CONTENTS
Wednesday, December 6, 1995
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 17274
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 17275
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 17275
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 17275
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 17275
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17276
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 17276
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 17276
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 17277
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 17277
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 17277
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17278
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17278
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 17279
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17279
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 17279
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17279
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 17279
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 17279
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 17279
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 17280
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 17280
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 17280
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 17280
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 17281
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 17281
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 17282
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 17283
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 17284
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 17286
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 17287
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 17287
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 146; Nays, 93 17288
(Motion agreed to.) 17289
(Motion agreed to.) 17289
Consideration resumed of motion 17289
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 17289
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 17291
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 17296
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 17301
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 17304
Consideration resumed of motion and amendment 17307
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 17309
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) 17320
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 17342
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 17343
17271
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, December 6, 1995
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
The Speaker: As is our custom, we will be led today in the
singing of the national anthem by the hon. member for Kootenay
East.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon members sang the national anthem.]
_____________________________________________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is National Safe Driving Week.
Ten years ago, vehicle collisions killed 4,364 Canadians and
injured another 259,200. It was estimated then that approximately
43 per cent of driver fatalities involved the use of alcohol.
By 1994, even with the doubling of vehicles on the road, vehicle
collision deaths had fallen by 25 per cent to 3,260 and the number
of injured by 5 per cent to 245,000. However, of those collisions,
44 per cent of driver fatalities involved the use of alcohol.
The conclusion is obvious. We have made great strides in
reducing the number of Canadians killed and injured on our roads,
but impaired driving continues to demand our attention. That is
why the theme of this year's national safe driving week is ``The
Hidden Face of Impaired Driving''. Canadians are still having
accidents that could have been prevented by not mixing drinking
and driving.
* * *
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan (Edmonton-Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Liberal so-called unity package is going to have a
negative effect on Canada. This package will divide the country
more than it will unite it. The distinct society clause will be seen as
giving Quebec special status. By lending the federal government's
constitutional veto to provincial governments rather than the
people, the government will pit one province against the others.
The net effect of the government's package is to increase
inequality. Without a doubt, denying all citizens constitutional
equality will entrench the notion that all Canadians are unequal.
My constituents in Edmonton-Strathcona and I support the
Reform's blue book policy which states clearly our commitment to
Canada as one nation and to our vision of Canada as a balanced
federation of 10 equal provinces and citizens.
* * *
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Sri
Lanka is a country consumed in violence by the ongoing conflict
between the Sri Lankan army and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil
Eelam. Since 1983, 50,000 people have been killed and another
500,000 Tamils have been forced into exile.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs has stated Canada's position:
There can be no military solution to the problems in Sri Lanka.
Both the minister and the secretary of state have stated on a number
of occasions that Canada is willing to become involved in resolving
the conflict if asked by both sides.
The situation in Sri Lanka is grave. Innocent people are being
subjected to terrible violence, hunger and despair. Amidst this
terrible violence, allegations have arisen that aid money is being
used to buy military equipment.
I applaud the efforts of the minister and the secretary of state in
issuing a standing offer to become involved in resolving this
dispute, and encourage them to act to ensure that aid reaches those
who need it the most.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today is
a very special day.
Every year for the past six years, December 6 has been a day to
reflect on violence against women. Since the day when 14 young
women were shot and killed at the École polytechnique in
Montreal, Canadians and Quebecers have become less and less
tolerant of all forms of violence, particularly violence against
women. How
17272
can one not be appalled by the fact that three out of ten women in
Canada have been hit at least once by their spouses?
The Quebec government understands the need to act and it has
chosen this day to table its policy on violence against women.
The federal government should follow in its footsteps and deal
with the causes of violence, which are mostly psychological
distress and despair linked to unemployment, indebtedness and
poverty.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring
to the attention of the House the deep concerns of many of my
constituents regarding pornography.
The local chapter of the Saint John Catholic Women's League
has sent me several little ribbons in recognition of White Ribbons
Against Pornography or WRAP week. The CWL took part in
WRAP activities from October 22 to 29.
The members of the CWL and their parishioners wore the
ribbons, wrote their names on the backs of them and sent them to
me to show their opposition to pornography in any form. We need
stronger laws to protect us from this destructive menace in our
society.
Today we remember the 14 young women who were brutally and
tragically murdered at École Polytechnique in Montreal five years
ago. As we honour their memories let us remember that
pornography contributes to the type of violent act that took their
lives.
I commend my constituents for their efforts and I
wholeheartedly agree with them. I urge the government to stand up
for Canadians and pass stronger anti-pornography laws.
* * *
Mr. Derek Wells (South Shore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today we
remember the tragedy that occurred on December 6, 1989. It has
been six years since 14 young women at École Polytechnique in
Montreal lost their lives. The pain of that day is still fresh in our
minds.
Although much has been done to improve public awareness with
respect to violence against women, we have only to read the papers
to see that it is still happening every day. One look at the statistics
demonstrates that women continue to be the target of violent acts.
Steps have been taken by the Liberal government over the last
two years to curb violence against women and to promote women's
equality both within Canada and internationally. Within Canada,
the federal plan for gender equality was announced while
internationally, Canada played a leading role at the United Nations
World Conference on Women. However, we still have a long way to
go.
Today, on the national day of remembrance and action on
violence against women, take a moment to remember the 14 young
women who died, as well as countless others who have suffered,
both here in Canada and around the world.
* * *
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today marks the sixth anniversary of the tragic deaths of
14 young women at the École Polytechnique in Montreal.
In honour of this national day of remembrance and action on
violence against women, the Government of Canada calls on all
Canadians to recognize that violence against women is a violation
of women's human rights and has no place in Canadian society.
(1405 )
Unfortunately too many women continue to suffer various forms
of abuse at the hands of their partners, acquaintances or strangers.
Therefore, eliminating violence remains a priority of the Canadian
government.
Since the tragedy in Montreal, the federal government has
stepped up its efforts to eliminate violence against women. In fact,
Canada is viewed as a world leader in recognizing and addressing
the problem through community based action, information
exchange and awareness, and shelters for battered women and
children.
I call on all Canadians to assume responsibility for the
eradication of all forms of violence against women in this country.
* * *
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
a Senate committee proposed an amendment to Bill C-103 that
would grandfather the Canadian version of
Sports Illustrated. In so
doing, it joined the Reform Party, the task force on the Canadian
magazine industry and the current Minister for International Trade
in making this recommendation.
Unbelievably the Minister of Canadian Heritage is
compromising our international reputation by insisting that Sports
Illustrated be banned retroactively as of March 1993. If the Senate,
a special task force on split runs and the Minister for International
Trade all
17273
recognize the legitimate rights of Sports Illustrated to run a split
run in Canada, why does not the Minister of Canadian Heritage?
Maybe the answer is that he clearly does not know what he is
doing. Yesterday he said: ``What we are trying to do is make sure
our Canadian industries remain Canadian, are able to grow and
export, because export is part of their ability to mature''. But get
this: Bill C-103 will impose a Canadian 80 per cent excise tax on
our magazine exports. Unbelievable.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
five years ago former NDP MP Dawn Black gained unanimous
support in the House of Commons for her bill making December 6
a national day of remembrance and action on violence against
women. As we have each year since 1990, today we remember and
mourn the lives of the 14 women killed six years ago in Montreal.
Today is not just a day of remembrance but a day of action. In
this respect the Liberals have not lived up to their commitments to
women. In the past year the federal government has wiped out the
Canadian advisory council on the status of women. While the
government says it is committed to ending violence against
women, it dismantles the very programs that provide vital support
to women.
Many such programs are funded through the Canada assistance
plan or federal transfer payments to the provinces and territories,
payments which are being cut back drastically, threatening the
survival of emergency shelters for women, child care and other
programs to help women and their families.
The Liberals must show their commitment to women through
action, not words.
* * *
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is
a day of national mourning and remembrance for the 14 young
women whose lives were cut off in mid-stride six years ago for one
reason only: they were women.
As we mourn we should be mindful that over 50 per cent of
women in Canada, one in three in B.C., are the object of physical,
mental and emotional violence. Battered body and soul, living with
chronic helplessness and pain, it is a legacy of bitterness that they
pass on to their children, Canada's children.
As parliamentarians, women or men, Liberal, Reform or Bloc,
we have a duty to stop this endless nightmare that so many women
endure as an excuse for living. The Minister of Justice, the Minister
of Health and the Secretary of State for the Status of Women have
shown clear leadership on this issue but it is not enough.
We must mobilize our communities, the media and businesses.
We must make this issue a cause nationale. Violent crimes cost this
country over $4 billion a year in money but the real cost in terms of
human life and hope is immeasurable.
* * *
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today we mark
December 6 as Canada's national day of remembrance and action
on violence against women.
Today we remember, we mourn and we act. We remember the 14
students who tragically lost their lives at École Polytechnique in a
senseless act of violence against women. We mourn the loss of 14
of our best and brightest young women and what could have been.
We vow to act with resolve to eliminate abuse against women
everywhere. On average, a woman is killed every six days in
Canada, often in a home and by someone she knows. The weapon
of choice is generally a gun. These are startling, sobering facts, but
true.
The government is responding with initiatives, including tougher
firearms control, elimination of the extreme drunkenness defence,
more effective peace bonds and much more. However, eradication
of violence against women requires the full participation of all
members of society: government, media, business, communities,
individuals and families.
I encourage everyone to join in the partnership to eliminate
violence against women. Just do it.
* * *
(1410 )
Mr. John English (Kitchener, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, six years ago
in a university, a place of learning, a Canadian tragedy occurred.
On this day in 1989 a lone male directed his rage at 14 innocent
women at École Polytechnique in Montreal.
In a country such as Canada where so many women have
experienced some level of injury, physical or sexual, we must make
every effort to live up to our reputation as being the best country in
the world in which to live by ensuring a society which is safe from
ethnic or gender based violence.
We mark this day of remembrance for the victims of the
Montreal massacre and to raise Canadians' awareness that violence
against women is not only a crime, but an infringement of human
rights.
Violence against women reflects not power over others but the
fear of cowards.
17274
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, the government introduced a
motion to recognize Quebec as a distinct society.
However, this declaration of love toward Quebecers has turned
out to be a complete crock, in light of the incendiary comments
made by some Liberal and Reform members of the heritage
committee.
What Quebec federalist can believe in the sincerity of Liberal
members when they strongly object to Telefilm Canada's subsidies
to French-language audiovisual productions, which they see as
overly generous in relation to the demographic weight of
francophones?
No Quebecer can remain indifferent to these members'
shameless blackmail tactics against the Canada Council last week
and Telefilm yesterday, if they maintain their policy of subsidizing
any artistic project on the basis of creative merit rather than on the
basis of Quebec creators' partisan commitment to federalism.
This spectacle is a clear indication that-
The Speaker: I am sorry, but your time has expired. The hon.
member for New Westminster-Burnaby.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today I rise to commemorate December 6 which remains
in our national conscience for the death of the women students in
Montreal. Last year on this day, in response to hyperbole on the
government side, I questioned the sincerity of some Liberal
members. A year has now passed and it is time to examine the
government's record of how little has been accomplished to really
change things on behalf of victims.
We now have more gun regulation that will not make the
Montreal murders less likely to occur again. Victims still have no
comprehensive special standing in the courts and the Criminal
Code. We still have section 745 which releases murderers early and
my private member's bill for victims is still to be dealt with by the
House.
I call on the government, in view of the well-meaning sentiments
that are always heard on this day, that by this time next year may
we have substantive changes to the law which will bring meaning
to the remembrance of this day. May it be said of the House that
while being right, we could also do what is right.
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, six years ago
the unspeakable happened in Montreal. I want to pay special tribute
to my former colleagues, Dawn Black and Mary Collins. Five years
ago the House, in a rare show of unanimity, passed Ms. Black's
private member's bill creating this day in perpetuity as a day of
remembrance and action.
I would also like to pay tribute to the hon. member for
Saint-Hubert. She is another individual who supports very strongly
many of the measures which we fought for across party lines in the
House.
Violence against women is a very special horror which this
country deals with. It is not one which responds merely to
platitudes. It is not one which responds to political responses with
respect to social programs or gun-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
this week, the very loquacious member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine was determined to show that
he could take arrogance and absurdity one step further.
Mistaking this place for the defunct youth Parliament of Canada,
the gentleman nicknamed ``Monsieur 31'' confirmed that he had all
it takes to hold the part of the leading man in a vaudeville show.
In her editorial, Lise Bissonnette of Le Devoir reported that the
young MP had launched an all-out attack against the Société
québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre, which he
accused of being unable to carry out its mandate, adding that his
government could easily deal directly with its partners. Ms.
Bissonnette ironically described the member's remarks as follows:
``As we know, out of the mouth of babes-''.
(1415)
Balzac wrote that power only benefits the powerful. This lesson
in humility-
The Speaker: I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member
but his time is up. The hon. member for Outremont.
* * *
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on this
day, we are all reminded of the 14 promising young women full of
hopes and dreams who were murdered at l'École polytechnique.
17275
We are also reminded that violence is a daily reality for thousands
of other women.
Each of us has a duty and a responsibility to stop all forms of
violence. That is what our government is doing, especially through
the Firearms Act that we just passed.
I wish to thank the families of the victims of l'École
polytechnique for being so vigilant and courageous in their efforts
to create awareness and their support for gun control. I am sure that
they are helping to save lives.
_____________________________________________
17275
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on the
weekend, the Minister of Labour announced on all tv and radio
stations in Quebec that as part of its unemployment insurance
reforms, the federal government will create a reserve fund to
cushion the impact of future economic recessions or slowdowns.
On the other hand, the 1995 budget of the Minister of Finance
provides that UI fund surpluses will be used to absorb the federal
deficit. That is what it says on pages 89 and 94 of the Budget Plan.
Yesterday, the Minister of Finance did not answer our questions.
Today, I will put the question to the Prime Minister.
Considering that the statement by the Minister of Labour is a
clear and direct contradiction of what is indicated in the
government's budget, could the Prime Minister tell us which
minister is right?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Both, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in that
case, I will put the following question to the Prime Minister.
If they are both right, how does this tally with the facts? There
are no two ways about it: either the Minister of Labour is right, and
a reserve fund will be created to cushion the impact of economic
problems, or the budget's provisions are no longer accurate. How
can the Prime Minister say in all honesty and sincerity that both
ministers are right, when they are contradicting each other?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when the Unemployment Insurance Fund shows a surplus,
it is entered as a surplus, and the money is used in the government's
current accounts. On the books, however, it is considered as a debt
we owe this fund. Instead of borrowing on the market, we use this
fund. It is on record as a reserve that will have to be paid back if
necessary. However, because we have worked very hard to reduce
unemployment since we formed the government, the
Unemployment Insurance Fund has shown an annual surplus
because of our good management.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I do not
know whether the Prime Minister realizes what he just said. He just
explained that the government's deficit for this year will actually
be $5 million more, because the Minister of Finance took the
surplus in the Unemployment Insurance Fund, subtracted it from
that column, put unemployment insurance revenues into revenue,
and then told us: ``Here, this is will be my deficit''.
Does he realize that with this answer he just confirmed, as the
leader of this government, that the deficit of the Minister of
Finance will be $5 million more?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said before very clearly, we consider that the funds in
question are made up of money that we borrowed. Instead of
borrowing from the private sector, we are borrowing from
ourselves. However, on the books, as good accountants, we said it
was not our money, it was money held in reserve.
Instead of borrowing the money on the market and competing
with the private sector, we are using this money, which we know we
will have to pay back some day.
(1420)
However, it is quite probable that in the years to come, since the
government is working very hard to create jobs, instead of a deficit
the UI Fund will again show a surplus next year.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister.
The data available in the financial review of the Minister of
Finance reveal that 82 per cent of program expenditure reductions
proposed by the federal government were in the unemployment
insurance program alone.
In this context, how can the Prime Minister refuse to admit that
his government's only strategy in fighting the deficit was to cut the
benefits to the unemployed?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when the Parti Quebecois government says we cut
transfers to the provinces, it is contradicting the member, who has
just said that all we cut were the benefits of the unemployed, and
not transfers.
But we cut all over, except that we reduced transfers such as
those for health and the other programs. We did, however, increase
equalization payments. In fact, since we have been in government,
transfers to the province of Quebec have remained at exactly the
17276
same level. They are even slightly higher than they were when we
came to office.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister is avoiding the question. We are saying
that, of all the government's program cuts in connection with
transfers to the provinces, 82 per cent of the cuts were made to the
UI fund. This is what we are saying today. And this is what he is
trying to get round.
I would ask him the following question. Does the Prime Minister
realize that his approach to reducing the deficit through the
unemployment insurance surplus is unconscionable and testifies to
his inability to improve the state of public finances other than by
imposing a job tax? What his employment insurance amounts to
then is a job tax.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member is
engaging in an attempt to misinform Canadians.
Let us go back to last Friday and bring forward two basic facts. It
is very important to try to clear the fog the Bloc Quebecois
constantly tries to disseminate.
First, $800 million of the proposed savings in the system are
being recycled into direct employment benefits to get people back
to work. Therefore it represents a substantial shift from income
benefits to employment benefits and is designed to meet our very
different work situation. It allows us to give people a quick,
effective way back into the employment market.
The figures the hon. member refers to have absolutely no
relevance to the fact that we have said directly the money is being
recycled.
Second, we are beginning to reduce the premiums under the
system. There will be a $1.3 billion reduction for businesses and
employees so that we can put more money in their pockets and they
can create more jobs.
[Editor's Note: Electrical power interruption.]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): Mr. Speaker, my
argument is so powerful that it even affects the electrical system of
the House. The problem is that when the Bloc stands to speak, the
lights go off totally and everybody is in the dark.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister says he wants to put his makeshift
unity policy behind him and get on with jobs and the economy. So
let us do that.
At present the greatest single impediment to job creation and
economic growth in the country is the dead weight of the federal
debt of $570 billion, a debt the government is adding to at the
staggering rate of almost $100 million per day.
The IMF and Canadian business groups have repeatedly called
upon the finance minister to get real and revise his weak deficit
reduction targets.
Has the Prime Minister specifically instructed the finance
minister to come up with a new deficit reduction target, the only
one that means anything to the Canadian taxpayer, namely a zero
deficit by 1997-98?
(1425 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are on target with what we said to the Canadian public
we would achieve.
We said that we started at 6.2 per cent of GDP and that we would
be at 3 per cent after three years. We will be there. We set some
realistic goals in a way that we have not stifled growth in Canada.
At the same time as we were going through a reduction in the
deficit, we saw a reduction in unemployment. The policies are
working very well.
Most of the time members of the third party are not asking
questions on the economy. Yesterday, for example, they spent the
day talking about the coat of arms. Is it extremely important?
On January 15, 1994 the leader of the Reform Party criticized
previous opposition parties. He said that anyone could make a
jackass of themselves in question period. Yesterday the Reform
Party proved that quite well.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the former head of the Economic Council of Canada, John
Deutsch, used to have trouble getting Mr. Trudeau to take the debt
and deficit seriously. I wonder if Mr. Trudeau passed the virus on to
the current Prime Minister.
The only way Mr. Deutsch could get Trudeau to take public
finance seriously was to somehow link it to the Quebec or unity
issue. Perhaps we can awaken the Prime Minister's interest in the
issue by pointing to a recent CROP poll which said that 80 per cent
of Quebecers believed the government should come to grips with
real deficit reduction. This is something Quebecers have in
common with other Canadians.
If the Prime Minister is groping for actions to unite the country,
why does he not personally commit his government to balancing
the federal budget before the end of his mandate? I ask him not to
give us a 3 per cent answer.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when we ran in the last campaign we were very careful to
put in
17277
writing what we would do. We are meeting our goals. We are
respecting the commitments we made and we are on target.
When we introduced the budget last February it was extremely
well received by all commentators; we had done the right thing. We
are moving in a rational way in the reduction of the deficit. At the
same time we are not doing it in a way that is causing social
problems in the country.
That is why we are a party of the centre. We are not doctrinaire.
We will not eliminate medicare just to have a balanced budget. We
will make sure we have policies that respect the individual and at
the same time offer solid administration.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister likes to dwell on the past. I am
wondering whether he remembers a time in 1978 when Mr.
Trudeau went to an economic summit in West Germany and was
somehow briefly converted to deficit reduction. He came back and
went on TV. Does the Prime Minister remember this? He
announced $2 billion in spending cuts without even telling his
finance minister, who is now the Prime Minister.
Could the Prime Minister take a short trip, perhaps to Queen's
Park; take a few lessons on budget balancing from Mr. Harris; get
on TV and commit himself to spending cuts that will balance the
federal budget?
Eight of eleven senior governments in Canada are now
committed to deficit elimination. Will the Prime Minister make the
Government of Canada the ninth, by committing to balance the
federal budget by 1997-98?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the leader of the Reform Party is making too many trips to
Queen's Park. He will lose the only Ontario member he has in this
House very quickly if he does not change his travelling plans.
We have a good plan for reduction of the deficit. At the same
time we are making sure the economy is working well. We will
have managed to take the deficit from 6.2 per cent to 3 per cent in
three years, as we said we would. It will be reduced gradually and
eventually we will have a balanced budget.
(1430)
However, we are not like their friend in the United States by the
name of Gingrich who is talking about balancing the books in 2002.
We do not talk like that; in Canada we do it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
A little more than a month after the Quebec referendum, the
unemployment insurance reform tabled by the government calls for
both the maintenance of national standards and the implementation
of five new manpower programs as demanded by Quebec.
In light of the maintenance of national standards and the
introduction of new programs, will the Prime Minister admit that
the proposed reform does not in any way reflect the distinct and
unique character of the people of Quebec?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the reform has been well received all over the country. I
have figures in front of me showing that 66 per cent of people in
Quebec at this time feel it is a well balanced reform which respects
the regions.
But an unemployed person is an unemployed person. What does
he or she need from government? Good programs. Language does
not enter into it. The unemployment insurance system takes money
from those parts of Canada where people have the advantage of
having jobs and distributes it to places where others do not enjoy
that privilege. It has nothing to do with language and culture; it has
everything to do with respect of the individual, and all citizens of
Canada are treated equally.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it has
been made very clear that this reform targets Quebec and the
maritimes, despite the Prime Minister's words.
How can the Prime Minister claim that his motion on the distinct
character of Quebec holds any meaning when, the first chance he
gets, he makes a total mockery of a unanimous request from the
Quebec National Assembly by treating Quebec like all of the other
provinces, in that it will be subject to the same national standards
when it comes to manpower?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have done what we said we would, namely withdraw
from manpower training and make funds available to truly serve
those individuals who are our clients, the unemployed. We want to
ensure that the money they paid in while working gets back to them
and not to others.
As for the question of a distinct society, I note once again-for
the third time-that the members of the Parti Quebecois and of the
Bloc Quebecois will again vote, in their great hypocrisy-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Yes, Mr. Speaker, they will
again vote against the distinct society, because they criticize us and
when the time comes to vote in the House, they vote against-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
17278
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, I would ask you all to be a little
more careful in your choice of words during question period. As
we know, words that stir up one side are usually replied to in kind.
(1435)
[English]
I ask all hon. members to please be very careful in their choice of
words. Naturally we would not allow some terms to be used against
individual members but when they are used in a general way they
have been acceptable in the House.
* * *
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last week
the Minister of National Revenue and taxation bragged about
raising $1.1 billion out of the underground economy.
If he were truly serious about attacking the underground
economy why were Revenue Canada auditors instructed not to
audit visible minorities?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the basis of the hon. member's question is false.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if that is
truly his answer, if he really believes it is false, then this gentleman
is not doing his work.
A report was done by Ernst Young on the underground economy.
A lot of field auditors were interviewed, reviewed and visited.
They were asked what was going on. Six, seven or eight case
reports were done. The study and some off the record remarks by
auditors confirmed they were instructed not to audit certain visible
minorities ``due to potentially explosive political repercussions''.
Further, the minister should know that 90 per cent of liquor
smuggling in Ontario comes across one certain spot near Cornwall.
I again ask the minister what steps he is taking to ensure his
auditors apply the rules of the Income Tax Act to everyone equally
regardless of race.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Typically, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about off the record
information.
We in Revenue Canada have a number of situations which can be
difficult. One example is the transport of grains across the border to
the United States where our customs officers are told not to stand in
the way of a speeding truck. No, they take the licence number and
we arrest the truck later. That is the type of situation we have there
which of course the Reform Party, which approves of running the
border, thinks is a good thing.
With respect to other situations in which there could be risk to
our officials, we instruct them not to take unnecessary risks. We
instruct them to proceed with their work. We certainly do not
instruct them, as the hon. member has claimed, to avoid any visible
minorities.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development. By lowering the maximum insurable earnings, the
government is making its most significant tax reduction, that is
$900 million, to the benefit of high income earners. At the same
time, it is reducing the benefits paid to seasonal workers while
collecting premiums from workers who hold precarious jobs.
Will the minister admit that, contrary to his claim that this
reform is fair, the new proposed system is regressive and unfair, in
that it gives some of the benefits taken away from the poor to those
who have stable and well paid jobs?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a habit
of being able to understand only half the equation.
The other half of the equation is that higher income earners will
therefore have fewer benefits because they pay less of a premium.
The reason is the maximum insurable earning has gone up to 40 per
cent higher than the average industrial wage. The recommendation
of both the seasonal task force and the House of Commons is that it
should be frozen or brought down because it far exceeded what was
required and therefore much higher payments were going out to
those at higher income levels. That is the reason we brought in the
reform. It was to be fair.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the other half of the equation is that the minister is taking
money from people who were not contributing before. Will the
minister recognize that it is unfair to have high income earners pay
lower UI premiums, while part time workers who put in less than
ten hours per week will now have to pay premiums, even though
they will not be eligible to collect UI benefits?
(1440 )
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this poor member has it so
totally wrong. It is incredible how mistaken he really is. The reality
is we have extended coverage to part time workers.
17279
More workers at part time levels will now have the opportunity
to be extended. If they are not eligible we offer a full rebate of their
premiums up to $2,000. Obviously this member cannot read.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last
Friday the minister of human resources announced two mega
training programs, one for $800 million and the other for $300
million.
Federal training programs have proven a colossal failure. The
auditor general says regional development programs do not create
jobs, except of course for federal bureaucrats.
Why is the minister throwing over a billion dollars into more
wasteful training programs when the auditor general says the
programs will not create jobs?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first let me make a correction
in the statement of the hon. member. The employment measures
are not just for training. They are directed specifically at a number
of tools to help people get back into the workforce.
Self-employment is a good example. Over the past two years in a
number of test projects across the country we have been able to
take people on the unemployment insurance system and help them
start their own business, thereby creating a job for themselves and a
job for another person. Sixty thousand jobs have been created by
one of the tools we included in that package.
Another tool is the use of a wage supplement which again helps
small business people to create tools. We have evaluated
specifically that in these measures we can add up to 15 additional
weeks of work and, more important, up to $5,000 additional
income for the people who use these proposals under our measures.
That seems to me an awfully good investment.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
not talking about test projects. I am talking about creating
sustainable long term jobs, and not with these billion dollar
boondoggle projects.
In his last report the auditor general said there is absolutely no
evidence that training is accompanied by new jobs. The $1.1 billion
needed for these wasteful programs will come at the expense of
part time workers.
When the auditor general has said these training programs will
fail, why is the government hammering part timers to the tune of a
billion dollars to pour into its bottomless pit of so-called job
creation, mega training programs?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote an
authority whom the hon. member might accept as even more valid
than the auditor general: the member for Calgary Southeast herself.
She wrote to me on April 10 saying the community of Calgary
Southeast has a proposed training centre. It is well known that this
area is Calgary's home to many who are unemployed, struggling
and lacking in ability.
I encourage her to consider supporting this training project and
help in the revitalization of Calgary Southeast. It seems to me the
member for Calgary Southeast wanted training programs for
members of her riding. Why does she not want them for the rest of
Canadians?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage,
government members were saying that there was no Quebec
culture, that there was only a single and broad Canadian culture. At
the same time, they were sharply criticizing Telefilm Canada for
funding sovereignist Quebec artists.
(1445)
Does the Prime Minister agree with the members of his caucus,
who say that there is only one culture in Canada and that Telefilm
Canada must now fund artists according to their political opinion?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is a French culture in Canada, which is Canadian. It
is in Quebec primarily, but I think the culture of the Acadians and
Antonine Maillet forms part of the French culture, and this culture
is not necessarily Quebec culture.
So, when we talk about a Canadian culture, it may be of French
or English expression. This morning I spent time with Canadian
natives, who were having ceremonies. They too have a culture,
which is entirely their own, but which is Canadian too, because it
covers all of Canada. There are people of this culture in British
Columbia, in Quebec and in the maritimes.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the cat is finally out of the bag. The Prime Minister, a
Quebecer, has just denied his own culture. Will the Prime Minister
acknowledge that his fine speeches in recent weeks on the distinct
nature of Quebec society were nothing more than pure hypocrisy,
since he did not manage even to convince-
The Speaker: My dear colleagues, I would ask you once again
not to use words that incite on both sides. I would again ask the
hon. member to carefully choose and use her words, as I have
17280
before. I would ask you not to use the word ``hypocrite''. Now, if
the hon. member would put her question.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I will phrase my question using the same word the Prime
Minister used. Will he acknowledge, since he has not even
managed to convince the members of his own caucus that
Quebecers are a people, that there is a distinct culture and that the
federal government must not lose sight of this in implementing its
programs?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I return to my argument. French culture is not found only
in Quebec. English culture is also found in Quebec. Gabrielle Roy
came from St. Boniface, Manitoba, and she is considered one of
French Canadian literature's finest. Her works continue to be used
today in schools in Quebec. That is just to show the quality. I think
that the member for Québec-Est, who was born in
Penetanguishene, learned French culture and the French language
in Ontario, and he is not any less French, because he is with the
Bloc today.
(1450)
What I am saying, and I have a number of examples, is that
French culture may be found throughout Canada, and that English
culture may be found in Quebec. We cannot say that Quebec is
strictly French, because all sorts of people live in Quebec. There
are a lot of proud francophones living outside Quebec.
* * *
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Justice.
The passage of Bill C-68 marked an historical moment for
Canada and for the families of the 14 École Polytechnique victims.
[English]
Bill C-68 is the greatest memorial this government could have
erected to the young women and their families. In the spirit of this
national day of remembrance and action on violence against
women, what specifically does the minister feel Bill C-68 will
accomplish?
[Translation]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by pointing
out the important contribution made by those who lost family
members in the Montreal tragedy six years ago today.
[English]
The fact is that if it were not for the commitment and the hard
work and perseverance of the families of those victims, this
important matter would not have found its way to the top of the
national agenda. We are in their debt for the work they did to ensure
the passage of the bill.
In specific response to the question put by the hon. member,
whose own work was so important in this regard, may I emphasize
that every year in Canada some 13,000 orders are made in the
courts of the country prohibiting people from having firearms
because they have shown a propensity for violence. Too often that
violence occurs in the context of the home. By a margin of two to
one, when men kill women in the home the weapon of choice is a
firearm, and 80 per cent of the time it is a rifle or a shotgun. It is
almost always legally owned.
The registration system that is provided for in this bill will
permit police to enforce those orders to remove firearms and save
lives. That is only one of the ways this bill will help in the effort we
must make continuously to deal with violence by men against
women.
* * *
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today
the results of the Alberta plebiscite on producer exports for wheat
and barley were released. Sixty-six per cent of barley producers
and 62 per cent of wheat producers, a good strong majority, voted
for choice and options to export these grains outside Canadian
Wheat Board jurisdiction.
Will the agriculture minister respect farmers' choice and options
to export their own wheat and barley?
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would remind
the members opposite in the industry to keep the results of the
plebiscite that was announced today in perspective.
As far as the results, that plebiscite gives us the opinions of a
number of producers on an issue in one province. It is a
wide-ranging issue that affects all of western Canada. The number
of producers who expressed their view are just a little over 10 per
cent of all the grain producers with permit books in western
Canada.
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
agriculture minister and the Prime Minister seem to forget that a
promise made is a debt unpaid.
Two years ago both the minister and the Prime Minister
promised prairie farmers a producer plebiscite on grain marketing.
It only took a few weeks for the Prime Minister to make good on
17281
commitments to the separatists in Quebec and now this
government is ramrodding Quebec appeasement legislation
through the House. Are prairie farmers second class citizens to the
separatists in Quebec?
I ask the Prime Minister: Will he fulfil his own promise today
and commit his agriculture minister to hold a prairie-wide binding
referendum on grain marketing?
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would remind
the hon. member that before he makes a statement on what the
Prime Minister said, he should have his facts straight. I do not
recall the hon. member being present when the Prime Minister
made that statement. I was.
(1455 )
The Prime Minister at that time said the minister is following
through on that. The minister has put in place a process called the
western grain marketing panel to consult with members,
participants, and all stakeholders in the western grain industry
before the consideration of any changes, if there were ever to be
changes, to the western grain marketing system.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the secretary of state for the status of women.
In the speech she gave at the 4th world conference on women,
the hon. secretary of state demanded equal rights for all women. At
the same time, she presented to the whole world the famous plan
for equality between the sexes concocted by her government to
achieve this noble objective.
Since it is acknowledged that the campaign against violence can
only succeed if women achieve economic equality, can the
secretary of state tell us if her government has taken its famous
plan for equality between the sexes into account in its UI reform?
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)
(Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yes, we have certainly
conducted an in depth analysis of all the data affecting the lives of
women and men to determine the impact of all the actions taken by
the Minister of Human Resources Development in this regard.
I must also tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we considered the fact
that, in the end, taking every hour worked into account is a winning
proposition for women. I am proud of what we have done.
Furthermore, our government's decisions affecting poor families
and children are an important part of our initiatives. We should all
be proud and give the right information on what our party has done
in this regard.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary question.
Since we know that 70 per cent of part time workers are women
and that the UI reform will have a very negative impact on them,
will the secretary of state admit that her famous plan for equality
between the sexes simply does not work and is a total failure?
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)
(Status of Women), Lib.): No, Mr. Speaker, I do not acknowledge
these facts, which are neither current nor true. Our minister has
responded to this line of inquiry several times by showing how
women in part time and seasonal jobs will fare better in relation to
the number of hours worked both for the well-being of their society
and for their own families.
I think my colleague would be well-advised to look at the data
more closely; she would be very happy with the results.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
a Senate committee proposed an amendment to Bill C-103 that
would grandfather the split edition of
Sports Illustrated Canada.
This is one of the amendments the Reform Party proposed. It was
also a recommendation of the task force on magazine publishing.
Here is something interesting: The Minister for International
Trade wrote a letter to the Minister of Canadian Heritage in January
1994 suggesting the same thing. Does this indicate a split in the
cabinet over the split runs?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, of course there is cabinet solidarity on the subject.
What the Minister for International Trade wrote in a letter to me
dated January 27 was a report of the conversation he had with his
American counterpart, Mickey Kantor. It is quite natural for the
Minister for International Trade to report to the Minister of
Canadian Heritage on the views expressed in the United States.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, careful
reading of the letter clearly shows that the Minister for
International Trade was making a recommendation to the Minister
of Canadian Heritage, which he chose to ignore.
17282
(1500 )
The most disturbing aspect of the bill is that the Canadian
government has now decided to place a tax on any future Canadian
split runs into the United States. If the bill becomes law, a Canadian
magazine that wants to export a very similar magazine to the
United States will be subject to an 80 per cent excise tax imposed
on it by its own Canadian government.
How in the world could the heritage minister have created such a
bone-headed law that punishes Canadian industry?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the policy on split runs has been in effect for
something like 30 years. It has helped the Canadian magazine
industry which has contributed to our understanding of ourselves as
Canadians. It contributes to our identity. It contributes to national
unity, a fact that our colleagues in the Reform totally ignore
because they are not interested in Canadian unity.
* * *
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, two
economic studies were released yesterday by the Centre for
Research on Violence Against Women and Children in my riding.
They put the annual calculable cost of this violence at over $4.2
billion, with health related costs alone at $1.5 billion annually.
I ask the Secretary of State for the Status of Women how
knowledge about the cost of violence against women will affect
government action on this very important issue.
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)
(Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the outset I recognize
and thank the member for London West and particularly Dr.
Greaves from the Centre for Violence Against Women which
undertook this study at the behest of Status of Women Canada.
The question of the pervasive nature of violence against women
and children and its negative impact in a social, economic, health
and criminal sense is very serious. There is no doubt the issues
described in the study are vital and important to us all.
I will study the findings. I will recommend certain actions to the
Minister of Justice and to the Minister of Health, notwithstanding
which I would suggest to all members of the House, to all levels of
government and to societies and municipalities that the problem is
beyond just this government which has done a very good job
through the Minister of Justice with respect to the criminal
element.
The social and economic aspects still need to be addressed. Until
the economic interests of women are looked into, we will have
ongoing violence against women and children.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister and is with regard to the
embarrassingly high bank profits that have been announced in the
last few days.
As a result of the UI changes almost $1 billion was taken out of
the pockets of working Canadians and small business operators.
With obscenely high bank profits being registered, what steps will
the Prime Minister take to make sure they too pay their share of the
deficit?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, like other corporate citizens they are paying taxes on their
profits. In the last budget the Minister of Finance imposed a special
$100 million tax on the profits of banks. They pay more than the
normal share, but the Minister of Finance will look into the
situation. It is a sign in some ways that the economy is performing
better than before.
I hope they will pay a lot of tax out of these profits as we need
the money to create jobs in Canada.
The Speaker: I have an announcement to make before dealing
with a few points of order. During question period the lights went
off and on. I want members to know, so that when they return to
their offices they will know what is going on, that there is a general
power failure in parts of downtown Ottawa. The emergency
generator at the House is now in operation. We are recording the
television signal but nothing is being distributed at this time until
power is restored.
(1505 )
Our computer system was cut and needs to be restarted, which
takes approximately an hour. Therefore the blues from question
period will be delayed.
* * *
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order to seek unanimous consent of the House to observe
one minute of silence in memory of the 14 young Canadian women
who were murdered six years ago this day in Montreal, on
December 6, 1989.
The Speaker: The House has heard the suggestion. Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The House stood in silence.]
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my point of order arises from an answer the customs and
17283
revenue minister gave when he said that the Reform Party
encouraged farmers to illegally run the U.S. border.
The Reform Party has never encouraged farmers to run the
border with their grain. The fact is that the customs and revenue-
The Speaker: I think the hon. member has a point of
clarification. I would rule that it is not a point of order but a point
of debate. I thank him for raising it.
_____________________________________________
17283
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to 16 petitions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)
(Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is a day of
remembrance.
Today, we reflect on the tragic December 6th, 1989 when 14
women died in the prime of their lives. Today, we also want to
reflect on the thousands of women who face violence as a daily
reality.
It was also 25 years ago tomorrow that the royal commission on
the status of women tabled its report in this House.
[English]
The report was a landmark study of the status of women in
Canada. It contained 167 recommendations ranging from
equalizing women's opportunity in the workplace to recognizing
the equal contributions of both partners in the division of family
assets upon marriage breakdown. Most of its recommendations
have now been implemented. For example, sex discrimination is
now prohibited under all of Canada's labour laws. Minimum wages
are the same for both men and women. Maternity leave and
parental leave benefits can be claimed.
(1510)
The royal commission, however, did not identify violence as a
major issue, but its members had a vision about what it would take
to achieve equality. They predicted that as we uncovered the root
causes and consequences of women's unequal status new issues
would emerge that would need addressing, and they were right. In
the last 25 years we have uncovered a close relationship between a
woman's lack of equality and her vulnerability to violence, and we
have brought it out of the shadows.
At the fourth United Nations World Conference on Women in
Beijing, Canada made a commitment to implement the
conference's platform for action, a powerful global agenda for the
advancement of women. Among the 12 main themes it contains a
plan of action to address violence against women. The global
platform reaffirms that violence against women is not a private
concern and that states must exercise diligence to ensure that
violence is not occurring in homes, in schools, in the workplace or
on our streets.
[Translation]
Another commitment is the federal plan for gender equality,
released in August. The plan is a framework for federal action to
bring about equality for women in Canada.
We created the plan in conjunction with our preparations for the
Beijing conference, and it includes several commitments to address
violence against women.
There have been significant changes since the royal commission
report. At that time, only one woman was a member of the House
of Commons, Grace MacInnis.
[English]
There are now 54 women in the House. Whatever our political
persuasion, we share a debt of gratitude to the royal commission,
for without its vision the road here would have been longer and
harder. Women's voices are now heard in the Chamber. Violence
against women is now openly discussed. Women and men are
working together to find solutions. I am confident that together we
can find solutions at all levels of society.
Today in particular I wish to commend the House for its support
of the historic legislation on firearms control. The weapon used at
l'École polytechnique will soon be banned.
All of us want to make the country safer for women. We will
succeed with the help of our partners, the men in the House and the
men of the country, the NGOs, individuals, labour, business and
other levels of government.
In memory of the women who died six years ago, let us pledge to
continue our campaign against violence to prevent such tragedies
and to give women and girls their rightful place in society.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with
a great deal of emotion that, like all the hon. members of this
House, I wish to pay tribute today to the 14 young women who
were gunned down by an assassin six years ago. We join their
families and friends in remembering them and thinking about the
impact that their death will have on our society.
17284
As the hon. secretary of state for the status of women
mentioned, the tragedy that took place at l'École polytechnique
prompted us, collectively, to reflect on the steps we should take
to ensure that such a tragedy never happens again. This is a joint
undertaking in which each of us must take part. The lives of our
daughters, sisters, colleagues, friends and fellow citizens and their
safety are at stake.
The second part of my remarks is intended not to be critical but
rather to be constructive. I believe that, as parliamentarians, we
must speak candidly about our concerns to further the common
cause of equality for women. As the secretary of state for the status
of women quite rightly pointed out, 25 years ago, the royal
commission on the status of women came to the conclusion that
violence against women can only be curbed by ensuring equal
rights for women.
(1515)
I am pleased to see that the Quebec government has taken some
very concrete steps just today regarding conjugal violence. Today,
the Government of Quebec tabled in the National Assembly its
action plan on conjugal violence. It is important to turn our
attention to this plan for a moment.
First of all, I should point out that six ministers have co-operated
in developing a structured and integrated action plan: the ministers
of justice, health and social services, public security, and
education, the minister responsible for family affairs and, finally,
the minister responsible for the status of women.
Many actions are planned, but I will just list a few. In all cases,
during the inquiry on the provisional release of the accused, the
attorney general's prosecutors will be required to ask the court to
set as a condition for release that the accused surrender his
weapons to the police.
Second, victims will be informed quickly and automatically of
the provisional release of the accused and of the conditions set by
the court. They will also be informed of a release under a
temporary absence or parole program.
Third, a prevention campaign on violence against women will be
launched. Moreover, the Quebec police information centre will
record all cases of spousal abuse, as well as all conditions for
release. Firearms will be confiscated immediately when a spouse is
arrested. In the education sector, the emphasis will be put on the
prevention of spousal abuse and on locating children who witness
such violence. This is what we call action.
Again, these are only a few of the measures included in the
Quebec action program. On behalf of my colleagues, of women
who are victims of spousal abuse, and of Quebecers, I congratulate
the Quebec government for this major initiative.
While Quebec is taking action in its fields of jurisdiction, what
does the federal government do?
Mrs. Finestone: We implemented laws to take similar action.
Mrs. Gagnon: There is some and, in fact, quite a bit of inertia at
the federal level. Let us start with the achievements of the
government, as mentioned by the secretary of state for the status of
women. I must say that I have some sympathy for the hon. member,
since she must work with a government that shelved the issue of
women as soon as it took office.
An hon. member: You know that is not true.
Mrs. Gagnon: So, this government approves a plan to promote
equality between men and women. Mr. Speaker, could they please
let me finish? The government pledges to implement the program
for action approved at the fourth world conference on women. It
passes a bill on gun control. That is nice, but that is also very little
after two years in office.
Let us now look at what the government did not do. Let us look
at the missed opportunities. There are quite a few. The government
did not amend the Criminal Code to specifically prohibit female
genital mutilation. That is also a form of violence. It does not
happen here, but it is a form of violence. It also takes place in
Canada. The government did not protest to Chinese authorities
when, just last week, the situation of orphan baby girls became
public. That is also a form of violence against women. These
women are seen as an excess, a surplus.
The government did not amend the Canadian Human Rights Act
to protect homosexuals against discrimination. That is also another
form of violence. The government did not put its reform projects
through the prism of its plan to promote equality for women, thus
forcing many women to live in poverty. That is another form of
violence, and we are still a long way from achieving equality
between the two sexes.
In conclusion, I ask the government to truly follow the spirit and
the letter of the recommendations made 25 years ago already. I ask
the government to implement, in its own fields of jurisdiction, true
measures to promote equality between men and women, so that
some day we can say that the tragedy which occurred at
Polytechnique was a terrible but isolated incident.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
think all members of this House share in the painful memory of the
tragic event that happened six years ago, in 1989, when we lost 14
of our young women at l'École polytechnique in Montreal. They
fell victim to a senseless crime.
17285
(1520)
[English]
We all believe the rights of victims of crime must be placed
before the rights of criminals in society. Today we feel those
sentiments most deeply.
Exactly one year ago today in the House of Commons we held an
emergency debate on violence against women. I appreciate the
noble sentiments that continue to be espoused by those who speak
on this and similar issues, for I too share those ideals. However, I
am greatly concerned that in the intervening years since that
emergency debate very little has been done to improve the
situation.
I am concerned that the House does only lip service to
addressing the issue of violence against women, children and men.
Remember, we must not limit our focus to eradicating violence
against women. We must enlarge our scope and become active
pacifists to wipe out senseless violence in society. We must rally to
this sentiment and demonstrate to the world that Canada is a leader
in its efforts to reduce crime, to safeguard its citizens and to
champion the rights of victims.
To do this we must get at the root of the problem, not just smooth
over the symptoms. Gun control will not in and of itself solve the
problems of violence in society.
I believe that until the government of the day can identify the
root causes of crime, until it can identify the reasons for domestic
violence and violence against women, we will continue waking
every day to face the personal tragedies brought on by crime.
Today the government must take a more positive step in the area
of violence against women and demonstrate its commitment to
rooting out the problems the minister has alluded to.
In its press release of November 27 of this year Status of Women
Canada called violence against women a violation of women's
human rights. I agree with this statement and I believe the
government should enforce its sentiments.
The government sent many people at great taxpayer expense to
the women's conference in China. I challenge that conference site
on the basis of China's terrible record of human rights abuse,
especially to women, children and political dissidents. At that
conference our government confirmed that eliminating violence
remains a priority. It should be, and according to the secretary of
state it is, a global goal not limited to Canada.
Today is a serious day for us all, a day for us to remember, a day
for us to help the healing. It is a day when we should all commit to
moving forward. We must foster attitudes which promote peace
and tolerance and express zero tolerance for the violation of human
rights and zero tolerance for violence against women.
Echoing sentiments of the Secretary of State for the Status of
Women, I pledge and let us all pledge in memory of the women
who died six years ago to continue vigorously our campaign
against violence to prevent such tragedies.
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I request the
consent of the House to speak briefly on this subject on behalf of
the New Democratic Party.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House on this
important day. I rise on behalf of all New Democrats on this
national day of remembrance and action on violence against
women, December 6.
Today is the anniversary of the 1989 Montreal massacre at
l'École Polytechnique. Fourteen women died on this day, a great
tragedy. Today we reflect on, remember, mourn and call for further
action to address and prevent violence against women.
(1525)
On this day I also remember the work of my former colleague, a
New Democratic member of Parliament from British Columbia,
Dawn Black, whose efforts during the previous Parliament led to
the establishment of this national day of remembrance and action. I
think of her dedication to the House and to the issue of violence
against women when I think of the motion today.
I also remember and sympathize with the families of the 14
women who died simply because they were women. Those families
live with the effects of this great tragedy in ways many of us will
never fully understand.
Violence cannot be condoned, but it cannot be treated only with
punishment. We must understand violence and treat the causes as
well as the criminals. A plan of action must be recognized every
day of the year, in every part of the country and in all our actions.
We must deal with the economic and social roots of the
circumstances which lead to violence against women. We must
deal with economic and social legislation in the House. We have to
keep in mind the possible human consequences of that legislation
every day of our lives. We are confronted daily with decisions we
can make in the House which may affect people in ways which
could lead to violence and we must address those matters.
Today is the day on which we reflect on, remember and mourn
that which has been done to women. We must address the need to
work further on this important issue. I trust all members of the
House will heed the call for action on this important day.
Mrs. Wayne: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I also would
like the opportunity to speak on this subject.
17286
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, today on the
national day of remembrance and action to end violence against
women I rise to extend the sympathies of my party to victims of
violence across the country.
Six years ago 14 young women were brutally murdered at
l'École Polytechnique in Montreal. That act of violence
reverberated across the country. Its pure senselessness shocked us
profoundly. It made us question the direction Canadian society was
taking. It prompted the federal government to take action to deal
with this issue at home and internationally.
As a society we must be committed to stopping violence against
women both in and outside the home. We have to address the root
causes of violence. As members of the House we must pass laws
which will do that. Progress is being made on this front, but only
continuing efforts involving each and every one of us on both sides
of the House will change the attitudes which perpetuate violence.
To the families of the 14 young women whose lives were so
brutally cut short six years ago today and to all those who have
suffered because of violence, they are in our thoughts and in our
prayers. It is not enough to have a policy of zero tolerance against
violence. As legislators we must take concrete action so that
women, indeed all Canadians, can lead their lives free from the fear
of violence. We must try to find out what has happened in our
society and what has changed in our society which brings about
these brutal acts.
* * *
(1530)
[Translation]
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the
House, in both official languages, the report from the Canadian
section of the International Assembly of French Speaking
Parliamentarians, together with the financial report concerning the
twelfth session of the AIPLF Regional Assembly of America, held
in Quebec City July 12 to 14, 1995.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to the order of reference received from the House
dated November 8, 1995, I have the honour to report on behalf of
the chairman, the hon. member for Burin-St. George's, Bill C-95,
an act to establish the Department of Health and to amend and
repeal certain acts, with amendments.
[Translation]
Your committee referred the bill to a subcommittee. According
to the standing committee's resolution dated November 7, 1995,
and in anticipation of the order of the House, the report from the
subcommittee was deemed adopted as the seventh report from the
standing committee during yesterday's meeting.
[English]
Copies of the relevant minutes of proceedings and evidence of
the subcommittee and the standing committee are also tabled.
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1) and 108(2), on behalf
of the chair, the hon. member for Burin-St. George's, I have the
honour to present the eighth report of the Standing Committee on
Health entitled ``A Study of National AIDS Strategy: Report of the
Subcommittee on HIV-AIDS''.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, we are asking for a government
response to our report.
[Translation]
That sub-committee was created by the Standing Committee on
Health in 1994. Its precise terms of reference were to study the
spread of HIV, the prevention and the treatment of AIDS and the
support for HIV carriers and AIDS sufferers, and to focus
particularly on the role of poverty and discrimination in that
situation.
The sub-committee has now completed the first phase of its
work, that is a thorough review of the National AIDS Strategy. It
held hearings from December 1994 to May 1995.
The report touches briefly on the epidemiology of HIV in
Canada and around the world. It deals with the various elements of
the strategy, the orientation, the coordination, the partnerships, the
budget, community action, education and prevention, care and
treatment, and finally, research. It contains several
recommendations suggesting that the federal government increases
its efforts in the fight against the AIDS epidemic.
[English]
Copies of the relevant minutes of proceedings of the
subcommittee and the standing committee are also tabled.
17287
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to present a petition from 110 British Columbians, many
of them from my riding of Vancouver East.
The petitioners would like to draw the attention of Parliament to
the continuing military offence in Sri Lanka and the arrest in
Toronto of Mr. Manickavasagam Suresh.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure Canadian
neutrality so that the national conflict in Sri Lanka is not
jeopardized; to intervene immediately and release Mr. Suresh; to
take action to lift economic embargo and press censorship in the
north and east of Sri Lanka; to allow freedom of movement of the
civilians in the north and east of Sri Lanka without fear,
intimidation, and terror; and to resolve the conflict between the
Tamil people and the Sri Lankan government through peaceful
negotiations between the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE, the
representative of the Tamil people.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have two
petitions I wish to present today on behalf of the residents of
Simcoe Centre.
The first group of petitioners are requesting that the Government
of Canada not amend the Human Rights Act to include the
undefined phrase sexual orientation. The petitioners are troubled
about not defining the phrase sexual orientation. They have a
legitimate concern that such a broad term could include all kinds of
sexual behaviour.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition involves section 718.2 of the Criminal Code.
The petitioners are concerned that naming some groups in
legislation will exclude other groups from protection and that
sentencing based on the concept of hatred is very subjective and
will undermine our justice system.
(1535 )
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the privilege of presenting a petition asking the government to
respect and maintain the historic significance of militia units in
Canada. This particular petition comes from Brockville and of
course they are referring specifically to the famed and historic
Brockville Rifles.
Their feeling is that in the haste to streamline the role of
Canada's forces, the militia will be looked upon as an easy target
and something that can be done without much significance.
However, I want to remind the government that very often in small
communities that is the only federal presence that exists.
Therefore, I would like to see it maintained and restructured or the
role redefined. The petitioners understand that change is likely to
happen, but they are not prepared to see it happen in such a way
that there will no longer be reserves. It is a pleasure to present this
petition.
The second petition I have contains 2,500 names and concerns
the same topic of maintaining the Brockville Rifles, but it is
lacking a little bit in form. So I am using this method in bringing
this concern to the public.
Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity-Spadina, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions from constituents of Trinity-Spadina. They
basically state that the petitioners would like to see Parliament ban
the use of BST in Canada and not accept dairy products from
countries where BST is used to treat cattle.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would ask that all questions be allowed stand.
The Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be
allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
The Speaker: I wish to inform the House that pursuant to
Standing Order 32(2)(b), because of the ministerial statement,
government orders will be extended by 20 minutes.
>
17288
17288
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
with regard to government business Motion No. 26, I move:
That the debate be not further adjourned.
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 yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 391)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Cowling
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacDonald
Maclaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-146
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Caron
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Daviault
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Ménard
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Nunez
17289
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Riis
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
St-Laurent
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-93
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bouchard
Brien
Canuel
Copps
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
de Savoye
Debien
Dingwall
Fewchuk
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Marleau
Mercier
Ouellet
Paré
Pomerleau
Robichaud
Robillard
(1620 )
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We just had a
very important vote in the House of Commons. I do not know
where the member for Sherbrooke is. I wonder if possibly we
could-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think you would find unanimous agreement for the
following motion. I move:
That, on Thursday, December 7, 1995, if any division is demanded with
regard to any business pursuant to Standing Order 81, the said division shall be
deferred until 6.30 p.m. on Monday, December 11, 1995; and
On Friday, December 8, 1995, notwithstanding the Order made Thursday,
November 30, 1995, the putting of the question on any motion relating to the
Business of Supply pursuant to Standing Order 81 shall be deferred until 6.30
p.m. on Monday, December 11, 1995.
(Motion agreed to.)
[Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I believe you will find that there is unanimous consent to
agree to the following motion. I move:
That, during the debate on Government Business No 26 today, there shall be
no quorum calls nor dilatory motions accepted by the Chair, and that at the
expiry of the debate, the question then before the House shall be deemed put and
a recorded division deemed demanded and accordingly deferred to 6.30 p.m.
Monday, December 11, 1995.
. (Motion agreed to.)
* * *
[
English]
The House resumed from November 29 consideration of the
motion.
(1625 )
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Mr. Manning moves the
following amendment:
That the motion be amended by adding immediately after the word
``accordingly'' the following:
``5. Nothing in this resolution shall:
(i) confer or be interpreted as conferring upon the legislature or government
of Quebec, any new legislative or executive powers, proprietary rights,
status, or any other rights or privileges not conferred on the legislature or
government of any province;
(ii) diminish or be interpreted as diminishing in any way the rights and
freedoms of any resident of Quebec;
(iii) deny or be interpreted as denying that Canada constitutes one nation''.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, a point of order. I wish to invoke
Standing Order 43(2). Liberal members will be sharing their time
10 minutes and 10 minutes for the rest of this debate.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I had prepared a speech, but I am going to have to
leave half of it out, because something happened during question
period which I find extremely important. But first, I would like to
let you know that all Bloc members will speak for 10 minutes only.
Last Wednesday, when he tabled his motion, the Prime Minister
said, and I quote:
-Quebec is a distinct society within Canada. As a Quebecer and a francophone,
I understand and share the desire of my fellow Quebecers to have our difference
recognized.
He was talking to the motion he had tabled in the House. The
motion reads as follows:
That
Whereas the people of Quebec have expressed the desire for recognition of
Quebec's distinct society;
(1) the House recognize that Quebec is a distinct society within Canada;
(2) the House recognize that Quebec's distinct society includes its
French-speaking majority, unique culture and civil law tradition;
This afternoon, during question period, I asked the Prime
Minister if he was in agreement with his colleagues on the heritage
committee who, for the past two weeks, have been coming
strongly against the distinct society and Quebec culture. I asked the
Prime minister if he believed that his colleagues had the right to
state that there was only one culture in Canada, and that, from now
17290
on, Telefilm Canada should fund artists on the basis of their
political obedience.
The Prime Minister rose in this House and said that in Canada,
there was only one culture, a Canadian one, whether French or
English. It would appear that, two weeks after tabling in the House
a motion saying that we are distinct because of our unique culture,
the Prime Minister has not understood his own motion, probably
because it was written by a member of his staff. If our culture is
unique, it is the Quebec culture since we are in Quebec, and that is
what we are requesting.
Our culture is unique because it is French, because among other
things our majority is French-speaking. But, today, the Prime
Minister said: ``No. There is only one culture and it is Canadian.''
You cannot have it both ways, either the Prime Minister does not
understand the meaning of the motion or he understands very well
and, for the first time this afternoon, when he rose in the House, he
recognized that Quebec is not a people, that there is only one
people and it is Canadian, English Canadian preferably. However,
he allows us the privilege of expressing the English culture in
French. This is the gist of what he said this afternoon.
Yet, when we passed the bill which created the Department of
Canadian Heritage we asked that the government be responsible
and acknowledge that there was a distinct society in Quebec. We
repeated our request, we proposed amendments to recognize
Quebec culture, but the Liberal government trivialized Quebec. It
made its culture part of the Canadian melting pot, excluding it from
its bill on culture and denying Quebec its very distinct existence, its
fundamental right to express its difference.
(1630)
During the last two weeks, the Liberal Party's representatives on
the Heritage Standing Committee practically had allergic reactions
every time they heard or met witnesses who financed artists or
films.
Today, the Quebec people want to be recognized as a people and
want the powers which go with it. On October 30, 49.5 per cent of
Quebecers voted for a country of their own; the federal government
is offering us an empty shell, which has only some value as a
symbol, and we realized today that it is not even worth the paper it
was written on two weeks ago.
Quebecers are a people. As early as 1766, the English
government of Murray said that Quebecers, who were then called
Canadians, were a brave and courageous people.
In 1791, the Constitutional Act divided Canada's territory into
two colonies, in order to recognize the existence of two peoples on
its territory. At that time, these two peoples were called the
Canadian people, but they lived in Quebec, hence today's
Quebecers, and the British people.
In 1839, Lord Durham, whom we cannot suspect of being a
Quebec nationalist or of having a separatist frame of mind, came to
the following conclusion in his report on the state of the colony,
and I quote: ``Problems in Lower Canada are not political or
administrative in nature, but are the result of the forced
co-existence of two distinct nations in the same state.''
In 1905, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, an inveterate Liberal, said and I
quote: ``Every time I go back to my province, I am sad to see there
is a feeling that Canada is not for all Canadians. We must come to
the conclusion that Quebec is our only homeland.''
In 1965, the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission, whose work
Prime Minister Trudeau hastened to wreck, released a preliminary
report in which it noted that Canada was going through the most
serious crisis in its history. The commission exposed in these terms
the misunderstanding on which the Canadian crisis was based and
is still based, and I quote: ``[-] English people, many of whom
were showing good will [-]did not understand [-]the profound
leanings of so many Quebecers towards an increased autonomy and
their growing belief that Quebec would become a distinct nation
ruling its economic and social institutions.''
Because English Canada still does not understand Quebec, the
constitutional future is doomed and we will never be recognized as
a people. According to the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission, an
essential requirement for Canada's survival is a real association
that can only exist between equal partners.
In fact, this motion is totally in line with what Manitoba Premier
Gary Filmon told the Toronto Star on April 27, and I quote:
[English]
``Quebec has to make its decision based on what I believe is the
greatest country in the world and not look for us to change our
country in order to make it more acceptable for them''.
[Translation]
In fact, the Premier of Manitoba is telling us to either take
Canada as it is or leave. That is why the Bloc Quebecois is
fundamentally opposed to the motion before us today, and our
voting against it will surprise no one in Quebec. Quebec is no
longer content with crumbs. Quebecers have risen, they are
standing up with their heads held high. They are asserting
themselves as a people who want to be recognized as such and they
want to negotiate as equals.
17291
In the wake of the Meech failure, Robert Bourassa said, and
I quote: ``Quebec is, today and forever, a distinct society that is
free and capable of controlling its own destiny and development''.
(1635)
At his party's March 1991 convention, he convinced his
colleagues to adopt the Allaire resolution, which read as follows:
``The failure of the Meech Lake accord is a historic event. This
failure has made it imperative for Canada to change. Above all, the
Meech Lake accord failure occurred at a time in history when
Quebec society has reached a level of maturity, openness and
development allowing it to feel fully in control of its future.
Undoubtedly, Quebec now has the means and resources needed to
exercise its choices''.
Quebecers know that the Prime Minister's proposal is empty.
Today, they understand that the Prime Minister is incapable of
quoting a single Quebec author. His references are strictly
Canadian. Quebec will accept nothing less than to be recognized as
a people with all the powers that this entails.
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the hon. members of the Bloc Quebecois are once more forgetting
that the people of Quebec have reaffirmed their sense of belonging
to this country.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry to interrupt, but
the table advises me that there will be no questions and comments
since we are debating a special motion. The hon. member for
Richmond-Wolfe will be sharing the member's speaking time.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak today on the Prime
Minister's motion to outline Quebec's traditional demands and
show that this motion of the Liberal Party of Canada is nothing
more than a charade to water down the aspirations of the people of
Quebec.
My remarks will be broken down into three parts, covering the
last three decades. What happened during each of these three
decades?
Thirty years ago, during the quiet revolution, there developed in
Quebec a clear movement in favour of Quebec becoming a
sovereign state and assuming sole responsibility over its social and
economic policies. This prompted the Quebec government to
undertake discussions on the patriation of the Constitution, that is
to say on a new division of powers and on an amending formula
that would be acceptable to Quebec.
In 1964, the Fulton-Favreau formula restricted the federal
government's capability to act unilaterally, by requiring a majority
of two thirds of the provinces to make substantive changes to
federal institutions. This gave rise to widespread protest in Quebec.
In fact, the Fulton-Favreau formula was putting off negotiations
on the substantive issue, namely the division of powers, to deal
only with the technical aspect of the matter, namely the patriation
of the Constitution.
The Quebec government then specified that any agreement
concerning the patriation of the Constitution would be subject to a
positive and satisfactory redistribution of powers. From then on,
this will become a traditional demand. A new Constitution was to
give the Government of Quebec the broadest powers possible on
the basis of affirming the two-nation status of Canada in the
country's social, political and economic structures.
But Pierre Trudeau and the Liberal Party of Canada did not
agree. Trudeau objected to policies based on Quebec as a nation. As
part of the patriation process, they were intent on doing away with
the Quebec rhetoric based on the concept of collective rights and
with the fact that the French Canadian nation was becoming
identified with the Quebec government.
At this stage of the negotiations to patriate the Canadian
Constitution, the political thinking of Prime Minister Pierre
Trudeau is clear: Canadian federalism cannot, without jeopardizing
its integrity, tolerate any constitutional asymmetry in the
distribution and use of legislative powers.
Moreover, in Mr. Trudeau's mind, there are essentially only
citizens and their individual freedoms vis-à-vis the state.
Consequently, the Quebec society must blend with the rest of
Canada.
(1640)
The Victoria charter marks the beginning of a second decade of
negotiations and discussions to patriate the Constitution. The
charter recognizes Quebec's jurisdiction over social policies, but
seeks to impose national standards. In a letter to the Prime
Minister, in which he states his refusal to accept the Victoria
charter, then Quebec premier Robert Bourassa writes: ``Canadian
federalism must be decentralized to reflect the diversity of the
regions, and to allow the Quebec government to preserve the
cultural future of its majority''.
In March 1976, Pierre Trudeau, who was still Prime Minister,
writes in a letter addressed to all provincial premiers that if there is
no unanimity, the federal government will have no choice but to
decide whether or not to recommend to Parliament the patriation of
the 1867 Constitutional Act.
The third decade of discussions and negotiations on the
patriation of the BNA Act starts with the failure of the Quebec
government to obtain a mandate to negotiate
sovereignty-association with the rest of Canada, a concept which
implies the national
17292
recognition of Quebecers, as well as a major redistribution of
constitutional powers, in favour of Quebec. As early as 1981, and
in spite of having been re-elected, the Parti Quebecois finds itself
in an extremely vulnerable position vis-à-vis the federal
government. A scathing answer came from the Liberal Party then
in power in Ottawa. The Canadian Prime Minister took advantage
of Quebec's vulnerability and proceeded with unilateral patriation
of the Constitution.
On December 1, 1981, Quebec's legislature adopted a resolution
opposing unilateral patriation of the Constitution. Thus, Quebec
reaffirmed its will to entrench in the new Constitution the
fundamental equality of the two founding peoples as well as, as a
natural consequence of its distinct society status, its extended and
exclusive jurisdictions.
The ``Canada Act'', or the Constitution Act of 1982, was the
temporary conclusion of a process which had been going on for
over 20 years. The charter of rights and freedoms, enshrined in the
new Constitution, is the very basis of the principle of a Canadian
nation. It gives the central power unprecedented political influence,
an unparalleled power of centralization.
We all know what happened next: the day Pierre Trudeau
decided to unilaterally patriate the Constitution, the Liberal Party
of Canada lost Quebec; since the 1984 election, it never could
obtain more than a third of Quebecer's votes. From then on, it
spoke mainly for Canada. The Conservative Party came to power in
Ottawa and undertook to have the newly patriated Constitution
signed by Quebec. More consultations were held between the
premiers, which led to the Meech Lake accord in June 1987. A
strong basis for negotiation was then laid out between Canada and
Quebec since that accord has forced the courts, from the Supreme
Court on down, to interpret the whole Constitution, including the
charter of rights and freedoms, in light of the traditional claims of
Quebec.
Once again, however, the Liberal Party of Canada was not
prepared to accept that and did everything in its power to scuttle the
1987 accord. The current Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal
Party made every effort, with the assistance of the hon. member for
Sherbrooke, to water down the recognition of the distinct nature of
Quebec. In English Canada, where the Meech Lake accord gave
rise to much opposition, his voice was heard as being extremely
effective in ruining any political basis needed for the accord to
succeed.
The current Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Party then
reiterated his party's position: Canadian federalism cannot accept
constitutional asymmetry without being substantially weakened,
Quebec cannot be regarded as a nation and only individual rights
are recognized by the charter of rights and freedoms, which is the
only instrument for interpreting the Constitution and the status of
the Quebec state.
(1645)
Last week in the House, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois
described the rapprochement that was made in the late 80s between
the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party of Canada, a
rapprochement which led to the Charest report, where the
interpretative clause granted to Quebec in view of its distinct
nature, as a state representing a nation, was formally denied.
The beginning of the third decade of talks and negotiations about
the status of the province of Quebec in the Canadian
Confederation, pursuant to a Constitution which Quebec never
agreed on, is marked again by a toughening of Quebec's position.
Since it obviously could not expect anything from English Canada,
the Quebec government, largely supported by the voters, now
favoured a clearly sovereignist option, as shown, first, by the
emergence of the Bloc Quebecois and the mass election of its
members in Ottawa; second, by the almost total disappearance of
the Conservative Party; third, by the failure of the Charlottetown
accord; and lastly, by the election of the Parti Quebecois in Quebec.
From then on Quebec would no longer get involved in endless
and useless rounds of negotiations. The results of the second
referendum on the sovereignty issue held in the province of Quebec
occurred half-way through this third decade, recognizing the
dazzling progress made by the sovereignty option in Quebec since
the failure of Meech. Quebec is now heading towards its political
sovereignty and nothing can make it go backwards. Certainly not
this silly resolution which the Prime Minister of Canada introduced
last week to urge the House of Commons to recognize Quebec as a
distinct society. This is only a token recognition.
This very day, in the House of Commons, during question
period, the Prime Minister himself denied the existence of a
Quebec culture although his own resolution aims at recognizing it.
He stated that there is only one culture in Canada, and that is the
Canadian culture. We will vote against this resolution, which is as
hypocritical as it can get.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the members of the House of
Commons in the debate on the motion to recognize Quebec as a
distinct society within Canada. In order to properly understand the
true scope of what the Government of Canada is doing by
proposing this resolution, it must be interpreted in the light of the
vote this past October 30.
Quebecers had two very clear things to tell us: they want to be
recognized within Canada for what they are: a people with a
French-speaking majority and a different and distinct culture. They
also want to see profound changes made to the way the Canadian
federation operates.
17293
Of course, our government needs to respond to economic
imperatives and to the necessity of ensuring the continuation of
our social programs, and this requires new partnerships with the
provinces. We must, however, also acknowledge the reality of
Quebec's malaise, a malaise directly linked to the wounds of the
past, the most severe of these being the failure of the Meech Lake
Accord.
The Leader of the Opposition, in his reply to the Prime
Minister's speech, has given us his version of the recent history of
our country and the path it took through the constitutional to-ing
and fro-ing. Allow me then to give you my version, that of a
Quebecer with a totally different perspective. I was there when the
Meech Lake Accord failed.
(1650)
Unlike the Parti Québecois and a number of the Bloc members
who voted against Meech, what I wanted along with most of my
fellow citizens was for there to be recognition that Quebec is
distinct, different, and it was my impression at that time that this
country did not accept me for who and what I was.
[English]
However, I understood that it was not the country that was
refusing to recognize me. It was not my fellow citizens who were
not willing to recognize me. It was rather the very process of
constitutional negotiations and of agreement ratification that led us
to this dead end. This is why I wondered, is it necessary to break up
my country just because we have difficulty agreeing on the process
to be used?
The answer is clear to me. I believe it is possible to pursue the
discussion and continue to build this prosperous country in an
atmosphere of respect and generosity.
[Translation]
It is my firm belief, with the majority of Quebecers, that it is
possible for us to reconcile two realities: our identity as Quebecers,
of which we are extremely proud, and our identity as part of
Canada.
I have always believed that these two realities are in no way
mutually exclusive, and that they do not in any way justify the
destruction of a country built up by the generations before us with
such effort and determination. That is what I defended then as a
member of the Liberal Government in Quebec, and that is what I
defend now as a member of this Liberal Government in Ottawa.
During the referendum campaign, the Prime Minister of Canada
made commitments he is meeting today by recognizing that
Quebec is a distinct society. To do so is to recognize history, our
common history. To do so is to remember the origins of the Canada
of 1867 which opted for a federal system designed to reconcile
Quebec's right to be a distinct and provincial autonomy with the
need to work together to build this vast country of ours that is
Canada.
In a speech to the Quebec Legislative Assembly on November
24, 1871, Sir Wilfrid Laurier said, and I quote: ``It is a historical
fact that the federal system was adopted only to maintain the
exceptional and unique position of the province of Quebec on the
American continent''.
Do not get me wrong. I am simply stressing that unlike those
who believe that separation is the only way for Quebec to take its
place within Canada, I am convinced we can deal with this matter
in a different way, without breaking up the country.
The Leader of the Opposition may argue that distinct society is
no longer an issue in Quebec but the fact remains that Quebecers
earnestly want their distinctiveness to be recognized. This
government understands that. Of course, some people would have
preferred to see this recognition immediately entrenched in the
Constitution, because the logical corollary of this recognition is its
inclusion in the basic law of our country.
We would have preferred to do so now. However, the PQ
government and the leader of the Bloc Quebecois have already
closed the door on any discussion. Nevertheless, by rejecting the
proposal for Quebec's separation on October 30, Quebecers clearly
gave their provincial government a mandate to work together with
the Canadian government to find practical solutions and help
Quebec develop its potential within the Canadian federation.
(1655)
The government of Canada understood the message and
presented, in an initial gesture of openness, the motion we are
debating today in the House of Commons. We have met our
commitment. The ball is now in the court of the Parti Quebecois
and the Bloc Quebecois. By their stubborn refusal to consider any
options for change, they are saying no to Quebecers. Make no
mistake: whether the option selected to describe distinct society is
Meech 1, Meech 2, Meech 3, Charlottetown 1, Charlottetown 2 or
Charlottetown 3, the response of the leader of the Bloc Quebecois
was very clear: ``I am a sovereigntist and I will never sign an
agreement with the Canadian government''.
The Leader of the Opposition often says Quebecers look to the
past to justify their choice. I say to him today that Quebecers will
also remember that the Bloc Quebecois and its leader refused to
vote for the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society in this
House.
To recognize Quebec as a distinct society within Canada is a step
in the right direction, as our federalist partners from Quebec
acknowledged. It will provide the foundation for new, constructive
relations with all our fellow Canadians. For once, the Parliament of
Canada will be united. And when we have passed this motion,
17294
Parliament will have to consider the distinct identity of Quebec.
For the first time, elected representatives of all Canadians will
make a solemn and meaningful gesture towards the people of
Quebec. As a Quebecer, I am proud to be part of a government that
recognizes the distinct identity of the people of Quebec, and I am
proud to be a member of this government which will continue to
work towards including this recognition of the Canadian
Constitution.
Because the interests of Quebec and the interests of Canada as a
whole are involved, I will vote in favour of this motion.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to take part in this historic debate on the Prime
Minister's motion which recognizes Quebec as a distinct society by
its language, its culture and its civil law tradition.
The motion we are now debating is one of three initiatives for
change announced by the Prime Minister last week and which act
on the commitments made during the referendum campaign in
Quebec. In addition to recognizing Quebec as a distinct society
within Canada, the federal government will henceforth grant a
regional veto on all constitutional changes and pull out of
manpower training.
These initiatives result from promises that the Prime Minister
made to his fellow Quebecers during the referendum campaign
and, particularly, the great Montreal rally which brought together
more than 150,000 people, including 500 from my riding of
Simcoe-North and the neighbouring riding.
It is important to note that these initiatives are not the only
measures the government has taken in response to Quebec's
referendum, but they surely are an important step. Moreover, they
are further proof that when the Prime Minister makes a promise to
Canadians, he keeps his word.
During the referendum campaign, everybody was talking about
the need for change, everybody said that, from then on, things
should be done differently if our country were to remain united.
However, I have the impression that the change the vast majority of
politicians were referring to did not reflect what Quebecers want.
(1700)
Indeed, when I was going from door to door during the
referendum campaign, people were constantly telling me that they
wanted jobs, economic stability, a better future for their children, a
good social climate, and so on. I can assure the House that the
numerous Quebecers I met gave little importance to constitutional
changes and the squabbles that go with it.
In this regard, Quebecers are not very different from all other
citizens of Canada. People from my riding of Simcoe-North
express the same concerns. That is why I say that the commitment
to change to which we should give a lot of importance is the one the
Canadian people, including Quebecers, want. This is why I am
proud to be part of a government which, for two years now, has
been tackling with the real problems of the Canadian people, which
are job creation and economic growth.
That being said, the proposals put forward by the Prime Minister
are not without sound basis and legitimacy. The motion on distinct
society is important because it recognizes an obvious historic fact
and reassures Quebecers as to their place in our country. In fact, the
concept of distinct society is not new, neither historically, nor
constitutionally.
[English]
According to Professor Ramsay Cook, francophones in British
North America and Canada developed early on a consciousness of
their distinctiveness, both individually and collectively. The most
obvious badge of that distinctiveness was language, while the civil
code provided a legal foundation for difference.
The idea of distinctiveness is even recognized implicitly in the
British North America Act of 1867. The mere fact of creating the
province of Quebec was the beginning of acknowledging a distinct
society within Canada. There are also explicit recognitions of this
fact in the Constitution. For example, section 94 recognizes the
civil law of Quebec as distinct. Section 133 made Quebec, alone
among the original provinces, bilingual, and by doing so made
French for the first time an official language of Canada.
The motion put forth by the Prime Minister is yet another
explicit means to acknowledge Quebec's distinctiveness. Even
though the distinct society resolution we are debating is not a
constitutional resolution, it is important that it is a solemn
commitment that sets out how the federal government, the only
government in Canada that speaks for all Canadians, will conduct
its affairs. In effect, it will indicate to all citizens and all federal
government authorities that it is the will of the House of Commons
that the distinct character of Quebec society be recognized once
again within the Canadian federation.
I also want to assure all Canadians that the expression ``distinct
society'' is not exhaustive by any means. Even though the motion
simply notes that the distinct society includes some specific
elements of Quebec, it does not exclude others. It does not exclude
the fact that Quebec is a pluralistic and democratic society, that all
its citizens are equal before the law, the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms, or the Canadian Constitution.
This motion and the other measures announced by the Prime
Minister are a significant first step in delivering on the promises he
made during the referendum campaign. They are also an important
bridge to the first ministers conference on the amending formula
that is scheduled to take place in April 1997. Once these negoti-
17295
ations start we will have benefited from the practical application of
the distinct society motion and the veto bill.
The Prime Minister made it quite clear that these measures can
some day be entrenched in the Constitution if it is the desire of the
province of Quebec and other provinces to do so. However, the
Government of Quebec has stated categorically that it does not
want to participate in any constitutional discussions. Until this
unreasonable position of the Parti Quebecois government changes,
we will not be able to incorporate these measures into the
Constitution.
(1705)
[Translation]
I am convinced that the vast majority of Quebecers will view
these initiatives in a favourable light. They will see that the Prime
Minister is serious about making the changes they want.
Obviously, members of the Bloc Quebecois and of the Parti
Quebecois will oppose these changes. The reason is simple: they
are separatists. They have no intention of improving
Confederation. Their only goal is to destroy Canada. As Jacques
Parizeau said during the referendum campaign: ``We do not want a
distinct society, we want a country.''
In spite of the intransigence of the Bloc Quebecois and of the
Parti Quebecois, we will not let them prevent the adoption of these
changes that are not of a constitutional nature, changes that the
people of Quebec and the rest of Canada want.
[English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to advise the House that I will be splitting my
time with my colleague, the member for Simcoe Centre.
I am pleased and I am also saddened to rise today and speak to
government motion M-26, which seeks to recognize Quebec as a
distinct society. It also gives me great pleasure to stand before my
colleagues in the House today as a loyal Canadian and state why I
am opposed to this motion.
Speaking here today, I hope to make clear my opposition to this
motion from a historical, legal, and personal point of view. Along
with Bill C-110, this motion constitutes the other half of the Liberal
initiative to appease Quebec separatists in the wake of the
disastrous handling of the October 30 referendum by the Liberal
government. From a historical perspective, I must again note the
saying, which has often been quoted in the House, that those who
do not learn from the mistakes of the past are destined to repeat
them. It would appear that history is not a subject the framers of
this motion are even remotely acquainted with.
For the benefit of those Liberal members who were not present
in the Chamber last week for the debate on Bill C-110, I will say it
again. If this motion were some grade B horror movie it would be
dubbed ``Son of Meech''. This motion, or is it a rerun of a motion
picture, is a doomed rehash of the Meech and Charlottetown
packages which were ultimately rejected by Canadians. If they
could be given a say on this motion it would be rejected outright as
well.
I was not present during the Meech and Charlottetown debates,
so I have waited several years to speak on this issue, but my
remarks are as relevant now as they would have been in 1987 or
1992. This is when attempts similar to the one before us were made
by the former Tory government.
Yes, Madam Speaker, and members on both sides of the House,
``je me souviens''. I remember the failures of those initiatives, even
though the members across the way clearly do not. I also remember
that a former prime minister and a government bloated with
arrogance yet painfully thin on solution proposed essentially the
same thing. I also remember what became of that government just
one year later.
It is because people remember and have learned from history
that I say confidently that this motion is unacceptable to Canadians.
From a legal point of view, this motion raises more questions
than it answers. That would not necessarily be such a problem
except that the Prime Minister will not answer any questions in
regard to the meaning of that phrase ``distinct society''. What does
that mean?
(1710)
This lack of openness by the Prime Minister only adds to the
confusion. For example, does the motion confer additional powers
on Quebec or not? If, as I suspect, it does or will with the passage
of time give powers to Quebec that are not given to the other
provinces, then clearly it must be opposed.
Also, is this motion the precursor for an attempt by the Prime
Minister to entrench the notion of distinct society in the
Constitution? If it is, as I suspect is the case, and the Prime
Minister wishes to do so at the scheduled review of the
Constitution in 1997, should Canadians not know this now? Let us
have the government be forthright.
By extension, any entrenchment of distinct society as an
interpretive clause in the Constitution will be unacceptable to
Canadians for the same reasons it was back in 1992. Also, does the
notion of distinct society in any way detract from the principle that
all Canadians are equal? Here again the government will give us
nothing but vagaries.
17296
By way of personal remarks I would like to share with members
on both sides of the House the contents of a very insightful letter
I recently received. The letter is from François Labrecque, a
longtime resident of Quebec. I had the honour of meeting him
while I was in Quebec City recently, and he wrote to me with his
thoughts on this distinct society issue. He writes quite intuitively:
``I am not sure the concept of distinct society should be presented
as is. Instead of thinking of powers and rights with regard to
distinct society, we should think in terms of responsibilities of
individuals, groups, responsibilities of the people themselves and
of their provinces to ensure that the distinct character is
preserved''.
He concludes in part that the Liberal Party approach is to provide
distinct society status for Quebec and nothing for the other regions
and provinces, which provokes negative sentiment in the rest of
Canada and is clearly a divisive element.
This is a Quebecer I am quoting, who clearly understands the
shortcomings of any distinct society proposal. Reformers would
agree with his position.
For the benefit of those Liberal members who require further
insight, no Canadian doubts that the language and culture of
Quebec make it distinct. The language is dynamic, the culture is
vibrant. These two characteristics alone will ensure its survival.
That is why attempts to legalize or enshrine the concept in the
Constitution are so insulting and offensive to many Quebecois.
The Liberals are asking Quebecers to adopt some siege mentality
that claims their language and culture is weak and dying.
Fortunately, Quebecers themselves know the exact opposite to be
true and realize that assuming responsibilities in key areas will
allow Quebec's distinctiveness to be maintained.
From a personal point of view, I watched as the Prime Minister
tabled this motion in the House last week on November 27. At the
time I could not help but feel that my birthright as a Canadian was
being sold for the sake of a deal. I cannot understand how a
government that professes to be so dedicated to the concept of
equality can advocate something that so detracts from this
principle. Then again after seeing Bill C-64, the government's
racial quota bill, I should not really be all that surprised.
(1715 )
I ask members of the House to contemplate the concept of
equality as they consider the consequences the motion will have on
the equality rights of all Canadians.
I cannot support the government's motion to recognize Quebec
as a distinct society. There is no safeguard to ensure that the motion
will not be used to further the goal of Quebec nationalists. There is
no assurance the motion will not be used to confer additional
powers on the legislature of Quebec. It offers no guarantee that
individual rights will not be made subservient to collective rights.
It affords no protection to the minority population of the province.
The leader of the Reform Party has put forward an amendment
that would address many of the concerns I have raised. It is my
hope that when it is put to a vote members opposite will support it.
To do otherwise and to adopt the government's motion as is would
be to characterize some Canadians as distinct and some as second
class citizens.
In conclusion, unless the amended motion is adopted by the
House I serve notice of my intent to vote against the motion as put
forward by the government.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is a
pleasure to speak against the motion to recognize Quebec as a
distinct society. We are talking about a promise or a commitment
and I will talk about some promises and commitments that have
been made.
I will start with a promise that was made in the eleventh hour. It
is a reluctant promise. It is a promise that was made in panic and
desperation. It is a promise that had to be made because the
government was out of touch with the people of Quebec. It is a
promise that was made with no reflection on the past or no vision of
the future. It is a promise that is out of touch with Canadians as a
whole. As a matter of fact 55 per cent of Canadians outside Quebec
oppose the recognition of a distinct society.
We are trying to bring in a promise the Canadian people already
rejected at the front door. I am talking about Meech Lake and
Charlottetown. The Canadian people had a say and they rejected
the concept of a distinct society. Yet here we are trying to bring it in
through the back door, top down, with no consultation. The
government has imposed closure to push it through. The attitude is
that it knows best what the people of Canada want. This is a Quebec
promise, not a Canada promise.
In October 1993 there was a cry for change in the country from
both inside and outside Quebec. The message I heard in October
1993 was that Canadians were worried. They were concerned. The
response of the government since the election has been don't
worry, be happy. After two years of blissful ignorance and a do
nothing approach we almost lost the country on Monday night,
October 30.
It is interesting that during the referendum the separatists had 30
days to spread their unchallenged version. The destroyers of
Canada were given 30 days to get their message out. The
government brings in closure so that we who want to speak for
Canada, to get the Canada agenda out, are given 30 hours. We have
30 hours to debate what is probably one of the most significant
motions before the House in the two years we have been here.
17297
So much for open government. So much for government
responding to the voters. We should not be surprised. This is the
government that actually had to appoint candidates because it did
not have confidence in the Canadian voters to select the right
candidates. This is the government that shows its so-called true
concern for the democratic process. This is the government that
has shown its arrogance time and time again in the two years we
have been here, with the rebuke of government members who
stood to speak against gun control.
(1720 )
We were dealing with a promise of desperation. Let us now deal
with some promises or commitments that have been made to the
Canadian people. What about the promise of jobs, jobs, jobs? Two
years ago we heard about jobs, jobs, jobs, and today we have an
unemployment rate of 9.4 per cent. In the month of November,
44,000 jobs were lost in Canada. Where are those jobs? What
happened to the much heralded infrastructure program that was to
kickstart the economy and create jobs? It was another failure. All it
did was put us $6 billion deeper in debt with no jobs. Now we have
a cabinet committee looking at the job creation problem.
It is also interesting that the only jobs we have right now are
because of free trade. This is a government that opposed free trade,
but it is a pleasure to stand today and recognize the jobs that free
trade created.
What about the promises of dealing with the deficit? Nothing has
been done in two years in spite of warnings from Moody's and the
IMF. Government members were shooting the messenger when
Moody's warned the finance minister that he was not going far
enough in dealing with the deficit. We have since learned that the
IMF has issued the same warning to the government, that it has not
been serious in attacking the deficit and that Canada is in great
jeopardy.
What about tax relief? Smokers are the only ones I know that
received any tax relief from the government because it gave in to
the smugglers. Canadians as a whole have not had any tax relief. In
fact Canadians who drive cars are paying additional taxes which
they can ill afford, although there was a commitment to tax relief.
The statement in the red book on criminal justice was that
fighting crime and violence required tough measures. We have not
seen tough measures. Tough measures are lacking. We still have
section 745 of the Criminal Code that allows those convicted of
first degree murder back on the streets after 15 years and we still
have no victims' rights.
The government has not addressed the issue of political reform.
We all experienced the level of cynicism and mistrust out there
between the voters and the politicians. It still has not addressed the
problem. It has done nothing about recall. As a matter of fact a
private member's bill on recall was defeated in the House. The
government does not believe in referenda, in letting Canadians
have a say on major issues that affect their lives.
The GST was to be replaced. In two years it has done nothing
about the GST. The Deputy Prime Minister was to resign if the
issue was not dealt with in two years. The last time I looked she
was still in the House of Commons.
I am highlighting these promises because they were made to all
Canadians. If these promises had been kept, they would have gone
a long way to addressing the unity crisis we face in the country. The
people of Quebec are just as concerned as the people of Ontario and
the people of B.C. about the fact that we have a government that is
not getting its spending under control, that is not dealing with the
criminal justice system, that does not respond to victims and that is
not responding to elected politicians who represent the people in
their ridings.
We could see the people of Quebec during the referendum
looking at Ottawa and asking: ``Could it be any worse if we went on
our own?'' They were looking at a federal government that is
failing to deal with the major problems of the country. It is
conceivable some of them could very well have said to themselves:
``Why not leave? What we are looking at in Ottawa is a situation
that is taking us deeper and deeper into debt. There is no indication
they have learned from the past and will do anything about it''.
It is evident we have not learned anything from the past. I recall
the b and b commission that originated back in 1965. It was to deal
with the greatest crisis in the country. I supported that in 1965
because I thought it would address the unity problems we were
having and would bring the country together.
After 30 years it has been an utter and complete failure. All the
government has to do now is look across the aisle and staring it in
the face are 53 members of Parliament elected from Quebec to tear
the country apart, living testimonial to the failed policies of the
past, the status quo.
There is no question we must change. That was the message in
October 1993. I am proud to say Reformers put forward 20 positive
proposals for change that had strong support both inside and
outside Quebec.
(1725 )
The 20 proposals for change did not require opening up the
Constitution. They could have been done by a willing government.
We saw it as a win-win situation. It was to go a long way to keeping
our country united. It was to go a long way to addressing our
overspending because many of the changes dealt with a
realignment of powers, decentralization, eliminating duplication
and bringing governments closer to the people they were serving.
17298
We also missed the message in the Spicer commission report.
The Spicer commission criss-crossed Canada and spoke to over
400,000 Canadians, 300,000 elementary and secondary school
students. In the report there was strong support for equality of
provinces and of people. There was also strong support for the
recognition of Quebec's differences, but there was little support
for two-tier citizenship. That is what the bill is dealing with.
During our break in November I held a series of town hall
meetings across my riding. I wanted to get the feel of the people
about the situation we would be dealing with, the possibility of
another referendum or the possibility of recognizing Quebec as a
distinct society.
I supplied the people at the meetings with a questionnaire. At the
end of the meeting I asked them to answer this question: Would you
support distinct society status for the province of Quebec if it
meant granting special powers not available to the other provinces?
Ninety-eight per cent of those who responded to the questionnaire
said no to any special status in recognizing the province of Quebec.
It is time the government stood up to the separatists and called
their bluff. It is time to stand up for Canada and speak for Canada
as a whole.
This country is a great country. It can only continue to be a great
country if it is based on equal provinces and equal citizens. I call on
all members of the government to oppose recognition of one
province. Otherwise they are destroying our great country, the
country our children and grandchildren are looking forward to.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is there unanimous
consent to call it 5.30 p.m. and proceed to Private Members'
Business?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 5.30 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
17298
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lièvre, Lib.): moves:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the
advisability of reviewing and reforming funding for political parties.
He said: Madam Speaker, the present system of financial
contributions to political parties contains deficiencies that must be
dealt with. All too often, we hear people say that large companies
run the country and that they are the ones who can benefit the most
from their financial support for political parties. We hear that
constantly.
As we know, such a perception is very harmful to democracy and
this is why I believe it is necessary to look into certain changes that
need to be made.
According to data obtained for the four last years including the
election campaign of 1993, the existing system costs the state some
30 millions dollars annually. Of course, I have all this information
at hand.
Since taxpayers have to pay for the system in one way or another,
we propose the following solution: the state should contribute one
dollar for every individual. In this way, democracy would be better
served.
This solution has many advantages. I will give you a few
examples. Such a system would be the most democratic form of
funding for political parties. Of course, every one would be equal.
Members of Parliament would no longer have to collect funds for
general elections. As we all know, this requires a lot of time and
effort, and political parties themselves have to spend money to
organize public fundraising.
The cost to the state would actually be lower, because the figures
I quoted were very conservative. I have indeed demonstrated that
the government would pay less in such a system.
This will put to rest the public perception that this is a slush
fund, because it is not good for the public to believe such a thing.
Politicians or parliamentarians would not owe anyone anything.
Time has come to review the system to ensure the proper
functioning of democracy, so that we can, once and for all, be free
to do our job without having our hands tied.
[English]
The democratic principle demands that every citizen be accorded
complete equality by the process which selects the people's
representatives. Canada's present electoral system violates this
principle in a fundamental way, for it is privately financed.
When private interests are involved in party financing the
political process deteriorates into a mere approximation of
democracy. The participation of corporations, unions and private
individuals in the political process obviously is inevitable and
indispensable in many ways but should in no way include the
financing of political parties.
In my view the repair of this structural failure is of paramount
importance. Any country which claims serious adherence to
democratic ideals should publicly finance its political parties by a
mechanism which directly relates their financial support to their
political support.
After looking at this present system and then at individual
financing options I present an inexpensive and flexible public
financing mechanism. Here are at least three objectives. The
present financing of political parties makes a mockery of the
17299
cornerstone of our democracy that every citizen should be accorded
complete equality by the process which selects the people's
representatives. It allows private organizations which have no right
to vote at all to indirectly cast hundreds of ballots by financial
support to a particular political party.
It restricts flexibility on policy issues since political parties must
give greater consideration to the largest supporters. This is
incompatible with the concept of a truly representative democracy.
Political parties should be solely responsible to their members and
obviously to the public.
Shareholders of corporations and members of unions do not
necessarily support donations made on their behalf. Party financing
by private organizations is a clear distortion of the democratic
process. However, in a free and democratic society private
individuals should have the right to contribute their own personal
funds to the party of their choice.
That sounds logical. Nevertheless there are at least three
fundamental objections to this option. It would require political
parties to spend a greatly increased and inordinate amount of their
time in fundraising. This is an inappropriate role for the people's
representatives and also is inefficient.
The proper function of a political party is to structure policy, not
fundraising. It does not address the primary inequity. Any privately
financed democracy, whether financed by private organizations or
by private individuals, will have its fundamentally democratic
factor distorted. This situation is abnormal and unacceptable in our
system. It simply cannot be protected from abuse.
In the United States it is common practice for every member of a
corporation's top management to simultaneously contribute to a
party or candidate the maximum donation allowed by an
individual, thereby in effect making a corporate donation.
(1735 )
The argument for individual financing is an incorrect
generalization of the principle that in a free and democratic society
each individual should have the right to support the party of his or
her choice. This right is inalienable but should not extend to the use
of personal wealth. The right to support the party of our choice
includes the right to vote for the party of our choice and to work for
the party of our choice. However, merely signing a cheque seems
too easy and unfair to those who do not have any great amount of
money to contribute.
The mechanism is very simple. I will outline a simple, flexible
and inexpensive democratic public financing mechanism that will
certainly make the system much more fair and equitable.
We would eliminate all private financing of political parties;
establish a party financing fund by an annual allocation of $1 per
voter from general revenues; distribute a portion of the fund among
the registered political parties proportional to popular vote;
distribute the other portion of the fund among the registered
political parties in existence.
The cost is negligible. One dollar per voter per year is a small
amount for the support of a democratic election. Furthermore, the
annual cost to the treasury would actually be less than what it is
today, less than the $30 million that it costs. The method of the
distribution is flexible and democratic.
The distribution of the first part of the fund by proportional vote
directly ties financial support to political support, ensuring that
parties with greater political support receive greater financial
support.
The distribution of the second part of the fund equally provides a
counterbalance that moderates the effect of large majorities,
ensuring that parties with less support receive sufficient funds to
effectively communicate the policies to the citizenry.
[Translation]
To conclude, some obvious conclusions come to mind. Public
funding is the only truly democratic way of financing political
parties. At present, political party financing is a mix of personal tax
credits, corporate tax deductions and contributions made by the
government to each candidate who gets at least 15 per cent of the
vote in an election.
Public funding will force political parties to account for the use
made of their funds. Political party funding will spare the political
parties the need to raise funds, which is very time and energy
consuming. This way, political parties can devote their time to
developing policies. Finally, it will greatly improve the way the
public perceives politicians, political parties and politics.
This is basically what I had to say about the need to make
changes in our political system with respect to funding of political
parties. If any other member wishes to comment on this, I will
welcome their comments, and if they have questions to put to me, I
will gladly answer them.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to speak to the hon. member's motion. At the
same time, I regret having to do so because if this hon. member of
the government feels the need to table such a motion, it is because
his own government has failed to honour its red book
commitments, the commitments it made in the last election
campaign.
There is no cause for alarm, however. If the hon. member looks
carefully at the government's record of the past two years, he will
17300
see that it has broken all its commitments, whether they have to do
with social programs, defence policy or the red book.
(1740)
The fact that a Liberal backbencher has to remind his own
government that it had promised to thoroughly review political
party funding shows how lightly this government takes its election
commitments.
In the matter under consideration, the red book promises to
restore voters' confidence, promote integrity in political
institutions, and limit conflicts of interest and influence peddling
through an in depth review of political party funding.
This wish is reflected in the motion. Except that, in March 1994,
I launched a debate that made it to third reading, a private
member's motion saying that political parties ought to be funded
by the public, that they should only be funded by people who have
the right to vote, which would exclude institutions, corporations,
unions, non-profit and for-profit associations.
Although this would be a guarantee of democracy and openness,
the vast majority of the hon. member's fellow Liberals voted
against it, because their party is no different from the one it
replaced. As they say in Quebec, they must look after their buddies
after the election. They must return the favour to the big
engineering and architectural firms, to the big banking institutions
for funding them and helping them get elected.
In this area as in many others, the government has refused to
honour its commitments by enacting bills or amending existing
legislation.
The motion before us is nothing but wishful thinking. What is
wishful thinking but decisions that have not been implemented in
practice. The hon. member's motion is nothing but wishful
thinking. He knows full well that his government is not interested
in changing the system, because it is, to a very large extent,
financed by multinationals and private interests, as was the
Conservative government.
His motion should have proposed a concrete measure, instead of
saying ``the government should consider the advisability of
reviewing and reforming funding for political parties''. It should
have said: ``We will change this or that to the funding of political
parties, for example by authorizing public financing, that is by
allowing contributions only from those who have the right to vote.
That would have been a concrete measure, instead of merely
expressing an interest to reconsider the existing system. The
member acts exactly like the Conservative government, when it
tried to distance itself from its 1988 election commitment.
At the time, Prime Minister Mulroney pledged, one week before
the election, to implement public financing for political parties. I
remember seeing a front page article in La Presse. But what did he
do after that? He set up a committee, the Lortie commission, which
cost $20 million and produced a report with recommendations that
were taken into consideration neither by the Conservative, nor by
the Liberal governments.
If you want the true solution to the problem of political party
funding, look at how things are done in Quebec. But let us be
honest and recognize that some steps were made in the last 20
years, such as the granting of a tax credit. Twenty years ago, 95 per
cent of the financing came from companies. The tax receipt now
delivered to corporations and individuals resulted in a 40 per cent
drop in contributions made by corporations. This is a first step.
Some provinces also took action to limit interference in the
government machinery associated with political contributions. All
political parties talk about bringing in reforms, but no one takes
concrete action. The Liberal party reminds us of those old parties.
(1745)
Let us not forget also that putting the funding of political parties
in order is in line with the Criminal Code. Section 121 of the
Criminal Code clearly states that it is an offence to attempt to
obtain a special privilege in return for a financial contribution. A
good many departments must be nervous about certain
contributions.
Reforming political fundraising is not only in keeping with the
Criminal Code, it also reflects the public's desire for openness and
transparency. Voters now want the people they elect to Ottawa to
know whom they are there to serve. They want their elected
representatives there to serve the common good and not the
interests of a privileged few. They want the individual who has
contributed $20 to receive as much respect from elected members
as the company that has contributed $50,000.
They want, too, for funds to be collected according to clearly
defined standards and used to serve all, not a privileged few. This is
a way to perpetuate our democracy as it is faced with the threat of
huge multinationals and heavy backers of political parties.
By placing grossroots fundraising at the service of democracy
and the political parties, we place the focus on the voter. We also
oblige the parties to come closer to the voters and to be concerned
with their needs, since they are the ones who will be providing our
funds.
More value will be assigned to membership in a political party. It
also develops a feeling of pride in belonging to a political party
they help to support. It also increases the democratic vigour of a
society and obliges the party to decentralize its decision-making.
As we come closer to achieving grassroots financing, democracy as
it is experienced in Quebec and Canada becomes a great and noble
undertaking that starts reflecting the true meaning of democracy
and openness.
17301
In concluding, I think the following puts it in a nutshell: tell
me by whom you are financed and I will tell you whom you serve.
That is more or less what we can learn from this discussion on
the motion before the House today.
I also wish to pay tribute to the hon. member who within his own
party had the courage to realize the extent to which his party and
the traditional party system are at the beck and call of certain
corporations and privileged contributors instead of being there to
serve all citizens.
His suggestion that $1 be contributed per voter to the existing
parties, a proposal inspired by a professor from New Brunswick, is
admirable but would prevent the creation of new political parties.
For instance, could the Reform Party or the Bloc Quebecois, two
parties who came out of the last election, have been born without
this contribution?
My point is that government financing might, by helping to
maintain existing parties, prevent other ideas, structures and
political groups from developing. So there is considerable
hesitation and there are in fact many question marks about the
suggestion.
However, I hope that by discussing these issues, we can perhaps
make the Liberal Party understand that even within its own ranks
some thorough changes are in order. And they will have to come in
the form of grassroots financing of political parties.
[English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
when I looked at Motion No. 367 I could certainly agree in a
general sense with the thrust of the motion. It reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the
advisability of reviewing and reforming funding for political parties.
(1750 )
The only problem I have with the wording is that it is a little bit
vague. It says ``consider the advisability of''. It is a pity that the
member had not worded his motion ``that in the opinion of this
House the government should review and reform funding for
political parties''. That would have been a lot clearer and a bit more
forceful in its thrust.
I see that the motion is non-votable and it reminds me that this
one hour of debate is fairly meaningless. I wish for the hon.
member's sake that it could be a votable motion so that at least
members could express their opinions on this issue.
What I would like to do before I continue with my speech,
Madam Speaker, is to ask for the unanimous consent of the House
to make this motion votable.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Madam Speaker, this is
absolutely amazing. The member's own colleagues are denying
him the right to have a votable motion. The member spent some
time talking about the importance of democracy in political parties
and he cannot even get the consent of his colleagues to allow a vote
on that motion in the House. It is certainly a symptom of the way
the government runs its affairs.
In a general sense I agree with the motion. I would like to read
the Reform Party policy on funding of political parties. In the blue
book policy which was developed and passed by our members it
says: ``The Reform Party opposes any assistance to political parties
and political lobbies from public funds, including any refund of
candidate or party expenses, government advertising during the
electoral period, the renting of parliamentary staff for
reimbursement, tax credits for contributions to federal political
parties and the transfer of tax credits to leadership campaigns, to
nomination campaigns or to parties at the provincial or municipal
level''.
It can be seen that we have a rather comprehensive policy. It
stems from the way that we had to build our party.
I heard the hon. member from the Bloc talking about the
difficulty of building a new party. We had to build our party from
the ground up, from nothing, with not a single cent. I was there
almost from the beginning, from late 1987. In fact, one of the
people who is now on my executive committee in the riding
association was one of the original signatories to the charter of the
Reform Party.
We had to raise money by having bake sales, by having garage
sales, by walking door to door asking for $10 here and $1 there. It
was worth it. It is tremendously fulfilling to be able to build a party
that way. If something is not worth working for, it is not worth
having.
In that respect I disagree with the member's position that the
state should fund parties because it is unfair to people who cannot
afford to contribute. If it is not worth working for, it is not worth
having.
Even though the Reform Party and even the Bloc started from
way behind with tremendous disadvantages, it is tremendously
fulfilling to be able to build a party from the ground up.
The hon. member stated that the present system is unfair to
people who cannot afford to contribute. No, it is not. People who
cannot afford to contribute can work as volunteers and help.
Perhaps they can even be fund raisers. I do not think the present
system is unfair at all.
Although the hon. member for Gatineau has a formula which he
claims would be democratic and fair, when I look at his formula I
see that there is a component that would give an equal amount of
money to each party but then there is a component that gives some
money based on the share of the vote in the previous election.
Obviously that is an unfair advantage to the party that is in power.
That is not reflected in a democratic way of the support levels at the
17302
time of the next election. That is a major flaw in the approach that
has been proposed by the member from Gatineau. All that does is
give the government side an advantage so it can spin its propaganda
and cover up its lack of interest in the political will of the people
between elections.
(1755)
The government very clearly demonstrates it has no interest in
the people's opinions between elections. I do not think it is going to
take this member's motion seriously because it is simply not
interested in getting the public involved.
It was obvious when members opposite refused to make this
motion votable that they were not interested in democracy at all. If
they were interested in democracy, they would take notice of
people and their opinions on the Young Offenders Act. They have
done nothing to make it more effective.
If you ask people anywhere in the country if their streets are
safer than they were two years ago when the government was
elected, they say no. All the polls indicate that people sense that
things are much more dangerous than they were then.
On Indian land claims, the government does not give a darn what
B.C. MPs have stated about what is happening in B.C. They simply
do not care what the people of B.C. think. We could talk about the
employment equity bill and the way that was forced through the
House and the lack of democracy in the way the government works.
Frankly, I often tell my constituents that if members came here
just once a year for 15 minutes, put all the bills for the year on the
table and took one vote, the outcome would be exactly the same.
This is a place of parties, rather than-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Could I ask the hon.
member about the relevance of his comments to the private
member's bill?
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Madam Speaker, what I am
trying to relate it to is the fact that the member opposite wants to
institute some sort of democratic support of parties. I am trying to
point out that the government side is not interested in anything
democratic. Its members will not vote for the motion. They will not
allow it to be voted on because they are not interested in
democracy. They want to pursue their political agenda, their party
agenda.
If Madam Speaker would feel more comfortable with me getting
more closely aligned to the motion, I am certainly prepared to do
so.
I support the idea that the government should review and reform
the funding for political parties, but not along the lines suggested
by the member. I would rather see the House get involved in the
Reform Party proposal, which is to make the support of political
parties depend entirely on the money they can raise from the people
they purport to represent.
After all, political parties are nothing more than special interest
groups. At the moment, political parties are special interest groups
that have a special advantage because the donations they receive
are tax deductible with a premium. They are much better than the
tax deductibility for any other type of charity or special interest.
The politicians of the past have chosen to give themselves an
advantage over everybody else who has to raise money from the
public. Members of the Reform Party feel that the political parties
should have to raise their money from the people they purport to
represent and that the money should not be tax deductible. It should
be truly money that is given in support of that party.
As I said earlier, if it is not worth working for something, it is not
worth having. It is certainly worth working to build a political
party.
Reform also disagrees with the idea that these election rebates go
back to candidates and parties. All it does is perpetuate the public
paying for special interest groups that they may not have any
interest in supporting whatsoever. Clearly this is anti-democratic,
not democratic, as the member would like us to believe.
In summing up, I would like to repeat one more time the Reform
Party's position on this type of motion. I will read that policy one
more time.
The Reform Party opposes any assistance to political parties and
political lobbies from public funds, including any refund of
candidate or party expenses, government advertising during the
electoral period, the renting of parliamentary staff for
reimbursement, tax credits for contributions to federal political
parties and the transfer of tax credits to leadership campaigns, to
nomination campaigns or to parties at the provincial or municipal
levels.
(1800 )
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the hon. member for Gatineau-La Lièvre for
bringing this motion before the House for debate. It is a useful
topic for debate and I am glad we have this opportunity for
discussion.
However, listening to the hon. member for North Vancouver, it
was one of the most extraordinary things I have heard in a while.
17303
He came out with this policy of the Reform Party which is another
case of do as I say but not as I do policies Reform spouts so often in
the House.
We all know that during the last election the members of the
Reform Party scooped their hands into the public till. Although
they abhor the idea of public financing of elections, they all applied
for the rebate they were entitled to get from the federal
government. Then their party applied for its 22.5 per cent
reimbursement which it is entitled to get from the federal treasury.
The members had no reluctance about going after that money to the
best of my recollection.
Now they say their policy is they will not take that kind of
money. Yet according to the rumours I hear they have fundraisers
from time to time. They issue tax receipts for those fundraisers the
way other parties do even though they say their policy is they do
not do that.
They say that is their policy but they do exactly the opposite.
They do as much as any other party does to take advantage of the
laws of Canada that give political parties advantage. Frankly, they
ought to do that but not if they are saying their policy is different. It
is what I would call hypocrisy, but I think it unparliamentary for
me to say that a member of the House is hypocritical or a hypocrite.
I would not do that. However, the Reform Party policy is very
hypocritical on this matter.
Those members use the money in the most unorthodox ways like
paying suit allowances of $30,000 a year to their leader so he can
be properly dressed while he gives up the publicly paid car.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would like to know what this has to do with the motion
before the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I am sure the hon.
parliamentary secretary is getting to the point. We will not have to
wait much longer.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, indeed we will not because I am
talking about electoral financing, which is what the motion
concerns. The hon. member may have missed the point since he got
on about young offenders and so on. I am trying to address my
remarks to the subject matter of the motion which is, after all,
electoral financing, but that may have escaped him. His remarks
seemed to be all over the place.
The other thing he should know is his colleague and our very
good friend, the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest, introduced
a bill dealing with electoral financing which is currently being
studied by the procedure and House affairs committee which I have
the honour to chair. I know the bill is going to come up next
Tuesday. It is going back on the agenda for consideration in the
committee.
Does this bill abolish public financing of parties? No, it does not.
It eliminates funding for parties that get less than a certain
percentage of the vote but it will continue it for everybody else. I
believe there has been some agreement reached between the hon.
member and members of the other parties which improves the
situation somewhat. However, I do not know what the final result is
and I would not presume to discuss the final details of the bill not
knowing them.
I think the hon. member for North Vancouver ought to be aware
that the policy of his party which he spouted with such apparent
sincerity is being ignored quite blissfully by the hon. member for
Edmonton Southwest in the bill he has presented to Parliament and
which now he is pressing my committee to report back to the House
on so he can pass it.
I hope the hon. member for North Vancouver is here in the House
to support his colleague's bill when it comes to a vote. It is a
votable item and he will have that privilege. I am looking forward
to seeing what he says because here he reads the policy on the one
hand and he will get a chance to vote for the policy by voting
against his friend's bill. We will see what happens then.
The Liberals on my committee are supporting the bill as are the
members of the Bloc Quebecois. They have good sense. The hon.
member for North Vancouver would do well to learn from his
colleague, the member for Edmonton Southwest, and scrap the
ridiculous policy he says his party members have voted in. I find it
quite extraordinary. Let me turn to the motion before the House.
(1805 )
The Canada Elections Act provides for the reimbursement of a
portion of election expenses incurred by registered political parties.
Specifically, a registered party is entitled to a reimbursement of
22.5 per cent of the expenses declared in its return provided it
spends at least 10 per cent of the election limit.
Some of us have criticized this because we feel it encourages
parties to spend money in order to collect the reimbursement. If
they do not spend up to 10 per cent of the expenditure limit they do
not get any reimbursement. Therefore they must spend like crazy to
get there. It can be a fairly substantial limit, as hon. members know.
They then get back 22.5 per cent of their expenses so that once they
hit the limit it is basically a 75 cent dollar they have put out.
There is no limit on the amount that can be contributed to a
registered political party but there is a limit on the amount that can
be spent.
The Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party
Financing recommended that registered parties receive at least 1
per cent of the votes cast in an election before they are entitled to
any reimbursement and then receive 60 cents per vote received for
a maximum of 50 per cent of election expenses. They could not get
more than 50 per cent of their expenses back under this system.
17304
In the last Parliament we had a special committee on electoral
reform which considered the matter but did not agree with the
Lortie recommendation. I was a member of that committee. I
believe I am the only one left in the House. The others have moved
on to other things.
We reviewed the report and recommended that the 10 per cent
expenditure requirement be applied to a party's direct election
expenses and that the rate of reimbursement be increased to 25 per
cent of direct expenses, a very modest change from the present law.
I do not mind saying the reason we could not agree on anything
else was that we ran into a stone wall with the Conservative
majority, which saw that its electoral chances were failing. Those
members realized that if they went to a 60 cent per vote
arrangement, as recommended by the Lortie commission, they
would get very little money if their vote fell out the bottom, as the
polls at that time indicated they would. That is exactly what
happened. Had we had that rule in place the Conservative Party
would have been worse than bankrupt. It is in trouble now but it
would have been much worse; the rule significantly helped it in the
last election.
The hon. member for Edmonton Southwest has proposed a bill
that would eliminate reimbursement for parties that gain less than 2
per cent of the national vote. He is going to change that because he
has received agreement from the other parties to make changes. I
do not know what the changes are so I do not want to go on about
his bill.
Now we have a proposal from the hon. member for
Gatineau-La Lièvre. I am sure the hon. member for Edmonton
Southwest, being a generous spirited individual, has looked at other
possibilities. I know he has because he has had suggestions made to
him in the course of the committee proceedings where he had the
advantage of hearing from other members. He said that all makes
sense, let us make some more changes. He is making more changes
and I commend him for that. I am looking forward to seeing the bill
in its possibly final form when it rolls out of the committee
possibly next week. If that happens we will all have the benefit of
that and perhaps it will make the motion of the hon. member for
Gatineau-La Lièvre unnecessary.
However, we are dealing with his motion today. It is not a
votable motion despite the efforts of the hon. member for North
Vancouver and so we will have to deal with it as it stands. We will
have a discussion about it and then go on to something else.
The hon. members opposite, although genuine in their desire for
reform, do not agree on how they should go about it. They are
making efforts to raise the level of debate by discussing these
things and I respect that, particularly by the hon. member for
Edmonton Southwest. It looks to me as though he has a speech
coming up and I am looking forward to hearing his remarks.
The point is how to solve this problem. I do not know the answer
but I do think the Lortie commission report is worth looking at
again. The point of it was to ensure parties get reimbursed based on
the number of votes they receive. Another possibility is to have a
pot such as that suggested by the hon. member for Gatineau-La
Lièvre and have a fixed amount of money available in accordance
with the limits on election spending and then divide the fixed
amount among the parties that participate in the election based on
the number of votes they receive.
I believe there is general agreement that no party should get
more than 50 per cent of its expenses reimbursed so that it would
prevent some party that won more than half of the vote from
getting more than half the money available. That strikes me as fair
and reasonable.
However, I do not think that is what has been put forward today
and we need to look at that kind of proposal in greater detail. We
need to look at it with respect to the charter of rights and freedoms
because, as we know, there have been challenges to the expenditure
limits on parties and on others, third parties in particular not
participating in elections.
All those issues will concern the procedure and House affairs
committee as it undertakes the review of the Canada Elections Act,
which I hope it will be doing soon. No doubt at that time it will
consider the very worthwhile proposal put forward by my
colleague, the hon. member for Gatineau-La Lièvre.
(1810)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would, first off, like to pay tribute to the member for Gatineau-La
Lièvre for tabling this motion. Although very timid for a party like
the Bloc Quebecois, the motion is revolutionary for the Liberal
Party of Canada.
For the benefit of those watching us, I will take the liberty of
rereading the motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the
advisability of reviewing and reforming funding for political parties.
It is very little. In fact, it is almost lip service. However, when I
looked in the May 6, 1994, issue of
Hansard, I found words, in the
context of a similar debate, that were quite surprising coming from
a federal Liberal. I will quote some of them.
He said: ``I maintain, and I am not the only one, that the way
political parties are funded leaves much to be desired''. A certain
former prime minister currently under investigation is suing the
Government of Canada. If we had a good policy on funding
17305
political parties in this country, I am sure this sort of situation
would not arise.
For over two years now, Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting in your
company in this place. The people in my riding claim my salary is
high. But, for me to become a millionaire in politics, someone will
have to augment my monthly income.
And yet, I know people who have done nothing but politics and
who are said to be millionaires tens of times over. They probably
know how to manage their pay better than I do.
I would, however, like to quote in passing a few extracts from the
speech by my colleague for Gatineau-La Lièvre. I remind you
that he went to the right school, my colleague for Gatineau-La
Lièvre, because he sat in Quebec's National Assembly. He said:
No companies, no legal, architectural or engineering firms. We all know the
gamut of contributors to party funds. There is no need to elaborate. I do not
think that large contributions are made out of love for democracy. We must
absolutely look at this issue. I say this as the member for Gatineau-La Lièvre.
The text I have just quoted is on page 4019 of the
House of
Commons Debates for May 6, 1994.
Clearly the member for Gatineau-La Lièvre knows what he is
talking about, because I took the liberty of checking with the office
of the returning officer to see how the member for Gatineau-La
Lièvre financed his electoral campaign in 1993. These figures are
official, and anyone can go and check them with Elections Canada.
In this member's case, individual contributions totalled $15,168,
which represents 55 per cent of his financing, and corporate
contributions amounted to $12,311, or 44 per cent.
(1815)
I also took the liberty of checking in the riding of Saint-Maurice,
the Prime Minister's riding. Individual contributions accounted for
only 25 per cent, whereas corporate contributions accounted for 33
per cent. One union contributed $5,500, and, obviously, funds were
transferred to him from his party, given that he was in their good
graces.
Obviously, when we know who is funding the party in power, we
can think about their intentions. On October 3, 1994, the Quebec
City paper Le Soleil ran a headline to the effect that the Liberal and
Conservative parties could thank major corporations for funding
the political parties. I will give you a few examples. Listen
carefully, Mr. Speaker, I think this is worthwhile.
The largest contribution was to the Conservative Party in the
amount of $216,000. It was made by a company recorded only as
T'ANG Management Limited. Give me one good reason why this
company gave $216,000 to the Conservative Party, led by Ms.
Campbell. Give me one single reason. The member for
Gatineau-La Lièvre said in May 1994 that it certainly was not out
of love for democracy.
If it is not out of love for democracy, does it fly in the face of this
democracy? In the red book, the party opposite me made the
commitment to change the way political parties were funded. Brian
Mulroney decided to do the same thing a week before the 1988
elections. He did nothing.
In the Conservative Party, there was a member as courageous as
the member for Gatineau-La Lièvre, François Gérin, the former
member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead. Not only did he
advocate that political parties should be funded exclusively by
voters, he applied this principle, rejecting any contribution from
law, engineering or architectural firms, businesses, large or small,
or unions. Unfortunately the member for Gatineau-La Lièvre did
not do the same in 1993 since he accepted quite generous
contributions from corporations of his riding and elsewhere.
This morning, the Royal Bank of Canada announced net profits
of $1.3 billion. Why do banks make that much money? Because
they have connections in government. By feeding Grits and Tories
alike, they are not taking any chance. They are sure to be on the
right side and to have favourable laws. For instance, the Royal
Bank of Canada gave $88,700 to the Liberal Party and $85,300 to
the Conservatives in 1993. Banks are not taking any chance.
Do you think that this party is serious about modernizing
political funding? What was this same party doing just six weeks
ago in Quebec? It flouted Quebec democracy by throwing money
left and right three days before the referendum to arrange a big
love-in. This nearly reached the no side's spending limit.
Unfortunately it will not be accounted for. All they will get is a
$10,000 fine.
(1820)
They paid the salary of civil servants and teachers for that day.
They closed schools and offices to allow civil servants in Hull and
Ottawa to go to Montreal so they could show their affection, which
lasted for an hour or so. Democracy was not respected in Quebec
on that day. Some no side posters were even put up illegally.
The Reform Party is not without guilt either. It will be
remembered that, in 1993, they accepted $25,000 from the
Canadian Pacific and $10,000 from John Labatt. Naturally the
sums were more modest but the corporations knew that the Reform
Party had no chance whatsoever of coming to power. The Liberals
had a heyday and they welcomed the opportunity. I hope the Prime
Minister will not be prosecuted or come under investigation 4, 5, 6
17306
or 10 years from now. If we believe in democracy, we must make a
certain effort.
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in respecting the tradition of the House, I will make my
comments very brief to give the member an opportunity to wind up,
if that is the pleasure of the House.
I want to say a few words to this particular bill. As the House
knows and as has been made very clear by the member for
Kingston and the Islands, I have a bill before committee that speaks
also to election financing. I commend my hon. colleague opposite
for bringing this question to the House.
I am not speaking in favour of this bill. It does not provide the
respect to emerging parties that it should. That has already been
covered by others. It does not pay respect to new ideas and to
parties that may never in fact elect anybody but do bring new and
fresh ideas into the body politic of Canada. That is extremely
important to our political discourse as a nation. And this bill does
not respect performance. In my view, it is absolutely essential that
performance be respected and rewarded. No matter what their
historical significance, parties that do not resonate with the people
should not be rewarded.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands went to great
lengths to point out the contradiction in my presenting a bill to the
House that would affect election financing that does not speak
directly to the party policy. I want to make it clear, so that everyone
understands, that my bill is incremental. The notion and the reason
behind my bill is that it will save the taxpayers of Canada $1
million or so. In my books, saving $1 million or so is particularly
important. In particular, the measures in that bill would ensure that
political parties are rewarded only if they have resonance within
the body politic of Canada, that political parties are not rewarded
merely because they have the resources to spend money.
I have listened to the debate this afternoon. I think this debate is
particularly important. When I started to investigate election
financing I noticed that if you measured the number of books they
would be approximately eight or nine inches high. These are all
books about election financing in Canada.
The point the hon. member from the Bloc raised about making
sure the political process in Canada is kept as free as is humanly
possible from any taint of scandal or influence peddling is one of
the reasons I have come around to the view that there is much we
can learn from the way the province of Quebec handles financial
donations in that province.
I thank the House very much for the opportunity to speak. Once
again I congratulate my hon. colleague opposite for bringing this
very important debate to the House.
(1825 )
I concur with my hon. friend from North Vancouver who
lamented that this was not a votable bill so we could see where all
the dogs lie on this particular issue.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I understand that the hon.
member for Gatineau-La lièvre has already spoken to the motion.
Mr. Assad: How much time do we have left, Mr. Speaker?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There are still a few minutes
left. Under the right of reply, I am ready to give the floor to the hon.
member for Gatineau-La Lièvre. However, I give notice to the
House that he will be the last one to speak to the motion.
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Assad: How much time do I have, Mr. Speaker?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Usually, under such
circumstances, the House agrees to allow about two minutes for the
member to close the debate.
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lièvre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
clearly, I will not have enough time to refute some of the objections
raised during the debate on this motion.
According to my research, I could prove that there are much
fewer flaws in this proposal than in the present system. This, I
hope, will be the subject of another debate, at some other time.
I would have liked my colleagues in the House to realize that this
is not a ``revolutionary'' idea, contrary to what one of my
colleagues from the Bloc quebecois said. I believe it to be plain
common sense.
It is indeed an idea I have been promoting for many years,
including in the National Assembly, when I had the honour of
serving my fellow citizens at the provincial level. I raised the issue
of funding for political parties in 1974. This is not something I
became interested in last week.
I have seen the trend and the many scandals surrounding funding
for political parties.
The idea I am presenting today is very simple. I am asking for a
debate, not only among members of this House, who can settle the
issue, but also in the public at large.
You know, I did just that. I asked several people: ``Do you
believe that the current way of funding political parties is
democratic and fair or that there is favouritism or that there are
slush funds?'' Most people would say: ``Do you think I am a
nitwit? We do not believe that the system is fair and equitable. Far
from it.''
17307
If you ask ten people, at least nine will tell you that the system
is rotten to the core. So, the time has come to examine the way
political parties are funded. It is not necessary to adopt the exact
system that I am proposing. A University of New Brunswick
professor who did his doctorate on the subject studied this. I
consulted him and exchanged information with him. His studies
demonstrated that the most democratic way is to let the public at
large fund political parties.
That is not complicated; perhaps it is even too simple. This is too
often what happens when something is too simple: it is difficult to
get it accepted.
In concluding, this is a beginning. We must hope that other
groups that are interested in our society will realize that the funding
of political parties is fundamental in a democracy, and we cannot
allow big multinationals or people with a lot of money to be the
most important backers of political parties. This is paramount in
our democracy.
(1830)
Let us hope then that this is a beginning, because the data that I
have can easily demonstrate that this would be the most equitable
system, one which would not cost more to the state, not a cent more
than it is costing today.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hour provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96, this item is dropped from the Order
Paper.
_____________________________________________
17307
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of this motion on behalf
of the people of Guelph-Wellington.
Canada has always been a nation of ordeals and of triumphs.
This country was tied together with the railroad when some said it
could not be done. It answered the call of peace and freedom in
both world wars when some said that our country was too small to
make a difference.
We have held together a nation of difficult climate with
unbelievable vastness and extreme beauty. I am confident that we
can turn the ordeal of the 1995 referendum into another triumph for
our country.
This motion reminds us that it is the responsibility of the people
elected to this national assembly to do what is right for Canada.
The people of Guelph-Wellington know that this sometimes
means that we recognize the obvious.
On October 27, 1995 residents of Guelph-Wellington joined
the Canadian family in Montreal in a crusade for Canada. This
crusade did not end when the buses returned. It did not end on
referendum day when my constituents completed their prayers at
Dublin Street United Church in Guelph. It did not end when the
signatures dried on the petitions of love and affection signed by the
students of the Wellington County Separate School Board. This
crusade has not ended in the hearts of the people of
Guelph-Wellington and all across Canada.
Their crusade is about promises to be kept, relationships to be
strengthened and a nation that continues to be built. We owe it to
the people who boarded buses at 3 a.m. on October 27. We owe it to
the people who voted no on October 30 and we owe it to every
Canadian who loves this country and feels an attachment to its
support and support this motion.
The people of Guelph-Wellington are discouraged by members
of political parties that believe they were elected to celebrate
division and welcome the negative. They know that the Bloc
Quebecois and the Reform Party were not at the rally on October
27. They are aware that while one party works toward separation,
the other is anxious to demand that the terms of the break-up of this
country be staked out, almost like vultures.
Never before has the difference between the government and the
opposition parties been clearer. The Liberal government reminds
Canadians that there is a lot to be thankful for. The Bloc and
Reform Party find much to complain about every day. We are the
crusaders. They are the destroyers.
We seek to unite but they seek to divide. The Prime Minister said
in the House on November 29 that the spirit of co-operation and
partnership that inspires us should motivate us to continue building
this great country in an atmosphere of generosity and respect. What
the Prime Minister is proposing is both reasonable and prudent. In
voting in favour of this motion, we are representing the best
interests of all Canadians in the context of all that is good for
Canada.
The people of Guelph-Wellington are proud of their past and
they know that we can acknowledge Quebec's distinctiveness
because they are confident of our future. They look to the members
of the House to build bridges, not to create gulfs.
We can give regional vetoes without destroying the fabric of our
nation. We need not be afraid. The history of the community that I
represent is a strong one because we have been successful when we
all work together. There is no question the referendum was a
17308
difficult experience for the people of Guelph-Wellington and for
all people across Canada. In the process, our patience has been
strained, but our determination to make this country work has not
weakened.
(1835)
My constituents are telling me to rise above the leaders of
division and speak directly to the people of Canada, the Canadian
family that lives in Quebec, in British Columbia and every
community across Canada. They believe that the options presented
by the Prime Minister are better than those offered by the Bloc and
by the Reform Party. We have a vision of unity and we have a
vision of peace.
We want the government to continue on its agenda of jobs and
growth. They know that a united Canada means more employment,
economic stability and a stronger country for their children and
their grandchildren. Their message to me is to get on with it and
keep the promises made to Quebecers before the referendum.
Ignore those who want to destroy Canada. They want their
affection for Quebec to be heard and they want Quebecers to know
that we have all succeeded in Confederation, every one of us.
The central question that must be answered is: How can we turn
the ordeal of October 30 into a triumph for all Canadians? I do not
believe this can be done by being closed, intolerant and narrow. We
should always remember those who prayed, wrote, called, marched
and rallied for our country during the days prior to the referendum.
Triumph calls for inner strength. It calls us to put away our
differences. It rises above fear and it rises above frustration.
We are the only elected body that can speak for all Canadians.
This country was not built because our leaders reminded us of what
is wrong. Canada is the best country in the world. Our Prime
Minister can rise with pride to tell us that he is a proud Canadian
and a proud Quebecer.
I am proud of my community of Guelph-Wellington. I have
said here before that I believe it is the best community in Canada.
In Guelph-Wellington, we are crusaders for this nation. We see
the rally in Montreal as the beginning, not an end. We see this
motion as another step in nation building. We are proud of our
community and proud of our province, but we are first and
foremost Canadians.
It was a Quebecer, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who said that the 20th
century belongs to Canada. It was another Quebecer, our Prime
Minister, who said on October 27 that with this motion and other
actions by the government, this country will enter the 21st century
strong and united.
Guelph-Wellington residents want nothing more than a united
and a strong Canada. They helped build our nation. They have love
for family and community. They work hard and they want us to do
what is right for Canada. They are Canadians first.
This motion is about change, change not for the sake of change,
but change for the betterment of Canada. The people of
Guelph-Wellington are confident Canadians. They know we can
recognize the obvious, we can give regional vetoes and we can be
centralized government without losing our nation. They know that
the negative political parties will vote against this motion, but they
also know that Canada will not be defeated. Canada has had its
share of ordeals, but we have always triumphed.
As they left their buses in Montreal on October 27, the people
from my riding were handed a message from Quebecers. I hope
members of the Bloc are listening to this. This is the message that
my people were handed on October 27 from Quebecers. It says:
``Quebecers would like to thank you for your support, your love
and your encouragement. We appreciate this unselfish act and we
thank you from the bottom of our hearts. God bless this country and
all its citizens. We thank you.''
I have read and re-read this message many times. This motion is
for the author of that message and for everyone who believes in
Canada.
(1840 )
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
privilege and honour to speak on behalf of the constituents of
Hamilton West to this extremely important motion tabled by the
right hon. Prime Minister.
During and after the Quebec referendum the Prime Minister
assured us that he would adequately address the clear demand for
meaningful change within the federation. The Prime Minister is
keeping his word to the people of Canada.
Like many of my colleagues on this side of the House, I am
joining this debate in the Canadian spirit of conciliation,
compromise and goodwill. At a time when various groups
throughout the world are killing one another as a result of
neo-nationalism, how typically Canadian for the federal
government to address hard core neo-nationalist angst within the
relatively calm and cool context of parliamentary debate.
The day before yesterday during debate on government Motion
No. 27, we debated the recent Dayton peace agreement and
Canadian support for the international community's continued
efforts to bring enduring peace and security to the Balkans through
participation in a multinational military implementation force
under NATO command.
The significance of these two motions should not be lost on the
members of the House. How typically Canadian for us to be so
devoted to the maintenance of peace and security throughout the
war torn regions of the world as to help other nations reach a lasting
peace with one another. With respect to the current debate, how
typically Canadian for us to set an example for the entire world by
17309
choosing conciliation instead of conflict, diplomacy instead of
rebellion, peace instead of war.
I am not aware of any other nation in the world with the same
degree of potentially conflicting differences from east to west in
terms of culture, language, geography, economics and political
outlook as Canada, whose citizens despite these differences are not
embroiled in a bloody civil war or otherwise killing one another for
the sake of these differences.
Canada by its very nature stands out as a beacon of hope in the
world where the concept of peaceful co-existence is overshadowed
by seemingly irreconcilable conflict between factions. It is
therefore not only timely but also typically Canadian for the Prime
Minister to extend an olive branch to the people of the province of
Quebec in the wake of the October 30 referendum.
The results of the recent Quebec referendum remind us that we
cannot take Canada for granted, that diversity must be respected.
Consequently, the government has acted swiftly to initiate a
process that in the words of the right hon. Prime Minister ``will
ensure the unity and evolution of Canada in order to respond to the
aspirations of all Canadians''.
I think that is worth restating. The government aspires to
respond to the aspirations of all Canadians from sea to sea to sea.
Some less diplomatic than I have suggested the members of Her
Majesty's Loyal Opposition, the so-called dark prince of
separatism, have been so consumed by their own thirst for power
that they have lost sight of their primary responsibility to protect
the economic, social and political security of the people of Quebec.
Others more cynical than I believe the desire of the Leader of the
Opposition to focus 20:20 hindsight on the constitutional failures
of his former political bedfellows is an indication of his
unwillingness to set aside his uncontrollable, self-serving political
ambition and focus on the long term future of the people of
Quebec. Personally I feel that the marathon speech delivered by the
Leader of the Opposition has been somewhat misunderstood.
Clearly we can all understand how easily one can become
confused by the constantly changing political agenda of the former
Conservative Party federalist turned separatist, now would-be
premier of Quebec.
(1845 )
I would like to cut through all of this confusion for a moment and
focus on the unity motion. The unity motion is a solemn
declaration that sets out how the Government of Canada will
conduct its affairs with respect to Quebec in particular and Canada
in general. Passage of this motion will indicate to all Canadians and
all federal government authorities that it is the will of the House of
Commons to recognize the distinct character of Quebec society
within the framework of the Canadian federation.
I know what it is like to serve in the opposition. Unfortunately
exaggerated and unwarranted attacks on forthright government
initiatives are key elements of the often underwhelming opposition
art form. If we rise above the separatist bantering of members
opposite we see a government, in fact an entire nation of people
united by their genuine concern for the long term future of the
citizens of Quebec within the federation. How typically Canadian
to labour to keep our country together.
Let us not forget the tens of thousands of letters and phone calls
and rally goers from Hamilton, Dundas, Ancaster, Flamboro,
Burlington and from right across Canada who so passionately
showed their support and concern for the people of Quebec before,
during and most important, after the October 30 referendum. Let us
not forget the evolution of federalism that has allowed Quebec and
the other provinces to enjoy increased powers and gradual
decentralization with respect to the unique character of each and
every province within the framework of a strong and flexible
federalist system.
In the case of Quebec we recognize and respect its distinct
character, its French speaking majority, its unique culture, its civil
law tradition; the fact that Quebec is different, not superior. How
typically Canadian that the federal government continues to
recognize and respect the rights and concerns of minority groups
within Quebec as well.
On behalf of the constituents of Hamilton West I want to say how
proud we are of the right hon. Prime Minister's efforts to keep our
federation alive. I am proud that the federal government has chosen
to address the very real concerns raised by the people of Quebec in
a diplomatic and conciliatory fashion.
If this is what it takes to ensure Canada's pre-eminent position in
the world as a peace loving federation, if this is what we must do in
order to remain the greatest country in the world in which to live,
then in my support for this motion I am proud to be typically
Canadian.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today
is important for me personally, as a Quebec nationalist and as a
member of the Bloc Quebecois in this 35th Parliament, as I have an
opportunity to participate in this debate on the recognition of
Quebec as a distinct society, even if all that was tabled before this
House was a motion.
Before starting my remarks, I must say that it is rather late, in
1995, almost 1996, to realize that Quebec is different from Ontario,
from the west and from the maritimes.
17310
(1850)
I remember, of course, the great statement of love tens of
thousands of Canadians outside Quebec made on October 30. I
clearly remember New Brunswick Premier Frank McKenna
coming and telling us, on the one hand, that he loved us. On the
other hand, he toured industries on the periphery of his province,
saying: ``Come and do business with us; we love our Quebec
friends''. He was trying to steal our industries away from us. Love,
yes, but as long as it is profitable. The Canadian federation has
been extremely profitable to Ontario in particular for several
centuries now.
By putting forward these proposals for change, including the one
dealing with recognizing Quebec as a distinct society, the Prime
Minister of Canada acts on the promise he made himself to trick the
leader of the Bloc Quebecois before he leaves. The Prime Minister
said: ``I dream of the day when I will rise in this House to vote for
Quebec's recognition as a distinct society and smile as I watch the
Leader of the Opposition vote against it''.
This is the Prime Minister speaking, a member from Quebec, the
hon. member for Saint-Maurice, who, unfortunately, does not
travel to Quebec often enough and, as a result, is literally out of
touch with the francophone public opinion in Quebec. Twenty days
before the referendum, like Claude Garcia, he was telling
everybody: ``We are going to crush the Quebecers and have a 65
per cent victory''. Can you see how out of touch from his home
province this man is?
That was a petty thing to say, a much too petty strategy, but it is
true to form for the Prime Minister and member for Saint-Maurice.
This motion recognizing Quebec as a distinct society is not the
result of a sensible reflection with the interest of the country or the
betterment of the Canadian and Quebec society in mind, let alone a
major change to save the country.
No, the Prime Minister's reflection was not based on these noble
intentions, but rather on the desire to get back at the Leader of the
Opposition and to discredit him.
Revenge and discredit are inappropriate guides at a time when
the survival of two nations is at stake. But neither the people of
Canada nor the people of Quebec are fooled by the Prime
Minister's scheme or by the Deputy Prime Minister's crocodile
tears.
The people understand that this distinct society proposal that was
cobbled together even before the committee made its
recommendations and that has been revealed as phoney, this
motion that recognizes Quebec's distinct society in such a
superficial way is outdated and is no longer an issue in Quebec for
both sovereignists and federalists who want serious changes.
Again, this shows how the Prime Minister is totally out of touch
with Quebec reality. His fanaticism prevents him from
understanding the message sent to him on October 30 by the people
of Quebec.
(1855)
In this regard, even partisan federalist newspapers are criticizing
the Prime Minister. In the November 29 edition of La Presse, for
example, Alain Dubuc writes, and I quote: ``The Chrétien
government's first timid effort mostly shows that it has great
difficulty in understanding what is happening in Quebec and
Canada and, above all, in accepting changes that we see as
inevitable''.
They all agree that recognizing Quebec as a distinct society only
through a declaration in the House of Commons does not resolve
the underlying problem. Even entrenching this later in the
Constitution no longer satisfies the aspirations of Quebecers.
The Liberal government has missed the boat and neither the
Leader of the Opposition nor the members of the Bloc Quebecois
will be embarrassed to vote against this motion. On the contrary,
adopting this motion would be a major setback in Quebec's path to
its recognition as a people.
As Gérald Larose used to say, we do not want to be bothered with
distinct society any more. What we want now is to be a normal,
quiet people.
Quebec is sick of these meaningless slogans, of being a society
at the mercy of Ottawa's and English Canada's whims, of a Prime
Minister who denies ever having said what he said, both before and
after he says it.
If the official opposition accepted this motion, Quebec would be
seriously weakened since, as everyone acknowledges, Ottawa's
distinct society proposal does not go as far as the Meech Lake
accord and the Charlottetown accord, which both Quebec and the
rest of Canada rejected.
The Prime Minister's motion through which the House would
recognize Quebec's distinctiveness cannot in any way be
considered a response to the demand for change expressed by
Quebecers in the October 30 referendum. We must keep in mind
that, a little over a month ago, 50 per cent of Quebecers voted in
favour of Quebec's sovereignty, while the other 50 per cent voted
for a major renewal of Canadian federalism.
The motion before us falls short of Quebecers' aspirations. It is
unacceptable, for both sovereignists and federalists.
Once again, the Prime Minister of Canada has made the wrong
decision, as all Quebecers and Canadians know. That is why I think
that the Prime Minister will not find it so funny on election day.
In closing, one can laugh at a people some of the time, but not all
of the time.
17311
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister's motion about distinct society takes me back to 1992,
the year of the Charlottetown accord. It was also at that time that
I decided to pursue my career standing up for Quebec's interests
here in Ottawa, as eight other Bloc members were already doing,
seated at the back of the House, isolated, but undeniably efficient.
I usually examine offers made to me. I never dismiss anything
out of hand, without giving it at least some thought.
(1900)
Of course, Quebecers have the same attitude. Thus, after having
heard and read the Prime Minister's motion, I can say that it is the
nicest turnaround that I have seen since going into politics. The
Prime Minister botched his work. The referendum results made
him panic.
During the week preceding the referendum, he felt that he had to
promise some changes, and this is what we have now: an empty
shell, a black hole, a total blank. Distinct society my foot. This
carbon copy of the Charlottetown proposals, which Quebec and
Canada rejected, as we recall, does not recognize the people of
Quebec in any way. Where on earth does the Prime Minister live to
think that Quebec is now prepared to accept less than Meech 1 and
2, less than Charlottetown, if you can imagine?
The motion says that we speak French in Quebec and that we
have a civil law tradition. How nice. This resolution is nothing but
wishful thinking. The 1982 patriation of the Constitution was a
denial of the existence of the Quebec nation. Since then, there has
been only one nation: the Canadian nation. Thankfully, no Quebec
government, not even the Liberals, put up with that rebuff. Meech 1
was entrenched in the Constitution. Some legal and political
aspects in that accord allowed Quebec to keep its head high.
The current Prime Minister, along with his friends, managed to
render that agreement meaningless. Quebec rejected a proposal, as
did English Canada, but not for the same reasons, of course. How
can the leader of the government dare take a step backward and
seriously think that his resolution meets Quebec's historical and
legitimate aspirations?
His ally in the no camp during the last referendum, the leader of
the opposition in the National Assembly, Daniel Johnson,
demanded that Quebec's distinct nature be entrenched in the
Constitution. The Prime Minister knows full well that his motion is
meaningless. He only introduced it to be able to say that he is
fulfilling the promises for change he made at the last minute, when
the yes side seemed dangerously close to winning.
As we saw in 1992, with the referendum on the Charlottetown
accord, it is no longer enough to say, affirm, or wish that Quebec be
recognized as a distinct society. At the time, the distinct society
clause only had a symbolic value, so much so that most
French-speaking observers in Quebec were convinced that this
concept no longer had the same meaning as it did in the Meech
Lake accord. It was so watered down that even Clyde Wells felt
there was no risk that this clause could serve as a stepping stone
towards the affirmation of a special status for Quebec. Yet, this is
what the Prime Minister is proposing.
As a member representing a Quebec riding, I cannot support a
motion which proposes much less than even the minimal claims
made by Quebec over the years. The Quebec members who support
that resolution will show that, as far as they are concerned, there is
no nation in Quebec. There are only people who speak French, in a
given region of Canada, period.
We all know that this resolution is just that: a mere resolution.
With all due respect to this House, this resolution has no legal
effect, even if it is supported by a majority of elected
representatives. It merely reflects the will expressed by
parliamentarians, and it would not be binding on any court in
Canada. It is meaningless.
In his attempt to propose changes to Quebecers, the Prime
Minister also included manpower training, as well as a veto power.
Let me briefly say that, as regards manpower training, I am still
looking for the change. Actually, there is one change. We now
know that, when the Prime Minister talks about decentralization, it
means that the federal government keeps control over the
distribution of money.
The federal government prevents Quebec from implementing a
true manpower training policy. Yet, everyone in Quebec agrees that
all powers related to that sector should be delegated to the
province.
(1905)
It seldom happens that everybody agrees on one thing, in Quebec
or elsewhere. As for the veto, let us not delude ourselves, what is
being proposed amounts to allowing regional referendums with
terms and questions developed in Ottawa, where Quebec
representatives are in minority as you know. Flexible federalism
means Ottawa making the decisions and the provinces living with
them.
Three weeks ago, I heard the Prime Minister say that he was a
Prime Minister from a Quebec riding, a francophone and a
Quebecer, and that his government should be trusted.
For my part, I was willing to trust him a little. I said to myself:
``Listen, mistakes have been made, he made mistakes in 1982. But
sometimes, a guy who made a mistake can get back on his feet. I
will therefore go half way and trust him''.
In the motion he put forward, Motion No. 26, I thought I would
find a recognition of Quebec as a distinct society, and that this
recognition would also be enshrined in the Constitution. That was
not the case. A few moments ago, I heard a member opposite say
that we wanted separation and this and that. I will tell you that my
father is a well known businessman in Quebec and in Canada. He
has traded in all ten provinces of Canada. When my father returned
from the west, the first question I used to ask him was: ``Dad, how
did it go out west?'' And he would answer: ``Jean, it has been very
hard, very difficult. I have the feeling that the west will separate
before Quebec does''.
17312
When we look around in this House, we see that Quebec has
rejected this proposal from the Prime Minister, Mr. Chrétien, who
represents the constituents from Saint-Maurice, and that even the
English Canadians who make up the third party, the Reform Party,
said no to this proposal. There must be a problem when both French
speaking and English speaking Canadians agree to reject a
proposal.
So, we have to recognize what Quebecers have been asking for
for the last 25 years. It is not asking too much to want to be
recognized as a distinct society. The federal government has done it
for the Indians, why can it not do it for Quebecers? They gave the
Indians some land. We are not asking for land, we already have
some. We only want to be recognized.
Frankly, I must say that, after fighting for 25 years, Quebecers,
the French speaking citizens of Quebec, really thought this time
would be it. However, the Prime Minister told us: ``Dear friends,
wait until 1997, wait until April of 1997, when we will reopen the
Constitution''. I have to tell you in all honesty that, as a politician,
when I decided to come to Ottawa, I told myself: ``The only way to
succeed is to be on the spot, to go to Ottawa and mingle with my
English speaking friends''. Because I must say in all honesty that
the people from western Canada are my friends.
It is not because we have a different point of view that we cannot
get along with people from western Canada or the maritimes. Of
course not. What is important is to be on the same wavelength and
to get support for a society, for people-the men and women of
Quebec who want to be recognized some day.
I trusted the Prime Minister. I am a bit disappointed, because I
would have liked for the resolution to say that our distinct society
will be enshrined in the Constitution. It was not asking too much,
as I said earlier, but it was not done.
This was his last chance. I remind the House that three days
before the referendum thousands of English speaking Canadians
came to Montreal. I was proud, because these people came to visit
our region. To say they love us is one thing, but to prove it is
another matter.
So, as far as I am concerned, I would like all this to be enshrined
in the Constitution and I will continue to reflect on this issue.
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in what can only
be regarded as a historic debate.
(1910 )
I would like to talk about a couple of things that are important
with respect to the national unity of our country. These are things
members opposite perhaps failed to mention when they talked
about what they perceived to be the wrongs or the injustices
suffered by their fellow citizens in various parts of the country. I
say various parts of the country because this is not a case of
complaints only from one province. We hear it from many
provinces. We hear it from the provincial premiers when they
complain about some of the changes the government is proposing
in the amending formula. I know that bill is not before the House
tonight, but it is part of the package of reforms the government has
introduced, which I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss.
Although members do not mention it often, always in back of
their speeches is the famous battle that occurred in Canada on the
Plains of Abraham. I am not going to go through that. But there was
a second battle, which I think is virtually of equal importance for
the future of the country and which is never mentioned. I want to
remind hon. members about this story because it is of tremendous
significance for Canada.
The battle happened 220 years ago this year. There was a
revolution that started in the United States. The American
revolutionary Continental Congress decided to send a force to
invade Canada and take over the colony of Quebec, which was then
part of the British Empire, having been captured 15 years
previously in the famous battle I mentioned earlier.
The Americans dispatched General Montgomery to capture the
province of Quebec, or what was then the colony of Quebec.
Starting in September he moved up the Richelieu River and
captured Fort Saint-Jean and Fort Chambly on the Richelieu River
before October 18, 1775. He subsequently attacked Montreal,
where the British governor, Sir Guy Carleton, was stationed.
Governor Carleton realized that the defence of Montreal was
hopeless, given the fact that he was outnumbered substantially by
the American force. He had only 800 British regulars with him to
defend the entire colony. He left Montreal by ship and sailed for
Quebec on November 11, 1775, and immediately began
fortifications of the city of Quebec.
General Montgomery took Montreal on November 13, stationed
500 of his troops there, and then moved on to Quebec City with
about 300 men. He gathered with him various people from the
countryside, des habitants pour l'aider avec son attaque sur la ville
de Québec.
It is estimated that he had between 1,600 and 1,800 men outside
Quebec when he started his siege on December 5, 1775. The
governor, Sir Guy Carleton, was in a heavily fortified position with
apparently adequate food, but of course the city of Quebec was
17313
pounded by a bombardment launched by Montgomery and his
forces as they besieged the city.
As winter continued to move into the area and made things
colder and more difficult for Montgomery's troops, he realized that
in order to maintain his position he had to take the city and get the
battle over with reasonably quickly. So he launched an attack on
the city of Quebec on December 31, 1775 in the early hours of the
morning. It was dark. There were a lot of shots exchanged and
ultimately Montgomery was killed in the streets of Quebec. The
battle was lost for the Americans. The siege continued until the
spring, but a British ship arrived, lifted the siege, and the
Americans had to retreat.
That battle was won because the residents of the city of Quebec
helped the British governor. They sided with the British governor,
the recent conqueror, in order to preserve what they thought was a
better way of life under the British crown as an independent part of
North America and not as part of the United States. In a way, they
were the first United Empire Loyalists, because they made that
very significant decision. If they had not made that decision and
had sided with the Americans and rebelled against the British
force, as they could easily have done, no doubt Quebec would have
fallen and no doubt we would have been part of the United States as
a result of the revolutionary war.
(1915)
The men and women who made that decision were residents of
the city and of the surrounding countryside. In my view they were
the first great nation builders of Canada. We never hear mention of
them whenever a member of the Bloc Quebecois or any separatist
is busy talking about Canadian unity.
It is a battle that holds tremendous significance. In my visit to
Quebec I saw the place in the street where Montgomery was killed.
I believe there is a plaque in the street where this happened.
Some of ancient buildings in Quebec bore marks for a long time
of the bombardment they suffered from the Americans in that war
220 years ago at the end of this month, the anniversary date of the
attack on Quebec led by Montgomery.
This was a very significant event in Canada's history which
saved Quebec, basically the only part of Canada that was then of
any significance as a British possession that operated as part of a
group of colonies that began to grow and prosper, all of them not
prospering quite so well but at least growing in Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick, Quebec and ultimately in Upper Canada, in Ontario.
By 1840 we had the Union Act of 1840 that put the provinces of
Upper and Lower Canada together under a single administration, at
least legislatively.
Subsequent to that the debates took place in respect of the union
of the Canadian provinces. It is to those debates that I want to turn
because I want to quote some nation builders. That is what we are
engaged in here in a very modest way today.
It is important to bear in mind some of the words some of these
people spoke. I turn first to the remarks of the hon. Sir John A.
Macdonald. He was not a knight at that time. He was the attorney
general for the western part of the province of Canada and at that
time the member for Kingston.
He was one of the senior Fathers of Confederation. I quote what
he said in respect of Confederation at that time. This is in the
Confederation debates in 1865, talking about the union of Upper
and Lower Canada:
It was felt that a dissolution of the union would have destroyed all the credit
that we had gained by being a united province, and would have left us two weak
and ineffective governments, instead of one powerful and united people.
Those words apply precisely to the situation we faced in
pre-referendum Canada a few weeks ago. I submit those words are
of importance now just as they were then. He went on to say:
The Lower Canadians would not have worked cheerfully under such a change
of system-
He was talking about a different system than the one I was
reading about before-
-but would have ceased to be what they are now-a nationality, with
representatives in Parliament, governed by general principles, and dividing
according to their political opinions-and would have been in great danger of
becoming a faction, forgetful of national obligations, and only actuated by a
desire to defend their own sectional interests, their own laws, and their own
institutions.
He was speaking of having a unitary government where there
would not be a federal division of powers as we now have where
different parts of the country have the right to decide certain things.
We have a situation in which both the opposition parties are
claiming the federal government should give up powers and where
the federal government has acknowledged that is so and has chosen
to do that.
I refer to Sir John's conclusion:
In conclusion, I would again implore the House not to let this opportunity to
pass. It is an opportunity that may never recur. At the risk of repeating myself, I
would say, it was only by a happy concurrence of circumstances, that we were
enabled to bring this great question to its present position. If we do not take
advantage of the time, if we show ourselves unequal to the occasion, it may never
return, and we shall hereafter bitterly and unavailingly regret having failed to
embrace the happy opportunity now offered of founding a great nation.
17314
I quote another one, Sir George-Étienne Cartier, Macdonald's
great partner in putting Canada together. He said, and these words
apply today as much as they did then, in the same debates in 1865:
The question for us to ask ourselves is this: Shall we be content to remain
separate-shall we be content to maintain a mere provincial existence, when, by
combining together, we could become a great nation? It had never yet been the
good fortune of any group of communities to secure national greatness with
such facility. In past ages, warriors have struggled for years for the addition to
their country of a single province.
(1920)
Here we had the great willingness on the part of all these people
to unite and form this great country we now enjoy.
I quote another great nation builder, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, one of
the great prime ministers of our country. He said, from page 1842
of Hansard, on March 13, 1900:
If there is anything to which I have given my political life, it is to try to
promote unity, harmony and amity between the diverse elements of this country.
My friends can desert me, they can remove their confidence from me, they can
withdraw the trust which they have placed in my hands; but never shall I deviate
from that line of policy. Whatever may be the consequences, whether loss of
prestige, loss of popularity, or loss of power, I feel that I am in the right, and I
know that a time will come when every man, my hon. friend himself included,
will render me full justice on that score.
As our forebearers did, we can do no less but to engage in the
nation building which they did in this great and vast country of
ours.
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am proud to be a Canadian and I am proud to be part of a
country that includes the province of Quebec. I am proud to be part
of a country that not only recognizes diversity but respects and
cherishes it.
What a boring country it would be if we were all the same. Our
differences keep us vital and dynamic, and our ability to respect our
differences while working together has made us the envy of the
world.
The United Nations said Canada is the greatest country in the
world. We owe this honour in large part to those who built Canada,
to the men and women who came here searching for a better life
and for hope.
The fabric of our country is woven from the threads brought here
by people from around the world. These threads of hope, tolerance
and compassion unite us as Canadians and will provide the strength
to see us through the challenges that lie ahead.
Countries are not rigid like the stone and rock they are carved
from. They must be fluid and adaptable if we are to survive.
Since Confederation, Canada has successfully adapted to a
rapidly changing world. Our boundaries have changed and it was
less than 50 years ago that we acquired a new province,
Newfoundland. We are now in the process of creating the new
territory Nunavut.
Our economic base has expanded and diversified to the point at
which Canada has a highly integrated economy and is a competitor
in world markets. A century ago the people of a country that was
largely based on farming and trapping could never have dreamed
that the Canada of today would be a leader in telecommunications,
aerospace and finance, and that its agricultural products would be
marketed around the world.
Canadian society has also changed dramatically. Our population
has grown tremendously and shifted from largely rural to mostly
urban. An influx of people immigrating from around the world has
made Canada a unique cultural mosaic.
Canada has grown and prospered because of its ability to read
the signals for change and to adapt for the well-being of our
country. The referendum vote on October 30 was a vote for Canada.
It was a signal for change.
As the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism noted during the
debate on Friday, the Prime Minister, the government and
Parliament have a duty to preserve the unity of Canada as a nation
indivisible.
Quebecers and Canadians have asked the government to keep
Canada together. The Prime Minister has responded quickly to the
signals for change. It is a response to keep the country united. That
is what Canadians and the people of my riding of Dauphin-Swan
River want.
(1925)
When the Bloc members refer to the rest of Canada as English
Canada they do a great disservice to the hundreds of French
Canadians who live in my riding of Dauphin-Swan River; French
Canadians who have kept their language, culture and traditions
alive in rural Manitoba.
I am pleased and proud to represent predominantly French
communities such as Ste. Rose du Lac, Laurier, St. Lazare and San
Clara where people of many ethnic origins, including English,
French, Ukrainian, Polish and First Nations people, work together
toward their common goal of building strong communities and
contributing to a strong and united Canada.
I have been overwhelmed by the response of the people of
Dauphin-Swan River about the future of Canada. The people of
my riding tell me that for the good of Canada, for our present and
for our future, we need to remain united.
17315
As the Prime Minister has so eloquently stated, a Canada
without Quebec is no Canada, and a Quebec without Canada is
no Quebec.
I also bring to the House a message from the youth of Canada.
They too want and deserve a voice in the debate about the Canada
they will inherit from us.
In November I travelled to a number of schools in my riding of
Dauphin-Swan River to listen to young people about their vision
of Canada. The students told me their Canada includes Quebec. It is
important to them that we make every effort to keep our country
united, from sea to sea to sea. That is the Canada they know. That is
the Canada they want. That is the Canada they deserve.
This was also the message three young people from Russell,
Manitoba brought to me in Ottawa on their way to the Montreal
rally. These young people spent their hard earned dollars to travel
to Montreal to be part of the chorus of voices ringing across
Canada, telling Quebecers they are important to Canada. The
courage and the commitment of these young people is a shining
example of the belief western Canada has that a strong Canada is a
united Canada.
We must lead by example. We must show our young people that
differences can be overcome and that compromise is preferable to
conflict. As a member of Parliament and as a member of the
Liberal government I am committed to ensuring a strong and united
Canada for the benefit of the people of Dauphin-Swan River and
for all Canadians. As a mother and a grandmother, the Canada I
want to give to my children and my grandchildren is a Canada
which includes Quebec.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Motion No. 26 this
evening.
It is a pleasure to speak to any government legislation of
significance these days because the Liberal government has
developed a habit of invoking closure on important controversial
bills. It is beyond comprehension. This is one of the most important
issues before the House and the government is limiting debate.
What is the government afraid of, that people may actually find out
what it is doing?
It is difficult for me to find parliamentary language to accurately
describe my outrage at how the government rams through
legislation by denying members of Parliament the opportunity to
bring the concerns of their constituents into the debate. However, I
digress. I am here to talk about the motion before the House today.
I had better take advantage of the opportunity to speak before the
Liberals decide they want to invoke closure in the middle of my
speech.
The motion is rather simple but leaves many questions
unanswered. Motion No. 26 calls on the House to recognize that
Quebec is a distinct society within Canada. Before I give my
opinion on the issue of whether Quebec is distinct, I will address
the issue of what this means to the rest of Canada.
(1930 )
If Quebec is distinct, does that mean that the rest of Canada is
indistinct? Does it mean there is no difference between the outports
of the Newfoundland coast and downtown Toronto? Does it mean
there is no distinction between the isolated native communities of
the north and downtown Vancouver? Does it mean the rural grain
farming communities of the prairies are indistinct from downtown
Ottawa?
The answer to these questions is obvious: No. Not only are the
other nine provinces distinct from each other but there are
significant distinctions within the provinces themselves.
My first administrative assistant on the Hill was a francophone
from Campbellton, New Brunswick. I can accept the fact that she
and her fellow francophone New Brunswickers consider
themselves to be distinct from the Quebecers who live just on the
other side of the Restigouche River.
This motion also recognizes the distinction between
francophones in Quebec and New Brunswick but it does not
recognize the distinction between New Brunswick's Acadians and
New Brunswickers of British origin. Does that mean that there is
no distinction between the two groups? That is the biggest flaw of
M-26. It demands that this House recognize only one distinction.
Let us look at the three largest metropolitan cities in Canada. I
have enjoyed my visits to Montreal and could have spent days
wandering in the old town, but like Toronto and Vancouver,
Montreal is a city whose population is a blend of old stock
Canadians and larger, newer immigrant communities. Immigrants
come to these cities from countries that span the globe. What is
different is the percentage of the various ethnic groups that make
up the population of each of these three cities.
Despite this difference, they are still all large cosmopolitan cities
with tall skyscrapers in the central business district surrounded by a
mix of industrial and residential communities.
However, the government wants us to recognize that Montreal is
distinct but Vancouver and Toronto are not. Why? Because as is
stated in part (2) of the motion, the government wants the House to
recognize that Quebec's distinct society includes its French
speaking majority, unique culture and civil law tradition.
Now we know why Montreal is to be considered distinct and
Vancouver and Toronto are not. Montreal is distinct because of its
French speaking majority but where does this leave Montreal's
anglophones and allophones? According to this motion, they must
17316
be indistinct. Let us flash back to the aftermath of the referendum
and Premier Parizeau's comments about the ethnic vote. His
comments were roundly and rightfully condemned.
Members opposite were especially vocal in their condemnation
of Premier Parizeau's attack on the ethnic vote. What does the
government do in response? It put forward this motion that states
that Quebec is distinct because of its French speaking majority. It
wants to legislate a distinct status for Quebec's francophones,
separating them from the ethnic minority, the very fact Liberals
condemned Premier Parizeau for stating.
Once again, the government deals in a logic that can only be
understood by that side of the House. It must be something in the
drinking water in the government lobby.
Let us return to the question: Is Quebec distinct? Yes, Quebec is
distinct. But Quebec is a diversified province with one area distinct
from another within its own provincial borders, the same as all the
other provinces.
The northern parts of British Columbia and Alberta are very
different from the southern parts. I recall the comments that the
separatists were all spouting after the referendum loss that the
results showed division in Canada. No, the referendum result
showed the division that there is in the province of Quebec.
Although Quebec is no longer a homogeneous province, the federal
government wants it to be treated as one.
Points (2) and (3) of the motion state that:
(3) the House undertake to be guided by this reality;
and that:
(4) the House encourage all components of the legislative and executive
branches of government to take note of this recognition and be guided in their
conduct accordingly.
What this means is extremely unclear. The Prime Minister is
telling Quebecers that these sections will provide Quebec with a
great deal of power, yet at the same time he is telling Canadians
outside Quebec that it does not. Which is it? Let us not leave this
motion undefined. Reform Party members have attempted to
clarify the meaning of distinct society with our amendment, that
this motion does not confer any powers, rights, status or privileges
to Quebec that are not provided to any other province. Our
amendment will ensure that all Quebecers will be treated equally.
(1935)
Our amendment also makes it clear that there is nothing in this
motion that denies the fact that Canada constitutes one nation. That
is the danger of passing the government's motion without the
Reform amendment. By identifying Quebec as a distinct society,
the government is agreeing with the basic tenet of the separatist
mantra that the Quebec people are different from the rest of
Canadians. Do the Liberals honestly believe that once they
acknowledge this difference they can counter the second part of the
separatist argument that because of this difference Quebecers need
their own nation?
In dealing with this issue I have tried to do what this government
refuses to do: ask the opinions of average Canadians. In my latest
householder that has just started to arrive in the homes of my
constituents I included my regular 10-question survey. I have two
questions in that survey. First, do you believe that Quebec should
be granted distinct society status if it confers special privileges or
powers to Quebec? Second, do you believe that Quebec should be
granted distinct society status if it confers no special privileges or
powers to Quebec?
Unfortunately with the government's rush to stifle debate, I will
not have enough time to have a truly representative response to
these questions. However, as of this moment the answer to the first
question is overwhelmingly no. The answer to the second question
is still too close to see a trend. My greatest objection to this motion
is that the government believes it is ordained to make these serious
decisions on its own without any consultation with Canadians.
It would have been more appropriate if the government had
stayed to its original plan and had us voting on this motion
tomorrow, December 7. What could have been more fitting than
having the government ram through a motion in this manner, and
by having it do so on a day that already has a reputation of being a
day that shall live in infamy. I guess we will have to come up with
our own day of infamy, but then the government is providing us
with so many.
The people of Surrey-White Rock-South Langley should
have had an opportunity to express their opinions on this motion
and the veto issue directly through a national referendum.
However, they will have to be content with their MP having a
chance to contribute in this debate. It is very unfortunate that there
are many Canadians who have lost the opportunity to have their
member of Parliament speak to this issue.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to address the distinct society motion presented by the Prime
Minister and his government with respect to the province of
Quebec.
The reason we are debating this motion late tonight is because of
the Prime Minister's last minute Hail Mary promise to Quebecers
during the dying moments of the referendum campaign. With this
motion, combined with a constitutional veto and a transfer of
manpower training to Quebec, the Prime Minister feels that he has
now made the best and most significant contribution to national
unity. We are all going to live happily ever after.
I am afraid I cannot agree with his logic, his proposals and the
timing of them. He has resurrected the constitutional ghosts of
Christmas past and will witness the same results as was had with
Meech and Charlottetown: failure.
17317
First, in analysing the components of the distinct society motion
I have to ask the question: Does the Prime Minister truly feel this
really satisfies Quebecers' desires, hopes and needs? The Prime
Minister is a Quebecer himself. If anybody should know what
Quebecers want, it is he.
However, during the referendum campaign he misread, he
misunderstood and he misrepresented to the rest of Canada what
should be done. He said: ``Thank you very much for staying quiet.
Don't worry, they won't leave. Just don't say anything to upset
them and everything will be fine''. He almost blew it and he knew
it.
He got the minister of fisheries, Captain Tobin, to use his turbot
popularity and throw together a unity rally in Montreal asking
everybody from sea to sea to get to Montreal. He then turned
around and made promises to the separatists, promises to the
sovereignists, promises to the nationalists, promises to the
federalists. Aside from the fact that keeping promises is not one of
the Prime Minister's strong points-he promised to renegotiate
NAFTA, but did not; he promised to eliminate the GST, but has not;
he promised to eliminate patronage appointments, but will not; he
promised free votes, which maybe is something he is not allowed to
deliver on-now we have him promising to recognize Quebec as a
distinct society in Canada.
(1940)
As a Quebecer he should know what Quebecers want when they
say distinct society. He knows what they want is for the rest of
Canada to recognize Quebec as one of two founding nations. He
knows that Quebecers who want distinct society do not feel there is
any cost in acknowledging the fact that they are one of two
founding nations. They want a distinct society clause that will
protect their rights over language, culture and civil law while
keeping the province French.
I personally do not disagree with some of these aspirations.
What I do worry about are the consequences if the definition of
distinct society is not spelled out. If distinct society means that
Quebecers are different because of their language, culture and civil
law, I recognize that. That means they are unique and distinct from
other provinces and people, just as other provinces and people are
unique and distinct from them.
However, if Quebecers want this distinct society clause to mean
that not only are they different but they also get special legislative
powers above and beyond the rest of Canada, then I am against
that. I am sorry but the answer is no to one province getting special
treatment over another.
While Reformers can agree to recognizing differences, we
cannot agree to giving Quebecers some form of special status over
and above other Canadians. That is fundamentally unacceptable
and I truly feel that most Quebecers understand that point.
All Quebecers want is something that gives them satisfaction
that they will not be tromped on, stamped on, kicked on as is
currently being done by the Minister of Human Resources
Development with his new employment insurance program.
The frustration in Quebec is based on the fact that we have too
much federal interference in matters of provincial jurisdiction.
Quebecers want the federal government to get out of their lives in a
lot of areas. That is where the solution to national unity lies. Give
the powers to the provinces that they want and need, regulated by
the federal government and let us make government the right size
doing the right thing. Let us have a smaller and more open
government than what we have.
Simply put, all provinces want control over their purse strings on
programs closest to the people, delivered at a lesser cost than is
currently the case with the bureaucratic nightmare in Ottawa.
I am not against the distinct society motion which recognizes
Quebec as a distinct society within Canada, provided it is fully
defined and does not make them the biggest kid in the playground.
That is why I would ask the Prime Minister and the government to
support Reform amendments to this distinct society motion so that
he can get more support from all across Canada, including from
those people in Quebec who look on this motion very suspiciously.
It would give the people of Quebec and the rest of Canada what
they want: recognition with powers, but not special status.
I ask the government to support our amendments because what
we are trying to do is please the majority of Quebecers, not the
minority. If we keep trying to come up with programs and with
definitions to please the separatists it will never work. It has not
worked for 25 years and it will not work for the next 25 years. The
separatists act like spoiled children, not all Quebecers, just the
separatists.
Most Quebecers want what is in their best interests and that is no
different than myself as a distinct and different person from the
province of Alberta. I want the best for my province just as people
in Quebec want the best for their province.
Let us design a motion that appeals to the majority of Quebecers,
that appeals to the majority of Canadians. That is how we can build
on national unity. For the sake of national unity I ask the Prime
Minister to please consider the input and information that has been
coming to him through the Standing Committee on Justice and
Legal Affairs on the constitutional veto. I hope the government
listens. There has been some valuable input there.
17318
We can debate sharing the federal government veto with four
regions or five regions. That is not really the issue. I believe there
are five regions because British Columbia is more like the Atlantic
provinces than it is like the prairies.
That is not the point. The point is that this veto should be for the
people of Canada and not their legislative assemblies. We already
have the seven provinces out of ten representing 50 per cent within
the constitutional amendment clause. The separatist Parti
Quebecois will now have veto power over changes to the Canadian
Constitution. This is ridiculous. The veto should be given to the
people of Quebec and not to the politicians.
(1945)
We should be and I think we are a country of 10 equal provinces
committed to similar goals and objectives, each with the same
rights, privileges and powers. If we want to change those rights,
privileges and powers, it should be one one way or another through
a national referendum from the bottom up, not necessarily by
elected officials from the top down.
We have to look at the situation very seriously. We have to
conclude that a lot of people in Canada want change, not just the
province of Quebec or the people who had the referendum. People
across the country want change for the good. They do not want
change to justify the status quo.
We have to look at issues like changes to the Constitution or
granting one province recognition in a way that the rest of the
country worries might give it special powers. We have to address
those issue. What is wrong with addressing them? We all have to
work together to bring the country together from sea to sea to sea.
We have to make amendments to the Constitution to give it the
ability to live and the ability to be changed. It should be difficult. It
should not be easy to change the Constitution once we define the
powers, the levels of responsibility and the way we will work
together as 10 provinces. We should think about how we can make
changes to it. We cannot give a veto to every province, or there will
never be change. We cannot put that Constitution in a vault, let it
die and gather dust. We have to give it life. It has to be a breathing
document. It has to be tough to make change but we have to allow
change to happen.
We have to look at different provinces and different regions and
try to recognize their specific needs and wants. There is no reason
we cannot accommodate them. There is no reason we cannot come
up with a mechanism to give Quebec what it wants and recognize it
as a distinct society. It is different. It is unique. It has made a
valuable contribution to the building and the nurturing of this great
country called Canada.
If that means that Quebec should also get special powers over
and above being recognized as distinct, that is not right and we
have to tell Quebecers that. The separatists really want this. It is not
all Quebecers. Those who want it want to protect their French
language. We should be able to help them protect their French
language and their French culture.
They in turn should protect minority rights within their province,
the English and any other immigrant, and how they can interface
with their provincial problems. They do that. What I am saying is
that we have ways and means of producing a collective agreement
if we just identify the right problem.
This is a panic effort by the Prime Minister and the government
to fulfil a promise that he made in the dying moments of a game
that he thought he would lose. The game is called unity and he was
afraid he would lose the country. He did not want to go down in
history as the Prime Minister who lost the country after having told
all of us: ``I am from that region. Don't worry. They won't vote to
go'', and they almost did.
It is sad. Now that it is all over they almost look at us and ask:
``What did the Reform Party do?'' We kept telling them all along to
tell Quebecers the consequences of separation, the price of
separation. They did not do it then. We will do it now and never in
the future will any province look at itself and say it will separate
and everything will be perfect. We will tell them the cost of
separation.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to have an opportunity to address the House today on
the motion put forward by the government to recognize Quebec as
a distinct society.
I remind members of the most recent referendum in which a
majority of Quebecers voted to stay in Canada. With this motion
we are trying to make sure we build on that commitment by
Quebecers.
With all the rhetoric it is difficult for Canadians to understand
what is going on. The Bloc is telling Quebecers there is nothing in
this package, that it is a bunch of platitudes, that it means nothing,
that we in so-called English Canada really do not want them to stay.
The Reform is telling us that we are giving Quebec everything, that
we are giving it something that other provinces do not have, and
that somehow it will be able to do other things within Canada to get
special powers because of the motion.
(1950)
No wonder Canadians are having a hard time understanding.
Quite frankly it is not only rhetoric but lies are being told to
Canadians on the issue. It is disturbing, especially given the fact of
how important the issue is to Canada and to the future of the
country.
17319
The opposition is telling truths but it is only telling half truths.
The Bloc says it does not want to talk about the Constitution. Then
it says that somehow the motion does not give Quebec any special
constitutional power. How can it argue on the one hand that it does
not want to talk about the Constitution and on the other hand argue
that the motion somehow is not constitutionally significant?
Frankly it is no surprise that Canadians do not want to talk about
the Constitution. They want to deal with other issues. They want to
deal with jobs. They want to make sure that their families have
opportunities for education and proper health care. These are issues
of concern to Canadians.
The Prime Minister gave a commitment at the Montreal rally,
which I am proud to say a number of my constituents attended, to
address some of the concerns of Quebecers. I know the Reform
Party blames us for the outcome being so close, and it was. I agree
that it was Canadians who came together in that last week, drew the
referendum together and showed Quebecers what they thought.
On behalf of not only the constituents of Haldimand-Norfolk
but of all people of Canada I want to say how proud I was of those
great Canadians who went from the riding of Haldimand-Norfolk
on their own volition to Montreal to express their deep desire for
the country to stay together.
All Canadians inside and outside Quebec understand there is
nothing we could propose right now to the Government of Quebec
and to the Bloc Quebecois that would make them happy. There is
nothing we could propose right that would make them all of a
sudden jump up and say that they want to stay in Canada. They are
not prepared to do that.
What the Prime Minister has done, and I think he has done it
very well, is drafted it in a way that he is giving exactly what he
committed to. He is opening the door for future commitments and
future negotiations in 1997 or 1998. He is allowing Canadians the
time to sit down and work on some of the problems we have as a
country.
I call on all Canadians to take up the challenge of the Prime
Minister to go to Quebec, to Alberta or British Columbia and tell
them we need to keep the country together and that the fact the
United Nations considers us the number one country in the world is
no mistake.
It is because we have been able to draw together, to work
together, to bring the diversity of Canadians together and to focus
attention on working for the betterment of not only Canadians but
the country as a whole. We have stayed together all these years
because of that desire of Canadians.
There are those who ask: ``What is Canadian? What is Canada?''
Some people say Canada is something that is not American. I
believe we saw in Montreal what Canada really stands for: for
sharing, caring and working together. The motion tries to build on
that. I ask Canadians to challenge the naysayers and those in
Quebec who say that English Canada does not want them based on
history and on fact.
Recently we observed Remembrance Day with ceremonies in
which we remembered the strong dedication that many Canadians
gave to their country. We recently celebrated the 50th anniversary
of the end of the war in Europe. Those Canadians died for their
country, believing in their country. I wonder what they would think
today about the ongoing debate in the House, what they would
think about the silliness of some of what is being said. They fought
and gave their all for their country. They deserve our giving them
something back. We should sit down, talk, throw away politics,
throw away the rhetoric and let their memory guide us in terms of
our deliberations.
(1955)
[Translation]
On behalf of my constituents of Haldimand-Norfolk, I want to
tell Quebecers there is a desire on our part to make things right. I
think Quebecers are being told lies about the position of English
speaking Canadians in rural areas. My constituents would like a
chance to sit down and talk with their French speaking compatriots.
People in Haldimand-Norfolk are proud of Canada, and they
think we have accomplished great things together over the last few
years. We would like you Quebecers to try to understand how we
feel. Do not believe all the talk about English speaking Canadians
being willing to let you go and not being ready to compromise. We
are ready. Let us get together and talk about it.
[English]
I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, whether you understood what I said.
Perhaps you can read the translation afterward. I say on behalf of
the people of Haldimand-Norfolk that we need to sit down, to
throw away the rhetoric, to put politics behind us and to share our
common values of what is Canadian. We can do that and at the
same time we can work on what Canadians really want.
We can work on making the economy work. We can work on a
health care system that is envied the world over. We can work on
saving the environment. These are all very important issues that we
need to address. We do not need to be talking about the
Constitution at this time.
In our three-point plan we are trying to make sure that as
Canadians and as legislators responsible for all of Canada and not
just one region or one province, we make it very well known to
Quebecers that we love the country, that we need them as a part of
the country for it to be strong and that we recognize their
distinctiveness. We recognize they have a distinct and different
language from that of a lot of Canadians. We recognize they have a
17320
different culture and a different legal system. I only wish the
opposition party, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, would recognize
it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I assure the hon. member for
Haldimand-Norfolk that I understood every word and I take the
liberty to compliment him on his effort to speak in the other official
language.
[Translation]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in tonight's debate on
the Prime Minister's motion concerning the recognition of
Quebec's distinct society within Canada. In supporting this motion,
I would like to talk, first of all, as an Acadian from Nova Scotia. As
you know, Acadians were among the first people to settle in Canada
after the First Nations, and, since the founding of the first
settlement at Port-Royal, four centuries ago, we have had our share
of upheavals, struggles and turmoil.
(2000)
Protecting our language and culture has never been easy. We
have had to fight, and we still do, to get our share of recognition.
But we realized a long time ago that our chances of survival as a
cultural community were much better if we joined forces with the
francophones of Quebec, Manitoba and elsewhere in Canada.
We know that the preservation and blossoming of our language
and culture inevitably depend on our being part of a larger country
which has been able to include our concerns as well as those of
other cultural communities in a larger entity and a broader vision.
This is Canada.
The Official Languages Act and the bilingualism policy have
provided a concrete example of this broader vision of Canada.
I consider myself lucky to have had a chance to personally
experience the distinct nature of Quebec. For four years, in the
early 1980s, I was a student at Laval University, where I made a lot
of close friends among Quebecers. I had a chance to have lengthy
discussions with them about their vision and their place both within
Quebec and within Canada.
I found that, in general, the distinct nature of Quebec and of
Quebecers is not based on a separation from the rest of Canada, but
rather on an affirmation of oneself and a feeling of solidarity that
finds its expression and its soul in the vitality of the French
language, as the singer-songwriter Michel Rivard says so
beautifully: ``The language of my heart is the heart of my life''.
But despite all the political rhetoric and the sovereignist
movement, the Quebecers that I know have a profound attachment
to Canada. And I think that if all cultural communities across
Canada can work together, we can contribute to the growth and
prosperity of our wonderful country.
[English]
I have no trouble with the notion of Quebec being seen as a
distinct society within the context of this motion. Nor do I see any
contradiction in the notion that while not conferring special powers
to the Government of Quebec, this motion is by no means
symbolic, although it carries some important and powerful
symbolism.
By recognizing the distinctive character of Quebec in its
policies, its laws, its regulations and its programs, this motion
provides one more prism among many others through which the
Government of Canada commits itself to be guided in the
development of its laws, its regulations, its policies and programs
before they are enacted and as they are implemented.
The members of the Reform Party have a hard time
understanding this because they do not really understand how
modern government functions. When government policy is
developed and presented before cabinet for consideration or when a
change is made to a body of regulation or when a new law or
program is adopted and advanced and presented before Parliament,
it must be evaluated according to many different angles or
dimensions. One of these is the balance of impacts of the program
across gender lines, socio-economic lines, and regions and
provinces so that the balance of these impacts is fair and equitable.
(2005 )
A good example of this is the legislation that was tabled last
week by the Minister of Human Resources Development. In the
package of information that accompanied the legislation creating
the employment insurance program, one of the first tables
presented is a table describing the financial impacts of employment
insurance by province. No government would contemplate a major
change in a program such as employment insurance without
considering the impacts across provincial lines.
Another example of a prism through which government policy
has to be evaluated is provided by the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, which since 1982 has been enshrined in the Canadian
Constitution. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms ensures that
laws and regulations and programs introduced by the federal
government respect the basic freedoms and rights of Canadian
citizens that we have enshrined in the Constitution through the
charter.
A third example is provided to us by the official languages
legislation enforced by the official languages commission for
Canada and the whole policy and infrastructure promoting official
bilingualism in Canada, which ensure that linguistic minorities in
Canada, including Acadians and other francophone groups
throughout the country, as well as anglophones in Quebec, receive
17321
the recognition of their language and receive services in the
language of their choice.
These are commitments the federal government has made for
itself and for its programs. They are part of the prism through
which all laws, regulations, and programs must be evaluated by the
Government of Canada.
The distinct society motion the Prime Minister has brought
forward this week will in a different way act as a prism and a guide
and an opportunity for the federal government to commit and
ensure that the programs and its policies reflect this particular
cultural aspect of Canada, which is the distinctive character of
Quebec in those very important categories of unique language,
culture, and civil law tradition. That in a sense is the genius of the
Prime Minister's approach to recognizing Quebec as a distinct
society and putting into practical effect the application of that
respect as far as the Government of Canada is concerned.
One of the reasons Canadians continue to be so supportive and
have such great confidence in the Prime Minister of Canada is
because largely through his great experience in government he has
found a way to give concrete effect to the commitments and
undertakings he made to the people of Quebec and to the people of
Canada for change and for recognition of their particular place in
Confederation in a way that does not violate the rights of other
Canadians and the rights of provinces but acts as a positive
discipline on the Government of Canada.
If other Canadians and provinces through the constitutional
discussions choose and can agree on the enshrinement of such a
principle in the Canadian Constitution, that would strengthen the
notion of the distinct society we have adopted and will adopt
through this Parliament.
[Translation]
I will conclude my remarks by saying that I know this initiative
will never satisfy the separatist members of the Bloc Quebecois
and the Parti Quebecois.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry but the member's time has
expired. I now give the floor to the member for
Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans.
(2010)
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke may rest
assured that will never satisfy us.
``Whatever they say or do, Quebec is today and always will be a
distinct society''. Those words were spoken used by Quebec's
federalist Liberal Premier Robert Bourassa, the day after the
demise of Meech Lake. ``From now on, no more negotiations
involving ten or eleven parties. From now on, there will be bilateral
discussions only''.
This proves that the motion before the House today, presented by
the federal Liberal government, is nothing new. The concept of a
distinct society was developed by the Quebec Liberal Party.
Actually, it goes back to 1965 and the preliminary reports of the
Royal Commission of Inquiry on Bilingualism and Biculturalism,
the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission, where we find the term
distinct society in a marginal note to the paragraph that defines
Quebec society on page 103.
In a speech on May 9, 1986, Quebec Intergovernmental
Relations Minister Gil Rémillard stated five minimum conditions
which, if they were met, might lead Quebec to ratify the
Constitution Act, 1982. Meanwhile, the Parti Quebecois was
talking about a distinct people.
According to the Meech Lake Accord in 1990, the Quebec
National Assembly would be responsible for protecting the duality
and promoting the distinct identity of Quebec. We supported
Meech Lake because it was supposed to recognize the distinct
identity of Quebec. This provision would not have the effect of
lessening the existing powers of the federal government.
Basically, including this in the Constitution would be a way to
make up for the affront we suffered in 1982. In 1980, Liberal Prime
Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau said in a speech on May 14, before
the referendum on May 20: ``We are putting our seats on the line,
and if you vote no, this no will mean yes to a new Canada''. The
result was the unilateral patriation of the Constitution in 1982, with
the help of the present Prime Minister.
To take a leaf from the book of the hon. member from Nova
Scotia, how can we trust these people? Basically, what did we ask?
We asked the judges to consider both concepts, the Canadian
duality and distinct society, in their interpretations of the
Constitution Acts of 1867 and 1982, the latter including the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Prime Minister's
baby, as he keeps reminding us in this House.
At the time, the distinct society clause would have limited the
centralist and standardizing tendencies of the Charter. When the
Supreme Court ruled that certain sections of Bill 101 were
unconstitutional, the Quebec National Assembly would have been
able to adopt them again, if the distinct society clause had been
accepted.
Another important event, with a player we saw during the
referendum campaign last October, was initiated by the Charest
report named after the hon. member for Sherbrooke, who is often
conspicuous by his absence from this House, and the Charest report
goes back to-
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member
but, if I have heard him correctly, the hon. member is not allowed
to comment on a colleague's absence from this House. I would ask
17322
the hon. member not to comment on any member's presence or
absence.
Mr. Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Once again, you have
been vigilant and I withdraw my comment.
In the Charest report, in May 1990, the desire was to lessen the
scope of the distinct society concept, particularly by stating that the
distinct society clause did not in any way diminish the
effectiveness of the charter.
Right from the start, in May 1990, it was obvious that certain
provincial premiers were uncomfortable with the idea of a distinct
society. From then on, the Meech Lake accord began to experience
some difficulty.
(2015)
According to certain premiers, the semi-official nature of the
distinct society concept could have led to the Canadian courts' not
using that clause in interpreting the Canadian Constitution. Then
came the Charlottetown accord in which the constitutional
importance of the distinct society was watered down into a set of
eight fundamental characteristics defining Canada. How could the
courts have seen their way clear in all of that?
We were led to believe that the notion of a distinct society ranked
higher than the other fundamental characteristics. But the overall
sparseness of the Charlottetown accord shows that the notion of a
distinct society would not have had any real effect. This was
already an indication that it was an empty shell. And that is why
Quebecers voted no in the October 26 1992 referendum on
Charlottetown, because they considered that it did not give enough
to Quebec. The other provinces voted against it as well, but because
they considered that it gave too much to Quebec. Imagine!
I have just given a brief overview of Meech 1, Meech 2, the
Charest report, Charlottetown. I have never seen a box wrapped in
Christmas paper without something inside, but such is the case
with the propositions of the Prime Minister, his Liberal team, and
the ``learned committees'' he has set up to show Quebecers how
much he loves them.
Nothing in this motion recognizes Quebecers as a distinct
people. As we know, a motion of the House of commons has no
legal value, let alone a constitutional one. The motion introduced
by the Liberal government is an empty shell and will no legal or
political impact. It is an act of panic aimed basically at deceiving
those who want real changes to Quebec's status.
Fortunately, Quebecers can see through all this and can pick out
what is truly good for them. The Prime Minister's reaction in
introducing this motion tells us there is a terrible threat. He kept the
phrase ``distinct society'' because it would have been difficult to do
otherwise, but he did all he could to strip it of its meaning. Just
imagine. The Liberal government's proposal was considered
unacceptable even by Quebec Liberals, whose leader, Daniel
Johnson, recently asked that the distinctive character of Quebec be
entrenched in the Constitution.
The definition of distinct society proposed by the Prime Minister
is identical to the one contained in the Charlottetown accord, which
was rejected by a majority of Canadians and Quebecers alike.
Furthermore, the definition proposed by the Prime Minister does
not go as far as the one initially proposed in the Meech Lake
accord. How could anyone in this House believe that we could not
oppose such a motion? Come on. We are not idiots.
The government's motion to recognize the distinct nature of
Quebec cannot, in any way, be considered an adequate response to
the changes demanded by Quebecers during the October 30
referendum. We have to remember that last October Quebecers
voted in favour of sovereignty in a very large proportion and that a
majority of Quebecers, including some who voted no, were in
favour of a comprehensive renewal of Canadian federalism.
Given that my time is almost up, I would like to tell you that we
are in favour of sovereignty for the people of Quebec and that it is
out of the question for Quebecers to negotiate agreements that even
Daniel Johnson called, when referring to manpower training,
cut-rate agreements.
(2020)
Clearly, the federal government's proposals give nothing to
Quebec.
To conclude, like many I think that we have to be careful not to
undermine whatever good faith remains between the various
parties. On the contrary we should create links which will bring us
to a partnership-
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but the member's time is up.
The hon. member for Chicoutimi has the floor.
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is true,
we are all taking part in a historical moment in this debate, because
this moment marks federalism's inability to renew itself.
I never thought I would rise in this House to speak on anything
so empty as this debate on Quebec's recognition as a distinct
society. This motion by the government is essentially an exercise in
futility. It is a complete and utter void.
Since October 30, improvisation has reigned supreme in this
House, so much so that it is giving the Quebec Ligue nationale
d'improvisation pretty stiff competition.
Before October 30, constitutional matters were systematically
off topic. We kept being told that Canadians wanted to hear about
17323
the economy, work, jobs and job creation. But, surprise, the day
after October 30, the sovereignist project was within a hair's
breadth of becoming a reality.
A few days later, the federalist camp reacted hastily in the face
of a potential victory by the yes side. In Verdun, we had the
pleasure of a speech by the Prime Minister, which brought back
memories. In 1980, on the eve of another referendum, another
Prime Minister came to Quebec to make promises. The current
Prime Minister was on the dais with him.
On October 30, the federalist camp heaved a sigh of relief. The
reality of the matter is something else, however. With their slim
victory, the federalists no doubt consulted each other and decided
to act. And what a reaction! I said before that this smacks of
improvisation. Two committees were created here. But, all of a
sudden, the Prime Minister himself announced the recognition of
Quebec as a distinct society. To hell with the committees, he
sidestepped his own creations and everybody else.
The distinct society motion, as it stands, is nothing more than
meaningless words. It is a smoke screen. In fact, it is only a motion
of the House of Commons, which could be easily overturned at the
whim of any federal government. There is nothing in the
Constitution that recognizes Quebec as a distinct society. All this
motion means is that, in the future, it will be possible to tell
Quebecers you are distinct. Are you not happy? You are distinct.
But giving Quebecers the means to act distinctly is out of the
question. And it is even more unlikely that the Liberal government
would try its hardest to have this distinctiveness recognized in the
Constitution. Again, this would be too much to ask.
But, to think of it, what else could we expect from a Prime
Minister who himself said last September, in this House, that
everybody knew that Quebec was distinct and, consequently, that it
did not have to be enshrined in the Constitution. If this is how he
reads last week's motion, then it is justified. If that is how he
understands the motion he tabled last week, this motion is justified.
(2025)
The Prime Minister would certainly need a history lesson.
History shows that every time the federal government wants to do
something for Quebecers, it waters down its promises. This is akin
to using the same coffee grounds to make five or six pots; what
remains at the end of this process is like dishwater. That is what the
government is doing with this resolution. First Meech, then
Charlottetown, and now the 1995 resolution. There is nothing left.
Indeed, there is not much left. This merely encourages the
legislative and executive branches of government to take note of
the recognition that Quebec is a distinct society.
Unlike some Liberal members, we see the past as important.
There is a famous saying that what goes around, comes around.
Quebecers know their history. They also know what they want. The
Prime Minister's motion will go down in history mostly as another
insult to Quebecers' intelligence, as an attempt to convince them
that a simple resolution would finally settle the issue.
This government is forgetting something else. Quebec's motto is
``Je me souviens''. On October 30, some Quebecers decided to give
Canada a last chance. It was the last chance. Once again, they
thought that Canada would recognize them as a people and give
them the powers that go along with being a people. Unfortunately,
they were once again in for a disappointment when they saw what
was really being proposed: a resolution that sets us back even
further.
This resolution was put together in a mad rush because the Prime
Minister knows full well that he will be questioned by the official
opposition. While, in 1980, Quebecers were represented by 74
Liberal members in the House of Commons, in 1995, it is quite a
different story, since 53 Bloc members have been given the
mandate by the people of Quebec to look after their interests. The
Prime Minister knows full well that if he tries to delude Quebecers
into believing that he is delivering the goods, we will be there to
condemn him for it. The mandate we have been given by the people
of Quebec was clear and it has become even clearer since October
30.
Where I come from, we have a saying that goes: ``Rude
awakenings are to be expected on the morning after''. Never has
the saying ever been so true as in the case of the aftermath of the
October 30 referendum. At the beginning of my remarks, I
indicated that I never expected to have to speak on such a
meaningless thing, and I am sure that the people of my region
agree.
This is another history lesson that Quebecers are not about to
forget. It is also a lesson for those who thought they would give a
last chance to Canada. But by dint of remembering, the people of
Quebec will take action. I have no doubt about that. One day soon
we will start writing the history of the people of Quebec.
The resolution put forward by the Prime Minister is tasteless,
colourless and odourless. Anyone who believes that Quebecers are
a people must reject it.
(2030)
[English]
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
tell you that I am splitting my time with the member for
Ottawa-Vanier.
I have been torn as I thought through what I might say tonight on
this resolution. I am profoundly saddened that I am standing here
and talking on this issue at this time in our history. We have so
many issues to deal with in this country. However we are once
more drawn back into a debate that at its roots is not going to put
17324
bread on the table, is not going to do anything to alleviate poverty,
is not going to create a job, is not going to enhance the capacity of
people to work, to learn or to earn. It is a debate that if I understand
what the members of the Bloc have been saying tonight is based on
a constant bringing forward of a history that has not served them or
the rest of Canada particularly well.
What confuses me as I think about it is that shortly after I was
elected to this Chamber I had several opportunities to travel into
Quebec; one as a student in Jonquière. I spent some time there at
the CEGEP studying French and meeting with the Bloc member for
Jonquière who most hospitable. He took me around, showed me his
constituency and introduced me to people there. We had wonderful
discussions about what Canada needed to do to deal with the debt,
with social programs and with all of the kinds of things that we talk
about all across the country.
Some time after that I had an opportunity as a member of the
HRD committee to go into Montreal, Quebec City, Lévis and
Rivière-du-Loup to talk to people and receive submissions, in
particular, about unemployment insurance but really all of the
social programs that were encompassed in that rather large review.
Three members of the Bloc toured with us across Canada as part
of that committee. We started in Vancouver and travelled right
across the country. What struck me about that experience is that
when we got away from the opening moments of the hearings,
when the organized groups would come in and demonstrate, wave
and shout and scream in Vancouver, in Toronto and in Montreal,
and sat down with people to talk about what they were concerned
about and what did they wanted to see the government do and what
were the issues they wanted us to confront, I did not hear the word
``Constitution'', I did not hear the word ``embarrassment'', I did
not hear the word ``insulted''.
I heard people talking about how we can help our kids get an
education, how we can build skills, how can we find jobs. I heard
people in Lévis and Rivière-du-Loup talking about being very
concerned about their future and about the fact that their children
were having to move out of town to find work. I heard unilingual
French people saying the same things in those communities as
unilingual English people were saying in Saskatchewan, Alberta
and in my own province of Manitoba.
I do not mean to make light of what occurred. Any time 50 per
cent of any area votes to leave a country that is as strong and
wonderful as Canada, there is a problem.
I have talked about this with members of the Bloc. Lots of
conversations go on in this House, some of them across the floor
like tonight. I have a conversation two or three times a week in the
gymnasium with the member for Quebec-Est. We talk about what
is at the root of the concerns that is driving people in Quebec to
want to leave Canada. I have had many long talks with the member
for Mercier about her views of social programs in Canada or in
Quebec. Frankly they are very consistent with my views of social
programs in Quebec. To try to understand what is driving this
desire to break up this country is something that has been very
difficult for me.
I want to share with the members of the Bloc something that I
hope will help their understanding of the feelings in other parts of
Canada about this issue. When the Meech Lake accord failed to
pass the Manitoba legislature, I was the House leader for the
opposition. When the constitutional amendment was brought to
Manitoba, there was a very detailed and thorough public
examination of the proposals.
(2035)
A committee was struck, with representatives from all three
parties in the legislature. That committee travelled all over
Manitoba. Committee members went to Indian reserves in the
northern part of the province. They went to small rural
communities in the north, the south, the east and the west and they
spent many days in the city of Winnipeg, allowing Manitobans to
come forward and speak to them about their feelings on the Meech
Lake accord.
As a result, Manitoba put forward some amendments to the
accord as it was then struck. When I hear the language used by
previous speakers here about how people did not respect Quebec
and how that was an insult to Quebec, I want to tell them that
subject never came up in these hearings.
The Meech Lake accord says in subsection (2)(i):
The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with
(b) The recognition that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society.
(3) The role of the legislature and Government of Quebec to preserve and
promote the distinct identity of Quebec-
That was what the Meech Lake accord said if I understood the
members opposite correctly.
After holding hearings all over the province, after researching it,
considering it, debating it, this is how the three parties in the
Manitoba legislature said the clause should read:
The Constitution of Canada shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with
the recognition that the following constitute fundamental characteristics of
Canada:
(d) Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society;
In the Meech Lake accord the recognition is that Quebec
constitutes within Canada a distinct society. The recommendation
of all parties of the province of Manitoba was that Quebec
constitutes within Canada a distinct society.
17325
My province has recognized and supported that fact since 1990.
This resolution, which calls on the House to recognize that Quebec
is a distinct society within Canada, is simply consistent and
affirms the very statements that the member holds up as an
example of the things that Quebec wanted. It is the very thing that
the three parties in the legislature and the people of Manitoba were
prepared to support and the very thing that the Prime Minister asks
us to support now.
When I look at the role we have as legislators, there are six
practical things we do. We pass, amend or rescind legislation. We
deal with expenditure or the withholding of expenditure, the
cutting of expenditure. We regulate. However, there is an
intangible thing we are called on to do in this Chamber and that is
provide leadership.
It is time we began to talk about not how we drive this country
apart, but how we pull it together, how we collectively provide
some leadership that will improve the lives of people in this
country, not harm them.
[Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my speech this evening is entitled An open letter to my Quebec
kissing cousins. They know who they are.
First, I want to thank these cousins for the discussions we had
during the referendum campaign. One of them was in charge of the
yes side in her community, in the lower St. Lawrence region. We
had a brief conversation, two days before the referendum, in a very
serene and pleasant atmosphere.
The other two cousins had me over for dinner, in a Montreal
suburb, on a stormy fall evening. Inside, there was also a storm
raging. It was a storm of ideas, concepts, rebuttals and assertions.
In short, it was a very nice evening, and I thank them.
That evening, we discussed the Constitutional Act of 1982, the
Meech Lake accord, as well as issues such as overlap, duplication,
immigration, and French in North America, Canada and Quebec.
Of course, we also talked about the distinct society.
(2040)
Today, I find myself participating in a debate revived last
Wednesday by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the
Opposition. That day, I listened very carefully to the speech made
by the opposition leader. If I do not call him by name, dear cousins,
it is not out of disrespect, but because the rules and the tradition of
this House prevent me from doing so.
As I said, I listened carefully to what he had to say. Several of his
statements are so skilfully crafted that you have to stop and think
for a minute or two to find out what he means, especially when he
is talking about the Constitutional Act of 1982. Here are some
quotes from the speech he made. ``One of the things the 1982
Constitution effectively introduced into Canada and Quebec's legal
and political landscape was the notion of a single country, a
Canadian nation-this was a first.''
Later on, he added: ``This was the first time constitutional and
legal texts talked about Canada as a single nation, the nation of
Canada. The corollary, needless to say, was that Quebecers found
their existence as a people being denied, implicitly, if not
explicitly.''
Finally, he said, and I am still quoting: ``-but it never occurred
to me that, someday, a democratic Canada, English Canada, a
nation that is open, tolerant and respectful of individual rights,
could actually rely on its weight to crush Quebec's wish, tear up the
Constitution agreed upon by our forefathers in 1867 and replace it
with another constitution that was not recognized by Quebec but
imposed on Quebec, a constitution repudiated-'' I could go on and
on.
I could spend hours proving that the Constitution was not
replaced or torn up, that not all Quebecers repudiated this
Constitutional Act, as the Leader of the Opposition would have you
believe. But by doing this, I would be entering into an argument
with some politicians. For now, I would rather talk to my cousins.
In the face of such a condemnation of what happened in 1982, I
thought it was time for me to reread the Constitution Act, 1982,
which I did. I looked everywhere to find some hint of the crushing
he talked about-which is something some people would like to
make a part of the historical bagage of Quebecers-but I could not
find it.
I looked everywhere to find where the existence of Quebecers as
a people was denied implicitly or explicitly, with the same result. It
was nowhere to be found.
I looked everywhere to find the quote that says that English
Canada-and I will come back to this irritating expression a little
later on-relied on its weight to crush Quebec's wish. Again, I
could not find it.
So we have every reason to wonder, Mr. Speaker and dear
cousins, if the intent of these remarks was not to perpetuate and to
reinforce a myth that has been created and spread by separatist
forces.
Dear cousins, I have a question for you. What bothers you in the
Constitution Act, 1982? Is it the entrenchment in the Constitution
of your fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of conscience and
religion, freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression,
including freedom of the press and other communications media? I
do not think so.
Is it freedom of peaceful assembly? I do not think so either.
Freedom of association? I doubt it. Is it the entrenchment of your
democratic rights, your mobility rights or your legal rights? I do
not think so. To this day, I have not met one Canadian, or one
Quebecer for that matter, who is against these rights.
17326
Is it then the entrenchment in the Constitution of French and
English as the official languages of our country? Does it bother
you so much? Or is it the inclusion in the Constitution of the
concepts of equalization and regional disparity, two typically
Canadian concepts that continue to serve Quebec well?
I still fail to see what is the cause of this national humiliation the
advocates of independence have talked so much about. Referring to
the points that I just mentioned, how has Quebec's wish been
crushed?
Dear cousins, on the autumn evening when we met, I really
appreciated our ability to talk frankly, directly and with mutual
respect. So I ask you to think carefully and as objectively as
possible about the following question: what bothers you personally
about the Constitution Act, 1982?
(2045)
There is something else I would like to say, and I referred to this
earlier. The term English Canada, which Bloc members and their
leader keep using these days in a poorly disguised attempt to keep
erecting walls between Canadians, crops up at least a dozen times
in the speech made last Wednesday by the Leader of the
Opposition.
Well, I want to ask you people in the Bloc who are constantly
complaining, loud and clear, about the general lack of
understanding for Quebec society, to please stop ignoring a million
French Canadians who do not live in Quebec. We would appreciate
some respect.
In fact, the term is not accurate since New Brunswick is
officially bilingual, probably another humiliating result of the
Constitution Act, 1982. The Bloc likes to speak in separatist terms,
and it is pretty obvious why. I hope you, my cousins, are not fooled.
You know, in northern and eastern Ontario, there are a lot of French
Canadians, including your own cousins. Some day, we should
discuss how certain expressions evolved and why, hardly a
generation ago, we were all French Canadians, and today, we are
Franco-Ontarians, Québécois, Acadians, Fransasquois and so forth.
Maybe we should invent new hyphens, new links, with all due
respect for the late John Diefenbaker. I agree, we are all Canadians.
But as such, we all have one or more links elsewhere. Some are
new Canadians, others are English or French Canadians. In this
great country with a strong tradition of tolerance and openness,
there is room for everyone, even communities that form a distinct
society.
When you think about it, the hyphen is a symbol that seems
tailor-made for Canada. Are we not one of the hyphens or links
between France and the United Kingdom, between Europe and the
United States of America? We see those links throughout our
history, between Lower Canada and Upper Canada and even in the
Act of Union.
The beauty of the hyphen is that it manages to link two entities
that are sometimes entirely distinct. Is this not the very essence of
Canada? Squaring the circle, duality in unity? My dear cousins,
you will agree this would be an interesting subject for our next
meeting. Meanwhile, let this House recognize the distinct identity
of Quebec society by voting for the motion presented by the Prime
Minister, a motion which, at the very least, is a step in the right
direction. That being said, my dear cousins, I remain, yours
sincerely.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to Motion No. 26, which
is the motion put forward in the House by the Prime Minister. I will
oppose the motion unless it is amended, as was suggested by my
leader, the hon. member for Calgary Southwest.
I am concerned that the federal government has used closure to
limit debate on something as important as how Canada functions,
how we respect and treat one another, and whether or not the
principle of distinct society is a worthwhile course for us to follow
as a nation.
The whole idea of using closure, or time allocation, has been
addressed many times in the House. I will not condemn it at length.
I will just repeat that I believe it is wrong. I know that members
opposite, when they sat in opposition, declared that it was wrong.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands called it morally
wicked if the Mulroney government introduced time allocation and
closure. Yet the Liberal government has introduced this procedure
far more often than the Conservatives did under Mulroney. The
Liberals do not even bat an eye. They think there is nothing wrong
with limiting debate on important issues that do not need to be dealt
with in an emergency when the national good is at stake.
When we talk about distinct society it brings back memories. I
first remember hearing this phrase discussed in the debate on the
Meech Lake accord. Perhaps it was coined before that, but I was
not aware of the phrase until the Meech Lake debate. Subsequently,
it was a bone of contention when the Charlottetown accord was put
forward and voted on in a national referendum in Canada and
defeated.
(2050 )
It is interesting that the reason the Meech Lake accord never did
pass is because of a member who sits in our midst. While there was
opposition to the Meech Lake accord in the province of
Newfoundland with its premier and there was resistance in the
province of Manitoba with the government there, the one member
at that time in the Manitoba legislature who probably had more
impact on bringing down the Meech Lake accord than any other
Canadian was the hon. member for Churchill, who now sits in this
House.
17327
It is interesting that the member for Churchill, in recognizing
other problems the aboriginal people of Canada face, has called
a sacred assembly. As a people they are doing some soul
searching. They are even looking for inspiration from higher
powers than themselves to solve problems facing the aboriginal
people.
Maybe if we as a nation started to reflect on the one we
recognize in our Constitution as the supreme authority, perhaps we
would be better off than spending all this time trying to confer
special privileges, rights, or distinct society, whatever that may
mean, on a group of individuals. The Constitution calls upon us to
recognize the supremacy of God. If we have the correct
interpretation of how this almighty person looks upon the world, he
looks upon us with the same eyes regardless of our language, our
race, or our culture. I believe we are all equal before him. We are
all special, but certainly I do not expect he would suggest that any
of us are distinct or in some way deserve privileges the rest of us do
not.
I want to talk a little about why I am concerned about the phrase
distinct society. I am a little concerned about how it may be
interpreted in the future. Quite frankly, I do not trust the Liberal
government when they propose that this really does not mean
anything.
I am reminded of a Liberal politician in the past who when he
spoke in western Canada would not speak in glowing terms of the
national energy program. This subject seldom came up because this
Liberal, being a fairly knowledgeable and experienced politician,
realized that western Canadians were aware that the national
energy program had siphoned billions of dollars out of the western
Canadian economy and into the federal treasury and the same
proportional benefits were not returned to the people who owned
the natural resource. Natural resources of course are a provincial
jurisdiction.
This same experienced Liberal politician would go into Atlantic
Canada, far away from the west, and expound on the virtues of the
national energy program. I saw this on television one day. The
wonderful thing about television is that sometimes it captures the
things you say and it is recorded and broadcast in other parts of the
country.
I realize that we have to be careful that we are consistent with
our message in all parts of Canada when we are dealing with an
issue, whether it be the national energy program or whether it be
distinct society.
I have the uncanny feeling that when we are talking about
distinct society the message being conveyed to the province of
Quebec is not the same message that is being conveyed to other
parts of Canada. The message to Quebec is that this will meet their
aspirations. This somehow will confer on them some feeling of
being a nation, meet demands that have been made by the
separatists. Somehow these demands will be met and their feelings
of nationalism will be appeased by recognizing them as a distinct
society.
Then in the rest of the country the message is a bit different:
Distinct society does not really mean anything, it is just an
acknowledgement of something that already exists; it is no big
deal, nothing to be worried about, and it might keep the country
together.
I doubt that very much. It does not seem to make sense to me that
you can convey one message to Canadian citizens in the province
of Quebec and another message outside of the province. Something
does not fit. Rather than question the message, we have to question
the messenger. I do not think they are dealing a fair hand to
Canadians when they describe the distinct society.
We really have to be concerned about how this term distinct
society will be interpreted in the future. We can sit in this House
and the government and the Prime Minister can say distinct society
means this or that. But we know this term will be interpreted in the
future by the courts and by future governments, so we have to be
concerned about how distinct society is defined.
(2055)
Actually I cannot find any place in Motion No. 26 or in any other
information that tells us exactly what distinct society means in this
case. We are told it includes the French-speaking majority. It does
not say anything about any other Quebecers. We are told the House
will be guided by this distinct society phrase. We are told the House
will encourage all components of the legislative and executive
branches of government to take note of this recognition and be
guided in their conduct accordingly.
To me that sounds like a blank cheque. That is saying let us adopt
the phrase ``distinct society'', hang it over the door of Quebec, and
then we will try to pursue it with diligence and all our effort
without knowing really what it means. We will interpret that in the
future. We will let future politicians and future governments,
perhaps even separatist governments, define the phrase distinct
society for us. Just trust us, it will work out all right, that is what
they are saying.
That concerns me very much as a Canadian, because I realize
that when we are talking about the future of our country we are not
talking about today only. We are not even talking about the people
who make the decisions in this House and in the legislative
assemblies of the provinces across the land. We are talking about
the decisions that will be made in the future by parliamentarians
and by people in the various legislatures, including possibly a
separatist government in the province of Quebec.
17328
In conclusion, I want to deal with this whole idea of conferring
special status or rights on any group of society. Why would we do
that? There are three reasons we might do that. The first reason is
because these people are inferior to us and they need some kind of
assistance. I do not accept that for the province of Quebec. I see
them as my equals. Secondly, we can say that they are superior and
they deserve some special status. I do not accept that either. I see
them as my equals. Thirdly, we could say that because some of
their ancestors were here before some of our ancestors they deserve
a higher rung on the ladder. I do not accept that. Wherever we come
from, we should all be treated equally. None of us should have any
special status conferred upon us. Therefore, unless we accept the
Reform amendments I cannot support the motion.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
the opportunity to speak to Motion No. 26 today, as it will have a
profound impact on the future of our country if it is adopted.
Let me state my position quite clearly. As a Reformer, as an
Albertan, as a Canadian, and as someone who considers Canada as
home, I cannot support distinct society for any province. I cannot
support elevating one province over another, and I am not prepared
to separate the haves from the have nots. I believe in equality and
fairness for every man, woman, and child in this country regardless
of their race, colour, creed, origin, or abilities.
To say that this motion is ill-conceived is a euphemism of the
first order. This motion is an unmitigated disaster, an affront to the
House, a disgrace to the country, and misrepresents all Canada
stands for.
It is our duty today to govern this country with democracy,
freedom, and equality as our guiding lights as we build on the past
and lay the groundwork for the future generations. We have to be
accountable for our actions today, just as those in the past have
been judged by history for their actions.
There have been defining moments in history that were hailed as
great achievements, yet history found them to be shallow and
empty gestures that in hindsight would have best been left undone.
I think of 1938, when Mr. Chamberlain promised us peace in our
time as he waved a document that was, as I called it, a one-sided
agreement. One year later, his proclamation for peace was trampled
under the jackboots of an army that marched across Europe.
(2100 )
In 1982 prime minister of the day proclaimed a new Constitution
for this country that he said would last for 1,000 years. But that
Constitution did not have the signature of Quebec, and like Mr.
Chamberlain's declaration for peace in 1938, this Constitution was
a one sided agreement.
I hear the historians of tomorrow calling this motion a one sided
agreement that will not stand 1,000 years and will not even buy
peace in our time. Today we are debating a motion which the
government promises will bring peace and harmony to the country.
As in 1938, the motivation for this motion is appeasement, not
resolution. This is an offer to Quebec, not an agreement with
Quebec.
Let us look at the proposed motion. The government wants the
House to affirm a distinct society in the province of Quebec.
Distinct society is not defined. Those who have demanded
recognition as a distinct society in these last few years have not
demanded recognition as a medal to be worn with pride but as a
lever to exert more power, more advantage and to receive
preferential treatment at the expense of the rest of Canada. Let us
not lose sight of that fact.
The government mistakenly believes that talking about an issue,
making statements about an issue, is equivalent to resolving the
issue. Our debate today is a prefect example of that hypocrisy. In
passing this motion the Prime Minister believes he will have
achieved peace in our time. We know today Quebec is not satisfied.
We know today the leaders of the separatist movement in Quebec
will brush this gesture aside and march on.
What faith do we have today that this agreement will buy peace
within Canada, harmony within Canada and build the structure for
a united Canada while the forces of separation organize and
marshal their resources for another assault on the unity of the
country? We have none.
Alberta and British Columbia have been vocal over the years in
their demand for change within this united federation, but they
have voiced their concerns in a true and democratic way of working
in a positive manner to achieve change. Both of these provinces are
designated as have provinces within the equalization formula. Both
of these provinces have contributed billions over the last few
decades to the promotion and protection of this Confederation
while they continue to live up to their commitments without
demands that they receive the benefits equal to their contribution to
the country.
If we are to have peace we need goodwill and commitment by
the parties involved, not a simple, frivolous motion debated in the
House produced at the whim of the government, all in the false
hope that one single motion is a panacea to several decades of
dissent.
The Reform Party has proposed three simple amendments to this
motion to give it strength and focus. First, the government is asking
that we recognize Quebec as a distinct society. We as Reformers
say that is fine provided we recognize this is not to be used as a
lever for more power and privilege at the expense of other
provinces. Surely our amendment confirms the very heart of any
federation, any family and any society that wants to survive today:
equality for all.
(2105 )
Second, we recognize the French speaking majority, culture and
legal traditions in Quebec. They are a fact of life which exist each
day. However, we also recognize the great promise of the new
17329
world which guarantees equality for all regardless of who we are,
what we are and where we came from.
Third, while we undertake to be guided by the reality of a
distinct society and recognize that fact, we also undertake to be
guided by the reality and recognize that this nation is one nation,
from sea to shining sea.
Changes to the Constitution and the devolution of federal powers
is a manageable process, but it is being managed in a most
disgraceful manner by the Liberal government. The Reform Party
knows that Canada can work together, will work together and, with
real leadership in the country, will stay together. Leadership
requires vision and a clear statement of the way to the promised
land.
In the face of the challenge to break up the country the Reform
Party has responded with a call to action with a plan and a program.
A strong and proud Canada will move forward only when the
leadership of this great nation articulates a clear vision for the
country which is created by, endorsed by and supported by the large
majority of Canadians and provinces.
This motion, in the way it is presented, is not the answer.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a great
pleasure to enter the debate on Motion No. 26, which would
recognize Quebec as a distinct society.
As we listen to the opposition parties we are wondering just what
we are doing here. A distinct society will not cause the price of
gasoline to go up. It will not affect our paycheques. It will have
little or no effect on the lives of Canadians.
I have taken the opportunity to do a mailing to the constituents of
Durham. I am happy to say that a good many of them are
responding on how they feel about this issue. Their main concern is
they want to keep the country united and strong. However, they
have limitations. They do not think it should be done at any price.
They are concerned that we respect the civil rights of all people in
Canada. This motion will not inhibit the civil rights of individuals
within the province of Quebec.
People are prepared to recognize each other as being distinct.
However, it is an unusual concept for a society to recognize one
element as being distinct. Clearly that means the other elements
must also be distinct. There is a polarization of understanding. I
believe that is healthy. It is useful within our system.
As I was coming to the House tonight I thought about all the
debates and arguments caused by these two words in the last two or
three decades. I wondered what would happen if we all collectively
went to bed tonight and got amnesia. We would forget about our
past. We would forget about our history. We would forget about we
were doing when we lived together.
(2110 )
What would happen when we woke up tomorrow morning? We
would find that we still have this huge country, the second largest
nation in the world. We would discover that within that nation there
were different linguistic groups: some French, some English, some
others.
We would find that over a certain period of time they had entered
into agreements with each other, individuals. That is all
government is about, contracts and agreements between people.
We would discover that we had built a caring society, that we had
developed medicare systems, unemployment insurance systems,
pensions for our elderly. We had built all of these things, a social
fabric, and we called it Canada.
We also did some other things. We also borrowed a lot of money
to pay for some of these social programs in periods when our
revenues could not sustain them. We would discover as we opened
the books that we had huge debts; some of them federal, many of
them provincial, but all culminated in a huge bill we all had to pay.
Having looked at these aspects, we would also see we had
inherited tremendous resources. We had inherited the forests, the
mines, the rivers. We had inherited a country of mountains, of
lakes, from sea to sea to sea, and that we all together shared this
great nation.
It seems to me we would be hard pressed to discover what we did
not like about each other. We would be quite respectful with each
other and humble to live in such a country. We would discover we
were willing to respect the cultural integrity of the numerous
groups that live within that country; that our objectives were not to
overpower or overwhelm another culture but to co-exist.
I am sure we would look at the calendar and would see we were
approaching the 21st century. We would look at our debts and we
would look at our resources and we would try to see how we can
live together and work together as we approach the 21st century. I
am sure we would find a solution for that.
The other side of the coin is we do not have amnesia and so what
have we forgot? We probably forgot the negative parts of our
history. We forgot about the Plains of Abraham. We forgot many
other aspects about the existence of Canada today. We probably
forgot about some of the symbols we display so proudly, which are
really symbols of a bygone day. They are symbols of our heritage,
and not something we want to get rid of; we want to evolve as a
nation.
It is clear to me as I travel throughout the country that people no
longer understand what the governor general stands for or
represents. Ever since being elected to this place, one of the things I
enjoy doing, at least initially, is going around to our high schools
and presenting the governor general's award. The governor
general's award is presented to the highest scholastic student in a
17330
secondary school each year. I have many high schools in riding and
I do many of these events.
When I am handing out that award I ask those people to name the
governor general. In two years none of these academics has been
able to name the governor general. If our institutions of
government have become so irrelevant maybe they should be
changed.
If we want to enter into and renew our partnership links, both of
these cultures have to adjust for each other. I question some of my
brethren in other parts of the country who want to cling to the status
quo, our symbols of the past.
(2115)
Two days ago I was surprised to hear my Reform colleagues
arguing about changing the coat of arms of Canada in such a way
that it states we want to work toward a better country. Can we
imagine wanting to stick to the status quo to the point where we
could not see that simple change as being useful? I would like to
change a lot of other things in the country. I know many people
respect the monarchy. Indeed that is part of our past and is
something we cannot erase.
It is time to change some of the symbols of Canada. I have no
problem with our currency reflecting distinctly Canadian symbols.
It was interesting to watch the referendum in Quebec. It was my
privilege to be at the Montreal rally and see the oui signs which
showed that side of the loonie depicting the Canadian loon. I ask
some of my colleagues in the House whether that tells us
something. Does it not tell us that if we want to evolve as a country
we clearly we have to evolve together?
It would be very good if we could all get collective amnesia, put
to one side some of the things in our past that we are not happy with
and recognize the true strength and wealth of the country. Basically
we should get along together. We have many problems. Our deficit
is a tremendous burden. It is much like having a huge mortgage in a
marriage and not being able to afford a divorce.
The people out there should remember that we are not talking
about giving away the farm. There is very little expense, but the
bottom line is that it is time to change our nation.
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise this evening to speak to the resolution which
recognizes that Quebec is a distinct society because of its majority
French language, its culture and its civil code legal system.
A month or so ago our country was brought to a precipice by the
referendum in Quebec. As I campaigned in Quebec during the
referendum, as I talked to people in Quebec and thought about
what was happening there, it was frightening that we had failed to
understand each other. People outside Quebec did not have a good
understanding of the concerns of Quebecers, how sincere they were
in their concerns about the preservation of their language and
culture within this huge sea of English that is North America. With
the huge English area surrounding Quebec, including the U.S. and
the rest of Canada, Quebecers have a very real concern about it.
I found a lack of understanding among some francophone
Quebecers of the point of view of people outside Quebec and of
their love for Quebec. There was a misunderstanding among them
of how the rest of Canada would react to a yes vote in Quebec. The
consequences would have been severe for all of us. Certainly there
was a failure among Bloc members to recognize that.
This reminds me of the fact that we almost lost a great country.
(2120)
We must remember that Canada's position in the world is a very
important one. It is one that is widely respected. Why is that? We
are respected as a peacemaker and a peacekeeper around the world.
We are respected because we provide an example to the world of
living peacefully with differences. It is a great example. We are
respected widely for our exercise of the art of Canadian
compromise.
A few weeks ago I was watching a CBC television program
during which Allison Smith was interviewing Israeli prize winning
author Amos Oz. It was interesting to hear him talk about his work.
His novels have always tried to bring together the two sides, the
Palestinians and the Israelis.
He was talking about the need for compromise and the need to
work out solutions in that country. He talked about the example of
the Israelis and the Palestinians. He pointed out that on the one
hand the Israelis had always looked upon the land in the area of the
West Bank as being very important to their nation and a very
important part of themselves. It is essential to them to have that
land for their country. On the other hand the Palestinians look at
that land as being essential to their nation, an essential part of
themselves.
As he pointed out often, we feel we have a misunderstanding but
if we talk enough we can work out the problem. However there was
not a lack of understanding on the two sides. There was an
understanding but the problem was that they both wanted the same
thing. There was an impasse and a conflict.
As he also pointed out, when people realize there is that kind of
conflict eventually they come to the realization that the only
17331
logical, rational response is a compromise. His phrase was that
compromise is life and life is compromise.
Surely any of us who is married will understand that is true. Life
is full of compromises. Certainly a marriage is made up of
compromises. How can we have one without compromise? It is a
very important part of a healthy marriage. Compromise is an
important part of living with differences, as is all of life.
We have to recognize that we have different points of view in the
country and that we have to find compromise between those points
of view.
Some people have the idea that the country is made up of two
founding linguistic groups. We also have the point of view on the
other side that suggests that we are 10 equal founding provinces.
These are two different points of view. Somewhere in the middle
we have to find some common ground.
[Translation]
We have the history of the Maritimes. In 1867, the two big
provinces, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, joined with Quebec
and Ontario in the Confederation. At that time, Nova Scotia and
New Brunswick had very powerful economies, stronger than
Ontario and Quebec. Obviously, from our point of view, in Nova
Scotia for instance, the agreement involved equal provinces, equal
partners.
But there must be an understanding of the historical links
between Lower and Upper Canada, Ontario and Quebec, with their
two main language groups. Those groups joined forces to create
this country. The two are part of one reality. Neither one nor the
other represents reality; the two together do. But there are different
understandings of what this country is, and it is difficult sometimes
for those who understand things one way to understand the other
point of view.
[English]
I want to talk for a moment about the word distinct which was
dealt with in the resolution. According to the definition in The
Concise Oxford Dictionary it is an adjective and has three different
meanings:
1 a not identical; separate; individual. b different in kind or quality; unlike. 2 a
clearly perceptible; plain. b clearly understandable; definite. 3 unmistakable,
decided.
A lot of francophones do not realize that in English the word
distinct is often thought of in terms of the word distinguished,
which suggests some sort of superiority or a heightened level.
When we talk about a distinguished person, it is a person who has
achieved a high level in life. In the past that has created a problem
in Canada.
(2125)
[Translation]
The difficulty with defining the word ``distinct'' is to make both
sides, anglophones and francophones, see that it is used differently
in both languages. That was a problem I encountered when I visited
Quebec. I was talking with some students at Saint-Jovite and a girl
asked me ``Why do the anglophones not look up the definition of
the word "distinct'' in a French dictionary. In French, it means
``different''; there is absolutely no suggestion of superiority''.
But back in Nova Scotia, in my riding of Halifax West, when I
talk to the people from down home, they ask ``Why will the
francophones not consider the definition and meaning of the word
``distinct'', because it has a different meaning in English?''
You can see that it is hard to see the other side's point of view, or
for them to see ours. It is always hard. The answer is not to separate
but to communicate and find a compromise.
[English]
Whenever we have an impasse or a deadlock the only solution is
a compromise. In the measures we brought forward this week is a
compromise. For example, we know that Quebec wanted a veto for
itself over constitutional change. We are providing in the system of
how we govern the federal government's approach to the matter a
veto to four regions, not just to Quebec. We also recognized in the
resolution that Quebec is a distinct society because of its culture,
its language and its civil code. This is an important compromise for
the country. Together they form an important compromise position
that will help us bridge toward the constitutional conference in
1997.
This is not a constitutional change. Constitutional change is not
precluded or prevented by these measures. It will be up to those
who meet at the conference in 1997 whether or not they wish to
make future changes to the Constitution. That is left to the future
for now.
People in my area are saying: ``Let's deal with it quickly. Let's
deal with it in a nice, clean manner and set it aside for now so we
can focus on the real problems of the country''.
Is Quebec distinct? If Quebec were to separate it would be as
distinct as Mexico from the other provinces of Canada. It has a
different language and a different culture in many ways, not in
every way, from the rest of Canada. The majority language there is
different. We cannot say that about any other province. It is clearly
distinct in that way.
Does this make Quebec superior? No. Does it recognize and
celebrate our differences? Yes, it does.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member's time has expired.
17332
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I, like
my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, am pleased to rise in the
House today to speak on the motion to recognize the distinct nature
of Quebec society.
Before speaking on the motion, as such, I would like to refer to a
short passage from the Practical Guide to Private Members'
Business, which defines a motion. It says that the effect desired is
the first consideration in deciding between a bill and a motion, that
in passing a motion-as is the case here- stating a resolution, the
House expresses a wish without committing the government to a
particular measure or direction.
A wish is expressed, which does not commit the government to a
particular measure or direction. It is important to remember that
this is what the motion is directed at. The guide goes on to say that,
on the other hand, a bill passed by Parliament may have major
implications for both the government and the public.
But there is no cause for anxiety. This is not a bill, it is a motion,
that is, a wish that does not commit the government to a particular
measure or direction, in other words, it does not amount to much.
I would also point out that, in this House, a motion was passed
last December 13, which reads as follows: ``That, in the opinion of
this House, the government should officially recognize the
historical contribution of the patriotes of Lower Canada and the
Reformers of Upper Canada to the establishment of a system of
responsible democratic government''.
(2130)
This motion was passed on December 13. What action has been
taken to implement this motion since? None, none whatsoever,
because it was idle talk that did not commit the government to
anything.
Let me remind you that a motion recognizing hockey as our
national winter sport and lacrosse as our national summer sport was
also passed. What action has been taken since? The Canadian
lacrosse team's budget was eliminated. Completely. What good is a
motion? It does not mean a thing.
Besides being meaningless, the motion is contradictory to begin
with, because it reads, and I quote:
That-the House recognize that Quebec's distinct society includes its
French-speaking majority, unique culture and civil law tradition;
``Unique culture''. Just this afternoon, my hon. colleague from
Rimouski-Témiscouata asked the Primer Minister the following
question:
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday, government
members of the heritage committee maintained that there was no such thing as a
Quebec culture-
Now this motion says that we in Quebec have a unique culture.
Unique means that it is exclusive to Quebec, if I am not mistaken.
Yet government members maintained that there was no Quebec
culture, only one great big Canadian culture. It seems to me that
their position flies in the face of the motion these same members
are about to vote on.
And what was the Prime Minister's answer?
Mr. Speaker, there is a French culture in Canada, and it is a Canadian culture.
There is only one culture in Canada: the Canadian culture. That
is what the Prime Minister said. On the other hand, the motion
tabled by the Prime Minister himself, seconded by his Deputy
Prime Minister, recognizes that there is a unique culture in Quebec.
It reads:
That-the House encourage all components of the legislative and executive
branches of government to take note-
-it does not say much, ``to take note''-
-of this recognition and be guided in their conduct accordingly.
What did the Prime Minister do this afternoon? Just the opposite.
The opposite of what? The opposite of what a meaningless motion
says to do. Is there any doubt about that? I will let you be the judge
of that, Mr. Speaker.
Yet, during the referendum campaign, the Primer Minister
repeated time and time again that he would positively not address
constitutional issues, but deal with the real problems instead,
namely job creation and deficit reduction. How did we end up
debating this motion then? Because they were afraid. They looked
at the polls and realized that they were losing ground. Faced with
rising support for the yes side in opinion polls toward the end of the
campaign and with the possibility of losing the referendum, the
Prime Minister suddenly changed his mind. He set up a
smoke-and-mirrors operation aimed at convincing the people of
Quebec that the federal government was committed to making
major changes to the current federal system after a hypothetical no.
The fact that this strategy was improvised from beginning to end
was, of course, reflected in the Canadian Prime Minister's
ambiguous and meaningless comments in the last days of the
referendum campaign. On October 24 in Verdun, he said, and I
quote: ``Quebecers want Quebec to be recognized within Canada as
a distinct society by virtue of its language, culture and institutions.
I have said it before and I say it again, I agree''. Yet, he tells us
today that there is only one culture in Canada, although his motion
says that Quebec has a distinct culture. No matter, he has a right to
be mixed up.
17333
The Liberal government also felt pressured to deliver on its
vague promises to change the federal system following the
razor-thin victory of the no side on October 30.
(2135)
To do so, it set up two phoney committees. One of these
committees was chaired by the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs; its mission was to save Canada. What a nifty little mission.
On November 29, even before the committee tabled its findings,
the Prime Minister hastily announced three initiatives aimed at
satisfying the desire for change expressed by the vast majority of
Quebecers.
As far as recognition of Quebec as a distinct society is
concerned, however, these efforts are not very impressive. But,
before going any further, allow me to read the motion:
Whereas the people of Quebec have expressed the desire for recognition of
Quebec's distinct society;
(1) the House recognize that Quebec is a distinct society within Canada;
(2) the House recognize that Quebec's distinct society includes its
French-speaking majority, unique culture and civil law tradition;
Perhaps my French is not so good, but to me ``culture- unique''
means a culture that is different from others.
(3) the House undertake to be guided by this reality;
(4) the House encourage all components of the legislative and executive
branches of government to take note of this recognition and be guided in their
conduct accordingly.
In other words, this is just the opposite of what was done this
afternoon.
Upon reading the motion, we realize that it is merely a
recognition of Quebec society as it is now. It simply reflects a
logical conclusion.
Nowhere in this text is there any mention of additional powers
being given to Quebec. Even the minister told us that it does not
provide powers to Quebec. He is an honest man.
This motion is meaningless. It is merely a symbolic recognition
of what we already know, namely that we are different from the rest
of Canada. Even the Prime Minister has said so.
The fact is that the recognition of Quebec's distinct nature, as
currently proposed by the Liberal government, is light years away
from what was proposed in the past.
Indeed, during the 1986-87 federal-provincial negotiations to
make Quebec sign, with honour and enthusiasm, the Constitutional
Act of 1982, the Liberal Party of Quebec made a demand, as part of
its June 1985-86 political agenda. This is for the Quebec Liberals
who hold a Liberal party membership: ``The Liberal government is
asking that a statement be included, in a preamble to the new
Constitution, to explicitly recognize Quebec as a distinct society
and as a cornerstone for the French element of the Canadian
duality''.
That was not written by nasty separatists in their political
agenda, but by the Liberal Party of Quebec.
These proposals from the Liberal Party of Quebec led to the
Meech Lake accord. Although the concept of distinct society in that
accord was not worth much, at least it was entrenched in the
Canadian Constitution. Moreover, the distinct society clause was
interpretative. Therefore, the provisions of the Canadian
Constitution had to be interpreted based, among other things, on
that clause. Consequently, today's motion on the concept of distinct
society is very far from what was agreed to in the Meech Lake
accord. There was a minimum of interpretative powers. Today,
there are none.
There is nothing of the like being proposed today, besides which
the government side is deluding itself into believing that Quebecers
will smilingly accept such a ridiculous proposition and
undertaking-and I am weighing my words carefully with that
choice of adjective.
(2140)
Where were the people in the Liberal government when the
people of Quebec came close to saying yes to sovereignty on
October 30, at 49.4 per cent? Do the Prime Minister and his cronies
really believe that the people of Quebec will settle for that stuff and
nonsense when they came within a hair's breadth of acquiring a
country with total control over all of its powers? No. The federal
government needs to stop fooling itself and face up to reality.
Quebec is not inhabited by a distinct society, but by a people, the
people of Quebec. The men and women of Quebec already know
that, and this is why they do not recognize themselves in the
meaningless concept of a distinct society. If there is one lesson to
be learned from the October 30 referendum, it is that the people of
Quebec are on their way to sovereignty.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is both
a pleasure and a duty to speak to a motion so well characterized by
the previous speaker as wishful thinking, a motion of the House of
Commons on the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society.
In this country people have long misunderstood the so-called
identity of the province of Quebec. Quebec is not a province like
the others. It is a people, a nation. It is a nation forged by history, a
society that included aboriginal peoples and the many immigrants
that came to change that society and be changed by it, that would
enrich it and absorb its identity.
Quebec is not a province like the others, and until this fact is
recognized other than by a motion on distinct society or some
17334
Charlottetown accord on an equally hollow concept, Quebecers
will have no choice but to ensure that in the next referendum, the
result will not be 49.9 per cent, which is a close defeat or a close
win, but a clear majority.
I hope so, not only for Quebec but also for Canada which as long
as this issue is around, will not be able to consider its own potential
and problems and guide the development of its economy and its
own history in the best interests of Canadians.
We in Quebec claim and will continue to do so, that the best
thing for Quebec and Canada would be to agree to a partnership.
(2145)
We realize that the outcome of the referendum does not give us a
mandate to negotiate this partnership immediately. However,
Canada should not get the impression that symbolic gestures as
frivolous as a motion on distinct society will do anything at all to
deal with the problem facing both Quebec and Canada.
In my youth, which, I must admit, was a long time ago, I was
very keen on history. History is an impassioned quest for
understanding what makes a people and a nation. The Quebec
people, the Quebec nation has come a long way since the first
French colonists immigrated to Canada, which is an aboriginal
name. These French immigrants quickly mixed in.
I need only mention the Carignan-Salières regiment with its
many soldiers, mercenaries from every country in Europe. They
settled here. When the English conquest left no choice but
compliance, their intermixing explains why every historian
studying this point in history says that, even at that time, the
Canadians or ``Canayens'', like the Americans, former English
settlers, would not have taken long to become independent in a
country with a different name.
Fortune, if we can use such a term for the English conquest,
dictated that there would be a colony within a colony and that, after
all these years, Quebec through its complex but clear and unilateral
history, would succeed in making itself felt as a people and a
nation, ever increasingly. Increasingly clearly, and certainly since
1960, when, at the end of a period in which middle class business
and economics had again taken root after 1760, young people spoke
with one voice calling for ``maître chez nous'' and for ``égalité ou
indépendance'', through the Ralliement pour l'indépendance du
Québec, the RIN, or even the FLQ, leading this people, already a
fact, to speak for itself. General de Gaulle did no harm either with
his ``Vive le Québec libre'' from the balcony.
Quebec's history has passed through the election of the Parti
Quebecois, the failure of the first referendum, a bitter pill for those
who had worked so hard. But it was, however, productive, because
15 years later, in 1995, the 1980 referendum almost won.
In these few minutes, it is not possible to express the density of
Quebec's history. I want to say that I have tremendous respect for
all of the Canadians who are speaking up here, today, and who are
attached to their country. I say to them the only way the countries
of Canada and Quebec can develop and flourish is through mutual
recognition.
(2150)
It is by mutually recognizing not Quebec's distinct society,
which is practically meaningless, but the depth, the profound
nature of this people and this nation, of both Quebec and Canada,
that we can mutually and collectively prepare for the future by
building on a real foundation.
Unfortunately, instead of bringing us closer to a future to which
Canadians and Quebecers are entitled, this situation is a setback,
because it tries to fulfil a wish that has absolutely nothing to do
with the real underlying needs.
I sincerely hope that our position will help Quebecers and
Canadians take a real step toward their future.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the great honour of supporting the motion before us
today.
I am a Quebecer and it is as such that I associate myself with this
motion. I do so because it is in the best interests of Quebec and
because it opens the door to a renewed partnership for Canadian
partners from coast to coast.
The ideal country does not exist, except in the imagination of
certain persons. And we all agree that Canada is far from perfect. It
needs to change. It must change to better reflect its own reality.
[English]
What is that reality? It is the reality of a vast country with a
scattered, diverse population. It is the reality of a country in which
regional identities are strongly expressed. It is also the reality of a
country in which the francophones are concentrated in one
province but a million others are distributed across the rest of
Canada.
[Translation]
That is the Canadian reality. Not only must we take it into
consideration and recognize it, but our institutions must also reflect
this reality if we want this country to work and to achieve its full
potential.
[English]
On October 30 Quebecers sent us a clear double message. While
reaffirming their attachment to Canada, they indicated that they
17335
wanted to see Canada change quickly to reflect their aspirations.
We must know how to interpret this message. We must not only
take note of it, but we must respond to it in a concrete way or this
country will fail.
As the Prime Minister pointed out so well when the motion was
tabled, the referendum results have taught us that we must not take
Canada for granted. It was in this context that the Prime Minister
made three firm commitments on behalf of the Canadian
government during the referendum campaign. These three
commitments were as follows: to recognize that Quebec is a
distinct society within Canada; to refrain from making any
constitutional change affecting Quebec without the consent of
Quebecers; and to undertake changes to bring citizens closer to
services and decision making.
[Translation]
The time has come to fulfil these commitments, to take action.
Through the motion before this House, we are starting to give
concrete expression to the commitments made by the Prime
Minister. By putting it to the members of this House this quickly,
the government is showing that it takes its commitments seriously.
It is showing how important this issue is, not only for Quebec, but
also for the rest of Canada.
(2155 )
[English]
Why do Quebecers want to be recognized as members of a
distinct society? The reasons are obvious. Quebec is home to a
French-speaking majority, a unique culture, and a civil law
tradition. Quebec has been built around these essential elements for
more than three centuries. Recognizing this is not only
acknowledging reality, it is also agreeing that these characteristics
of Quebec society must be preserved and nourished in a context
where Quebec co-exists in North America with a population of
about 300 million anglophones.
To adopt this motion is to recognize that the French character of
Quebec must be protected. It is to assert that Quebec must enjoy
cultural security. It is to recognize the linguistic duality that is in
the very nature of Canada and contributes to its cultural and social
richness.
[Translation]
By recognizing Quebec distinct nature and by admitting that the
definition of distinct society contained in this resolution is by no
means complete, this House is undertaking to let itself be guided by
this reality. The legislative and executive branches of government
will be encouraged to take this recognition into account in all their
activities and all their decisions. This means that this resolution
will have a positive impact on the way legislation is passed in this
House and decisions are made in federal government departments
and agencies.
There is more. The motion before us today is but one of a whole
series of government actions. During the referendum campaign, the
Prime Minister also pledged not to make any constitutional change
without Quebec's consent. That commitment is reflected in the bill
recently introduced by the Minister of Justice to provide a regional
veto power. Under this bill, any constitutional amendment
proposed by the federal government will require the consent of
Quebec and the other regions of Canada.
[English]
The objective of the motion is clear: to protect Quebec from
amendments that might reduce the powers of the Quebec National
Assembly. By taking this action the Government of Canada is
recognizing that the Government of Quebec, as the only
government representing a francophone majority in North
America, has a central role to play in the evolution of Canada.
[Translation]
This is a far cry from the so-called meaningless motion referred
to by the separatists in recent days. Through this bill, the federal
government strengthens the regions, particularly Quebec. We feel
it is a first step toward a more flexible and more effective
federalism.
[English]
It would be wrong to claim that the only purpose of the motion is
to meet the aspirations of Quebec. Canada is not a melting pot, nor
has it ever been. The issue here is proposals that reflect the deep
nature of Canada. The issue here is ensuring not only our national
unity but also its harmony and the effectiveness of its institutions.
I have followed the debate on the motion with interest. I have
heard the criticisms of the official opposition, which were not
really surprising. I have also heard the criticisms of others who
claim to be defending Canada while at the same time opposing the
motion. To them I would say that it is easy to criticize after the
crisis is over. However, what will those who object today say when
the separatists mount another attack? I invite them to answer right
now, before it is too late.
Canada is a federation of partners. It is by preserving the spirit of
partnership and co-operation and by recognizing both our
differences and our shared objectives that this country will grow
and prosper. The motion we are debating today deals exactly with
this concept of partnership. The Canada we all want is a country in
which each region has its own specific character and the freedom it
needs to express it. That is the essence of what this motion
contains.
(2200 )
The definition of a federation is not a grouping of equal partners.
The purpose of a federation is to permit the differences of the
various parts to be accommodated within one country. Otherwise it
is a unitary state. We are not, because we have started as a group of
people who were different and who founded a type of government
able to accept the differences. It is really unfortunate that there is
17336
now a party which does not agree that the differences the country
has are part of its richness and of its wealth.
[Translation]
The motion before the House specifically relates to the concept
of partnership. The Canada that we want is a country in which
every region will have its own distinctive character and the means
to develop it. This is the very essence of the motion.
Canadians want a united country. They are open to changes that
will preserve its unity and promote its development, as evidenced
by the resolutions recently passed by the legislatures of Ontario,
New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, to recognize
Quebec's distinct nature.
I am convinced that the majority of Quebecers and Canadians
recognize themselves in this motion. I would humbly submit to the
Official Opposition, moreover, as well as to the Government of
Quebec, that they are wrong to reject it.
Of course the separatists cannot accept propositions with the
object of making Canada work better. This is an undemocratic
attitude, for it denies the results of the referendum. It also
condemns Quebec to immobility and rejection of any improvement
to the system. It is thus in contradiction to what most Quebecers
want.
We have no illusions about it. Since the Government of Quebec
is interested solely in its own option, we shall not engage in
constitutional discussions which would be doomed to failure from
the word go. But that does not prevent us from taking steps today in
the direction Quebecers and all Canadians want us to go. Needless
to say, however, if Quebec and the other regions of the country
consent, the Government will be open to including the changes
contained in this motion in the Constitution.
[English]
Every member sitting in the House has the opportunity by voting
for this motion to acknowledge Canada for what it is, a diversified
country, an open country, a country that has always based its
development on accepting and preserving its differences.
[Translation]
For, beyond those differences, the shared values and objectives
we have always had as Canadians, regardless of where we live,
remain: freedom, tolerance, the creation and distribution of wealth
for individuals and regions.
The months and years to come will surely afford us the
opportunity for a concrete demonstration of the fact that we go far
beyond principles and pious wishes.
[English]
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
have the opportunity to put on the record some of the comments I
have received from constituents. They have watched and
participated with all of us, or most of us, as a number of members
and parties in the House did not participate in the process, in order
to reach out to the province of Quebec with most Canadians to set
the country back on a path of a unified purpose and commitment to
the dream which has made this country the envy of the world.
(2205 )
I would like to publicly thank those from the Prince
Edward-Hastings riding who took that long bus trip to Montreal
on October 27 to extend their hand and to once again tell Quebecers
their Canada included Quebec. It certainly was a contribution I
know was well meant and very useful. I thank them for that extra
effort as well as the individuals and businesses in the riding that
helped to make that possible during that day and during that critical
time in the future of our country.
The resolution we are debating is certainly an honest and
thoughtful fulfilment of an important commitment the Prime
Minister made to the people of Quebec during the referendum
debate. We are fortunate as Canadians to have a Prime Minister
who displays and portrays very clearly integrity and sincerity in his
actions. When he makes a promise to Canadians he fulfils that
promise.
The package of unity measures announced and put forward to the
House and to Canadians in every province has three parts, as we
well know: to recognize within Canada that Quebec is a distinct
society; not to proceed with any constitutional change that affects
Quebec without Quebecers' consent; and to undertake changes to
bring services and the decision making process closer to citizens,
initially in the field of labour market training.
This kind of leadership, to put this type of thing before
Canadians and before the House, is what is needed today in order to
heal the wounds, and the recent wounds, that need to be healed in
order to move forward together as Canadians. This motion along
with the bill concerning the veto and other actions of the House
concerning workforce training measures provide a confident
display of national reconciliation.
The motion that addresses the legitimate concerns of the citizens
of Quebec in terms of our acknowledgement of the distinctive
characteristics of Quebec as a society is only a recognition of the
reality there today.
If we analyze the motion by looking at the second part it says
very clearly that Quebec includes a French speaking majority. That
17337
is a reality. It says Quebec has a unique culture. That is a reality. It
says Quebec is governed by the civil law tradition. That is a reality.
This motion does not give any special status to the people in
Quebec. It recognizes one of the things we all say everyday, that
our country is made up of many diverse cultures. However, we
have six million French speaking people of a unique culture,
different from many of the rest of us, in Quebec.
The motion provides them the assurance that the federal
government will be guided by the recognition of that distinctness
and carries the Prime Minister's personal commitment that he and
the government will gladly incorporate into the Constitution, when
all the provinces are prepared along with Quebec, appropriate
resolutions to do so.
No matter what area we are dealing with, our own riding or an
organization we belong to or in the House, we know there are
differences. We know there are people who think differently. The
important thing, whether in our own families or whether in the
larger family of a constituency, a province, a municipality or in the
House, is that we recognize and appreciate each other's differences.
(2210 )
We may not always agree but the only way we are to get ahead in
a family of any kind, whether it is a family of the House or a family
that we call Canada, is to go forward together. We are stronger as
we work together to achieve that end. It is a disappointment to most
Canadians when we see one political party in the House saying it
wants a Quebec without Canada and another political party making
it very clear it would be very happy, certainly not upset, if we had a
Canada without Quebec.
The concerns that this motion conveys special powers to the
province of Quebec or that this motion is an acknowledgement of
the Constitution's inability to be flexible enough to accommodate
such changes are simply unwarranted.
While this motion has no legal effect, it definitely expresses an
important commitment by the elected body that speaks for all
Canadians, this body that we are all part of here this evening, and it
recognizes an obvious reality without giving the people of Quebec
any powers that Canadians elsewhere do not possess.
That is not the intention of this motion. The intention of this
motion and the intention and the challenge of the House is to treat
all Canadians equally. We also have to recognize Canadians are not
all the same when it comes to language, culture and, in the case of
Quebec, the law and the civil law code they are governed by.
The Constitution is more than capable of accepting this change,
as is the government. The willingness of the Quebec government to
make that possible would be a significant help in giving greater
weight to this important measure.
I am disappointed that the official opposition and the third party
are opposed to this motion, opposed and fail to recognize the
diversity of what makes up this wonderful country we are all part
of.
The negative contributions to the debate during the referendum
by some members of the House, some parties in the House, nearly
cost us the country. We cannot stand by and allow that to happen
again. It is illogical, narrow minded and not of the national
character we have here Canada.
Canada must reassert our strength of purpose and unite our
people. This is a commitment the government is prepared to make,
and is making. It is the potential of this motion and it will be the
legacy of the government and the Prime Minister.
We are a country incredibly rich in culture, resources, beauty,
geography and opportunity. I encourage all members of the House
to do what we can, individually and together, to make our country
even stronger in the future than it is at the present time. I urge all
members of the House to support this motion.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be splitting my time with one of my fellow members.
In May 1987 Pierre Trudeau wrote an open letter to the country
after the Meech Lake accord was signed. He had this to say about
Quebec as a distinct society:
The real question-is whether the French Canadians living in Quebec need a
provincial government with more powers than other provinces. I believe it is
insulting to us to claim that we do-.The new generation-has no use for this
siege mentality in which the elites of bygone days used to cower-.They don't
suffer from any inferiority complex, and they say good riddance to the times
when we didn't dare to measure ourselves against others without fear and
trembling. In short, they need no crutches. Quite the contrary, they know that
Quebecers are capable of playing a leading role within Canada.
Mr. Trudeau believed the recognition of Quebec as a distinct
society would be a stepping stone to sovereignty, that granting
special powers to Quebec would be the end of the Canadian dream.
I think he was right.
Call Quebec a distinct society, promise to make government
decisions in light of that status, and sovereignists will seize on it to
say at last we are recognized as a distinct society, and a distinct
society is a nation; we have only one more step to go.
The notion of a distinct society formed the basis of the
sovereignty argument in the last referendum campaign and will be
used to greater effect next time if this motion passes.
(2215 )
The current Prime Minister's last minute promise of a distinct
society was born out of panic. It is a policy of appeasement to
sovereignists in Quebec and it stands in opposition to traditional
Liberal Party policy.
17338
I agree with Mr. Trudeau about distinct society, but I take issue
with his belief that national unity lay in his new Constitution and
the charter which would form a federation, as he put it, set to last
1,000 years.
Instead, Mr. Trudeau, by invading provincial jurisdictions, by
consolidating power in Ottawa and by starting us down the debt
road that has led us to the fiscal crisis we now face as a nation, set
in motion a series of events that led us to the brink of separation on
October 30. It does not help that our current Prime Minister is so
closely associated with the repatriation of our Constitution and
being finance minister during the time that this fiscal crisis began.
Federal strategy during the referendum and afterward was put
forward by the Prime Minister in the following way. He promised a
virtual status quo, even though Quebec had been demanding that
the federal government get out of provincial jurisdiction since
1920. The Prime Minister now says he will decentralize some job
training to the provinces. It is too little, but it is not yet too late.
Finally, the lack of federal strategy ignores the changing face of
Canada. The new Canada is more than just two founding nations.
We have come of age in this country. We are no longer simply two
founding nations. We are a nation of almost 30 million people and
growing. We are a nation of 30 million equal people. There are no
longer just two languages, there are many. Canada is more than just
two rich and populace central provinces. It is a nation with a
growing western economy and a population to match.
In the old Canada, Ontario and Quebec could afford to ignore the
western hinterland. However, in 20 years British Columbia will be
nearly as populace as Quebec. Alberta and B.C. already have the
two strongest economies in the nation. The west is not only a
theoretical equal, it sits now at the table as a practical equal with
the central provinces.
Liberals seem to be living in the past, in the old Canada. That is
why the notion of a distinct society reverberates so poorly in the
west. If the Prime Minister wants to give special status to Quebec
and this status means unequal powers or unequal treatment of all
Canadians, regardless of race, sex, language or culture, then this
idea will not sell in British Columbia and the rest of Canada.
That is why we proposed these amendments. It was to make it
crystal clear that it does not involve any more powers or any
unequal treatment of any Canadians. If he continues to treat
provinces unequally, he is starting to drive a wedge in the west
where there once was one only at the Ottawa River.
It is fair to say that everyone in this Chamber feels a good deal of
pressure today, pressure from their constituents, from party
colleagues, from provincial governments and even from people
who are yet to be born, because future generations may have to live
with whatever we decide. They are in a sense looking for us to do
what is right.
I want to say that I regret what is happening in the House. The
proverb states: ``A house divided against itself cannot stand''. At
this crucial time in our history, we face a divided House of
Parliament, not only between federalists and separatists, which is
to be expected, but incredibly we also face a divided House among
federalists.
The government seems to claim a certain omniscience on the
subject of national unity but the results of the referendum proved it
to be sadly mistaken. If at the beginning of the referendum
campaign the Prime Minister had brought in the leader of the
Reform Party and said: ``We both represent legitimate viewpoints
of Canadians. We can work out a strategy together. Let us combat
the separatists in Quebec'', I think the leader of the Reform Party
would have co-operated gladly. However, there seems to be no
room for compromise in the Liberal ranks.
Instead, the Prime Minister questions the loyalty of Reformers
just because they do not agree with the way the Liberal Party wants
to fight separatists. Of course this is not true. We are not lacking in
patriotism. We simply feel like most Canadians, that we have been
shut out of the process and that the strategy is wrong.
What is that process? The resolution came before the House with
two days' notice, an hour's notice to the press, a briefing to the
Liberal caucus on the same day that the Prime Minister held the
press conference. There was no briefing for any other members in
the House. There was no public consultation or even consultation
with the provinces, many of which reject this notion of distinct
society.
Members of the Reform Party, like it or not, represent real points
of view of real Canadians. On the Liberal side they may want to
ignore the Reform members in the House but the people of Canada
who voted for us cannot be ignored. In ignoring the thoughts of
Reformers, the Prime Minister is alienating strong federalist forces
outside of his own cloistered offices. Yet when the Reform Party
protests, the Prime Minister chides them like school children and
says: ``Shame, shame you're in bed with the separatists''. Then he
proceeds to offer a constitutional veto to the separatist Government
of Quebec.
(2220)
There is a sincere desire for national unity on the government
side of the House. I do not question that. Their tactics are wrong.
There is wisdom on this side of the House worth hearing.
I would like to read from Hansard. When I asked the Prime
Minister, when he must have known or he should have known that
the west would never ever accept this distinct society clause, why
he brought it forward, his Minister of Justice rose and said: ``Mr.
17339
Speaker, I do not think we should assume for a moment that the
hon. member speaks for the people of British Columbia''.
I will say one thing. A slick Toronto lawyer does not speak for
the people of British Columbia. If he wants to know what the
people of British Columbia are saying, he should come out to the
coffee shops, come out to the public meetings, come out to the talk
shows, come out anywhere in the west and listen. If he listened he
would realize the wedge that he is driving with this motion between
British Columbia and the rest of Canada. I do not know why the
government is proceeding with this.
The Reform policy is to confront hard and soft Quebec
separatists on the one hand by developing realistic answers to the
hard questions that the sovereignists like to sweep under the rug.
We would detail the costs of separation for Quebecers and make
sure that all Quebecers hear them. A huge percentage of voters in
Quebec thought that they could vote yes and still have all the
benefits of being Canadian. The federal government's failure to
detail the cost of separation, to tell them where the rubber meets the
road, tell them what they are in for, brought us nearly to the brink
of separation on October 30. That is what we should do on the one
hand.
On the other hand Reformers would also appeal to Canadian
nationalists in Quebec, who represent well over half of the
population. We would do this by showing them exactly where
Canada can change, that we can devolve programs and
responsibilities to all of the provinces equally.
We have detailed 20 separate areas where changes can be made
without constitutional change simply by getting the federal
government out of areas of provincial jurisdiction. Our strategy
would confront the separatists on the one hand and encourage
Canadian nationalism on the other and cultivate unity among all
federalists across the country by preserving the concept of equality.
It is a reasonable strategy. It will work. I would appeal to all
members to drop this disastrous distinct society motion while there
is still time. Members should stop casting insults when someone
comes up with another idea and maybe see if there is a kernel of
truth in it.
I invite all federalists to create a strategy in this House for all
members that is not created in the Prime Minister's office. It is
time for the west to be brought into the picture. It is time for
federalists to work together to tell the separatist Quebecois exactly
what they are in for and to offer a new vision for a united Canada.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
wonder if I might have the consent of the House to split my 10
minutes with the hon. member for Elk Island.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, this is a very ill-conceived move
on the part of the government. As a matter of fact I believe it is
politically motivated solely. The Prime Minister, having totally
botched the matter of the referendum and the move on the part of
some people from one province to separate from the country is now
desperate to show he is doing something. If this was such a good
idea he should have done it two years ago and not hastily thrown it
into the breach when he was in desperate difficulty.
Members on the other side are telling us over and over that this is
going to unify the country. In fact, this distinct society proposal
will do nothing but intensify Canada's divisions. In my few
minutes I am going to put on the record why I believe this is so.
First, once we concede that Quebec is distinct we have provided
an enormous justification for it to be separate. Second, formal
recognition of Quebec's distinctiveness in the Constitution is
meaningless unless that special recognition also becomes a
principle used to interpret the Constitution with respect to this
distinct society. The rules by which our country functions would
then always be interpreted so as to treat one province as distinct
and special.
(2225 )
As a result, that province would have special status and
constitutional powers, for if we state that in spite of its being a
distinct society, Quebec has no more power than the other
provinces, in the end it would be no more distinct than the others.
The whole exercise would only be window dressing because
Quebec's interests would not be better served by it. Separatists
would be able to denounce it as yet another empty gesture and
cause disaffection with the federal government to increase, not
decrease.
The greatest danger is that giving Quebec distinct society status
in the Constitution would almost certainly be interpreted as also
giving Quebec special status and constitutional powers. Former
Prime Minister Trudeau in 1987 pointed out that Quebec
politicians will take the position ``that if the Constitution says
something it is because a meaning was intended''. It is an old
principle in lawmaking that legislators usually do not talk without
saying something. It can happen, but not when they write laws.
Thus we have to suppose that distinct society means something.
Trudeau was also quoted as commenting that if anyone thinks
recognizing Quebec as a distinct society means nothing, ``you are
in for a superb surprise''.
Anyone who has studied the courts' interpretations over the last
several years of existing constitutional provisions will have no
trouble understanding this. Canadians were astonished, for exam-
17340
ple, when our courts told us the Constitution says that if you are
extremely intoxicated when you kill someone, you are not guilty of
a crime.
While we may intend only to recognize a sociological and
historical fact when we amend the Canadian Constitution to
designate Quebec as a distinct society, down the road it is clearly
open to the courts to affirm that the provision really confers special
status and powers on one of the ten provinces, whether it is in the
Constitution or in any other legislation, such as the motion which is
before us today.
Why would it matter if Quebec was given special status and
powers? The simple answer is that it would only intensify Canada's
divisions.
First, it would violate the principle of equality. This principle is
foundational to the whole characterization of Canada as a
democracy, where every citizen has the same rights and the same
value. It would be completely unacceptable for some Canadians to
be designated as having different or greater rights, different or
greater value, than others. In the past we have condemned societies
that sought to operate on that tenet. We have declared the very idea
repugnant. Would we now find special status for some acceptable
in our country? Never.
Second, far from bringing Canadians together, such a move
would segregate them and emphasize the differences between them
even further. The Prime Minister will attempt to characterize the
move to confer distinct society status and a constitutional veto on
Quebec as an act of generosity and reconciliation.
Tolerance and kindness have long been praised as traits of the
Canadian people. We would not wish to be accused of acting
otherwise. However, I believe that Canadians must place
reasonable limits on any exercise of generosity. Therefore, we must
ask whether it is reasonable to give a separatist government,
committed to breaking up the country, a veto over the Constitution
of Canada. It will truly result in fundamentally redesigning Canada
to give some citizens more say and a greater degree of control than
all other citizens.
If a unified Canada is our goal, the only sound course of action is
to pursue those issues on which Canadians agree and not those
issues on which they are divided. The Reform Party's vision for a
new and better Canada is guided by the founding principle of
equality of provinces and citizens. It is the only sound basis on
which to go forward as a confident and unified people.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am both angry
and grieved this evening. I am angry because something which I
value so highly, the wonderful country in which we live, is being
treated with such indifference by the government. I am grieved
because the principles of equality are being violated in the
proposed legislation.
(2230 )
I joined the Reform Party and became a member of Parliament
because of my commitment to the equality of Canadians. I cannot
understand how a government can look back without seeing that
the policies of the last 30 years have driven a deep wedge into this
country. How can those members then conclude that wriggling
around that wedge some more is now going to produce unity? That
does not make sense to me.
I am very gravely angered by that. I am grieved by the fact that
we are here in a Parliament where we cannot properly and openly
discuss this. Whenever we bring forward ideas we get into name
calling instead of honestly and openly debating the issues and the
principles that are involved.
We have a parliamentary system here that does not respond.
There is no mechanism in this Parliament to change what is now
being proposed and what is clearly wrong. The reason is that all the
members on the government side do not have the freedom to speak
and to vote what they truly believe.
I cannot believe that among the 176 members on the other side,
not one of them has any serious questions about this legislation.
There are four members in the government from Alberta. Every
one of us in the Reform Party who is from Alberta has heard from
numerous constituents that there are large problems with further
bifurcating this country with this kind of legislation. Surely those
other four Liberal members in Alberta have heard those same
messages. If they have chosen not to listen and not to represent
them here because of that nasty party discipline that is exercised in
the House, which makes this place ineffective, that makes me very
angry. We have here a system of governance that cannot respond to
a major crisis in this country because of its archaic systems.
I plead with those members opposite to use their own
intelligence, their own analysis, their own convictions, their own
beliefs, and stand in the face of this government. Because of their
majority, they alone can do it. They are the only ones who can save
this country.
If we keep on following the plan that is proposed, it is inevitable
that the divisions among us will increase. In this very weak attempt
to try to appease one province that has legitimate beefs and instead
of listening to the legitimate beefs to offer this little appeasement
carrot, they are putting at risk the unity of the whole country. They
are doing that with impunity and as if they do not care.
It is a total shame. It distresses me. I really eagerly wish the
Liberal members in the House would exercise principle and forget
about this policy they have had of voting the way they are told.
That will destroy this country.
17341
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, to repeat the resolution, we are today debating the
government's proposal to recognize Quebec as a distinct society
within Canada.
According to the resolution, this distinct society is defined as
including a French-speaking majority in Quebec, which is certainly
distinct, since there is no other province in Canada that has such a
French-speaking majority; a unique culture in Quebec based on the
French language, which is also unique and distinct in Canada; and a
civil law system, which no other province has. These are not
exclusive traits of the distinct society but simply the high marks.
Let me point out that these three distinctive features that are in
the resolution were first recognized and granted by the British in
the act of cession of 1763 and in the Quebec Act of 1774. These
distinctive features that are attributed to Quebec in this resolution
are not new. What we are doing here today is simply restating this
distinctiveness in a different way in this century.
(2235 )
Distinct society does not mean superior; it means different. We
have in Quebec the civil law. Those in the other provinces have the
common law. Neither is superior. They are different. That is what
the distinct society clause means.
The distinct society clause does not mean special status. Quebec
and all provinces have some special provisions in the Constitution
relating to them, and they all in some way have special status, but
this is not the meaning or the purpose of the distinct society clause.
Finally, the distinct society clause does not mean more power to
Quebec. I submit that those who suggest this are being
mischievous, destructive, and misleading. I found it extremely
hurtful to hear one Reformer after another continually refer to this
resolution as a constitutional amendment with constitutional
consequences.
The source of the federal and provincial powers is in the
constitutional act of 1867 and the Constitution Act of 1982. In
particular, the powers of the federal and provincial governments
are in sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution of 1867. The only way
those powers can be changed, abridged, increased or diminished is
by a constitutional amendment. That is the only way they can be
changed.
This resolution before the House is not a bill. It is a resolution. It
is not a proposed constitutional amendment. To suggest otherwise
is misleading the Canadian public, which almost amounts to
dishonesty in the House. This is a resolution of the House of
Commons. It is not a bill that will lead to legislation. It is not a
proposed constitutional amendment. In no way can this resolution
augment the powers of Quebec, nor can it reduce the powers of the
federal government or any other province. This or another
government might want to some day change those powers, but it is
not doing it through this resolution.
If the purpose of this resolution is not to grant special status or to
give additional power, then what is its purpose? The purpose of the
resolution is to assure Quebec that despite its different language,
despite its different culture and legal system, we want them with
us; we honour and respect them with their uniqueness, with their
differences, with their distinctiveness. It is a formal commitment
by the Parliament of Canada, representing all the people of Canada,
that we recognize they are distinctive and we want them as they
are. We do not want to assimilate them, we do not want to blend
them. Once passed, the resolution is also meant to be a guide, but it
is not legally binding; it is simply a guide.
In many respects the resolution is like the great rally in Montreal
on October 27. By that rally Canadians from all over the country, at
great expense to themselves, came to Montreal to say that they
wanted Quebec to stay in Confederation, that they respected
Quebecers as they are, with their differences. But the rally had no
legal or constitutional consequences. It did have very strong
symbolic and political consequences-not legal or constitutional
consequences, but symbolic and political consequences. It is the
same with this resolution before the House.
The distinct society clause is saying to Quebec that we recognize
its distinct institutions and culture and because of them Canada is a
better country. Its consequences are political and symbolic but
extremely important, considering the atmosphere of this country
today.
I say it makes Canada a better country because Canada with two
official languages and two cultures has a great advantage over other
countries. These two languages and cultures are great assets, not
burdens. Unlike the United States, unlike France, the United
Kingdom, Italy, Germany and Japan, which only have one official
language, Canada can do business in English and French, can do
diplomacy in English and French, research in English and French,
write plays, novels, and poetry in English and French, produce
television, films, and songs in English and French. It has great
universities, libraries, and centres of research in English and
French.
(2240)
This resolution alone will not do the job, but with the veto bill it
is a very good start to assuring Quebecers that we accept them as
they are with these differences referred to in the resolution and we
want them to stay with us.
I urge Canadians and I urge my colleagues in the House to put
themselves for one moment in the shoes of French-speaking
Quebecers. Here we have an island of approximately 8 million
francophones in a North American sea of about 350 million
anglophones. Put yourself in that same situation. Reverse the
languages. We have 8 million anglophones in a sea of 350 million
francophones. They see this situation as putting their language and
17342
culture at risk, their distinct language and culture threatened by the
overwhelming majority of the anglophone provinces of the
population of North America.
Under the Quebec Act of 1774, French-speaking Quebecers were
the majority in that state, although it was a British colony. Under
the Constitution of 1791, with Upper Canada and Lower Canada, it
was one to one: the French Canadians were equal in population
more or less with the Upper Canadians. It was the same under the
act of the union; up until 1867 it was Upper Canada and Lower
Canada.
Now they are one out of ten provinces and they are a much
smaller percentage of the total population. Would my colleagues
try to understand this situation, put themselves in the shoes of the
French Canadians in Quebec? Try to understand how they might
believe with great credibility that their unique institutions would be
at risk in that situation.
That is why assurances are required, and the distinct society
clause is such an assurance. I urge my colleagues to give it some
thought and support it.
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, there are two members who
wish to speak further. We are supposed to stop at 11 p.m. I wonder
if the two members who wish to speak could either divide the time
or we could not see the clock until each is finished. Would that be
agreeable?
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Not
seeing the clock is fine.
The Deputy Speaker: Not seeing the clock is acceptable.
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): If my hon. friend from
Esquimalt cannot see the clock, I can understand it at this hour. I
am sure he and I would be happy to share our time.
In spite of the remarks that were made by some of the
predecessors from his party who suggested that those of us on this
side of the House were speaking because we felt we had to vote a
certain way with the government, let me assure the other members
in the House that when we rise to speak on this question we are
speaking from the profound desire of Canadians to speak for our
country, to speak of how we understand our country and what we
are trying to achieve. We may have our differences, but we must
understand that together we must try to resolve what is right about
our country.
As the great prime minister of this country, Sir Wilfrid Laurier,
said many years ago, elections decide everything and answer
nothing. The referendum is somewhat like that. It made a decision.
It decided that Quebec was to stay in Canada, but it did not answer
the question as to under what conditions it is to stay in Canada. It
did not answer many of the fundamental questions we are obliged
as parliamentarians to review.
I believe profoundly and seriously that the Prime Minister's
initiative is not a constitutional initiative but is a realistic initiative.
It corresponds to the aspirations of Quebecers. It is a solemn
undertaking by this federal House and our executive to be guided in
its decisions by a recognition of Quebec's unique culture, linguistic
characteristics, and civil law traditions.
[Translation]
When we come to this House, we all come with our various
experiences as individuals and Canadians. I was born in Montreal
but grew up in British Columbia, in Vancouver. Most of my family
still lives in Vancouver.
(2245)
I am there regularly. I consider myself a westerner, to some
extent, but I now live in Toronto. I had the opportunity and the
privilege of teaching at the University of Montreal and McGill
University, so I also consider myself a Quebecer.
When I look at the history of Quebec since 1774, since the
Quebec Act, since our colleagues rejected Lord Durham's proposal
to submerge Quebecers in an English ocean, if I may use that
expression, when I look at the history of my country, at great
French Canadians like Cartier, Laurier, Saint-Laurent, Trudeau and
Chrétien, federalist Quebecers faithful to their people and
convinced that federalism is the best way to protect their people's
existence. Why can we say that?
Because the province of Quebec has a distinct identity. There is a
distinctiveness that makes it different from the rest of Canada.
There is Bill 101 which protects the French language in Quebec.
Quebec controls immigration to the province, which is not the case
in other provinces. Internationally, and I have a particular interest
as chairman of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Quebec
with its membership in the francophonie and its privileged
relationship with France is seen as different from the other
provinces.
We can say that in terms of protecting French culture and the
French language in North America, for reasons already mentioned
by the previous speaker, Quebec already has a different identity, a
kind of distinct society. It is a very important asset for us in the rest
of Canada. The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell
made an emotional speech the other day about protecting the
French language outside Quebec and he really convinced me that I
as an Ontarian had a duty to protect the distinct identity and distinct
society of Quebec.
[English]
I speak as an Ontarian. Can we say as Ontarians and as British
Columbians that we have an interest in protecting a distinct society
17343
in Quebec? Does the existence of a francophone majority within a
province in Canada enrich the cultural and political life of the
country in a way that enables us to be distinct and different?
This is an extraordinary and complex subject. We can say that
our colleagues who have spoken earlier in the House are right when
they say that British Columbians are distinct. Of course this is true.
We are all distinct.
However speaking as I do, coming from Toronto, we recognize
that our culture in North America will only survive in the face of
North American television and the enormous pressures in which we
live on the north-south pole, whether they are economic,
environmental or cultural, if we live beside Quebec which is part of
us, enriches us and gives us a specificity that is different. We as
Ontarians are different because we have Quebec as a distinct
society beside us. We as Ontarians live in a country that is
bilingual, bicultural and bi-juridical.
I have had experience as a young lawyer travelling outside the
country. One of my great privileges was to work as a Canadian in
international conferences. People were able to say to me: ``You
represent a country that represents the civil law and common law
traditions. You represent a country which has the Gaelic traditions
and the Anglo-Saxon traditions. You are able to act as a bridge in
this new world, this interdependent world in which we live. You are
able to participate in this world in a way that is different from
Americans, British, French and anyone else in the world'',
precisely because we are Canadians and precisely because we are
enriched by the presence of the distinct society of Quebec which
forms a part of ourselves. We do not need to reject it. It enriches
our experience. We are able to be what we are because we have
Quebec as a part of us. We would be poorer if we did not. We would
be poorer if we did not have Quebec as a distinct society.
(2250)
If we look into the 21st century we must recognize that we will
be challenged as a people. Whether we come from British
Columbia, Alberta, the maritimes, Ontario or Quebec, we will be
challenged to adapt to enormously changing conditions. In the
course of those changes our adaptation, our flexibility and our
ability to be something different will be precisely because we have
been able to shoulder together, to partner together with our
colleagues in Quebec a linguistic and cultural experience that
means we can live and make something work in the country that is
different from anything else.
That is why I argue with my colleagues in favour of the distinct
society. I respect their difference of opinion. I ask them to respect
ours. This is not some political vote. This is a strong belief of
people.
Mr. Epp: How about inequality?
Mr. Graham: There is no suggestion of inequality, as my
colleague suggests. Distinct society is not a special status. In
recognizing Quebec as a distinct society we do not diminish
ourselves. We enrich ourselves. This is not a suggestion of
superiority. This is a suggestion of a recognition of a difference
with which we live and with which we enrich ourselves by adapting
and making a part of our culture.
[Translation]
I realize my time has almost expired. I want to say that in
Ontario we have a very large francophone community, whose
survival depends on the existence of a distinct Quebec society. A
society that contributes to the enrichment of our society in Ontario
and to the existence of an Ontario that is distinct from the United
States, and I want to say to this House that the existence of Canada
as a distinct society depends on our recognition of Quebec as a
distinct society.
[English]
I will repeat that in English as I believe it very strongly. The
existence of Canada and the future of Canada as a distinct society
depend upon our willingness to recognize the existence of Quebec
as a distinct society within us. That will be our strength. That will
be our future. That will be the future of Canada.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, a basic principle in a democratic society is the principle of
equality for all of its individuals. This principle is being abrogated
and trashed by the motion the government is putting forth to give
the distinct society clause to one province.
The principle of equality is something that Canada stands for,
Canadians have fought for and Canadians have died for. It is the
basic tenet of our country and one that this party and Canadians
outside Quebec will not stand by and allow to be broken apart.
Canada stands as a beacon of hope on the planet. It stands as a
beacon of hope in the global community, a hope for equality, peace
and tolerance. That is what Canada stands for. Yet the course the
government is taking is abrogating that and violates the very
principle of equality we stand for.
Rather than leading us down the road of unity, it is leading us
down the road to disunity. The government is balkanizing the very
country that stands as a beacon of hope for unity and tolerance that
is held up by the rest of the world.
(2255 )
The recognition of Quebec as a distinct society is not a benign
statement. Rather, it enables one province to have special status
over others. It is first step toward including it in the Constitution.
Some may argue that it is benign and necessary, but that flies in the
face of equality for all Canadians.
It enhances Quebec's group rights as opposed to the individual
rights of Quebecers. It would enable an aggressive Quebec
provincial government to abrogate its responsibilities and trample
the rights of the minorities within Quebec. Statements by various
17344
separatist leaders after the referendum led us to believe nothing
else than the fact that some of them were racist.
Furthermore, the province of Quebec with the distinct society
could supplant federal policies by using the argument that Quebec
is one half of Canada and the remainder is the other half. It could
manipulate federal policies based on that. It is highly iniquitous
because Canada is made up of ten provinces, not two groups.
Unfortunately this and previous governments have not engaged
in the process of trying to bring Canada together. They have
engaged in the process of appeasement. There are some glaring
examples.
The federal government gives Quebec $7 billion a year. In fact,
Ottawa has transferred $160 billion to Quebec over the last 30
years.
Quebec has three seats on the Supreme Court of Canada.
Quebec has been allowed to use the notwithstanding clause to
step on the rights of anglophones within that province. Would
Quebec tolerate the rest of Canada using the notwithstanding
clause to do the same thing? I do not think so. Neither would the
rest of Canada.
The rest of Canada has not been trampling on the rights of
Quebecers. Rather, it has been engaging in the process of
appeasement. Quite frankly the people in the rest of Canada are fed
up and will simply not tolerate this any longer. That is why a
distinct society with a veto is intolerable to the rest of Canada. We
are hearing, sadly, the nascency of separation in the rest of Canada.
That is not something about which we should be proud.
We are witnessing a tragedy. Canada is being fractured into
many different groups. People are talking about Canada in a
defeatist fashion. They are saying we have no vision, no direction,
no identity and no culture. Some would say that Canada is like a
rudderless boat in the ocean, buffeted around by circumstances
beyond her control.
I do not accept that. Canada has an identity. Canada has a soul.
Canada is strong. Canada has courage as we see in our
peacekeepers. Canada has culture as we see in Celine Dion and the
Group of Seven. Canada has made scientific contributions through
Dr. Fraser Mustard.
Canada has strength in its people, in their everyday actions. That
is what has made Canada the great country it is today. They are the
heroes of Canada. That is the identity of Canada and that is why it
is held in such high esteem throughout the world. It is our identity.
It is very clear to those who have travelled to other parts of the
world. We are not some benign, opaque country without an
identity. We are a great country.
Essential to the unity of a country is the concept that every
citizen is equal. We are not first anglophones or francophones,
Quebecers or British Columbians, Afro-Canadians or
Indo-Canadians. Above all else we are simply Canadians. The
hyphenated Canadianism we have pursued does not bring us
together with our differences; it divides us. Our differences,
whether they be language or culture, do not need to ghettoize us.
Rather, our differences are something we can cherish. Our
differences bind us together as citizens and as human beings in a
common humanity.
It irritates me to no end and gets me very angry and also saddens
me to see our differences used as a way of separating us instead of
bringing us together. We need to change that now. It requires strong
leadership for us to do this.
To the Prime Minister, stop negotiating with the separatist
leaders because you will not win. It is a futile action. Bring your
principles of equality, your principles of understanding and
tolerance, directly to the people on the ground in Quebec and the
rest of Canada. Both need to heal. Both need to come together and
both need to understand each other. You must have again as the
basis of your decisions equality for all.
Constitutional changes must not go to the politicians. They must
not go to the provinces. They must go directly to the people.
Constitutional changes must go to a binding national referendum,
to all Canadians, as it affects us all. It seems the government lacks
the belief in the people of this country that they would uphold
tolerance and respect for each other in the decisions they make.
The rest of Canada and I am sure the people of Quebec want
nothing more than to be treated as equals. They want nothing more
than to live their culture and their language. If we give culture and
language directly to the provinces, as we must, the people of
Quebec would be the masters of their own cultural and linguistic
destinies.
That is what they ask for. That is what they must have. That is
also what the rest of Canada must have. The message we send to
the people of Quebec and the rest of Canada is this. We stand here
today simply as proud Canadians with a history, Canadians with a
future based on our differences, based on what binds us together,
based on respect and tolerance for each other.
It is not a fantasy. It is something we can pursue and achieve. All
it requires is leadership from here, leadership in the community
and for all of us to work together to raise Canada to the truly great
height it can reach.
17345
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 57, it is my
duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question
necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.
[Translation]
Pursuant to the order made earlier this day, the House is deemed
to have divided on the motion and the recorded division on the
question is deemed to have been requested and deferred until
December 11, at 6.30 p.m.
[English]
On behalf of the House I thank everybody who permitted us to
have this late debate, all the people who worked long and hard
tonight.
It being after eleven o'clock, the House stands adjourned until
tomorrow at 10 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 11.04 p.m.)