CONTENTS
Wednesday, November 29, 1995
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 16957
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé) 16958
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 16959
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 16960
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 16966
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 16966
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 16967
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 16967
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 16967
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 16967
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 16967
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 16967
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 16968
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 16968
Bill C-110. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed
adopted 16969
Motion moved and agreed to 16970
Motion for concurrence in 105th report 16970
(Motion agreed to.) 16970
Motion for concurrence in report agreed to 16970
(Motion withdrawn.) 16970
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 16971
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 16985
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 16986
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 16986
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé) 16988
Bill C-202. Motion for second reading 16990
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 16997
16957
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, November 29, 1995
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
The Speaker: We are going to sing ``O Canada'' and I invite
everyone who is in the Chamber to join with us. We will be led by
the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon members sang the national anthem.]
_____________________________________________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to relate the
outstanding international volunteer efforts of my constituent,Mr. Bruce Decker of Grand Bend, Ontario.
Mr. Decker and his wife Jean recently returned to Canada from
Romania where Mr. Decker had applied his expertise to a
locomotive manufacturer in restructuring its marketing
department.Mr. Decker offered his services under the auspices of the Canadian
Executive Services Organization, a non-profit volunteer
organization which among other valuable services has been
providing advice to emerging market economies in central and
eastern Europe since 1967.
CESO is supported by the Government of Canada principally
through CIDA. In addition to government support, CESO is also
supported by hundreds of Canadian corporations and 4,000
volunteers. It is this kind of commitment and dedication by
thousands of other Canadians that has contributed to the high
esteem Canada has earned throughout the world.
* * *
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if
you are fleeing from the law in any country in the world, go to
Canada. The taxpayers will look after you.
Take for instance Melissa Harris from Florida. She is a suspect in
a double slaying who has fled across the border to Winnipeg. At the
taxpayers' cost she is applying for refugee status, from Florida no
less.
This Liberal government is a disgrace led by a minister of
immigration who will no doubt call this yet another isolated
incident. Or if I back him in the corner again he will simply say that
as the minister he has no jurisdiction over refugee boards.
Perhaps Canadians should take another look at the policies of
this government which allow Americans to claim refugee status if
they are criminals, like Charles Ng. What is more important to
Canadians, their safety or Liberals looking for more votes?
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister has put forth hastily concocted post referendum
proposals that seem, rather than working to bring about a consensus
on national unity, to be creating even greater disunity.
The amending formula which proposes four regions does not
take into account the strong views of many westerners that the
prairie provinces are quite different from British Columbia, the
third largest province in Canada. Past constitutional reports
acknowledge the importance of this by considering British
Columbia as a region for the purpose of constitutional
amendments.
A second major question which this proposal raises concerns the
implications for the creation of new provinces. At present the
Yukon territory, Western Arctic and the newly created Nunavut are
not demanding provincehood. However, it is imperative that
constitutional measures not be put in place which would prevent
the creation of new provinces at some time in the future.
I call on the Prime Minister to clarify what the implications are
of this amending formula for the creation of new provinces in his
proposed act.
* * *
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Lambton College, which is located in my riding of
Sarnia-Lambton, recently signed a formal partnership agreement
with the Polytechnical University of Nicaragua. The agreement
provides for faculty and student exchange programs, professional
development and management linkages, sharing of educational
development,
16958
linkages with the private sector, and joint international ventures
between our two countries.
Lambton College will work closely with its partners in
Nicaragua on health care, sustainable development and
entrepreneurship. The agreement represents a major
accomplishment for the college's international program, an
important social and economic contribution to the development of
Nicaragua.
I ask the Canadian International Development Agency to join
with the private sector sponsors in funding this important project.
* * *
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
the member of Parliament for London-Middlesex, I wish to add
my voice today to those countless numbers of Canadians who are
calling on the federal government to take more stringent action
against tobacco products. Such actions could take several forms,
including declaring tobacco to be what it is: a hazardous substance.
It is my belief and that of many of my constituents that the use of
tobacco represents the most serious avoidable threat to the health
of Canadians today. In fact, this is much more than a belief; it is a
proven fact which should cause governments at all levels to take
whatever positive steps they can to address this enormous health
threat.
I call on this government to enact legislation that will designate
tobacco products as hazardous and strictly regulate its
manufacture, marketing and distribution.
* * *
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during
the past several months I have received numerous representations
from insurance brokers in Simcoe North. These small business
people have valid concerns about the possibility of chartered banks
being permitted to aggressively enter the insurance business.
On the surface this may appear to be just two industries in
competition over a business segment, but it is much more than that.
It is about the survival of many hundreds of small insurance
brokerage firms located in towns and cities throughout Canada. It
is also about the consumers of insurance services who will receive
less personalized, untailored insurance coverage from inexpert
bank representatives pushing inflexible, preset insurance plans.
This government is very concerned with creating conditions in
which small and medium enterprises can grow and prosper. I hope
this positive attitude will prevail when it comes to the hundreds of
insurance brokers across Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as we all read in
the newspapers this morning, the Prime Minister's proposals have
been almost unanimously rejected by our major dailies' editorial
writers and other observers. Alain Dubuc from
La Presse, Michel
Auger from
Le Journal de Montréal, and editorial writers from
Le
Soleil, the Ottawa
Citizen and the Ottawa
Sun were not fooled by
the simplistic and superficial initiatives announced by the Prime
Minister on Monday.
(1405)
They see them as a hastily improvised reaction, to save face, by a
government incapable of delivering on the constitutional promises
it made during the Quebec referendum.
The Prime Minister's proposals have been rejected in English
Canada for being overly generous to Quebec, and in Quebec for
falling far short of its traditional minimum demands.
This is a repeat of the response to the Charlottetown agreement,
which was rejected by all parties.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when the government announces its efforts this
afternoon to appease Quebec it will be showing its contempt for the
people of British Columbia. By incorporating British Columbia
into a veto region with the prairie provinces this government is
demonstrating a profound ignorance of our people, geography and
history.
A quick look at any atlas will show that British Columbia is a
distinct geographical region. Contrary to what the Liberals believe,
there is a difference between our Pacific coast and numerous
mountain ranges and the wheat fields and gopher mounds of the
prairies.
For too long the federal government has exploited British
Columbia. We contribute more than our share to the federal coffers,
but receive far less than we should when it comes to federal
spending or representation in this House.
I agree with the leaders of all the B.C. provincial parties,
including Liberal leader Gordon Campbell who denounced this
proposal.
In its efforts to appease Quebec, this government-
16959
The Speaker: The hon. member for Guelph-Wellington.
* * *
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians may be facing something never seen before:
smiling Reformers.
A Reform strategy memo leaked after a so-called brainstorming
session has suggested that Reform members should smile more in
public. It took 50 staff members and two years of discussions to
develop this new and drastic strategy. No doubt its writers had to
overcome the following questions: Would anyone recognize a
smiling Reformer? How would being happy affect their doom and
gloom policies? Would Reformers welcome a happy person into
their party?
We know that Reformers may have difficulty adjusting to this
smiling theory. Fortunately for them, their leader is not bound to
act on this recommendation, but unfortunately for us we will not
find the answer to the most important question: Can Reformers
smile?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
year marks the 50th anniversary of the British Columbia
French-Canadian Federation.
Last month, the federation held 50th anniversary celebrations;
there was much to celebrate, including six community centres, two
bilingual caisses populaires, three housing co-ops,
French-language libraries, a weekly newspaper, an education
service for francophones, education and training services for
adults, immersion courses for students, a professional theatre
company, a chamber of commerce, and French-language court
services.
The 60,000 francophones living in Maillardville, Vancouver,
Prince George, Kamloops, Kelowna, Powell River, Nanaimo and
other communities throughout the province are proud of their
heritage, their culture and their roots, which will always belong to
them.
I would ask my colleagues to join me in wishing the British
Columbia French-Canadian Federation a happy anniversary and in
commending it for its 50 years of successful work and its
commitment and dedication to the cause of the French-speaking
community outside Quebec.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House of an
excellent initiative put forward by the Federal Office of Regional
Development, in co-operation with the Business Development
Bank of Canada.
Indeed, the setting up of a new fund called Idée-PME, with some
$25 million in capital for commercial loans, is a remarkable
example of the positive results that can be achieved when we put
the expertise of two agencies to work in an innovative partnership.
That partnership, and this is a word which our friends opposite are
fond of, confirms the federal government's will to improve the
performance of economic agencies in Quebec, whether public or
private.
It also confirms that Liberal members are committed to fostering
a business climate which will promote economic development and
job creation, which are so important for Quebecers and their
province within the Canadian federation.
* * *
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister will never cease to amaze us. On the very day he proposed
a symbolic motion to show that he intends to recognize Quebec's
distinct society status, he completely denied that specificity by
making an empty offer to all provinces, without distinction,
regarding manpower training.
(1410)
In a conference that reached new heights of improvisation, the
Prime Minister even had the nerve to use vocational training to try
to show his good will, even though his offer does not in any way
meet Quebec's unanimous plea for the transfer of powers and
resources in this area.
The first time he has an opportunity to show that he respects
Quebec's distinct character, the Prime Minister chooses instead to
treat our province like any other one. Should we remind him that it
is Quebec, not Saskatchewan or Nova Scotia, that has been asking
for years that the responsibility for vocational training be
transferred to the province?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister warns that this nation will fall apart if the federal
government devolves some of its responsibilities. His favourite
example is health care. If the health care system changes, he
16960
declares, Canada will cease to exist, as if Canada is nothing more
than a collection of social programs. To Liberals, government
spending is the glue that holds the country together.
The bonds of unity are stronger than any government program.
We emerged united from two world wars, a conscription crisis and
a decade long depression not by our programs but by our strength
of character and the firmness of our resolve.
Canadian unity rests largely on shared values like justice,
freedom, equality and the opportunity and challenge afforded by
our great land. If we neglect these things, we will indeed lose our
country.
The Liberals should listen up. Changes to bring about a smaller,
less intrusive federal government are essential if we are to preserve
the unity of the federation.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
during the referendum campaign, the Prime Minister promised to
recognize Quebec as a distinct society. Now, he is putting forward
new initiatives to fulfil his promise.
[English]
Unfortunately, the third party is once again putting its own
political agenda ahead of Canada's by not supporting this initiative
that will help preserve Canadian unity.
The third party's political manoeuvring is as apparent today as it
was in 1989 when, in an article which appeared in Maclean's, the
leader of that party compared the constitutional evolution of our
country to horse trading. He was willing then to trade off the
distinct society clause for something else. Clearly this form of
trade off bargaining serves to create greater differences among the
regions and the provinces instead of creating a sense of Canadian
unity.
When will the leader of the Reform Party and his colleagues start
putting Canada first as opposed to their own political fortunes?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
thousands of Quebecers who watched the television program
Enjeux were horrified at the dramatic consequences of the Chinese
birth rate policy. One million infant girls are rejected every year
and left to die in crowded institutions, just because they were not
born male. They die of neglect in government operated nurseries.
By refusing to raise the issue of human rights with his Chinese
counterparts, on the pretext that this would hurt our trade relations,
the Prime Minister is condoning this shameful practice. It is
desperately urgent that this government face up to the human rights
situation in China and condemn the violation of the most basic
rights of Chinese infants.
* * *
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois reiterated once again
that he is not interested in working to ensure that Quebec is
recognized as a distinct society within the Canadian federation.
The leader of the Bloc suggested that he was more concerned
with getting ready to be crowned leader of the PQ and appointed
Premier of Quebec than with looking after the interests of all
Quebecers.
[English]
By refusing to accept the federal government's proposal to
recognize Quebec's distinct society, the leader of the Bloc has
demonstrated that he is more concerned about preparing for his
ascension to the PQ throne than responding to the demands of
Quebecers.
[Translation]
The people of Quebec are finding out with dismay that the man
they believed would champion their rights is actually prepared to
sacrifice the recognition of distinct society for a separatist throne in
Quebec. That is why the leader of the Bloc Quebecois has lost
interest in distinct society.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Phillipe Clement, Dean Cyr, Isaac Deas, Daniel Gingras, Clinton
Suzack and Clinton Gayle. What do all of these names have in
common? They are convicted felons who have either raped, killed
or tortured innocent Canadians while under supervision.
These are not isolated cases. The list is much longer than those I
have mentioned. For every name there is at least one victim whose
life came to a violent, tragic end because their assailant was not fit
to be walking the streets. Many of the families of these victims
have pending lawsuits. They want to know why dangerous
criminals are held in prisons without fences. They want to know
why
16961
ruthless killers are given birthday passes to go to shopping malls
with unarmed guards. They want to know why the decision making
process over parolees is made by political cronies who are
incompetent and costing innocent Canadians their lives.
(1415)
All these atrocities fall under the portfolio of the solicitor
general. It is high time he took responsibility and realized that
when it comes to the safety of Canadians there is no compromise.
Canadians are tired of living in fear.
_____________________________________________
16961
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the
Globe and Mail reported a split in the phoney
committee chaired by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I
am referring to the committee that is supposed to consider changes
in the federal system, to follow through on the referendum
promises made by the Prime Minister.
It seems that on one side we have five ministers, including three
from Quebec, demanding thorough changes and on the other side,
four ministers from Ontario who persist in their belief that
Quebecers will be satisfied with symbolic gestures.
My question is directed to the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs. Are we to assume it was the profound split between
members of his committee that led the Prime Minister to announce
his proposals on such short notice, even before the committee
tabled its report?
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, the Leader of the Opposition is impugning motive. We are
working on various ways in which the Canadian federation could
be improved.
Yes, we did discuss the issues of distinct society and veto rights,
and the first results were there in the Prime Minister's
announcement. We are now discussing other matters, including a
more sensible division of powers between the provinces and
Canada. We will submit our recommendations to the Prime
Minister as soon as they are ready.
That ministers should differ in their opinions on various subjects
is entirely normal in a party like ours that practices the democracy
it preaches.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in view of the very deep split within the committee
chaired by the minister, I want to ask him whether he would agree
that the hollow initiatives announced by the Prime Minister show
that he sided with the four ministers from Ontario who believe
they can satisfy Quebecers' desire for change with this measly
proposal.
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, in our committee, we consider the interests of Canada,
including those of Quebec. The ministers express their views on the
basis of their knowledge, experience and judgment, which is
entirely normal.
My conclusion with respect to distinct society and the veto is
that we are clearly on the right track towards making substantial
changes in the way the Canadian federation operates.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I heard ``on the right track''; a look at the newspapers is
enough to see it is the wrong track.
I want to ask the minister whether he would agree that the
government's initiative is off to a very bad start and that the
government is heading up another blind alley, since as we saw in
the case of Charlottetown, any proposal to Quebec will be seen as
too generous by English Canada and not enough by Quebec.
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, our committee has approached the problems of unity from
the perspective that we stayed together for 128 years and always
managed to solve our problems, and also from the perspective that
the French language was best able to thrive-and I saw this
personally in the course of my career-while we were part of
Canada.
The position on distinct society, which is gaining acceptance and
which will be included in the resolution of the House of Commons,
is also a recognition of aspects of distinct society which developed
in the Parliament of Canada and in the Canadian provinces. I
repeat, it developed within Canada. The changes that are necessary
can and should be made within Canada. In fact, that is the message
sent to all Canadians, including the official opposition, by the vote
on October 30.
(1420)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, one would
certainly think in listening to the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs that he has become a Pollyanna, since he is the only one
pleased at this time with the situation in which he has placed
himself and his government.
In the rush of reactions to the Prime Minister's announcement of
his initiatives, the premiers of British Columbia, Alberta, even
16962
Manitoba have had some very harsh words to say about both the
initiatives and the Prime Minister's attitude. All of the reactions
triggered by the Prime Minister's proposals paint a picture of an
increasingly divided Canada.
Is the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs aware that the
reactions to the Prime Minister's proposals clearly demonstrate
that the proposals are in serious jeopardy, even now as we speak,
and that his government is headed for a constitutional impasse?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): On the
contrary, Mr. Speaker. In connection with the distinct society, you
have seen a large number of Canadian premiers, including those
from the west, Mr. Filmon in particular, expressing their
agreement. The Prime Minister has indicated that we would start
with a House of Commons resolution on these questions, since we
can do no more from the constitutional point of view at present, but
that it was our wish to enshrine it in the Constitution.
What is happening with the distinct society question will also
happen with the veto. The Prime Minister had promised during the
closing week of the campaign that he would take steps to reinstate
the Quebec veto lost by René Lévesque. We are going to reinstate
it; this is the way to resolve the problems that exist in Canada. We
have a committee looking at the other problems of the federation at
this time, and it will be coming out with some conclusions.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs not agree that his proposals,
his government's proposals, not only are dividing his own
committee, the phoney committee, but also the cabinet and the
caucus, as well as deeply dividing all of Canada?
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 would recommend that the official opposition come to
grips with the fact that there was also divided opinion on the yes in
Quebec, and that the yes side lost. When there is talk of divided
opinions, the main place there is any division at this time is in
Quebec, but it is also clear that the no side did win and that
Quebecers-and this is a decision that you must accept because it
is a democratic one-have clearly indicated that they want major
changes, but within Canada.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, one of the most obvious lessons from the past is that unity
proposals are divisive if their only goal is to appease one province
or one group in Canadian society.
After the referendum vote, Canadians demanded fresh thinking
on national unity and there was a widespread demand from all
Canadians to reshape our federation.
The Prime Minister has responded to this demand, not by
bringing a broad forward looking Canada package to the House but
rather by bringing a narrow backward looking Quebec package.
My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
When will the government bring a national unity package to
Parliament that addresses the legitimate concerns and aspirations
of Canadians outside Quebec as well as inside Quebec?
[Translation]
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 think Canadians from all regions of the country have
said they want to keep Canada united.
[English]
When Canadians from all parts of the country went to Montreal
to express their views, they were representing views from all over
Canada, from British Columbia to Alberta to Ontario to the
maritimes. Canadians are united on that goal to keep Canada
together. They want the federal government to find the ways to
solve existing problems.
(1425)
It is normal that many views would be offered, some of which
are contradictory, on the means by which Canada can be kept
together. However in the present instance there is no doubt that we
have the support of Canadians for the measures the Prime Minister
has introduced.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, during the referendum campaign the Prime Minister and
the federal government showed that they were dangerously out of
touch with the aspirations of Quebecers. Now with this half baked
Quebec package, with nothing more than constitutional vetoes and
distinct society, the government is showing that it is dangerously
out of touch with the rest of the country.
There is nothing in these unity packages that addresses the
concerns of the west, the north, Ontario or Atlantic Canada. In fact
that absence of content merely alienates the millions of Canadians
who are tired of this 30-year old federal two step to appease
Quebec separatists.
When will the government change direction, abandon the status
quo and develop a truly Canadian package for nation building, one
that addresses the concerns and aspirations of Canadians outside
Quebec as well as inside Quebec?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, I ask the hon. member to
recognize and acknowledge that the steps announced this week by
the Prime Minister represent only the first steps in a strategy in the
16963
months to come that will make it clear that the government has a
national vision for the future of the country.
Second, I invite the attention of the hon. member to the terms of
the veto proposal the Prime Minister has put on the table reflecting
the very approach taken by the Reform Party in its purported vision
for the future. It requires regional consensus before any
constitutional change could take place in the country. I would think
the Reform Party as a regional party would support that approach
and I expect it will.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there is nothing in the government's remarks, no matter
which minister addresses it, that indicates there is even an interest
in the constitutional and systemic demands for change in other
parts of the country.
For example, I have been in the House for two years and I have
never yet-
Mr. Young: Nobody noticed.
Ms. Clancy: Recall.
Mr. Marchi: What are you, a cowboy?
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Southwest is about
to put his question.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, in that period we have never yet
seen the government give any priority whatsoever to the concerns
and aspirations of British Columbia, the third most populous
province in the country. B.C. is not even represented on the unity
committee. It is not recognized by the government as a region in its
own right.
The government is prepared to recognize Quebec as a distinct
society. When is the federal government prepared to recognize
British Columbia as an important province of Canada?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third party
emphasizes impressions. He wants to leave the impression that the
British Columbia perspective is not reflected in these proposals,
but the reality is quite different.
The hon. member should know, if he does not, that the
constitutional amending formula already in the Constitution Act,
1982, requires unanimous consent of the provinces to any change
falling within section 41 of the Constitution, an important list of
changes.
British Columbia has a veto over any such change. British
Columbia, with the other provinces, has a veto over any proposed
change in section 43 of the Constitution, involving the interests of
British Columbia or any adjacent province.
(1430 )
British Columbia can opt out, like any other province, of any
change approved under section 38. The veto we will introduce this
week will make it possible for British Columbia and any other
western province to veto any other proposed constitutional change.
In that context how can the leader of the third party possibly
suggest the western and the British Columbia perspective is not
reflected in the Constitution?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs.
The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs was totally serious
yesterday when he announced that the phoney committee he chairs,
which is divided, as the minister has indicated, will continue its
deliberations despite the initiatives announced by the Prime
Minister. It will even submit recommendations to the Prime
Minister by Christmas.
Are we to understand that the phoney committee is continuing its
work because it plans to offer Quebec more than the Prime Minister
did barely two days ago?
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, the official opposition is obviously obsessed with the
word ``phoney'', which it must surely get from its own use of the
word or from the example it provided with the regional
commissions in Quebec, which were really phoney commissions.
The Bloc's questions are also becoming increasingly phoney,
because the answer has been provided three times. The committee
plans to submit its recommendations to the Prime Minister by
Christmas. A few weeks are not going to bother us. However, in our
report, we will clearly have to consider other options for solving
the federation's current problems in connection with programs,
activities, roles and jurisdictions.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, perhaps the word ``phoney'' bothers the minister because
it reflects the truth.
Does the minister not believe, rather, that the initiatives
announced by the Prime Minister sound the death knell for the
work of his committee, thus confirming beyond a doubt that the
committee is phoney and was set up simply to create the illusion
that Ottawa was preparing to offer changes to Quebec? This is the
fact of the matter.
16964
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, we had an example of phoney studies with the Le Hir
reports, need I remind you. So, if the opposition and the Parti
Quebecois need a refresher on good examples of bad studies, they
have the very thing right in their own bailiwick.
As for our committee, we will continue to examine ways to
resolve the federation's problems, because our goal is not to
destroy Canada, but to build it. This is what the majority of
Canadians and Quebecers have asked us to do, and, because we
believe in democracy, we will continue to try to build Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister is proposing a package of change that reminds
some of us of the Charlottetown accord, an accord which we
emphatically rejected three years ago. He should not be surprised
when British Columbia and Alberta, the two most populous and the
two wealthiest provinces in the west, have rejected his offer.
How can the Prime Minister justify cobbling together a package
which supposedly addresses the concerns of Quebec but which is
seen as a slap in the face to Alberta and British Columbia?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the proposal which is reflected in
the veto bill, to be tabled later today, comes very close to what was
known as the Victoria formula of 1971, an approach favoured by
the province of British Columbia.
Under the Constitution at present, in the absence of the
legislation we will table today, it will be possible for constitutional
change to take place under Section 38 of the Constitution Act,
notwithstanding that it was opposed by British Columbia and two
other western provinces, even if they comprised more than 50 per
cent of the population of the west.
This bill will make it impossible for that to occur.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
justice minister talks about the 1971 reality. I would ask him to leap
forward if he could to the 1995 reality.
(1435)
He ignores the fact that Canada is changing and that in a
generation British Columbia will have as many people in it as
Quebec. He ignores the fact that the concerns of the west can no
longer be ignored. If he does not know that, he should go out west
and he would know that.
Why is the Prime Minister proposing veto provisions for central
Canada when he must know that British Columbians will never
approve of this package?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should assume
for a moment that the hon. member speaks for the people of British
Columbia.
I thought it was the Reform Party which proposed that we should
change the situation so that there is regional consensus required
before constitutional change takes place, which is exactly what this
bill does.
I ask the hon. member, since he derives from a riding in British
Columbia, whether he has the agreement of his colleagues from
Alberta for the proposition that B.C. should itself and alone have a
veto on constitutional change.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Given the
last minute commitment made by the Prime Minister a few days
before the referendum with a view to swaying Quebecers, followed
by the striking of a phoney committee with a foggy mandate, and
by the hasty announcement on Monday of his proposals, it appears
increasingly obvious that the Prime Minister is improvising on his
own.
Given the general outcry in response to the Prime Minister's
proposals across Canada, will the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs admit that the Prime Minister, faced with a profoundly
divided Liberal Party, is acting alone on this issue to save his skin?
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, on the contrary. Quebec has been demanding a distinct
society clause for a long time, for years, for decades. It has been
doing so to achieve a very important objective: to provide
Quebecers with the security afforded by the recognition, by the
federal government and the Constitution, of the distinctiveness of
the language spoken by the majority of them, which is different
from the language used in the rest of Canada, the uniqueness of
their culture, and the particular traditions of their civil code.
The Prime Minister's motion finally gives Quebec what it has
been demanding for years, that is recognition by Canada as a
whole, since Parliament is the only place which represents all
Canadians from every region. The Canadian Parliament has been
asked by the Prime Minister to pass this resolution giving Quebec
the recognition it has been demanding for years.
16965
The fact that most premiers are now in agreement with respect
to the distinct society shows once again that Canadians are now-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Laval East.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal
Party was already profoundly divided on the Meech Lake and
Charlottetown accords. Faced with the Prime Minister's phoney
proposals, which are worse than those of Meech and Charlottetown
in terms of Quebec's expectations, the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs would like us to believe that everything
is sweetness and light with the Liberal Party. Give us a break!
(1440)
Given the fact that both the caucus and the phoney committee are
profoundly divided, and that the proposals are being met with
negative reactions throughout western Canada, Ontario, the
maritimes, and Quebec, is the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs aware that the Prime Minister-
[English]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley
Valley.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
[Translation]
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, once again, I would ask you
once again to ask shorter questions.
If the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs wants to answer the
question, I will allow him to do so.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member
that the Prime Minister has the support of everyone in the caucus
and in the party.
No doubt this hurts the Bloc members who would like to rewrite
history. It hurts them to see that most Canadians across the country
support the Prime Minister. But we know that Canadians are able to
see beyond politics and to accept a fact, a reality; they are able to
accept that we recognize Quebec as a distinct society.
What is most unfortunate is that only the Bloc members will
refuse the proposal.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
While the Minister of National Revenue from B.C. contends that
recognizing Quebec as a distinct society will not amount to very
much, conversely the Minister of Natural Resources from Alberta
said that distinct society status in Quebec would amount to
something very substantial. One wonders whether it is substantial
or not.
I ask the Prime Minister to explain how he intends to promote
national unity across Canada when he is having such a problem
getting unity even within his own cabinet.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the last few days the
Prime Minister has shown a leadership that unfortunately will not
be understood by the Reform Party because it does not understand
either the word Canada or the word leadership.
I met a woman in a wheelchair during the Montreal march who
had come from Peace River, Alberta. I met her in an elevator and
she said to me: ``Madam Copps, I do not speak French but I know
you do and will you please tell Quebecers that I am here because I
care for my country, and Quebec is a part of my country''. That is
why the vast majority of Canadians will support the Prime Minister
and his leadership, unlike the cheap politics of the Reform Party.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, speaking of cheap politics, there is clear evidence that old
style Tory-Liberal federalism and politics are alive and well as far
as central Canada is concerned.
For instance, the unity minister says the west should sacrifice its
own concerns for the good of the country.
(1445 )
I ask the Prime Minister if he would explain why western
provinces should yet again sacrifice their concerns and support a
unity plan that is aimed solely at appeasing the separatists of
Quebec.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member talks about the
western provinces and the regions. Certainly the Prime Minister
has left the door open to a different Canadian configuration with
the regions. In examining the proposition that calls for a
recognition of four regions, he is actually following a study on
Confederation written for the Canada West Foundation by one
Preston Manning, who called for the western provinces as one
particular entity.
When the member opposite talks about the five regions of
Canada and asks is Alberta or British Columbia a separate region, I
would like to quote the House leader of the Reform Party, who says
the five regions of Canada means British Columbia, not Alberta.
The answer by the House leader of the Reform Party: ``Not
necessarily Alberta and British Columbia. All the provincial
governments now have a say in the ratification formula''.
When they want to talk about regions, I wish the Reform Party
would ascertain whether they want regional status for Alberta or
British Columbia.
16966
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The Prime Minister announced two days ago that instead of
recognizing the responsibility of Quebec in the area of vocational
training, as we have all requested for many years, Ottawa intends to
keep full control over the money it now spends on employment
training by giving that money directly to the unemployed.
Can the minister confirm that, in the area of manpower training,
the proposal that would have the federal government deal directly
with individuals, bypassing the provinces, will prevent the
provinces from implementing a true manpower training policy
adapted to the needs of the labour market?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister
made it very clear on Monday that in fact the federal government
was very much clarifying the respective responsibilities and we
were transferring to the provinces a large number of
responsibilities that had previously been under various regimes of
shared programming.
For the member to claim that somehow in fact there is now more
interference is simply turning logic and reality on its head. We are
making a very major departure for the province because we think
that is a much better way of clarifying the role.
At the same time, I think everyone recognizes that under the
Unemployment Insurance Act, as it was constitutionally agreed to
in 1941 by all the provinces, including Quebec, the federal
government has taken the trusteeship for those under the regime of
that system and therefore we have a responsibility to the people in
that system.
It would seem to me that it is about time this hon. member
learned a little bit about the real Constitution of Canada.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister has such difficulty explaining his positions that he always
has to resort to insults. It is exactly because we, in Quebec,
understand the very basis of the Constitution of Canada that we say
that manpower training is a Quebec jurisdiction both on legal and
constitutional grounds.
Can the minister confirm that what he is about to do, by giving
money directly to the unemployed, is to keep control over national
standards, choices and needs, in spite of Quebec's rights?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, frankly, it is the height of
absurdity to claim, as the hon. member has just done, that under the
unemployment insurance program, where people have paid
premiums, we have no responsibility of helping to pay benefits.
The reason people pay premiums is so we can pay benefits. That is
the whole purpose of the program.
Furthermore, the system has worked effectively in the past
because we have the ability to share that responsibility across the
country so that people who pay premiums in one part of the country
can help pay benefits in another part of the country where there are
higher levels of unemployment. That is the genius of the system. In
this country we have learned to share from region to region and not
isolate ourselves behind a wall.
* * *
(1450)
[Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Secretary of State for Science, Research and
Development.
It is a well-known fact that technology is an increasingly
important element of the world and the Canadian economy. Could
the Secretary of State tell the House what measures the government
has taken and will take to support and reinforce the high technology
sector of the Canadian economy?
Hon. Jon Gerrard (Secretary of State (Science, Research and
Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon.
member for Ottawa-Vanier for his question.
[English]
The question gives me an opportunity to emphasize to Canadians
that a very important priority of our government is to launch
Canada into the knowledge age. To this end, we have undertaken to
fund and develop a number of significant initiatives: the second
long term space plan, CANARIE, PRECARN, TRIUMF,
SchoolNet, the community access program, Canadian Technology
Net-
16967
work, the technology partnerships program, the tele-learning
network of centres of excellence. In the west and Quebec there is
the new knowledge based industries and ideas fund; in Ontario, a
new NRC institute in London; in the maritimes, ACOA's support
for federal-provincial technology agreements; in Ottawa, the
technological development-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
federal government's Quebec package fails to heed the calls to
decentralize social programs.
Giving labour market training to the provinces without giving
them the resources indicates that the Prime Minister has decided to
decentralize the federal debt.
Does the Minister of Human Resources Development admit that
when he transfers responsibility without giving up resources he is
transferring debt, not power?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made it
very clear that when we table, as we intend to do on Friday, the full
package of employment insurance measures that have been
developed, we will ensure that the full recognition of responsibility
for education and training by the provinces is acknowledged.
We would be more than interested and prepared to work with
each of the provinces to ensure that the effective delivery of
benefits under the employment insurance program is targeted,
customized, and tailored to meet each provincial need and that
there are full resources for the people in each of those regions to
ensure they have adequate means of getting back to work. That is
what it is all about, working together to get people back to work.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps the hon. member did not understand my question.
Effective labour market training requires that the provinces have
complete control and adequate resources. Will the minister admit
that he has absolutely no intention of giving up the purse strings for
labour market training?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of doing
that. We will be proposing on Friday a number of initiatives and
regimes that will enable and allow the provinces to fulfil the
responsibilities they have under the training regime.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Human Resources Development.
This morning, we learned from a Canadian Press dispatch that
the unemployment insurance reform to be tabled in this House next
Friday will base benefits on household income instead of on
personal income. This measure will deny thousands of jobless
people access to unemployment insurance benefits.
Will the minister confirm that his unemployment insurance
reform will make the family income a determining factor in
eligibility for UI benefits?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the poor member is totally
confused. That is one reason I suggest he wait to see what we
present, rather than basing his judgment on various news reports
and speculation.
I would say there is far too much assessment being made of our
package before anyone has seen it. I would recommend that before
deciding whether they like the menu, they should first read it.
(1455)
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister could
at least read the newspapers.
And today, he could at least do one thing, and that is what I am
asking him to do, which is to admit that, by taking into account not
the income of the unemployed but rather the family income, he will
deny thousands of women access to the unemployment insurance
program, while continuing to require that these women pay their UI
contributions?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member knew the
dossier properly he would probably know that the child tax benefit,
for example, where the federal government transfers $5.4 billion
directly to aid families with children, is based upon a family
income test. As a result, most of the beneficiaries, I would say
almost 80 per cent, are women and particularly children.
It is about time the Bloc Quebecois began to be concerned far
more about children and got off its hobby horse of separatism. The
only way we will help poor children in this country is if all
governments work together.
16968
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the fact
that training programs should be delivered by the provinces is
neither revolutionary nor unreasonable. Along with these
responsibilities, is the minister prepared to give the provinces the
tax points to go along with these responsibilities?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not within my mandate to
give away tax points.
Mr. Young: Don't do it.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): I have just received
advice from my colleague, the Minister of Transport, not to do it.
Of course I am always more than interested in his point of view and
opinion.
The reality is this. On Friday I invite the hon. member to be in
the House and to be available. We will be detailing exactly how we
would be proposing to fundamentally restructure the employment
insurance system in this country to first make sure there is strong
support of income for those who are unemployed and need that
support, and even more important, to ensure that we are able to
provide a series of benefits to enable people to go back to work.
That is the key issue: How do we get hundreds of thousands of
Canadians back to work? That is the purpose of this government
and that is the purpose of the reform we will present on Friday.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot
imagine why the provinces would like to buy into a program like
this when the minister is willing to give them the responsibility of
the program without giving them proper tax points.
I would like to ask this minister if he knows the difference
between downsizing and downloading.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I do recognize is that
when we talk about decentralizing there is a major difference
between the position that has been constantly taken by members of
the Reform Party and what I think many other Canadians are
concerned about.
Canadians are telling us that we do not gain by transferring
resources from one bureaucracy to another. We really should be
transferring resources to people, to the private sector, to
communities, to those who are best able to make decisions about
how to get back to work.
The fundamental philosophy of the Liberal Party is to enhance
the ability of individuals to make choices about their future. No
more important choice can be made than to allow individuals to get
back to work.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice.
Recently some of our provincial colleagues have been discussing
the creation of boot camps, particularly for young offenders. There
is much research on the use of boot camps as a correctional tool.
Can the minister tell the House what this research reveals about
boot camps, youth, and reoffending?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this government is in favour of
what works.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Rock: If what is meant by boot camps are properly managed
facilities, properly financed, structured, intended for and capable of
giving young people a sense of social responsibility, what it means
to be a member of a group, developing a sense of self-esteem with
proper follow up, that works, and we would favour such an
approach. If they are properly managed and if the investment is
made, it has been shown to work.
(1500)
Too many governments in this country and too many politicians
would have us believe that the approach is toward a boot camp
which is more out of Hollywood than anything else, where people
are put in chains in the 1930s style to work in the hot sun. That may
suit the purpose of a politician who wants to pander to a certain
narrow element of the electorate, and there are such politicians. But
this government is in favour of what works, and what works is a
responsible approach to youth justice.
* * *
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue, the
senior minister for British Columbia.
British Columbians are outraged that first we were shut out of
the cabinet committee on unity and now we are denied the same
veto rights as Ontario and Quebec.
I ask the minister: Why was B.C. shut out of the cabinet
committee on unity? When will the minister finally stand up for the
people of British Columbia instead of showing total contempt for
British Columbians by telling us that we have to wait for
demographics until we have basic equality with Ontario and
Quebec? When will he stand up for British Columbians?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the
representatives of the NDP at a time when we need to nation build
are looking for differences.
16969
I can assure the hon. member that the minister for British
Columbia is working very hard to ensure that British Columbia's
voice is heard strongly and loudly in cabinet. I can also assure him
that the regional veto proposal put forth by the Prime Minister,
which is far better than the current amending formula, places in the
hands of British Columbians the power to shape the Constitution
more directly in the future than they ever had in the past. The Prime
Minister never closed the door to future recognition of B.C. in a
specific way.
I can say that at least on this side of the House we do not have
one member of Parliament calling for a region of British Columbia
and another calling for a region of Alberta, something that we see
in the Reform Party.
* * *
The Speaker: Colleagues, I wish to draw to your attention the
presence in the gallery of members of the Foreign Affairs
Committee of the Senate and Assembly of Deputies of the
Romanian Parliament.
_____________________________________________
16969
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 13 petitions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to table the 104th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs concerning the federal
electoral boundaries commissions reports tabled in the House and
referred to the committee on Thursday, June 25, 1995.
[English]
While I am presenting the report, I want to thank members of the
House who served on the subcommittees that did the work for the
committee on procedure and House affairs at the hearing stage,
ably chaired by the hon. members for Cumberland-Colchester,
Leeds-Grenville, Dauphin-Swan River, and
Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle.
(1505 )
There were 81 objections filed and the subcommittees heard the
members who wished to be heard in respect of those objections. I
know that all hon. members who appeared before the
subcommittees were very much appreciative of their efforts.
Mr. Speaker, in accordance with section 22 of the Electoral
Boundaries Readjustment Act, the committee's documents
required by the act will also be filed with you today for referral to
the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 105th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
membership and associate membership of the Standing Committee
on Finance.
[Translation]
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
the 105th report later this day.
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the second report of the Special Joint
Committee on a Code of Conduct.
The report recommends a change in the French name of the
committee.
[Translation]
It recommends that the French name of the committee be
changed to read as follows: ``Comité mixte spécial sur un code de
conduite''.
[English]
If the House gives its consent, I also intend to move concurrence
in the second report of the committee later this day.
* * *
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-110, an act
respecting constitutional amendments.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion to
be put without debate or amendment.
16970
I move:
That the following members be added to the list of associate members of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs: Stephen Harper and Ted
White.
(Motion agreed to.)
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion to
be put without debate or amendment.
I move, seconded by the chief government whip, that the 105th
report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
tabled in the House earlier today be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
[English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
seek the unanimous consent of the House to put forward a motion
for concurrence, which I believe will be accepted without debate or
amendment.
I move that the second report of the Special Joint Committee on
a Code of Conduct presented to the House earlier this day be
concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
(1510 )
On the Order: Government Business
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
believe you will find consent that Motion No. 22 under
Government Business standing in the name of the Minister of
National Defence be withdrawn from the Order Paper.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion withdrawn)
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition that has
been circulating all across Canada from coast to coast to coast. This
particular petition has been signed by a number of Canadians from
Yellowknife in the Northwest Territories.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is
an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society. They also state that the Income Tax Act
discriminates against families who make the choice to provide care
in the home to preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill,
or the aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who
decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill, and the aged.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I ask, Mr.
Speaker, that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that 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 documents be
allowed to stand.
[English]
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, on June 14, 1995 I put a notice of
motion on the Order Paper that the government produce all
business plans and outlook documents prepared by departments
and other agencies. These are the documents that the government
intended to publish under the new policy of outlook documents that
were supposed to be tabled in the spring. By the end of the summer
recess we were still waiting for some of these documents and
therefore, I put a motion on the Order Paper.
As of this date we are still waiting for the government to produce
these documents. These are not new documents. They are ones that
the government proposed be tabled as part of the new procedures in
examining the spending of this government.
When can we expect to receive the documents we should have
had months ago?
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I understood the outlook documents
have been placed before the various standing committees of the
16971
House. Certainly all the ones for any of the standing committees
which I serve on and have any responsibility for have received their
documents. I am surprised to hear this from the hon. member, but I
will undertake to look into the matter and get back to him as soon
as possible.
_____________________________________________
16971
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.) moved:
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;
(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.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in the House of
Commons to launch the debate on the motion presented by the
government to recognize Quebec as a distinct society within
Canada.
(1515)
I made three commitments during the Quebec referendum
campaign: first, to recognize that Quebec forms a distinct society
within Canada; second, not to make any constitutional change that
affects Quebec without Quebecers' consent; and third, to undertake
changes to bring services and the decision making process closer to
citizens.
Less than a month after the referendum, the government is
keeping its word and fulfilling its commitments. I would like to
remind everyone that a majority of Quebecers said on October 30
that they want Quebec to continue to be a part of Canada and that
they want changes to be made within Canada. The Government of
Canada has understood that message, and the resolution we are
debating today, as well as the bills on a veto and unemployment
insurance reform, are testimony to the Government of Canada's
respect for the choice of Quebecers.
By rejecting the option of separation promoted by the Parti
Quebecois and members of the official opposition, Quebecers have
called on their provincial government to act like a full-fledged
partner and to work with us for the evolution of the Canadian
federation. It is unfortunate for Quebecers that their government
and the official opposition have not remembered that message.
They refuse to respect the will of the majority and to represent all
Quebecers, not just those who say the same things they do.
In fact, a few minutes ago, in the Quebec National Assembly, the
Parti Quebecois refused to recognize the results of the referendum
in a motion put forward by the opposition asking the National
Assembly to recognize them. It is unfortunate that the Leader of the
Opposition, who is likely to be the next premier of Quebec, is still
talking as if the referendum campaign were still under way. The
referendum is over. Quebecers have voted for Canada, for change
within Canada. It is about time certain members of this House
realized that.
[English]
Our government understands the lessons that had to be learned.
The result of the referendum on October 30 has shown us we
cannot take Canada for granted. The Canada we have built deserves
to be defended against its detractors. Canada deserves to have its
evolution safeguarded. That is what we intend to do.
The measures we initiated on Monday move in that direction. All
our actions have just one goal: to ensure the unity and evolution of
Canada in order to respond to the aspirations of all Canadians.
[Translation]
The purpose of the motion we are debating today is to have the
elected representatives of Canada recognize that 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.
(1520)
The motion put forward by our government goes to the very
heart of what makes Quebec different. The motion specifies that
this distinct society includes, and I quote: ``-its French-speaking
majority, unique culture and civil law tradition''.
That definition of what makes Quebec different is just, true to
reality and unrestrictive. I am certain that most Quebecers will
recognize themselves in that definition of distinct society. It
includes our traditions, our culture, our legal system and our
French soul.
[English]
The debate we are having today on this motion is an opportunity
for the members of the official opposition to show solidarity with
and good faith in their fellow citizens. It is an opportunity for them
to act positively to support the recognition of the distinct society of
Quebec by the House.
16972
I would not want to miss this opportunity to speak directly to
Quebecers who, since October 30, since the distressing statements
by Mr. Parizeau, since the unacceptable actions by Mr. Landry,
have been feeling nervous and unwelcome.
Quebec is made up of a francophone majority. That is what
makes it different. However, Quebec is also made up of Quebecers
who have come from every part of the world. They are full fledged
Quebecers and Canadians. On behalf of the Government of Canada
I want to tell them today that we have not forgotten them. I assure
them of our full support. They can count on us.
[Translation]
Canada is a country where diversity is respected, where we can
recognize and affirm our differences. We reject the idea that a
country must require its citizens to have a single, uniform identity.
The reality of Canada accommodates recognition of Quebec as a
distinct society within Canada. The reality of Canada includes the
reality of Quebec.
We are calling today on the members of this House to recognize
that Quebec is a distinct society within Canada.
[English]
During the referendum campaign the legislatures of Ontario,
New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland passed
resolutions recognizing the uniqueness of Quebec within Canada
by virtue of its language, culture and legal systems.
Canadians throughout the country also showed their attachment
to Quebec during the referendum campaign. All across the country
spontaneous demonstrations were organized in support of Quebec.
Today I call on Canadians who demonstrated their attachment to
Quebec during the referendum campaign to support our
government's initiative to recognize Quebec explicitly as a distinct
society.
[Translation]
With the support of Canadians, with the support of governments
in the other provinces, and with the support of members of this
House, I am certain that, if the Government of Quebec so wishes,
we will be able to entrench that recognition of Quebec's distinct
society within the Canadian Constitution.
(1525)
But now is not the time for constitutional discussions, because
the Government of Quebec and the Leader of the Opposition
himself have indicated that they refuse to participate in such
discussions. That is why the government has decided to show
Quebecers that it is possible to recognize their society for what it is,
by calling on the House to vote in favour of this motion.
Once it is passed, this resolution will have an impact on how
legislation is passed in the House of Commons. I remind Canadians
that the legislative branch will be bound by this resolution, as will
the executive branch. This is a real, dynamic recognition, recorded
in the very heart of our country's government.
I believe that this is the type of assurance and guarantee that the
majority of Quebecers are looking for. And the Leader of the
Opposition need do only one thing to indicate to them that he
respects their vote in favour of change within Canada.
Unfortunately, he has already indicated that he does not intend to
do that.
Moreover, the Leader of the Opposition often likes to remind us
of those who did not support Meech. And each time, memory fails
him. Well, I would like to remind him that his colleague sitting
right beside him, the member for Roberval, was a member of the
National Assembly in 1987 and he voted against Meech.
The party which he intends to lead voted against Meech and
against Charlottetown, and is about to reject for a third time in a
row the recognition of the fact that Quebec is a distinct society
within Canada.
The party he still leads today is about to do the same. History
will remember that.
[English]
As it concerns the aboriginal people of Canada, my government
is clearly on record as respecting their aspirations. We recognize
the unique legal position of aboriginal people, including the
protection of aboriginal and treaty rights in the Canadian
Constitution and the inherent right of self-government.
This resolution, through which the House is being called upon to
confirm the reality that Quebec is a distinct society, is not intended
in any way to infringe upon or derogate from those aboriginal or
treaty rights. This position includes the inherent right of
self-government.
[Translation]
Quebec has long claimed a veto over amendments to the
Canadian Constitution to ensure that it is a full participant in the
evolution of the Constitution and to have protection against
amendments that could diminish the powers, rights and privileges
of the National Assembly and the Government of Quebec.
The Government of Canada recognizes the legitimacy of those
demands. Indeed, we are where we are today because, in 1981, the
PQ government of the time abandoned its traditional demand of a
veto in favour of the current amending formula. As far as we are
concerned, our party has always, always supported a veto for
Quebec.
16973
Furthermore, the Government of Canada also recognizes that
a constitutional amendment is a serious measure. It should be
based on a broad consensus. No region of Canada should be
excluded.
(1530 )
[English]
That is why the bill requires that the Government of Canada first
obtain the consent of Quebec, Ontario and two provinces from both
the western and Atlantic regions representing 50 per cent of the
population of each of those two regions before proposing a
constitutional amendment to Parliament.
Some people will say that this proposal does not respect the
principle of equality of the provinces. I will answer that equality of
the provinces means that all provinces have the same rights to
make laws, to make decisions and to set policies to serve the
interests of their citizens.
Our proposal does not change that reality. As the Minister of
Justice indicated during question period, to change the Constitution
today with the amending formula that exists it requires four small
provinces to block an amendment but only two big provinces to
achieve the same goal. It is a sign that the weight of the population
is already incorporated in the Constitution that serves the country
today.
Others will say, and we have already heard them, that the bill
does not do justice to British Columbia. At this point I directly
address the people of British Columbia. With the constitutional
veto ascribed to western Canada in the bill, British Columbia will
have a larger say on the Constitution than it has ever had in
Canadian history. With almost half the population of the west,
British Columbia will wield unprecedented weight. Some people
are trying to characterize this tremendous progress as a setback. We
should not believe them. It is the opposite. It is the start of a new
era of British Columbia's strength in Canada.
In extending its veto to Quebec, Ontario, the Atlantic and
western regions, our government is directly inspired by the major
principles of our democracy. It is a solid, tangible measure that
reconfirms the government's willingness to use practical, essential
means to protect all regions of Canada with regard to future
constitutional changes.
[Translation]
At a time when all modern societies must deal with an
ever-changing world and environment, a world in which borders
are disappearing, Canada must adapt. Accordingly, the third
initiative put forward by our government at the beginning of the
week is a response to the desire expressed by all Canadians for their
governments to become closer to citizens.
[English]
The reform that the Minister of Human Resources Development
will table in the House on Friday is an example of the pragmatic
approach we want to take to clarify the roles and responsibilities of
the Government of Canada.
Let us be clear. We will not abandon our constitutional
responsibilities to help unemployed Canadians re-enter the labour
market, a constitutional obligation we have had since 1941. We
will continue to act to get Canadians back to work in partnership
with all those who share that objective.
It is important to recognize and respect the responsibility of the
provinces in the areas of education and labour market training.
[Translation]
We appreciate that workers need training to keep their job or find
a better one, and we are prepared to help them. But we will do so
only with the consent of the provinces, respecting the priorities of
each. We are putting forward a proposal for partnership, and our
main partners in this area are the provinces. In Canada, we
overcome our difficulties through a spirit of compromise and
mutual respect.
(1535)
The spirit of cooperation and partnership that inspires us should
motivate us to continue building this country in an atmosphere of
generosity and respect. The measures we are taking today mean
change without revolution, progress without break-up.
[English]
In the final days of the Quebec referendum people across Canada
demonstrated an outpouring of love for their country the likes of
which I have never seen in my 32 years in public life. They spoke
out in one loud voice of their deep, deep attachment to Quebec and
of their yearning to keep Canada together.
I said to them then that I would not let them down. Mr. Speaker,
today I stand before you, before the eyes of the whole nation, and
say proudly that I have not let them down and I know that they will
not let Canada down.
[Translation]
I want to say to my fellow Quebecers: You have demonstrated
your commitment to Canada. I am telling you that we, in the House
of Commons and across Canada, will show that we warranted your
faith. You were right in believing that Canada can and will change
to meet your aspirations and those of all Canadians, that Quebec
can stand proud and tall inside Canada.
In the coming days we will hear from those who defend only
their own interests. We know the agenda of the separatists. They
want to destroy Canada.
16974
And there are others in other parts of Canada who think that
the way to win popularity and power is to divide, to attack, to pit
Canadians against one another.
[English]
That is not the Canadian way. It has never been. The Canadian
people are stronger, more open and more understanding than that.
When the chips are down they stand up for Canada. That is what I
ask them to do in the days and weeks ahead.
It is easier to attack than to work together. It is easier to shout
than to listen. It is easier to destroy than to build. It is easier, yes,
but it is wrong for ourselves, for our children and for our country.
The shouters, the attackers, the destroyers have had their say. Now
Canadians want to get on with building Canada. The initiatives we
have tabled today and will table in the next few days will help us to
get on with that job. I know Canadians across the country from
B.C. to Quebec to Newfoundland and the north will support us.
(1540)
[Translation]
That is why I call on all members of the House to support the
motion of the government, which wants the House of Commons to
recognize Quebec as a distinct society within Canada.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, before recognizing the Leader of
the Opposition, I will hear the hon. member for Sherbrooke on a
point of order.
Mr. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning
the order in which the speakers will be recognized this afternoon.
You will understand that the resolution before this House today is
exceptional in nature and that, under similar circumstances, the
House usually shows some flexibility.
Therefore, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to
ask for consent, this afternoon-and I think that my hon. colleague
from the New Democratic Party plans to do the same-to be
allowed to speak immediately after the leader of the Reform Party
and, should the time normally provided be expired, to disregard the
clock, so that each of us has an opportunity to speak on the
resolution just tabled by the Prime Minister.
[English]
The Speaker: I will go directly to the whip of the government
and will take the other two points of order.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I consulted with my colleagues
about this issue earlier this day. I am pleased to report that we
would consent to such a proposal and that we are willing to make
the same offer to the hon. member for Yukon if she were to seek it.
The Speaker: I will recognize the hon. House leader of the
Reform Party on the same point of order.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, we have considered
the matter and feel that we should use the regular order of speaking
with regard to the resolution. If the government wishes to give up
two of its slots as time goes on that is its business. We believe we
should follow the regular order of speaking and not change the
order of business.
(1545)
[Translation]
Mr. Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, as far as the hon. member's request
is concerned, I would just remind him that, not so long ago, my
colleagues asked for consent in debates of great importance to
Quebec, and he consistently denied consent. Let him now abide by
a narrow interpretation of the Standing Orders and have a taste of
his own medicine.
[English]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Sherbrooke and the hon.
member for Yukon have both asked for unanimous consent. The
House, as I understand it, has refused this consent. We will now
proceed to the hon. leader of the opposition.
Ms. McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
understand that you have ruled on this, but I would like to register
within the House a point of order on the fact that at a time when we
are trying to look at the future of this country it is regrettable that
the Bloc and the Reform Party do not accept the proposal of the
member for Sherbrooke.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we just heard the Prime Minister's speech. I think we
should point out that this speech is a distinct departure from the
approach the Prime Minister has taken in the past two years.
During the 1993 election campaign and the subsequent two years in
this House, the Prime Minister's approach was extremely hard,
rigid and, I must admit, consistent, in other words, he did not
mention the Constitution, did not feel it was appropriate to suggest
any changes and was quite satisfied with Canada as it is.
He took a similar approach during the initial weeks of the
referendum campaign, so much so that he put his feet up and
relaxed until the last week of the campaign, when he woke up to the
fact that the yes side was surging ahead and had become a very real
threat to the no side. His reaction was very nervous, very
improvised and came on very short notice.
He quickly arranged for a very large meeting in Verdun on
October 24, where he said the following-this was the new Prime
Minister-and I quote: ``We will keep open all the other roads to
16975
change, including administrative and constitutional means. Any
changes in constitutional jurisdiction will only be made with the
consent of Quebecers''.
Back in the House, after a very narrow win by the no side,
improvisation has been the name of the game in the federal
government. First, it set up two committees-we still do not know
what they are doing-which were short-circuited by the debate we
are having today. One of the committees, chaired by the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, is supposed to come up with and
propose ways to resolve the current constitutional mess and
deadlock. Second, we have the announcement the Prime Minister
rushed to make on Monday about a resolution that would include a
symbolic recognition of Quebec as a distinct society, a so-called
veto and a vague delegation of activities in the area of manpower
training.
(1550)
The question is: What is behind this complete about-face by the
Prime Minister, who has consistently fought the concept of a
distinct identity for Quebec?
First of all, there were the circumstances. The Prime Minister
was very surprised and even distressed by the almost irresistible
advance of the yes side during the latter part of the referendum
campaign. And it was fear, and fear is a very healthy reaction and
also, according to the gospel, the father of wisdom, that inspired
the sudden statements he made on October 24 and during the last
days of the referendum campaign.
This surprising about-face is neither surprising nor an
about-face, since the proposal is meaningless and a worthy
successor to all the political positions taken so far by the Prime
Minister since the beginning of his career with the federal
government and on the federal scene. Words can be made to say
what we want them to say, and the phrase ``distinct society of
Quebec'' is no exception. Distortion is always possible.
The expression ``distinct identity of Quebec'' is a case in point.
It may be useful to recall that its initial appearance in our
constitutional vocabulary and on the political scene in Canada and
Quebec actually dates back to February 1965 and the preliminary
report of the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission, where the
expression was used in a rather descriptive way, devoid of any
political or legal content. It surfaced again, this time with a more
formal meaning, in September 1970, when Mr. Bourassa, the newly
elected Premier of Quebec who was attending a constitutional
conference, actually used the expression in the meaning it has had
more or less since that time.
However, starting in 1985, the term was to develop some very
specific overtones, as in the Quebec Liberal Party platform in June
1985, before the election that would be held several months later,
and this recognition of the distinct identity of Quebec was to
become a precondition for any decision by Quebec to become part
of the Constitution of 1982.
We must therefore examine the context. In 1982, Quebec
sustained a blow, a blow with which everyone is familiar, and
which was felt very strongly by everyone including the Quebec
Liberal Party, which had always refused to endorse the
Constitution, even condemning it in a vote in the National
Assembly in November 1981. And in 1985 the Quebec Liberal
Party, in an attempt to unravel the knot, to bring things out into the
open, proposed that Quebec set a precondition to signing the 1982
Constitution-the Prime Minister's Constitution, the one that still
has a blank at the bottom of its last page next to the name of
Quebec-as a precondition to any negotiation the unconditional
recognition by the federal government and all of the provinces of
Canada of the distinct character of Quebec.
Then, of course, on June 3,1987, came the signing of the Meech
Lake accord. The real one, the real Meech Lake; not the one to
which the Prime Minister refers all the time, which is his accord,
the one he had watered down later on, and the one I shall speak
about later, but the true Meech Lake accord. On June 3, 1987, all of
the first ministers of Canada, provincial and federal, reached
agreement for the first time in history on the signing of a
constitutional accord which would have allowed Quebec to
preserve its honour, to return to the constitutional family, and then
to come on board with enthusiasm. The words ``honour'' and
``enthusiasm'' correspond to two separate phases. First of all, the
return to the family with head held high, because our distinct
character has been recognized, and second, enthusiasm in
redefining the division of powers between Canada and Quebec.
I am recalling a context which I see as extremely important since
it offers a very good explanation of the degree to which today's
proposal, which is totally unacceptable and does not hold up, will
not fly. It will not even make it into the history books, except
perhaps as a footnote somewhere. It is a truly minimalist effort,
nothing in comparison to previous efforts to attempt to settle the
Canada and Quebec problem.
What was there in the Meech Lake accord of June 1987? Let us
review this. First of all, there was entrenchment of the accord in the
Constitution. Entrenching a formal agreement as part of the
Constitution is by no means a trifle. This means there are
consequences. This means the courts are obliged to take it into
consideration, to apply it. They are bound by the clauses introduced
into the Constitution.
(1555)
You will note as well that the wording is extremely strong. So
strong, in fact, that it greatly displeased the Prime Minister who has
fought it ever since with all of his might. The formulation is that,
henceforth-I shall describe it now. I will quote it verbatim in a
few minutes-
16976
Ms. Copps: Oh, oh.
Mr. Bouchard: I would appreciate the Deputy Prime Minister
allowing me to speak. This is perhaps one of the last speeches she
will have the pleasure of hearing me give in this House. Would she
let me speak?
Mr. Speaker, the Meech Lake accord of June 1987-and it is
important to keep this in mind-required the courts, from the
Supreme Court on down, to interpret all of the Constitution,
including the Charter, ``in a manner consistent with the recognition
that Quebec constitutes within Canada a distinct society''. There
was nothing to qualify this, no definition of content which would
thereafter represent a limitation, simply the strong and clear
statement of the principle to be recognized.
This, therefore, constrained the courts in future to recognize and
implement a principle which imbued the Constitution with a new
spirit. Each and every provision of the Constitution, with the
amendments and everything that dates back to 1867, was tinged
with something new: the recognition of Quebec's distinct nature. It
also introduced, formally, in terms of a legal instrument, a new
criterion for interpreting all the provisions.
When I say all the provisions, I also mean the provisions of the
Prime Minister's Constitution, the 1982 one. It, let us remember,
did a lot of things. 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.
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. Up to this point,
there had been lots of discussion, but, under the Constitution of our
forebears, the one we Quebecers agreed to, not the other one, the
Prime Minister's, the prevailing spirit was that there were two
founding peoples.
It was not expressed this way in so many words, but this is what
our forebears had in mind when they agreed to sign the 1867
confederation agreement. Otherwise, Lower Canada would never
never have agreed to sign the Constitution. This is what convinced
Quebec parliamentarians of the time to enter into confederation,
because they thought that French Canadians, as they were then
called, could move about freely within Canada, could feel at home
wherever they were and could be the equal of the other founding
people everywhere.
What happened in 1982? A principle was introduced, which
basically knocked the stuffing out of the concept many Quebecers
had of Canada, including Quebecers who were still federalists.
The Meech Lake accord came back to this very point. It
provided, in addition to the initial interpretation
criterion-recognition of Quebec's distinct nature-for a second
criterion, which was recognition-I will read the text, it is very
short-that: ``the existence of French-speaking Canadians, centred
in Quebec, but also present elsewhere in Canada, and
English-speaking Canadians, concentrated outside Quebec, but
also present in Quebec-''constituted a fundamental characteristic
of Canada.
This extremely important principle is enshrined in the text of the
Meech Lake accord. This means there is a duality. I am sure that
many lawyers, with a little bit of imagination, could have argued
before the courts that this implied the recognition of two peoples
and not a single Canadian people with the existence and the identity
of Quebec mixed in with the lot and therefore annihilated. That was
in the Meech Lake accord.
So when they say the accord did have teeth, it is true that it was
an important document. Furthermore, it recognized something very
important. It was the fact that Quebec's distinct nature was not
subject to the charter of rights and freedoms. This is a very
significant principle and it convinced many Quebecers to accept
the Meech Lake accord, despite the fact that many sovereignists
opposed it. My colleague here, the member for Roberval, opposed
it. I approved it. A lot of sovereignists like myself decided at the
time to give federalists a chance-this has been referred to as the
``beau risque''-and support Mr. Mulroney in this, which was
leading to the recognition of something that had never yet been
accepted.
(1600)
This should be recognized as very important for it marked the
beginning of the crisis that deeply divided the country and the Tory
cabinet and led to my resignation and the resignation of several
Tory MPs to form the Bloc Quebecois. It is important to note that
the original Meech not only recognized Quebec's distinctiveness
without limiting it, but also ensured that this recognition was not
subordinate to the pre-eminent charter of rights and freedoms,
which, as we know, is the Prime Minister's baby.
If someone should know that the first Meech Lake accord
protected the principle of recognizing Quebec's distinctiveness
against the application of the charter of rights, it is the Prime
Minister. That is the reason why he was so vehemently opposed to
it. As many people must remember, a milestone in the Prime
Minister's philosophy and political journey was the very important
speech he delivered on January 16, 1990, here at a university, in
Ottawa, in which he sounded the death knell of Meech.
You may wonder why, since he was not even a member of
Parliament at the time. He may not have been an MP, but he was a
candidate-still undeclared, I think-for his party's leadership. He
had not yet declared his candidacy, but everyone knows that the
intention comes before the formal declaration. Everyone knew that
this former MP and minister, who spoke before Ottawa university
students on January 16, 1990, had every chance of becoming the
16977
next Prime Minister of Canada and that his words therefore had
weight.
What he said at the time is very important, because it marked the
fatal attack against the Meech Lake accord. The Prime Minister
had a lot of credibility, and he still does, I think, with all Canadians,
and perhaps to an even greater degree in English Canada. I am not
criticizing him but at the time-at least in English Canada, where
there was a great deal of muted, latent opposition to the Meech
Lake accord-his voice was heard as being extremely effective in
destroying any political chance of success for the Meech Lake
accord.
What he did was to invoke basic rights and the need to preserve
the effectiveness of the charter of rights. He said this, and I quote:
``By proposing that the distinctiveness of Quebec society be
affirmed in a constitutional interpretation clause'', an effective
interpretation criterion, as I said, ``they are in fact splitting the
country in two, with Quebec on one side and the other nine
provinces on the other''. In his speech, the Prime Minister was
desperately trying to demonstrate that recognition of Quebec's
distinctiveness should not be an interpretation principle, because it
is too broad, because it would undermine the effectiveness of court
rulings under the charter of rights, and that the substance of the
Meech Lake agreement should therefore be drastically altered.
What the Prime Minister said in January 1990 throws an almost
blinding light on his subsequent behaviour and successive
positions, which are all in line with his efforts to water down
recognition of Quebec's distinctiveness.
Why did the Prime Minister, who is an honest man, a responsible
public figure who wants what is best for Canada-and no doubt for
Quebec as well-throw such a monkey wrench in works that were
bringing hope, at the time, for a moment of grace, harmony and
agreement? Why did he do that? I respectfully submit-I could be
mistaken, but this is a possible explanation-that he did it first
because, in his opinion, and I respect his opinion, Canada is a
nation. In his view, there is only one people in Canada, the
Canadian people, comprised of a number of components, including
one called Quebec.
(1605)
The bottom line for him, and this is another principle of his,
Quebec is like any other province. Quebec is one of the good little
chicks around the federal hen.
Some hon. members: Ha, ha.
Mr. Bouchard: But he is a logical man, Mr. Speaker. I would
never challenge his logic, since his logic leads him to conclude, and
this is a characteristic of his position, if he does not recognize the
distinctiveness of Quebec in its true sense, it is because he came to
the logical conclusion that there is only one, real national
government, namely Ottawa, to represent Canadian values, make
major decisions, decide the basic trust of anything and everything
happening in Canada and that the provinces are just that, provinces.
They exist under the Constitution. There is not much that can be
done about that. There they are.
Since they are part of the Constitution, the provinces have to be
tolerated, but nothing keeps this government from cutting funding
and putting the squeeze on them. The federal government is in
trouble? It is experiencing financial difficulties? They just cut
funding to the provinces, while keeping the tax money and points
and without cutting taxes.
The provinces are actually viewed as some kind of arrangement,
and they are respected as such, entities, administrative entities,
perhaps huge municipalities in the eyes of the Prime Minister and
other like-minded individuals, including his mentor, Pierre Elliott
Trudeau, who tried relentlessly to impose as a reality a fiction of
Canada.
These people are living with a fantasy of what Canada should be.
Their vision of Canada is quite simple. Imagine a circle, the federal
system; all around this circle, you have little squares, dots or what
not called provinces and, in the middle, you have the basic national
state. Very often, their speeches and attitudes have reflected some
sort of weariness about the presence of the provinces, whether
Quebec or the other provinces, provinces that have identities and
aspirations. I know for a fact that the Reform Party has legitimate
concerns about this.
So, you can understand now why this reasonable and responsible
man did what he did in 1982. I do not think it is justifiable but, in
1982, this man, who had this vision of Canada, went as far as to
impose it on Quebec.
Never in the history of this country-and I know a thing or two
about history from my studies, and many-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Bouchard: Indeed, I studied history and I am being modest
in saying that I know a thing or two on the subject. And I am not
alone in Quebec to have studied history. Bear in mind that
Quebec's motto is ``Je me souviens'', which means I remember. If
Quebec's identity survived this long, it is because of its long
memory.
Like many other Quebecers, as a student, I was not a
sovereignist, but this did not prevent me from being critical of the
confederation. And my criticism is on record. I might have put in
writing as the editor of the student newspaper and all, 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
16978
imposed on Quebec, a constitution repudiated by every democratic
entity and political party in Quebec, including federalist parties.
I would never have thought that this kind of thing could happen
in my country. I would like to tell the Prime Minister, who feels
that I refer to 1982 too often, that I can understand why that makes
him uncomfortable. I can understand that, but I want to remind him
of that sunny day when, along with Her Majesty the Queen of
England, as Queen in right of Canada, and Mr. Trudeau and
Mr. Ouellet, he signed, on the lawn of Parliament, the patriation of
the 1982 Constitution. That day, which was a great day for the rest
of Canada, is the day that Quebecers' desire to achieve sovereignty
was exacerbated.
(1610)
We can now see that, for someone coming back to lead the
country, the original version of the Meech lake accord, that is the
one signed by the then Prime Minister and by all the premiers of
Canada, was a threat. He perceived that agreement as a terrible
threat, as something which could undermine what he had
accomplished, even by encroaching on the collective rights of
Quebecers.
So, what did he do? He did a controlled skid. He realized that he
should not oppose the recognition of Quebec's very distinct nature,
that he could not deny that-indeed, it would have been somewhat
preposterous to say that Quebec is not distinct, given all that
distinguishes us, and at such a deep level too. So, he kept the
expression, but did everything possible to make it meaningless.
It is at that level that his political work paid off. Make no
mistake about it: he is a capable and formidable politician. I am
among those who have the deepest respect for his political
know-how, as demonstrated by his succeeding in diluting the
concept of Quebec's distinct nature. What did he do after his
January speech? He made sure that it would become obvious to Mr.
Mulroney, who was then Prime Minister, that-
Ms. Copps: Your friend.
Mr. Bouchard: Pardon me?
Ms. Copps: Your pal, your buddy.
Mr. Duceppe: They have no class.
Mr. Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, they say that Mr. Mulroney was
my friend, as though that was a bad thing. Yes, we were friends for
30 years.
Ms. Copps: What did you deliver?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Bouchard: What do you have to say against Mr. Mulroney?
What does she have to say against Mr. Mulroney? Let us hear it.
What does she have to say?
One hon. member: Stand up.
Mr. Bouchard: This is not the place to discuss personal issues.
The Deputy Prime Minister should not express any animosity she
may have towards a person during this debate.
Here are the facts: at the time, that man, Brian Mulroney, was
Prime Minister. He had succeeded in having the Meech Lake
accord signed on June 3. No one had ever managed to do something
like that in Canada. Never. Obviously, the Prime Minister is not on
his way to achieve that either.
If I am not mistaken, the opposition organized by the current
Prime Minister, then a possible candidate, and later an official one,
for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, convinced Mr.
Mulroney and his entourage, of which I was no longer a member,
that he had to negotiate with him. So, without many people
knowing about it, I certainly was not awareof it, people decided to
move closer to the views held by the future Prime Minister, so that
he, since he controlled the leaders of the provincial Liberal parties
who were blocking the Meech Lake accord, could remove the
obstacles and ensure that the accord would be signed, albeit with a
revised content.
That agreement was reached by the so-called Charest
commission. They agreed on diluting the content of Meech. The
Quebec caucus of the Conservative party, which was under my
responsibility, had pledged that the substantive provisions of
Meech would never be changed. I believe it was in the last days of
May that we learned there would be a Charest report which had the
support of the Conservative and Liberal parties, and which diluted
the recognition of Quebec's distinct nature to such an extent that
the charter of rights would apply to it, thus having the effect of
making it sterile.
That is when I resigned. I resigned, as did others, as a matter of
principle. I had not come to Ottawa to support the views of the
current Prime Minister. I had come here to fight them.
So that led in June 1990 to Meech II, son of Meech, watered
down Meech, wishy-washy Meech, the Prime Minister's Meech
which was even then rejected by English Canadians for still going
too far. In Newfoundland, Manitoba and among English Canadians
in general, two out of three surveys showed that it was still giving
too much to Quebec, whereas it had become unacceptable for
Quebec, even for those who had supported it until then.
(1615)
Then came Charlottetown, where it was diluted still further. This
is where they started to define recognition of the distinctive nature
of Quebec; by defining it, of course, they restricted it. They started
to put it on the same footing as equality between the provinces;
distinct, equality for all. Everybody was distinct. Something for
everyone, everyone on the same footing. It no longer had any
meaning. The people rejected it. Not me, not the wicked separat-
16979
ists, but all of the people of Quebec, all of the people in English
Canada.
So, bye bye Charlottetown.
What is this week's incarnation? What are they proposing to us
now? I have to admit that I have a compliment for the Prime
Minister: this last attempt to water down distinct character is the
best yet. This time we do not need a lawyer's opinion appended to
the resolution to know that it means nothing.
Remember, in the somewhat comic episodes involving Meech II,
there was still some doubt, still some people who were wondering
``maybe it does still mean something''. Some lawyers signed a
legal opinion that it meant nothing, which was appended to the
Meech Lake accord.
This time, there is no need to pay any lawyers. There is nothing
that needs to be appended; all one needs to do is read it to realize it
means nothing. They took no chances this time.
Why? First of all because it leaves untouched the concept of a
single Canadian people according to the 1982 Constitution. In other
words, the Prime Minister saved his Constitution, the one that is
not Quebec's, the one we did not sign but he signed on the steps in
front of Parliament. His Constitution is intact.
There is only one Canadian nation; Quebec is part of all that and
should live with it and blend in. The identity of the Quebec people?
Sorry, some other time.
Furthermore, what we have here is just a simple resolution. Just
that. So what does this mean in legal terms, a resolution by
Parliament, by the House of Commons? It is a wish formally
expressed by a group of parliamentarians but without any legal
effect. The courts are not bound by this resolution. A lawyer could
not even put it before a court, which would refuse to acknowledge
its existence because legally, a resolution does not exist. It is
nothing.
An hon. member: Wishful thinking.
Mr. Bouchard: Just wishful thinking. And even the House is not
bound by this resolution. If the House passed the resolution, with
the Bloc voting against it, of course, if the House, on the strength of
its majority, were to impose adoption of the resolution, the very
next morning the resolution would not be binding. The House could
do anything at all. Imagine if the government were to change. What
would our Reform Party friends do with the resolution and the
so-called veto? We will talk about that one tomorrow.
It is just a mirage. This resolution is a mirage. Not smoke and
mirrors, that would be too strong a term, because it implies there is
more than meets the eye, and in this case, when you read the
resolution, it is all there. So this is not a case of smoke and mirrors
but a mirage.
It demonstrates a complete failure to appreciate what Quebecers
want. I think that when people have been in Ottawa for a few years,
and it might happen to me because I have been here for some
time-they tend to become a little isolated from what is happening
in Quebec. It is almost inevitable. Being on the Hill is like living
under a glass dome, and because we always breath the same
oxygen, see the same faces, listen to the same voices, read the same
newspapers and talk to the same reporters who are listening to us,
we finally lose touch to some extent-not altogether, of course
not-with what is going on out there.
Remember what it was like in the House the night the
Charlottetown resolution was adopted. I remember. It was a very
solemn occasion, of course. The whole House rose to adopt
Charlottetown, all parties, all members. There were only six or
seven members- The member for Beaver River was with us,
members of the Bloc, in the corner, along the curtain, and we voted
against the resolution. We almost felt embarrassed to do so. I told
myself that evening: Could it be that the Bloc, having been in
Ottawa for too long, has lost touch with reality, that it has failed to
understand that Canadians and Quebecers want the Charlottetown
accord? Could I be wrong? Could we, the dissident minority, the
outcasts along the curtain, be wrong? Could we be wrong or could
all these intelligent people who fly to their ridings every day, who
meet everybody, who know the issues, who are advised by people
who are extremely bright, people from the Privy Council, be
wrong?
(1620)
They were wrong indeed. The people proved them wrong. So I
was saying that there is something in Ottawa that makes people
lose touch with reality, at least with Quebec's reality. How can the
Prime Minister think that Quebecers will be pleased to hear him
say that he recognizes the fact that they are a distinct society? How
can he think that this will make us, Quebecers, happy? We certainly
know that we are a distinct society and we have known it for quite
some time.
What we want is the means to make our own decisions, to plan
Quebec's future based on our differences. That is what we want, but
we are not getting it. There is nothing to that effect in the
resolution.
What I am saying basically is that the Prime Minister and his
colleagues are burying their heads in the sand. By constantly
refusing to face reality, they eventually sink into some kind of
surrealism. This is evident from the fact that, from Meech 1 to
Meech 2 and from Meech 2 to Charlottetown, Quebec was always
16980
offered less and less. Maybe they offered a little less each time
because they were tired by their previous effort.
They tried Meech 1, it did not work. They offered Quebec a little
less in Meech 2 and, of course, it did not work either. They offered
even less in Charlottetown, which was rejected by the people in a
referendum. So what are they doing now? They are trying again,
offering less than in Charlottetown this time. And they think that
Quebec will go for it. They even think that Quebecers are
fascinated by this debate. Well, they are not. I am sure they will not
be listening to us today or tomorrow. I am convinced that they have
now moved on to other things that are of greater concern to them.
It has now become the debate of the Prime Minister, who is just
discovering the distinct society clause, who wakes up at night
thinking about Quebec's distinct nature. Too late, Mr. Prime
Minister, it is over. You can sleep at night and dream of other things
that Quebec's distinct nature. It is a thing from the past, from the
political past.
When I said that the government's approach borders on
surrealism, let the people be the judge. On the one hand, as I have
just shown, the federal government's offers are less and less
meaningful, ever shrinking.
At the same time, and moving in the opposite direction,
Quebec's demands are growing and are more attuned to the reality
of the people of Quebec. Why? We have only to look at events in
recent years. In May 1980: 40 per cent of Quebecers give their
support to a soft question on something that ended up simply being
a mandate to negotiate, to try to negotiate sovereignty-association.
Charlottetown, 1992: the Accord reached by all parties and
governments, including the Government of Quebec under Mr.
Bourassa, is rejected. In 1995: sovereignty on a hard question, that
is, the legal and political ability to proclaim sovereignty following
a yes vote, 49.4 per cent vote in favour.
While Quebec, on the move toward sovereignty, is ever
increasingly achieving its status as a people and wanting to assume
this status with means that are rightfully its own, the federal
government offers less and is surprised when the offer is refused. Is
this surprising? Not to the people in Quebec, at least.
What I am saying in fact is that the whole debate on Quebec's
distinct nature has largely lost its immediate relevance.
(1625)
Why? First, because, in Quebec, everyone knows that it is
impossible for English Canada to get its act together enough to
propose something acceptable to Quebec on this point. This House
is an example of English Canada, for once. I was talking about the
other House, which is disconnected from the people of Quebec and
Canada. At least this House shows us that, in English Canada, there
are a lot of differences in opinion on the Prime Minister's vision.
Therefore, Quebecers who see all this, know what happens in
English Canada and have lived through 30 years of useless efforts
know full well that nothing positive will come in response to their
basic expectations about the recognition of Quebec's distinct
nature. It is also out of date, because it must be understood that the
phrase ``Quebec's distinctiveness'' was a compromise right from
the start. It is a phrase that Mr. Bourassa used out of political
courtesy, out of political correctness, I would say, to avoid using
the actual phrase ``the people of Quebec''.
He knew that to recognize the people of Quebec would scare the
federal government and English Canada and that it would never go
over. So Mr. Bourassa, who has a way with words, who must have
read the old reports of the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission, found
this phrase, included it in his speech, and ended up making it one of
the conditions for Quebec's joining the 1982 Constitution.
But English Canada saw right through it. People have great
instincts. I think that people in both Quebec and English Canada
have very sound political instincts. English Canada realized,
perhaps more or less consciously, that behind the phrase ``Quebec's
distinct society'' lurked the phrase ``the people of Quebec'', and
that is why they rejected the agreement. That is why they will
always refuse to recognize Quebec's distinctiveness, as they have
done so far. If we ask them, and if Quebec does not act to secure
this recognition, they will always refuse. They will never let a
Prime Minister of Canada turn this recognition into a legal reality.
I just said that I urge the Prime Minister to be realistic. I would
also like to tell him that I want to preach by example and that we in
Quebec now intend to face reality. First of all, everyone in Quebec
is tired of talking about the Constitution. Everyone is sick and tired
of hearing these phrases that keep changing year after year and
month after month: special status, asymmetrical federalism-that
one was quite a find; we never found out what it meant but it will
probably be explained to us some day-, equitable federalism,
cultural sovereignty, distinct society, and also ``equality or
independence'' and then ``masters in our own home'', all this to go
around in circles.
The people of Quebec know that we have tried everything, that
we have gone through the dictionary, and that all these efforts have
led nowhere. It is time for a reality check; the people have had
enough of these debates. Second, we in Quebec have more pressing
priorities like government finances. In Quebec, the integrity of our
public finances-which, incidentally, are in better shape that the
federal government's, but that is none of my concern since I am not
16981
responsible for managing federal affairs, while the Parti Quebecois
may entrust me with the public finances of Quebec-is a basic
requirement, not only as a matter of correctness or sound
management practice.
No, in Quebec-and it is the same in Ottawa, I am sure-putting
our fiscal house in order is a matter of restoring our ability to
choose. Unless the government's financial base is restored, no one
will have any choice any more. There is no point in holding debates
on the environment, the Constitution, the future of political
systems, export policy, social assistance or any other issue, if steps
are not taken to ensure that the government will be able to make
choices.
Any government that is in a financial squeeze has no room to
breathe and can no longer carry out its basic function. That is why
we in Quebec, if the Parti Quebecois puts its trust in me, will
address this problem. I will not waste any time reading
constitutional proposals made by the Prime Minister if they look
anything like this. There are other priorities, but these will be dealt
with in greater detail in Quebec City. We may participate in
discussions. After all, we are still part of the federal system. I can
see where the Prime Minister is coming from. I heard his plea the
other day, when he said he was prepared to discuss in the interest of
the people of Quebec and Canada. But in the meantime, anything
that may be in the interest of Quebec will not fall on deaf ears if the
Parti Quebecois puts its trust in me.
(1630)
What Quebec wants, when all is said and done, with respect to
the Constitution-a discussion that may continue tomorrow again,
for the Prime Minister has yet another proposal to make to us
tomorrow; the Prime Minister is suddenly becoming very active,
hyperactive even, in connection with the Constitution-let us be
clear right from the start, what Quebec wants, what we need, with
respect to the Constitution, we know we cannot expect from either
the federal government or English Canada. We know that we are
the only ones who can give it to ourselves, take it for ourselves, and
to the extent that our future as a people, the remedy for our present
problems, the flowering of our economic, social and cultural
identity, is linked to our status as a people. We now know, from the
message we are receiving from English Canada, particularly after
today's inadequate resolution, that it is up to us to give ourselves
the status of a people.
We have nothing to ask for, nothing to beg for from the federal
government and English Canada. We do not mean this arrogantly;
we are merely speaking as adults. We have attained a sort of
political maturity which comes from all of the conclusions we have
drawn from all of those years of empty discussions, of going
around in circles. English Canadians are also familiar with this;
they are just as tired and disillusioned as we are. So Quebec knows
that its rendezvous with the future is a rendezvous with itself, that it
will involve a referendum, that it will address Quebec's
sovereignty so that Quebec may come into its own as a people.
I would like to say to the Prime Minister that it might happen,
perhaps not here in this House but one day-whether I take over the
responsibilities I shall be seeking shortly or someone else
does-that whoever becomes the Premier of Quebec might face
him across the table. I hope that this will come to pass. My personal
wish, in the interests of Quebec and of Canada, although I am
aware that it is harder to convince Canada of this than Quebec, is
that one day a premier of Quebec will find himself across the table
from his federal counterpart, precisely for the purpose of
discussing political systems.
But I would not want this Premier to stand alone like his
predecessors, those who failed, who paid a high personal price and
sometimes made Quebec pay a high price as well and caused strong
tensions in relations between Quebec and the rest of Canada. Not
that we did not send good negotiators. Not that the people who
came here to negotiate on behalf of Quebec, as Premiers, were not
competent. I would say we sent our best people. No one could be
better than René Lévesque to negotiate for Quebec.
But from now on, the situation will be different, because the
Premiers who will come to talk about the Constitution and political
arrangements will come with a mandate from the people of
Quebec. They will not be out to retaliate, to be aggressive, to be
negative. No. They will come with respect but confident, with the
confidence of a prime minister, a head of state, who has received a
mandate for sovereignty from the people. In other words, we will
negotiate as equals, and then we will be able to agree, and only
then. As long as Quebec comes here as a province like the others,
we will never be able to agree, because those who came here and
failed when they represented Quebec were not always separatists,
as the Prime Minister said. Very often, and I would say in most
cases, they were federalists. But success escaped them as well.
Why? Because Quebec federalists are Quebec nationalists, first
and foremost. They realize that Quebecers cannot develop their
potential unless they do so as a group, and as such they must have
the resources and the capability to define their own policies.
I am not saying we will no longer speak to each other. We will
have to, all the time. We are neighbours and partners through our
history and all kinds of connections. We are practically doomed to
talk to each other. That being the case, and I offer this advice in all
modesty to the Prime Minister, he will have to be careful not to
waste the capital of good will that is left. If we keep tossing
resolutions back and forth and discussing the kind of futilities we
have before us today, it will create more false hopes and perhaps
fuel feelings of resentment. Let us be careful.
16982
(1635)
Let us call some kind of truce where we can address our primary
concerns. I just mentioned what we have to do in Quebec. I do not
know when we will be able to come back to this discussion. It may
be sooner than the Prime Minister thinks. Who knows? This time
we will not let him know one year in advance. Let us create the
climate that will have to prevail when we have this real meeting,
this real discussion, where we will have to and, for the first time, be
able to look realistically and lucidly, but with a chance at
succeeding, at defining a new partnership between Canada and
Quebec.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
Every day, the Prime Minister has to face our questions,
including questions on this motion. Could we have a question
period for each member who addresses the House? I ask for the
unanimous consent of the House and for the consent of the Bloc
Quebecois to ask questions following this important speech by the
leader of that party, maybe the longest speech of the century. I hope
that the Bloc Quebecois will have the courage to accept our
questions.
The Speaker: It is not a matter of courage. We have rules in this
House. The member has asked for unanimous consent. Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: There is no unanimous consent.
[English]
We will continue with the debate. I say this only so that we all
understand. The hon. leader of the Reform Party because of the
rules will have 20 minutes and then there will be questions and
answers.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today I address the motion of the Prime Minister calling
on the House to recognize Quebec as a distinct society within
Canada.
Let me begin by reminding the House why we are even
considering such a motion at this time. As hon. members know, last
month the Prime Minister came very close to losing the Quebec
referendum on secession. It is now generally agreed that there are
two principal reasons for this.
First, there was no sustained effort made by the federalist forces
to make clear in advance of the referendum the terms and
conditions Canada would demand in the event of a secession
attempt. Thus the separatists were allowed to perpetuate the fiction
that a separate Quebec would simply enter into a new and better
economic union with Canada. Over 30 per cent of the people who
voted yes on October 30 thought they could do so and still retain
all the benefits of being Canadian.
The second was the demand for change in Quebec. The demand
for real systemic change was grossly underestimated by the Prime
Minister and the no side. Rather than countering the separatist
dream with a federalist vision of a new and better Canada, the
federalists offered the status quo plus administrative tinkering.
It was only in the last week of the campaign that the Prime
Minister felt compelled by events to offer something to Quebec
which could be construed as change. What he offered was not a
new vision of the federalism of the 21st century, nor a realignment
of federal and provincial powers, which has been demanded by
large numbers of people inside and outside of Quebec.
What the Prime Minister offered were Mulroney leftovers, two
items resurrected from the discredited Meech Lake and
Charlottetown accords. These were the concept of a constitutional
veto for the government of Quebec and a distinct society clause, the
subject of the motion before us.
I remind the House that Reform favours a fundamentally
different approach to confronting the separatist threat and
preserving the federal union. Our approach is two-tracked. On the
one hand, we offer a package of 20 changes in the federal system
which can be accomplished without constitutional negotiation,
changes which strengthen the power of the federal government to
preserve the economic union, which strengthen the position of the
provinces with respect to the natural resources, social services,
culture and language, and which reform federal institutions to
make them more representative and accountable.
(1640)
At the same time, we insist on the development of a Canadian
position on terms and conditions of separation, terms and
conditions which Canada would insist on if any province actually
attempts to secede.
I have vowed as a federal political leader that as long as I have
anything to do with it, federalists will never go into another contest
with Quebec separatists as ill prepared, as ill equipped and as ill led
as they were the last time.
The next time, and it will be the last time, we will fight separatist
dreams with a federalist vision of the future and we will fight
separatist illusions with the naked truth about what separation from
Canada really means.
Therefore I speak as one who fundamentally disagrees with the
Prime Minister's strategy or lack of strategy on national unity and
who feels that this motion and the other elements of the Prime
Minister's Quebec package are backward steps.
16983
Having said this, my colleagues and I have applied ourselves
to the Prime Minister's motion to see if there is any way it could
be amended to permit the statutory recognition of the historical,
linguistic and cultural distinctiveness of Quebec without the
negative consequences that have led to the rejection of previous
attempts to accomplish the same end.
I have three proposals to make embodied in three amendments. I
urge the government to consider these amendments carefully
because in our judgment they are essential to giving the Prime
Minister's motion even a 50:50 chance of gaining acceptance
outside of Quebec.
Our first proposal pertains to safeguarding the equality of the
provinces. During the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accord
discussions, as many members will remember, the biggest single
objection to the inclusion of any distinct society clause for Quebec
was that it would confer on the Government of Quebec powers not
conferred on the other provinces. In other words, the concern was
and is that the distinct society clause would violate the concept of
equality of the provinces.
The Prime Minister in his remarks a few minutes ago hastened to
assure us this is not the intention of the federal government; it is
not its intention to grant Quebec special powers or status by virtue
of this motion. If the government really means that, it will have no
hesitancy in supporting our first amendment to the motion, the
inclusion of a clear statement that nothing in this resolution shall
confer on or be interpreted as conferring on 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 other province.
This amendment is essential to reconcile the motion before us
with the principle of equality of the provinces. This is necessary to
get similar types of motions through most of the provincial
legislatures.
Our second proposal pertains to safeguarding minority rights in
Quebec. One of the legitimate concerns of minorities within
Quebec, the English speaking minority, the aboriginal minority and
other ethnic minorities, and the Prime Minister made reference to
this, is that recognition of Quebec as a distinct society could be
used by an overzealous separatist government to diminish their
rights, in particular their educational rights and rights to freedom of
speech.
The fears of such minorities were aroused on the night of the
referendum when the premier of Quebec blamed ethnic voters for
defeating the referendum, implying those voters were not part of
Quebec's distinct society. The fears of such minorities will be
heightened, not allayed, by clause 2 of the Prime Minister's motion
because it says Quebec's distinct society includes its French
speaking majority but says nothing about the distinct society's
including Quebec's minorities.
(1645 )
A few minutes ago the Prime Minister said: ``Quebecers who
come from other parts of the world are full-fledged Quebecers. We
have not forgotten them''. The reality is that he has forgotten to
include them in the definition of distinct society included in clause
2 of his motion.
The Prime Minister will hasten to assure these Quebecers that it
is not the intention of the federal government to allow the Quebec
government to use any designation of Quebec as a distinct society
to circumscribe the rights of minorities. Surely no federalist in this
House and surely no Liberal would ever want this distinct society
clause to be harnessed to the cause of ethnic nationalism by any
Quebec government.
Again, if that is the case, and if the government is sincere in its
claim, then it will welcome the second amendment to its motion,
namely the inclusion of a clear statement that nothing in this
resolution shall diminish or be interpreted as diminishing in any
way the rights and freedoms of any resident of Quebec.
This amendment is essential to safeguarding minority rights in
Quebec.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): It was in Charlottetown.
Mr. Manning: It is not in here.
A third proposal is to safeguard the integrity of Canada. There is
one further change required to the Prime Minister's motion to
ensure that it does not reinforce and assist the separatists in the next
referendum on separation. The Prime Minister is well aware that
for 20 years or more the separatists have been telling Quebecers
that because Quebec is a distinct society, therefore it should be a
sovereign state. We heard that again today. By affirming the first
part of that sentence, which is what the Prime Minister's motion
does, the federal government runs the risk of legitimizing the
second part of the sentence.
Again, I assume the goodwill and good intentions on the part of
the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will hasten to assure us that
it is not the intention of the federal government to allow the
separatist Government of Quebec to use the distinct society clause
to legitimize the division of Canada. If the government is sincere in
that claim, then it will welcome and endorse our third amendment
to the motion, namely the inclusion of a clear statement that
nothing in this resolution shall deny or be interpreted as denying
that Canada constitutes one nation.
[Translation]
In conclusion, I urge the Prime Minister to not follow in the
footsteps of the former Conservative Prime Minister, who ensured
Quebecers that these proposals were acceptable to the rest of
Canada, when in fact they were not.
16984
I ask the Prime Minister to tell Quebecers that his motion will
not get the support of a majority of Canadians outside Quebec,
nor will it get the support of the provinces. Only by amending it
will that motion stand a better chance of being approved.
[English]
If the government will amend the motion as proposed,
Reformers will support the amended motion, notwithstanding our
belief that it will contribute little or nothing to the unification of the
federation. However, if the government votes down these
amendments, if it puts its commitment to distinct society ahead of
the equality of the provinces, if it puts its commitment to distinct
society ahead of minority rights in Quebec, if it puts its
commitment to distinct society ahead of the unity and the integrity
of Canada as one nation, then we will vote against the motion and
we will encourage every citizen loyal to Canada to oppose the
motion as well.
I therefore move:
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''.
(1650)
The Speaker: Colleagues, of course we are going to entertain
questions and comments for 10 minutes. I will take these
amendments under advisement and I will return to the House no
later than tomorrow's sitting, after I have had a look at them.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was somewhat intrigued by the hon. member's sudden
concern for the minorities in Quebec. When we look at the platform
of the Reform Party, one of its principal proposals is to repeal the
Official Languages Act. As a matter of fact, it is not only to repeal
the Official Languages Act but to replace it with a policy whereby
Quebec would be for the most part French speaking and the rest of
the provinces would be English speaking.
I can recall debating in the official languages committee time
after time with the Reform representative on that committee, what I
consider to be a very hostile proposal to the minorities in Quebec.
It is a geographical type of bilingualism where Reform would
recognize, maybe in the city of Montreal, bilingual rights, or in
some other small part of Quebec, but for the rest of Quebec it
would be entirely French speaking. By the way, it would sell out
the French speaking minorities in the other provinces as well.
I am intrigued but not totally surprised by the approach of the
leader of the Reform Party today. He seems to jump on any
opportunity for political gain.
Does this mean that he is withdrawing his platform proposals to
repeal the Official Languages Act and his proposals for geographic
linguistic rights to now adopt a policy for all of Canada whereby
we will recognize bilingualism?
The Official Languages Act has a balance within it whereby we
recognize the rights of anglophones in Quebec and we recognize
the rights of francophones outside Quebec, including Ontario, the
west and the Atlantic provinces. Is that what he is now proposing or
is he simply proposing this provision today for Quebec minorities
but tomorrow for something else?
I also want to remind him that this is not an amendment to the
Constitution or to the legislation; it is put forward as a formal
resolution of this House and a commitment to the Quebec people,
but it is not a constitutional amendment or legislation.
Consequently, his proposed amendments to the Official Languages
Act would be more harmful to the minorities in Quebec than what
he is proposing as an amendment to this resolution.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, somewhere in the hon. member's
remarks there were about three questions.
First, we recognize that this motion is not a constitutional
motion. We also recognize that senior members of the government
have implied that if this is passed by the House it may be imported
into the Constitution at a later date. That is why we gave it the
scrutiny which we did.
Second, with respect to minority rights, in the area of language
the Reform Party advocates more jurisdiction over language being
given to the provinces and private associations. That will be more
popular in Quebec than the current policy of the current
government. The second thing we say however is that the sole role
of the federal government should be the protection of the rights of
minorities from discrimination on the basis of race, language and
culture.
(1655 )
Our argument is that under our language policy the federal
government is no longer both a player and a referee in the language
area. It is just a referee and it can provide more protection by
playing that role.
The third point I would make is if the hon. member is sincere,
which I think he is, in wanting protection for the rights of
minorities in Quebec, that would surely lead him to urge his
colleagues to support at least the second of these amendments we
have put forward.
16985
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
glad to hear the hon. member say he supports minority rights.
However, people should be judged not by what they say but by
what they do.
The member's party has held a position which has now been
proven to be against the charter of rights, which is not to allow
turbanned Sikhs in the RCMP. His party stood against that group to
say they should not be allowed in the RCMP. Recently in the courts
it was ruled that to keep them out would be against the charter of
rights.
I would like to ask the leader of the third party whether he would
support that ruling in the courts and whether he supports turbanned
Sikhs in the RCMP.
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, the question has nothing to do with
this debate here today. Our point is the Reform Party is committed
to the defence of human rights and the use of the power of the
federal government to do that.
We argue that when the government gets to be both a player and
a referee in a policy area, whether it is multiculturalism or
linguistic policy, what suffers is its capacity to be the referee.
Again I would say to the member if he wants to not just talk but to
act, if he is really concerned about minority rights, he will support
the second of these amendments we have put forward.
Mr. Murray Calder (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday and today the third party and the
leader of the third party talked about our proposal on the regions of
Canada. We proposed four. He has said there should be five.
My question to the leader is: Is the fifth region B.C. or Alberta?
Mr. Manning: Mr. Speaker, it is B.C.
The other point the member misses which will come up when we
discuss the bill, is that the bigger issue is giving this constitutional
veto to the people or the government. We know that all the
members here were embarrassed by the flip-flopping of the Prime
Minister on that subject. One day he told this House that he meant
to give that veto to the people of Quebec. Then he said yesterday
that no, he was going to give it to the Government of Quebec. He
was going to give a separatist government a constitutional veto
over the Constitution of Canada.
If the hon. member wants to ask questions about that bill, he
should direct them to the Prime Minister.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, you may rest assured I am not rising to sing. As
a French Canadian, however, I am delighted to speak at this historic
moment on the motion of the Prime Minister recognizing that the
people of ``la belle province'' form a distinct society within our
country and ensuring that our legislation and our actions will be
guided by this reality.
(1700)
A few weeks ago, Canadians from sea to sea showed their
support for Quebec with a demonstration in Montreal and a number
of other activities.
Our Prime Minister on our behalf and on his own, as a proud
Quebecer and an honest Canadian, is confirming his commitment
to recognize Quebec's distinct society. I applaud him on my own
behalf and on behalf of the people of Madawaska-Victoria and
especially on behalf of all the people of Canada who believe in the
strength, determination and positive vision of his leadership for the
future of our country and of our children, wherever they may be in
this great and wonderful country.
During the referendum period, I canvassed people's homes. I
also listened to the fine emotional speeches devoid of truth given
by the separatist wizards in Quebec. How can anyone be trying, in a
democratic and modern society, to lull Quebecers to sleep as in the
time of Duplessis?
The PQ even spent millions on hidden studies to see if they could
not come up with an extra dose of sleeping tablets so Quebecers
would swallow all their speeches.
From his emperor's throne, the leader of the Bloc even dared
tamper with the freedom of the women of Quebec-ah, white only
and preferably old stock-telling them they should be pregnant and
in the kitchen. I can assure you that if such a statement had been
aimed at women in New Brunswick or Canada, the Canadian
society as a whole, not just women, would have been up in arms
and would have deposited the leader, regardless of his political
allegiance.
A while ago, I listened to the leader of the opposition, the leader
of the Bloc Quebecois. I must say that if I were in a position to give
him an award, a trophy for his separatist theatrics, I would do it
right now in recognition of the drama he added to the debate this
afternoon.
I noted, among other things, that this great actor talked about the
prime minister doing an about face concerning Quebec as a distinct
society. This great actor who likes to talk about other politicians
doing about faces should look at his own track record regarding his
political allegiance over the past 20 years. When it was opportune
to be a federalist, he espoused the federalist discourse, but when a
separatist discourse became more opportune, he went that way.
The past 20 years in the life of this great actor will result in his
being remembered in history books in Quebec as the number one
actor in terms of the Quebec people and its future.
16986
(1705)
I can understand the total confusion of the Bloc Quebecois leader
who, today in this House, must decide whether or not he will
support the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society, at a time
when he is making grand political speeches as he prepares to
embark on another great adventure, heading for political life in
Quebec. I can see his confusion.
Honestly, does he really believe in the distinct society for
Quebecers? Does he believe in it or will he try once again, for
personal political gain, to trick the Quebec people into following
him?
I would also like to remind the leader of the Bloc that, when they
talk about respect, when they ask for respect for the Quebec people,
naturally they must also respect all of the Canadian population,
people like me, a French Canadian living in New-Brunswick, not in
English speaking Canada like the grand master of this terminology,
former Prime Minister Mulroney, taught them repeatedly. He also
spoke of tearing up the Constitution. I must admit he is a good
pupil of the former Prime Minister of Canada.
Today's leadership will no doubt be followed by that of
provincial premiers who will certainly look after their own
interests first. I would like to remind them that there must be some
kind of basis for these interests, a foundation if you will. Since the
foundation of our country in 1867, Quebec has been recognized,
not in so many words but by institutions; just read the 1867
Constitution. Each pillar of the foundation supports our country,
Canada, and is part of it.
My Quebec roots go back to 1642 when my ancestors settled in
the Boucherville region and I am proud to be a French Canadian
like the more than a million others all over Canada who feel close
to the seven million Quebecers and share their pride.
I am one of those who want to build and not destroy, one of those
who welcome the global challenges of the year 2000. We should
join together, not go our separate ways like some egocentric
politicians are preaching.
I did not sing, even tough my heart and my head agree with this
motion.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but your time is up.
Do I have the unanimous consent of the House to give the
member a few minutes more?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Very well. You have two more minutes.
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais: Mr. Speaker, I thank you and I thank
my colleagues for this expression of great democracy in the House.
I thank our Prime Minister who fulfilled his commitments and
those of Canadians from all across the country. Contrary to what
these horror story tellers and these wizards have said, we did in fact
act with respect and honour before, during and after the October 30
referendum, whether or not it suits these separatists who would like
to swindle Quebecers out of a promising future within Canada.
(1710)
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
very carefully to the comments made by the hon. member from
New Brunswick, and I must say that it is true, that we on this side
are very proud. We are very proud of our leader, because our leader
has the courage to tell the truth in this House. All Bloc members are
proud of their leader because, during the election campaign, he said
things that were true, put historic events in their context, and made
us proud of being members of the Bloc Quebecois.
The hon. member told us that she wanted to build and not to
destroy. The goal of the Bloc Quebecois, of all Quebec
sovereignists, is also to build, but to build Quebec, our homeland,
our country, so that it can fulfil our aspirations. At the same time,
we want to work with the rest of Canada.
We have proposed a formula for partnership with the rest of
Canada. It was extraordinary. The Fathers of the Canadian
Confederation, who represented Lower Canada, would tell us that
we are right, over 120 years later, to propose changes in North
America north of the U.S. because the current system no longer
works.
The Prime Minister's proposal is a case in point. He cannot even
approach his provincial counterparts to try to get something
enshrined in the Constitution. All they are offering us is a motion of
the House that is practically meaningless, that is not worth the
paper it is printed on.
It is important, I think, to weigh our words in this House, to show
Quebec a little respect. Quebec was one of the four provinces that
founded this country, but the time has come to move on. The rest of
Canada should understand this.
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I did not find a question in what the hon.
member opposite said but, in his remarks, he complained about the
Prime Minister's unwillingness to entrench the principles of
distinct society in the Constitution, when the Leader of the
Opposition himself is on record as saying that he did not want to
deal with constitutional changes any more.
A minimum of consistency is indicated, do you not think? Public
statements cannot be made to mean different things from day to
day, depending on the circumstances. Our colleague from the Bloc
Quebecois also indicated that he was in favour of a partnership with
Canada. The Canadian federation is indeed a partnership between
16987
the ten provinces and the two territories. There is no bigger and
better example of partnership than what we have right now.
Take the European Community for example. These countries are
in the process of establishing a federation like ours because they
have seen how successful this kind of partnership is. So, when I
hear-
An hon. member: Come on now.
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais: I guess some members of this House
cannot take the truth when they hear it. When I hear members say
that the system does not work-I would like the hon. member to
comment on this-and talk about areas of responsibility and
jurisdiction-
(1715)
Personally, as a New Brunswicker, I find that totally
unacceptable. I cannot understand that the people of Quebec would
go along with that. Dropping out of school is a serious problem in
Quebec in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. This is
totally unacceptable.
At a time when the whole world is moving toward a major
achievement in ensuring education for people of all ages, wherever
they live, Quebec is stalling. And this is an exclusive provincial
jurisdiction.
As for what the hon. member opposite said, I think he should
take a good look at his government's policies.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with great conviction that I support the Prime
Minister's motion to officially recognize that Quebec is a distinct
society within Canada, because of its language, culture, tradition
and French speaking majority.
I am deeply attached to Canada. But I also freely chose to live in
Quebec. I chose to do my best to promote Quebec's society and
quality of life. I chose to raise my children in Quebec and make
them benefit from what is truly the heart of Canada's history,
culture, heritage and duality.
I live in Montreal, the urban gem of Canada. In spite of all the
obstacles, constitutional and others, in spite of all the attempts to
divide its French and English speaking communities, Montreal
remains a city where the Canadian duality is felt daily, but in great
harmony. It is a place where francophones and anglophones live
and work in peace and real harmony.
Montreal is unique because of its cultural and linguistic duality,
but also because of the contribution made by so many other
communities which have given Montreal its unique character as a
cosmopolitan, friendly, warm and extraordinary city.
I had the privilege, after a business career, to enter politics and
begin my political life in Quebec's National Assembly. I wanted to
do my best to make a contribution and help Quebec fulfil its goals.
While an MNA, I worked with two persons who are now
members of this House, the hon. member for
Beauharnois-Salaberry, and the hon. member for Roberval. We
did not agree and we did not see things the same way, but we all
worked to promote the well-being of Quebecers, because we felt
that it was our common objective.
It was during my term as a member of the Quebec National
Assembly that I had the opportunity to defend the Meech Lake
Accord, to vote for the Meech Lake Accord which was supposed to
include for the first time in the Canadian Constitution the
recognition of Quebec as a distinct society, which would make
Quebec a part of the Constitution of 1982.
I listened to the leader of the Opposition with a great deal of
respect, with all the respect he is due, as he explained to us how and
why he and the Parti québécois had not supported the Meech Lake
Accord, why they had voted against the Meech Lake Accord and,
after that, against the Charlottetown Accord.
(1720)
Despite all these explanations, I am convinced that the
fundamental reason is that, whatever the accord, whatever the
proposal that is made to either party, the Parti québécois or the
Bloc, which are fundamentally dedicated to Quebec's
independence, will reject it. Whatever the proposal that is put to the
sovereignists in order to make Canada work better, to rebuild
Canada, to renew Canada, it is logical that these parties, the Bloc
Quebecois and the Parti québécois, will reject it because,
fundamentally, as the leader of the Opposition himself emphasized
before the media, he is not interested in receiving proposals
because, he said: ``I am a sovereignist.''
That is fair enough, but they should not try to delude us into
believing that they considered these proposals objectively because,
fundamentally, they do not believe in them, they do not want them.
I found it quite ironic that the Leader of the Opposition should
give lessons to the Prime Minister telling him: ``While you will
take care of the Constitution, I will be doing something else, I will
be putting Quebec's financial house in order''. How ironical. We
all know very well that the leader of the Bloc Quebecois' purpose
when he created this party involved the constitutional issue of
separating Quebec from Canada.
Since his election, before his election, every day in the House of
Commons, the constitutional issue has been the principal subject of
debate. The Parti Quebecois, the Bloc Quebecois' ally in Quebec
City, naturally spoke about the constitutional issue and the
separation of Quebec throughout the electoral campaign. That is
what happened before and during the election of the Parti
Quebecois and throughout its life in government up until the
referendum.
16988
All they talked about was the Constitution, separation and
independence.
Today, the Leader of the Opposition has the gall to tell us: ``We
will set the Constitution aside and we will deal with public affairs''.
Yet, it was the Parti Quebecois government that said, during the
election campaign, it would choose another way of governing, of
managing public affairs more efficiently. All that has happened in
Quebec, all that the Bloc Quebecois has done since its election, has
been to talk about the independence of Quebec. According to them,
nothing is working in the federal government or in Canada,
naturally.
Every day in the House, it is the same thing.
[English]
Montreal, the economic motor of Quebec and 50 per cent of its
population, is severely sick. In many quarters of Montreal the
economy is dying. Investment is drying up. Leases are being
curtailed or cancelled. Anybody who knows and follows what is
going on in Montreal today will say that it is a sick city. The
economy of Montreal is in desperate straits.
Meanwhile, what have we done? We have spent time and money
on commissions, studies and propaganda instead of looking after
the well-being of the citizens of Quebec. Today we are told that at
last this is what they are going to be doing.
[Translation]
I will vote with conviction for this motion because I firmly
believe that the place of Quebec, which is the heart and soul of
Canada, is within Canada and that its destiny and that of Canada are
intertwined forever. That is why, on the day the vote is taken, I will
proudly stand and vote with conviction in favour of the prime
minister's motion. I invite all hon. members to give it strong
support.
(1725)
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I know this is a
solemn day and, if I may say, it is the day of awakening for Canada.
This awakening has been triggered by the resolution introduced by
the Prime Minister. I must admit that I find it rather amusing. Since
our arrival here two years ago we have been called all sorts of
things. The favourite nickname given to us is separatists, but after
two years this government finally gave birth to this resolution
which is meaningless, in our view.
Why is this resolution meaningless? Why are the members
opposite surprised by our reaction, by our position on all this? I am
astonished. Actually, I think I understand. When the Prime
Minister says he does not listen to Radio-Canada because he wants
a good night's sleep, he has deprived himself of a good source of
information. If the Prime Minister had listened to all the media
without distinction in Quebec and if he had read all of the
newspapers, he would already know that Quebec has already stated
loud and clear what it wants.
What we see here today is no response to that. And one should
not be surprised. Some of my colleagues from the Atlantic region
understand pretty well what I mean because I have been telling
them for two years what sovereignty is all about and what the
difference between a sovereignist and a separatist is. This is the
period for questions and comments, but I think I will focus on
comments tonight.
I have been explaining to them for two years the difference
between a sovereignist and a separatist. Mr. Speaker, you were here
when the issue was raised in this House and I told the House what
Quebec wants to be, because if you want to inform people you have
to repeat the message people wish to convey. This is why I had
explained that a sovereignist is someone who is able to assert and
accept himself.
I believe they understood in part what it means to be a
sovereignist or to assert oneself. My honourable colleagues have
even used the expression in a bill, which says that Canada wants to
affirm its sovereignty over its oceans. I have nothing against that,
but we have been blamed for two years for using the same
expression.
What are we to think when the members opposite try to scold us?
We have been told that the regional commissions on the future of
Quebec were phoney. They have once more deprived themselves of
an incomparable source of information. Mr. Speaker, I can see that
you are getting impatient. I will now stop speaking but first I wish
to say that I will continue my colleagues' education on what
Quebec really wants. May I add that they really did not choose the
right way today.
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. First of all, perhaps
the member should talk to his leader, who said that there was no
difference, describing himself as a separatist in Washington. I think
that, in his mind, the words sovereignist and separatist had the
same meaning. He boasted about being a separatist in Washington
and was very proud of that. So I thought there was no difference,
taking the leader of the opposition at his word.
The member talks about Quebec as if he was speaking on behalf
of all Quebecers. Let me remind him that, on referendum day, a
little over 49 per cent of Quebecers voted in favour of his option,
but the majority voted for the other option. So it seems to me that
the majority of Quebecers have stated their position. If it changes
some day, then so be it. However, for the time being, what counts is
that we have won a totally democratic referendum despite a totally
vague question.
16989
We won a referendum in which Quebec clearly chose to follow
the lead given by the Prime Minister, which is to have recognition
of the distinct society, to give a veto to Quebec and to sort out
jurisdictions. That is what we will do, and that is what we are in
the process of doing.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.30 p.m. this is now private
members' time. Perhaps there is a compromise that if we allow this
point of order we can add time to private members' hour so that
members will not be deprived of any of their time.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, as members know, an amendment to
the main motion was introduced by the Reform Party a little while
ago by the hon. leader of the Reform Party.
I have had an opportunity to examine the motion and I want to
briefly indicate to the Speaker that I contend the motion is
irreceivable and out of order. The motion confers-
An hon. member: That is debating the motion.
Mr. Boudria: I am not debating the motion. I am challenging the
receivability of the motion. I understand Mr. Speaker will be ruling
on it tomorrow morning and it is customary for us when a motion
comes into the House to argue whether-
The Deputy Speaker: As indicated before, this time will be
added to the private members' hour. The hon. member cannot be
interrupted on a point of order. When he is finished I will hear other
members on the same point of order.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the amendment in question refers to
conferring on the legislature or the Government of Quebec new
executive powers, propriety rights and so on. It also refers to
privileges not conferred on the legislature or the government of any
province; in other words, provinces including Quebec but possibly
other provinces as well.
Our parliamentary precedents, Beauchesne's sixth edition, page
176, citation 579 says:
(1) An amendment setting forth a proposition dealing with a matter which is
foreign to the proposition involved in the main motion is not relevant and
cannot be moved.
(2) An amendment may not raise a new question which can only be
considered in a distinct motion after proper notice.
It is on those two points that I believe the amendment is
irreceivable. I have indicated that it introduces two new concepts in
subsection (i) which are not referred to in the original motion.
Mr. Speaker will also be guided by the decision of 1923 when the
Speaker of the House decided that the report of a parliamentary
committee as a prerequisite to accepting a particular initiative was
a new concept because it was not in the main motion and was
therefore out of order. Similarly, subsection (i) of this amendment
is out of order.
[Translation]
Second, I want to point out that, on October 16, 1970, Mr.
Baldwin moved the following motion: That the motion be amended
by striking out all the words after ``that'' and adding the following:
``the government should forthwith introduce legislative proposals
to meet the conditions referred to in the motion''.
That was a totally new element which was not in the original
proposal. Consequently, it was out of order.
For these two reasons, I argue that, when you make your ruling
tomorrow morning, it will be to the effect that the amendment
proposed by the leader of the Reform Party is out of order.
(1735)
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, obviously you cannot rule on this
immediately. This is why the opposition whip is asking you to do
so tomorrow morning and to ponder the issue this evening.
I submit that the point of order should have been raised before
5.30 p.m., during debate on the motion, and that if we agreed to
hear that point of order, it was not to prolong a debate which could
no longer be extended. Otherwise, we will never again get
unanimous consent to hear a point of order outside the period
provided for such a debate.
I submit that the point of order dealing specifically with the
debate should be raised tomorrow, or the next time we discuss the
resolution. I also submit that the Speaker who will be in the Chair
will not be able to make a ruling, because he must ponder the issue.
You can no more do it immediately now than he could do it
immediately then, otherwise it would be too easy to resort to that
tactic. They want to save time and raise a point of order outside the
period provided and ask for your ruling on it tomorrow morning.
That is too soon.
I submit that we should follow up on the point of order. We know
that there is one coming, but we should act as if we had not heard it,
and entertain it in the period reserved for this debate. Otherwise,
we will be getting around the rules for the sake of it and also to
achieve indirectly what cannot be done directly.
[English]
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, while I have some
sympathy with what the whip for the Bloc Quebecois has said, you
have allowed a discussion of this because of the request made by
the government whip and I would like to respond to his comments.
16990
I assure the House that not only did we verify the contents of
the motion but it was reviewed by the table prior to presentation
by the hon. leader of the Reform Party.
The chief government whip alleges this is not relevant to the
motion before the House. Relevance under citation 568 of
Beauchesne is a criterion. I will explain very briefly why the
amendment is relevant:
(5) Nothing in this resolution shall:
(i) Confer or be interpreted as conferring upon the legislature of the
Government of Quebec, any new legislative or executive powers,
proprietary rights, status, or any other rights or privileges not conferred
upon the legislature or government of any province.
Point three of the motion states ``the House undertake to be
guided by this reality'', that being the reality of Quebec's distinct
society.
Point four states that the House ``encourage all components of
the legislative and executive branches of government to take note
of this recognition and once again to be guided in their conduct
accordingly''.
Since we are instructing not only the House but the legislative
and executive branches of the government to be guided in their
conduct, it is clear they have an unlimited range of options in terms
of how to implement this guidance. Subsection (i) of the
amendment simply refers to a specific route they may take that
shall not be considered. Therefore it is highly relevant to the
motion.
Under citation 569 of Beauchesne adding words to a motion is an
acceptable method of adding additional relevant material. Citation
567 instructs that these amendments can be made to increase the
acceptability of a motion. Once again, since the stated intention of
the leader of the Reform Party is to make this acceptable, not only
to the members of the House but to a broader section of Canadians,
it is perfectly in order.
I hope the government will make every effort to accommodate
all Canadians in what is, after all, said to be a unity resolution. That
would be a wiser use of time than trying to construe that the
equality of provinces, the equality of citizens or the very integrity
of the country is out of order on the floor of the House of
Commons.
The Deputy Speaker: I thank all three hon. members for their
interventions. I agree that it might have been better to deal with this
point of order during the debate rather than in private member's
hour. However, the Speaker is seized with the matter. The
interventions, having heard them tonight, will be available in the
blues and the Speaker will be able to consider the interventions of
all three members when he makes his ruling tomorrow. That is one
of the reasons the Speaker was anxious to hear the interventions
tonight.
It is certainly now 5.30. The House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
16990
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP) moved that Bill C-202, an
act to act to prohibit the export of water by interbasin transfers, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see so many colleagues in
the House during this private members' hour. There is a lot of
interest in this topic and I indicate my appreciation for that and also
my appreciation to my hon. colleague for Regina-Lumsden for
seconding this motion. I know he has had a longstanding interest in
the subject material that is embodied in Bill C-202, as well as many
other members of the House who over the last number of days have
contacted me with an indication of their support, that they will
endorse the principle of this bill at second reading and will vote in
favour of it.
If this bill passes it would prohibit any company or any
organization from diverting water from a Canadian river basin into,
in this case, an American river basin for export purposes.
One might ask what prompts this bill at this time. A few days
ago one of the officials responsible for the environmental aspects
of the North American Free Trade Agreement made a speech in
Montreal.
He said high water consumption and pollution could trigger
disputes within the North American Free Trade Agreement. He
urged Canadians to better manage their water resources and said
that while Canada has sovereignty over its water, the resource is
also a global treasure, much the same as the Amazon rainforest is a
global treasure, that the world per se depends on it. Implicit in his
remarks was that the North American continent depends on
Canadian water.
He closed with this:
Pressure on Canada to increase exports to the United States will mount as
scarcity becomes more widespread. Canadians therefore have an interest in
encouraging their American neighbours to better manage their water too.
As late as November 9, 1995 in Montreal one of the key
representatives to the NAFTA warned us as Canadians that a water
crisis is pending in the United States and that the United States is
obviously considering Canada as a source to relieve this pressure in
the future.
We also want to acknowledge that water diversion schemes per
se are not new. These are concepts that have been around for some
time. We are well aware of the grand canal project enthusiastically
promoted by Simon Reisman, one of our key trade negotiators with
the United States.
16991
Another is the North American water and power alliance,
commonly called NAWAPA; coming out of California a massive
scheme to divert western Canadian rivers into the southwestern
United States and northern Mexico.
There was also a project to pipe vast quantities of Great Lakes
water to the high plains states in the southwest to replete their
depleted aquifer, a 1984 scheme. A few years later there was a
proposal to feed New York City's vast population with Lake
Ontario water. A few years later came a concept involving the
blasting of a 400-mile canal from Lake Superior to the Missouri
River in South Dakota at a cost of $30 billion.
There was also a proposal to construct a canal from Lake Erie to
the Ohio River, again to move water and shipping between the two
countries. There was also a federally funded plan to drill a hole in
the bottom of Lake Michigan and drain the water through bedrock
layers for southern Illinois cities.
(1745)
I have a list here. I could go on and on, but I make the point that
there has been a long list over particularly the last two decades,
when water diversion was an entrepreneurial interest by some very
creative people, primarily to move Canadian water to the United
States.
Anyone who has travelled in the southwestern U.S. and northern
Mexico will acknowledge that the water sources there are presently
being used to their maximum. The Colorado River often dries up
before it actually reaches the ocean because all the water is used up.
Also, one could wade across the Rio Grande River at El Paso
probably without even getting their knees wet, which indicates that
massive river system is exclusively used for domestic, agricultural,
and industrial water needs.
We acknowledge that virtually all of the major aquifers in the
southwest United States and northern Mexico are being depleted on
a daily basis. When one travels through the area and talks to people
who are responsible for water resources for the future, virtually
everyone assumes that Canada will one day be their salvation, that
Canada's fresh water, which people in Mexico and the United
States assume is being wasted, will be diverted one way or another
for use in the southwestern United States and northern Mexico.
Major industrial development, agricultural expansion, and
population increases are occurring in that southern sun belt. There
has been vast industrialization of Mexico, particularly in the
maquiladora zone, where just in the last few months hundreds of
new industries have started up, all with some need for water. The
case is clear that increasingly there will be a need, much earlier
than anticipated even a few years ago, to obtain vast amounts of
water. I can say that our American friends to the south almost
exclusively look to Canada as a source for that water to make up for
their shortfall.
I think it is fair to say that over the last couple of decades the
hope was that this matter would go away. All levels of government
had not taken any decisive action up until very recently in the hopes
that this was a problem that hopefully would never occur. I refer
particularly to the governments of British Columbia and
Ontario-there may be others, but I am not familiar with them
tonight-which passed legislation in their provincial legislatures
banning exports of water from their provinces.
We have to acknowledge that there are two levels of government
involved in the management of water resources in Canada. Under
the Constitution Act the provinces exercise direct control over
many aspects of water management within their boundaries. Water
is a natural resource and provincial governments have jurisdiction
over it within their own boundaries. They are therefore able to
legislate in the areas of domestic and industrial water supply,
pollution control, hydroelectric power development, irrigation,
recreational use of water, et cetera.
However, again because of the Constitution Act, the federal
government has jurisdiction over inland and ocean fisheries,
including their protection and particularly the protection of river
basins. In addition, Parliament has the residual power to legislate
for peace, order and good government of the country, including the
regulation of trade and commerce. The federal government is
responsible for conducting relations with other countries, which is
extremely important with respect to water because so much of
Canada's water resources are in boundary water basins.
We basically have two areas of jurisdiction: provincial
jurisdiction for use within the province; and because it could
become a matter of international trade and because international
trade and commerce is a federal responsibility, there is a need for
the federal government to become involved in this as well.
As I have said, some provinces have taken the only action at
their disposal and have passed legislation prohibiting this type of
interbasin sale of water. My thesis would be that may be fine and
dandy, but the federal government must also act. Some people have
said that there is a federal policy. Some years ago, back in 1987,
Canada tabled a water policy, which was essentially a statement of
what the government would like to do in the future. It has no
legislative authority. There are no regulations or laws or statutes
attached to it. It is simply a policy and nothing more. Part of that
policy states that ``the Government of Canada will take all possible
measures within the limits of its constitutional authority to prohibit
the export of Canadian water by interbasin diversions''.
(1750)
At the time I was in the House and I thought we were finally
going to make some headway in this area. I was absolutely thrilled
some months later on August 25, 1988 when Bill C-156 was tabled
in the House. It was entitled the Canada Water Preservation Act, an
16992
act to prohibit any export or diversion of boundary waters for the
purpose of export. We thought we were finally going to have
legislation passed in the House that would indicate the will of
Canada in this area. Unfortunately, Bill C-156 died on the Order
Paper and it has never been reintroduced. Today we do not have any
federal legislation that would prohibit the export of water from
Canada in terms of interbasin transfers to the United States for
eventual sale into Mexico. That is the purpose of Bill C-202.
Part of the motivation for this came from a number of schemes,
one from my own constituency, namely on the North Thompson
River. This scheme was intended to divert about 50 per cent of the
water flow of the North Thompson River into the Columbia River
basin, which would eventually travel through various water basins
in the United States for eventual sale in the Los Angeles area. Since
this scheme was proposed formally to the provincial government in
British Columbia, people obviously have opposed it in light of the
fact that there is an absence of federal legislation. Of course they
are concerned that NAFTA opened the door for this type of
enterprise, which I will discuss in a moment.
Many communities rallied quickly. Over the past few months I
was able to table in the House 123,000 names of people from a
variety of communities throughout British Columbia and various
parts of Canada but particularly from the communities of
Kamloops, Heffley Creek, Raleigh, Westsyde, Barrière, McLure,
Avola, Vinsula, Clearwater, Black Pines, Chu Chua, Birch Island,
Blue River, Louis Creek, Whispering Pines, and many others
within my constituency, to say nothing about cities, communities,
and rural areas throughout all of British Columbia, much of
Alberta, and other parts of western Canada. There has been an
overwhelming negative reaction to this proposal.
There have been times when people have said that NAFTA
protects us from this. I want to reject that. NAFTA includes water
as a good under the terms of the agreement. I would emphasize the
word ``good''. We could also use the term ``commodity''. Article
102 of NAFTA sets forth the objective of the agreement ``to
eliminate barriers to trade and facilitate the cross-border movement
of goods and services between the territories of the parties, to
increase substantially investment opportunities in the territories of
the parties, and to establish a framework for further trilateral,
regional, multilateral co-operation to expand and enhance the
benefits of this agreement''.
Basically it says that the purpose of NAFTA is to eliminate
barriers to trade in goods. Water is a good. Therefore,
fundamentally this is one of the purposes of the North American
Free Trade Agreement.
It goes on to describe this more accurately. It is important to take
a moment to do that. Goods are defined in article 201 of NAFTA as
products that are understood in the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade, or now the World Trade Organization. This means that
any good covered by a GATT tariff heading is subject to all the
provisions of the agreements themselves unless explicitly
excluded.
Mr. Speaker, you will recall that a number of areas in NAFTA
were excluded specifically. Raw logs, beer, and two or three other
items were mentioned specifically as being exclusions from the
North American Free Trade Agreement.
An hon. member: What about water?
Mr. Riis: Water was not mentioned. The evidence has shown
that water was never part of the discussions. The negotiators now
have admitted that. The politicians involved in the negotiations
have said that water was never even mentioned in any serious way.
(1755)
Therefore, to understand the basis for the inclusion of water in
the trade agreements one must first look to the relevant section of
the harmonized commodity coding system of GATT. The
harmonized commodity coding system for classifying goods for
customs tariff and other purposes adopted by the GATT include the
following: ``2201: It includes waters, including natural or artificial
mineral waters and aerated waters not containing sugar or
sweetening material nor flavoured, including ice and snow''. It
then goes on to article 2201(90) and lists all other water.
Let me provide a clarification of this harmonized commodity
coding system. The GATT harmonized commodity description and
coding system explanatory notes were adopted by the GATT
signatories. The explanatory notes state the following: ``This
heading covers ordinary natural water of all kinds, other than sea
water. Such water remains in this heading whether or not it is
clarified or purified''.
I could recite a whole number of these subsections and the
technical aspects of NAFTA, but fundamentally it states that water,
under the World Trade Organization and under NAFTA, is
considered a commodity or a good. This obviously causes people a
great deal of concern.
I think it is fair to say that at a time when NAFTA opens the door
to this type of export and knowing that we have to treat, as a result
of NAFTA, American and Canadian entrepreneurs on a level
playing field and that we cannot discriminate against Americans in
favour of Canadians, since Canadians right now are diverting water
within the country, exporting water, and selling water in a variety
of forms, an American entrepreneur can now use NAFTA and come
forward and do the same. They could export water from the North
Thompson River in British Columbia to the Los Angeles basin.
16993
I think it is also clear in international law. I am not an
international lawyer, but I have talked to many of them. They say
that if it comes to a dispute in this area, provincial legislatures
will not have much impact. Even national legislation will not have
much impact, although this is what we are doing tonight. The
provisions of the international trade agreement between three
sovereign nations will be paramount if there is a dispute. Of course
a dispute settling mechanism panel will take into consideration
that the three signatories to the North America Free Trade
Agreement have agreed, as per the schedules I have indicated, that
water is a commodity, just like coal or codfish or wheat or
anything else, to be bought or sold among three countries.
For that reason and to give us some influence at that
international dispute settlement mechanism table when the time
comes, I think we should pass this legislation to very clearly
indicate where the people of Canada stand on this issue.
In closing, I will simply say the following. For Canadians water
is something special. I think we all agree that water is a commodity
unlike cod or timber or nickel or whatever. It is virtually like blood
itself. It is the life of Canada. Water is something very special in
the Canadian psyche.
I would urge my colleagues to pass this legislation in order to
send a very clear message that this is where Canada stands.
[Translation]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for
Kamloops on this bill concerning our water resources, which are so
obviously valuable for our communities and all of Canada.
We wholeheartedly share the hon. member's goal to conserve
our water resources and to keep a tight control over the
development of these resources. But at the same time, with all due
respect, we think that the hon. member's approach is too narrow,
and that the whole issue of water resources should be looked at in a
much more comprehensive and integrated way.
We think the whole issue should be looked at in the broadest
context possible.
(1800 )
[English]
Water is our most precious resource. We have the greatest
freshwater reserves of the world. It behoves us to use them wisely.
Our jobs, our economy, our quality of life, our environment, our
farming and our forestry depend on water. All other resources
depend on water for sustenance.
It is clear that we have to control our water exports. At the same
time we have to do more than look at interbasin transfers or
interbasin exports. For instance, today a large part of the water
exports are being carried out through supertankers which load
water from our coastal areas, lakes, streams and rivers, and carry it
to other parts of the continent and beyond. We have to look at that
type of export. We also have to look at the draining of water
resources such as the mining of our groundwater reserves that
might go southward.
I agree with the content of Bill C-202. It is in sync with the
present water policy of the federal government which opposes
water exports through interbasin transfers. We should look at the
whole question of water in a formal, comprehensive manner,
looking at not only the exports themselves but the use of water,
water conservation and conception, the impacts of the use of water
on ecosystems generally and the impacts of various processes such
as industrial manufacturing and others on our water. We must also
take into account the jurisdictional question, the input of provincial
and municipal governments that deliver our water and have much
to do with the retailing of water to Canadians from coast to coast.
The government has been looking at the water issue for some
time now. For some 10 years there have been consultations and
workshops. We have decided to accelerate the process. We are
reviewing our water policies and our water legislation. Throughout
next year we will consult broadly across Canada to find out from
Canadians and various levels of government that have a clear
interest in and responsibility for water issues how we should deal
with the question of water comprehensively, including the key
question of water exports.
We fully back the principle of the bill. At the same time our
decision is that a much more comprehensive approach has to be
taken. We want to look at the full range of water exports, including
supertankers and the mining of groundwater. We do not want to
limit the study and future legislation to the question of exports. We
must treat water issues much more broadly, look at an ecosystemic
approach, treat water as the most precious resource of the 21st
century for us and for generations that follow.
To our aboriginal people water is the essence of life. They see
streams, lakes and rivers as the veins and the arteries in the body of
mother earth. They say that the cleaner the water flows, the cleaner
the arteries and the veins in the body of mother earth. They also say
that the healthier the veins and arteries, the healthier mother earth.
(1805)
I thank the member for Kamloops for having brought the subject
forward and enabling us to discuss it. I commit myself to the issue
being looked at very broadly by the government in an overall
consultation next year which hopefully will lead to comprehensive
legislation on water for Canada.
16994
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak about the bill introduced by my colleague from the
NDP, an act to prohibit the export of water by interbasin transfers.
The purpose of this bill, introduced by the member for
Kamloops, is clear from the title: to prohibit the export of our water
by interbasin transfers.
Many questions come to mind that are not answered in this bill.
These questions occurred to me after I read an article by
Louis-Gilles Francoeur, published yesterday in Le Devoir. Its title
is rather instructive. It is a question: ``Scientists' recommendation:
fresh water under federal control?''
The journalist was referring to the report by the Canadian Water
Ressources Association and to the Canadian Global Change
Program, which recommends that the federal government get
involved in managing fresh water resources, especially by taking
over control of the main hydrographic basins such as the St.
Lawrence and the Great Lakes.
This report, published in August under the auspices of the Royal
Society of Canada, suggests that the federal government review its
1970 Canada Water Act in terms of the new outlook and the new
circumstances in this area.
The bill presented by the member for Kamloops is similar, since
it suggests that the federal government get involved in the export of
its water resources.
I will now go back to the report, which Mr. Francoeur quotes
extensively in his article. It says: ``The way the situation is
evolving, management of fresh water, a provincial
resource-again, a strictly provincial resource- could become a
constitutional issue, like many other environmental management
issues, for that matter. Water resource management is a strategic
issue, particularly in Quebec, considering the importance of hydro
power''.
In light of this quote, one can clearly see that fresh water and the
management of this resource is under the provinces' jurisdiction. I
do not know if the member for Kamloops consulted the authorities
in his province, British Columbia, before introducing his bill. I am
sure his province would not agree to lose this jurisdiction. In fact, if
his province, or any other, decided to export water by interbasin
transfers, could they not do it since it is a matter of provincial
jurisdiction?
I cannot see how the federal government would once again
intrude on matters of provincial jurisdiction. We know that it is a
habit dear to the Liberals, especially with regard to the
environment, but for a New Democrat to get into the fray, asking
the federal government to put its big fat paws into his own
province's business, is beyond me. I cannot see what the member is
trying to do with his bill. To protect water? To conserve water?
These are matters of provincial jurisdiction. Does the member not
trust his provincial government in this respect?
As a matter of fact, his province, the member will correct me if I
am wrong, made its position very clear with Bill C-9, The Water
Protection Act, tabled by the minister Moe Sihota. I would like the
member for Kamloops to tell us more about this piece of
legislation. Right from the start, minister Sihota stated his
intentions on this matter.
In a press release issued on April 27, 1995, Mr. Sihota said, and I
quote:
[English]
The key is for the province to have control over that development, not the
federal through NAFTA or the United States.
(1810)
[Translation]
I believe it is quite clear. Minister Sihota wants to deal with
water himself because it comes under his jurisdiction, ``not the
federal'', as he said so well in his press release .If the Environment
minister of his own province says that he wants control over this
matter and is telling the federal government not to interfere, why
does the hon. member for Kamloops seek to impose a new act on
his province and on the others? Would it not be better to leave the
question of water management to the provinces, like British
Columbia, that have jurisdiction over it?
Unfortunately, I have not looked at this issue with regard to the
North American Free Trade Agreement. We should certainly look
at this question of water exports, or trade in water, in connection
with this agreement.
I sense that, once again, this will be served to us with an
ecosystem sauce, that is to say, we will be told that we should
consider the large living systems as a whole, because they justify
the interference of Ottawa with provincial jurisdictions. The report
referred to before is asking Ottawa to develop a strategy for
interwoven basins. Under this strategy, Ottawa would look after
large basins like the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence, while
provinces and municipalities would manage small basins in
accordance with federal policies.
I will read to you two paragraphs from Francoeur's article which
show clearly the interfering intent of the federal government. He
says: ``Ottawa proposes to reduce the role of the provinces, which
own water resources, by drowning their constitutional
responsibilities in a sea of intervenors. For example, the report
suggests that we create a consortium with representatives of the
public sector (federal, provincial, territorial and municipal
governments), the First Nations, the universities, the colleges and
private sector
16995
businesses, who would tackle various problems related to water on
a national and international level. The scientific societies' report
also suggests that we extend federal jurisdiction to estuaries like
the St. Lawrence estuary and to coastal zones, which are provincial
properties, in the context of a global approach focused on
ecosystems and nested drainage basins.''
This report puts forward the same arguments as the federal
government uses to justify interfering in provincial jurisdictions.
Ecosystems, the nation, globalization, the ingredients are always
the same and they bring the federal government to push provinces
around. Contrary to Obelix who was the only one to fall into the
kettle of magic potion, the federalists have all been cooked in the
same pot. The hon. member for Kamloops is no exception because
his bill reflects perfectly the centralizing views promoted by the
federal government in environmental matters.
Finally, the report goes on to say that Environment Canada
should enhance the protection of fresh water ecosystems by
assuming jurisdiction over fresh water fishing. Yet, since 1922-
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Oh, my God, it is
unbelievable.
Mrs. Guay: Mr. Speaker, if the members opposite listened they
might learn something.
Yet, since 1922, Quebec has been managing fresh water fishing
within its boundaries, which shows the inconsistency of a system
where water belongs to the provinces and the fish belong to Ottawa.
It is clear from this report that fresh water is under provincial
jurisdiction. In B.C., minister Sihota goes even further by
legislating on trading in provincial water.
In a federal paper entitled Media Backgrounder Federal Water
Policy-Executive Summary, we can read this, and I quote:
[English]
-the provinces exercise direct control over many aspects of water
management within their boundaries. Their competence to legislate in water
matters derives from their jurisdiction over management of public lands,
property and civil rights, and matters of a local and private nature. Provinces,
therefore, have authority to legislate in areas of domestic and industrial water
supply, pollution control, non-nuclear thermal and hydroelectric power
development, irrigation and recreation.
[
Translation]
Moreover, in Quebec, the Gérin-Lajoie philosophy, which says
that Quebec's constitutional jurisdiction should be extended to its
international relations, has always been the object of an undeniable
consensus since 1965.
(1815)
If we combine all this, that is, provincial jurisdiction over water,
the provinces' wish to take charge of their international relations,
as the member of Kamloops' province does through its Water
Protection Act, and if we add to that the federal government's
mediocrity, or even paucity in terms of the environment, it must be
recognized that Bill C-202 is not a desirable bill.
[English]
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. I would like a point of clarification. Does debate on
a private member's bill go from one side of the House to the other?
The Deputy Speaker: Usually, but we try to give all three
parties a chance to speak first. According to my list, it is the hon.
member for Peace River who now has the floor.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there is
quite a bit of interest in this bill. We have been interested for some
time in the matter of water and water exports.
It is a pleasure for me to speak to Bill C-202, which is an act to
prohibit the export of water by interbasin transfers. I know the hon.
member for Kamloops has been following this issue for quite a few
years. Since he is from British Columbia, I can understand his
interest in the subject.
Contrary to what the previous speaker stated, these rivers quite
often run through more than one province and quite a big area is
affected.
We in the Reform Party have also been interested in the topic of
water exports. Our 1993 blue sheet, which contains the Reform
Party's principles, policies, and election platform, states that the
Reform Party supports the position that notwithstanding the
inclusion of water in the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and
the North American Free Trade Agreement, exclusive and
unrestricted control of water in all its forms will be maintained by
and for Canada and both free trade agreements should be amended
to reflect this.
The blue sheet went further to state that until federal policies
related to the free trade agreements are initiated and Canada's
control over water resources is established within both free trade
agreements, the Reform Party would not support the
implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
I believe we are covered here. However, in examining the
research I can see that there are cases that can be made for either
side of the argument. The first argument is that the free trade
agreement and NAFTA entitle the United States to a certain share
of Canada's fresh water. The second argument is that the trade
agreements do not entitle the U.S. to our water. I would like to
16996
address these two arguments. I will speak about the second
argument first, which is the Canadian government's official
position.
Water was never mentioned during the free trade negotiations.
The free trade agreements are commercial agreements, which deal
with traded goods and services. Of course bottled water is a traded
good, but water in rivers and lakes is by no stretch of the
imagination a traded commodity, so what is the big fuss?
Furthermore, the Canadian government amended the
implementing legislation to the Canada-U.S. Free Trade
Agreement by stating that none of the free trade agreement
provisions, such as the proportional sharing agreement, applied to
natural surface or ground water, other than article 401, which deals
with tariff elimination.
It would seem that our water is secure. Just to make triple sure
there is no room for misunderstanding or legal manoeuvres by the
Americans, in December of 1993 the governments of Canada,
Mexico, and the United States put out a joint statement, which
states that ``NAFTA creates no rights to the natural water resources
of any party to the agreement. Unless water in any form has entered
into commerce and has become a good or product, it is not covered
by the provisions of any trade agreement, including NAFTA.
Nothing in the NAFTA agreement would oblige any NAFTA party
to either exploit its water for commercial use or begin exporting
water in any form. Water in its natural state in lakes, rivers,
reservoirs, aquifers, water basins and the like is not a good or
product and is not traded and therefore is not and never has been
subject to the terms of any trade agreement.''
The official argument goes even further, to state that
international rights and obligations respecting water in its natural
state are contained in separate treaties and agreements negotiated
for that purpose. Examples are the United States-Canada boundary
waters treaty of 1909 and the 1944 boundary waters treaty between
Mexico and the United States.
(1820 )
It would seem that any reasonable person would be completely
satisfied that all the t's had been crossed and the i's dotted. But of
course we are not all lawyers. Lawyers can find tiny holes and drive
trucks through them. Before we know it, water could be making its
way south of the border.
Let me give some mention of the other argument, the one that
says we have goofed and we have allowed the trade agreements to
be finalized without specifically exempting water in our rivers and
lakes.
The argument could be made that water is a good under the free
trade agreement and NAFTA. This is because both trade
agreements state that a good is one that is understood to be a good
in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Sure enough, the
GATT tariff schedule has a heading for water, which is very broad.
The heading, numbered 22.01, is reserved for waters, including
natural or artificial mineral waters and aerated waters, not
containing sugar or any other sweetener matter for flavouring, plus
ice or snow.
With that kind of a description, it would seem that natural water
of all kinds, other than sea water, could be classified as a good.
Since the trade agreement says we must allow all parties to the
agreement the same rights in respect of trade in goods and services,
we could be forced to give the United States and Mexico the same
rights to our water resources that we now enjoy.
Fancy lawyers notwithstanding, I would like to think that the
side agreement signed by all three governments carries a lot of
weight. Even though the free trade agreement and NAFTA were
never changed to include clarification about Canada's sovereignty
over its water resource-which is a mistake we could rectify if we
have a chance to open this agreement again to allow a new country
in-I believe we still are protected and can never be forced to sell
our water to our neighbours in the drier climates.
Of course our final safeguard is that we can always opt out of
NAFTA or the free trade agreement. That is our bottom line: if we
are not happy with what we are expected to deliver, we have the
right to opt out. All we have to do is provide our neighbours with
written notification six months in advance.
Let me get back to the bill under debate. I agree fully with its
contents and intent. I do not think that any party in Canada, no
matter what its political stripe, would support the exporting of
water by interbasin transfer. Apart from a threat to our sovereignty,
water exports also carry ecological risks. Interbasin water transfers
can introduce parasites and other organisms to new environments,
which could have a very negative effect. A good example of this is
the introduction of zebra mussels into the Great Lakes by
ocean-going vessels.
Other problems occur when the flow of fresh water is reduced in
estuaries where sea water and river water mix. This upsets the
saline balance of the water and has detrimental effects to the birds
and fish that depend on that particular ecosystem. It is also reported
that dams can cause a change in weather patterns and climate and
can cause mercury contamination in the food chain.
I would agree with the hon. member for Kamloops that more
research could be done into the effects of interbasin transfer. To
that end, I would agree to sending Bill C-202 to committee for
further study.
I support this bill, although I am not entirely sure that it is
necessary or that we are not sufficiently protected already.
However, if there is any concern at all that we are not, let us pass
this bill. It can be added as a further safeguard we can take to
protect our very valuable water supply.
16997
The Deputy Speaker: A point of order, the hon. for Kamloops,
who has already spoken on the matter.
Mr. Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short point of order before
my friend from Broadview-Greenwood participates in the debate.
In light of the suggestion by my honourable friend who has just
spoken for the Reform Party, I wonder if I could ask you,Mr. Speaker, to ask the House whether there would be unanimous
support to put a motion on the floor to send this matter to
committee for further discussion and examination.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
An hon. member: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is clearly not unanimous consent.
(1825 )
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to my very first
speech in the House of Commons in 1988. This was the issue I
talked about when I opposed the free trade agreement; that water
was a part of the free trade agreement.
I congratulate the member for Kamloops for bringing this
private member's bill forward. On this issue we should have a
general debate. Basically our country is water blind when it comes
to understanding the complexities and depth of what is going on
around this issue.
When I left high school and went to study in Texas I kept in
touch with a few of my friends over the years. When I was running
in 1988 for the first time to become a member of Parliament I
received a call from an old college classmate of mine who said in
that free trade agreement there has to be something dealing with
water.
I asked my good friend Bert Edmondson to tell me more. He said
the chief free trade negotiator for President Ronald Reagan was a
personal friend of his and spent his entire life, including his Ph.D.
thesis, studying North American water management, Clayton
Yeutter. He worked as a young political assistant for Congressman
Jim Wright who spent most of his time studying North American
water management.
My friend, even though he was in Houston, an American looking
out for the United States, gave me a little friendly heads up that
there has to be something in that agreement dealing with North
American water management.
I then talked to a few other people, lawyers and experts, much
more expert than I was on this issue. I was going to focus on the
whole issue of unfettered foreign investment, something I was
opposed to, chapter 14. However, when this water dimension came
into the deal that got my interest even more.
I remember standing on the other side of the House saying to
then Prime Minister Mulroney: ``If water is not part of this free
trade agreement and yet there is so much worry about it, why do
you not ask your friend, President Reagan, for a one-page protocol
letter signed by him and you stating water is not a part of this deal?
That would put all Canadians across Canada at ease.'' As the
member for Kamloops said, whatever we do in the House or in any
provincial house on the whole issue of water is subservient to the
free trade agreement.
I could not sell Prime Minister Mulroney on getting a one-page
protocol letter exempting water and of course the deal went
through.
However, that very first month I was elected I discovered as an
MP I had access to the Library of Parliament and the researchers. I
remember asking them to find out a little more about Clayton
Yeutter's Ph.D. thesis. Apparently it was on the whole issue of
water. Lo and behold, about four months later his Ph.D. transcript
from the University of Nebraska, pulled off microfiche, landed on
my desk. It was about 700 pages on how the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers was to replumb the entire North American system. I
remember after I received that Ph.D. thesis of Clayton Yeutter
sending him letters complimenting him on this great thesis on how
to replumb the North American water system. I asked him if he
would comment as the chief free trade negotiator on whether it was
in or out of the free trade agreement.
(1830)
I never had an answer to the first letter, the second letter or the
third letter. Therefore we must have our heads up on this issue.
I can remember the hon. member for Kamloops in opposition
presenting thousands of petitions on the floor of the House, giving
us a heads up on interbasin transfers. We have to deal with this
issue.
To the member for Kamloops, his private member's bill today is
in the right direction but it is too narrow. The member has said no
interbasin transfers. As my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of the Environment knows, we already have an
interbasin transfer from Lake Ontario into the St. Lawrence. That is
one of the reasons we can maintain Montreal as a port. If we ever
stopped that transfer from Lake Ontario, a joint decision made by
the International Joint Commission, Montreal would not be a port.
This of course is something that was never discussed during the
last referendum. Our friends who want to create their own country
do not realize that Canada and the United States together, nation to
nation, decide on the flow of water from Lake Ontario. We happily
maintain Montreal as one of the great ports of the world. That in a
manner of speaking is basin transfer.
16998
I am happy to participate in this debate today. It touches on an
issue we will have to deal with in a comprehensive way over the
next three to five years.
A chapter in one of the books by the former premier of Quebec,
Robert Bourassa, dealt with the grand canal, the recycling of water
from James Bay up over Mount Amos, down into the Georgian Bay
system, through the French River, into all the Great Lakes and
through Lake Michigan into the United States. This chapter had a
contribution by Tom Kierans from Newfoundland who spent his
entire life working for that great U.S. firm, Bechtel Group Inc. I am
intrigued by this idea.
What I am trying to say is this is an issue we will have to face up
to. Fifteen years from now our American friends will not be able to
carry on without Canadian water. What will we do?
The member for Kamloops, who has been consistent on this
issue and is pricking our conscience and our thought process here
again tonight, is giving us a heads up on a very important issue. I
hope through my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of the Environment, and other colleagues we can take this
issue on in a comprehensive way in the not too distant future.
Maybe, as the member said in his speech, there are many
different factors in this equation, many intricacies related to our
first peoples, our aboriginals, and our whole environmental system.
There are the different types of waters, processes and everything
else that we have to deal with. I hope we can get into that in the not
too distant future.
With respect to my colleagues from the Bloc, water is really not
a provincial debate or issue. When we look at the way 65 per cent
of our waters flow north into James Bay, when we see the way
waters flow back and forth, if there was ever a reason for my
colleagues across the floor to convert from Bloc Quebecois to Bloc
canadien, it is around the whole issue of water.
Unless we have a strong national government managing our
water resources for the interests of all Canadians, the entire
community is in jeopardy. The best way to secure the precious
resource of water for all Quebecers is by making sure the national
Government of Canada is working on behalf of all Quebecers.
Quebec alone would not have the same capacity or the same thrust.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hour provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to our Standing Orders, this item is dropped from the
Order Paper.
[English]
It being 6.39 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
10 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 6.39 p.m.)