recognize the work of the Leukemia Research Fund of Canada,
established in 1955 as a non-profit organization.
[Translation]
Recognizing the month of June as Leukemia Awareness Month will
give us an opportunity to remember all those who fell victim to
leukemia and other forms of blood cancer, and to celebrate the
survival of an increasingly larger number of patients.
It will also be an opportunity to develop the public's awareness
of bone marrow transplants and of the importance of providing
psychological support to children, parents and families affected
by leukemia.
It will be an opportunity to talk to Canadians about health and
the prevention of disease, and to stress to them the importance
of health care and wellness services.
This is why, and I will conclude with this, I am very pleased to
see that members from all opposition parties have rallied and
shown enthusiastic support for this motion by the hon. member
for St. Paul's to designate the month of June as Leukemia
Awareness Month.
[English]
I would encourage all members to support the motion raised to
recognize the month of June as leukemia awareness month.
The Deputy Speaker: There is one minute left in the time
permitted. We will give the time to the hon. member for St.
Paul's who, if she speaks now, will close the debate.
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank my colleagues for their remarks of support. I celebrate
the Canadians who are every day fighting this disease in their
personal lives, the researchers who are fighting for an ultimate
cure, and the volunteers who are already making June leukemia
awareness month.
There are many heroes in this regard. There are some in terms
of the Leukemia Research Fund of Canada which has now developed a
fantastic website at www.leukemia.ca. In another medium, Peter
Kent and Ken Ryan of Global Television did those fabulous
personal spots.
1855
I cannot close this debate without thinking again of my friend
and my husband's best friend, Phillip Borsos, the gifted
filmmaker, who as a passionate Canadian insisted on excellence
and would never settle for less. I do not think any of us in
this Chamber will settle until we have a cure for this dreaded
disease. I thank everyone who supports us in this regard.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. As
the motion has not been designated as a votable item, the order
is dropped from the order paper.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order,
my colleague, the member for Mercier, planned to take part in
the adjournment proceedings this evening. Events beyond her
control have prevented her from being with us this evening.
Would it be possible to obtain the consent of the House to
postpone her speech until a later date, following negotiation
with the clerks?
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to postpone the
adjournment proceedings planned for this evening?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.57 p.m., this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.57 p.m.)