CONTENTS
Tuesday, December 12, 1995
Bill C-117. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed
adopted 17545
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 151; Nays, 89. 17546
(Motion agreed to.) 17547
Bill C-110. Consideration resumed of report stageand Motions Nos.
1 and 2 17547
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 17547
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 17555
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 17565
(Motion agreed to.) 17566
(Motion agreed to.) 17566
Bill C-110. Consideration resumed of report stage andMotions Nos.
1 and 2 17566
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 17575
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 17575
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 17575
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 17576
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 17576
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 17576
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 17577
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 17577
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 17577
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17578
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17578
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 17578
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 17579
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 17579
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 17580
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 17580
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 17580
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 17580
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 17580
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 17580
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 17581
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 17581
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 17581
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 17581
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 17582
Mr. Harper (Churchill) 17582
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 17582
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 17582
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 17583
Bill C-110. Consideration resumed of report stageand Motions Nos.
1 and 2. 17583
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 17585
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 17595
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 17596
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 17600
Division on Motion No. 1 deferred 17601
Division on Motion No. 2 deferred 17601
Motion No. 1 negatived on division: Yeas, 45;Nays, 196 17601
(Motion No. 1 negatived.) 17602
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 164; Nays, 77. 17602
(Motion agreed to.) 17603
Motion for concurrence 17603
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 147; Nays, 95 17603
(Motion agreed to.) 17604
Bill C-108. Motion for third reading 17604
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 17606
Bill C-99. Motion for third reading. 17610
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 17610
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 17613
Bill C-315. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 17613
(Motion agreed to.) 17615
Division on motion deferred 17620
17545
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, December 12, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
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 two
petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in accordance with its mandate under
Standing Order 83(1), the committee on finance is now submitting
its interim report to the House.
* * *
Hon. Jon Gerrard (for the Minister of Health, Lib.): moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-117, an act to amend the Tobacco
Products Control Act.
(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
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.):
That in relation to Bill C-110, An Act respecting constitutional amendments,
not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the
report stage of the Bill, and one sitting day shall be allotted to the third reading
stage of the said Bill; and, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for
Government Business on the day allotted to the consideration of the report stage
and on the day allotted to the third reading stage of the said Bill, any
proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of
this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of
the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively
without further debate or amendment.
[
English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
(1010 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will play say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is there a quorum?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Yes, there is a quorum.
Call in the members.
17546
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 396)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacDonald
Maclaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robillard
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Young
Zed-151
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Gaspé)
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast/Sud-Est)
Caron
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McLaughlin
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Nunez
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Rocheleau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -89
PAIRED MEMBERS
Blondin-Andrew
Bouchard
Canuel
Copps
Culbert
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
MacAulay
Marchand
Paré
Pomerleau
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Szabo
(1050)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion carried.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I believe you would find consent for the following
motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding any standing order or special order, on Wednesday,
December 13, 1995, the end of Government Orders shall be 5.15 p.m.
There have been negotiations among all parties and I believe
there would be unanimous consent for that motion.
17547
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Motion agreed to.
(1055 )
Mrs. Payne: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I stood in my
place just shortly after the vote. I would like to note that I was
unavoidably late for the vote. Had I been here I would have voted
with my party.
* * *
The House resumed from December 11 consideration of Bill
C-110, an act respecting constitutional amendments, as reported
(without amendment) from the committee; and Motions Nos. 1 and
2.
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on the issue of Quebec's veto
over amendments to the Canadian Constitution and why we in this
House should finally recognize that reality.
During the referendum campaign many Canadians were
concerned about a possible yes vote but recognized the right of
Quebecers to determine their own destiny.
Unfortunately, some on the yes side in the campaign
characterized this respect of the Quebecois right to
self-determination as ambivalence. When the rhetoric about
indifference on the part of the rest of Canada escalated, Canadians
were pushed into proving their commitment to a united Canada, a
commitment I might add, that I never believed to be in question.
This expression is part of a larger package that the Prime
Minister has put forward in the form of a resolution. It is a
resolution that will recognize Quebec's distinct society. It offers a
veto to Quebec as well as to other regions of the country over
constitutional amendments and clarifies the roles and
responsibilities with respect to labour force training and to the
delivery of programs.
The Prime Minister is right to make this commitment and it is
timely because Canada is changing. It was changing before the
referendum, it was changing during the referendum and it will
continue to change. This is natural. We all need to realize that there
cannot always be a sense of finality on every issue. A country lives,
changes and evolves. This is natural and progressive, if sometimes
inconvenient.
In this case it is not wise to look for a specific date when this
debate will be resolved. It will not, nor should it be. It is a healthy,
modern and necessary progression that will continue over time.
This perspective is markedly different from those of the official
opposition and the third party. Their obvious political agenda is to
continue to raise the stakes and make demands within confining
time frames to advance their own interests at the expense of our
country. This disappoints me.
We on this side are driven by a genuine concern for Canada. I
believe that it is testimony to our strength as a nation that we can
move forward with the determination that we do in the face of these
two parties, one that wants out of Canada and one that is
ambivalent about our united country.
As part of the larger package, formal recognition of Quebec's
distinct society is long overdue. We are expressing a characteristic
of Canada that is on the positive side of the ledger as well as a
historical fact. Canada is unique internationally in its multicultural
nature, historic recognition of our aboriginal underpinnings and of
our more recent two founding nations. We also have the capacity to
constantly evolve through the different phases of these
relationships.
Quebec's right to a veto has long been supported by this party.
We have gone even further in offering a similar veto to the Atlantic
region, Ontario, the west, and have recently offered a veto to the
province of B.C. These regional vetoes are a reflection of this
government's commitment to reach a broad consensus on issues
concerning the Constitution.
In offering B.C. a veto, the Prime Minister has taken a leadership
role in promoting flexibility and accountability in government.
Since it was clear that B.C. was feeling misunderstood and
unappreciated, the Prime Minister acted quickly and listened to its
concerns. This is an important step in our evolution in recognizing
this right as a fact just as Quebec's distinct society is a fact.
The leader of the third party on the other hand did not take
advantage of an opportunity to propose a veto in committee. He did
not even once in the House call for a veto for British Columbia.
Those who view the third party as representatives of the west's
interests may want to look at this obvious neglect to perhaps
recognize that it is the governing party and our caucus that is
listening and responding to every region in the country. I would
like to congratulate my colleagues from B.C. who effectively
represented their constituents and enabled this important
amendment to be made to the original proposal.
(1100)
There are some who say that the government has not gone far
enough in passing a resolution. What they fail to point out is the
very real impact several resolutions have had in the past, such as
the official languages resolution of 1968, the resolution reaffirming
linguistic duality in 1973, and the resolution regarding the
language of work in the federal public service.
Coming from New Brunswick I am very aware of the impact of
all these resolutions, not only on the country but also on how the
country operates inside my province. Those that would have us
believe that Ottawa is simply throwing Quebec a bone but avoiding
dealing with the issue with any degree of seriousness have
questionable motives themselves.
Of course the Bloc members will not accept the seriousness of
the resolution because in admitting that Canada can work they
make themselves redundant. It is all too easy to point a finger at
Ottawa for not doing enough when in fact it is offering exactly
those changes that Quebec has rightfully sought in the past.
Is the attitude of Bloc members one that really takes Quebec's
interest to heart, the interests of all Quebecers regardless of what
language they speak? I think we know the answer to that question.
17548
Canada is not made up only of Ottawa and Quebec. In looking
beyond Quebec there are a number of different realities that must
be reconciled. In the eastern provinces we find loyal strongholds in
regions rich with history. In the western provinces we find many
new Canadians with rich multicultural influences and traditions.
The ability to bring these regions together is the challenge, a
challenge to which I am certain we will be able to rise.
For all of those who are narrowly defining regional interests I
ask simply: What region will be better off with a fractured country?
There is no region in Canada that will benefit from the secession of
Quebec. It is obvious which political party will benefit and that is
what disappoints me.
This debate must continue. The Prime Minister has opened the
door for Canadians to speak to and of their country, not in a highly
structured and regimented way but to simply open the door to
opportunity much in the same way as the rally did on October 27.
We must recognize that we need to move forward and not
become mired in the past. Canada building should be our focus, not
tearing Canada apart. This debate is about values, the values of
fairness and acceptance that are integral to the successful
resolution of the question.
I would like to mention a forum that was held in my riding two
Sundays ago. The topic of discussion was Canadian unity. Many
individuals took the time to come and express their views on the
subject. I want to commend everyone who helped make it happen
and mention a few of their suggestions.
The idea of generating more dialogue among Canadians inside
and outside Quebec was brought out often, as well as having our
educational system teach more about each other's histories and
traditions. One individual felt that information is too filtered by the
media and by politicians and someone else mentioned the need for
everyone to better appreciate our economic interdependence.
I would like to thank the member for Brome-Missisquoi who
took the time to visit Fredericton and participate in this public
forum. His insights were very useful to the debate and to our
understanding. This forum was a logical progression from the rally
that was held in Montreal, a rally that was attended by hundreds of
constituents from my riding who were willing to drive in a bus for
10 hours each way to express their desire that Quebec stay in
Canada.
When I was asked to speak in the House in the first week on this
issue I felt that I should hear from my constituents on that weekend
first before attempting to express their views. I appreciate their
participation and hope I have been able to transmit to the House the
level of their commitment to Canada.
Finally, I would like to take a moment to commend the Prime
Minister on his integrity and his broad Canadian vision. I am not
surprised that he has acted quickly on this issue. I support him
fully. I feel more Canadian because we have expressed a reality that
makes Canada a great country. It is my great pleasure to support the
resolution and I close by paraphrasing Lord Acton: ``A state which
is incompetent to satisfy difference condemns itself''. It is not our
intention to condemn but to construct.
(1105)
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the bill before us
is one of the steps the government is taking to keep the promises
the Prime Minister made at the meeting of the no side in Verdun.
The promises were made in the dying moments of the referendum
campaign, when, for the previous two years, the government had
systematically refused to discuss any constitutional matter.
Only the phenomenal advance of the yes side forced the Prime
Minister out of his constitutional lethargy and into giving
Quebecers the hope of reform and satisfaction of their traditional
claims.
Quebecers, however, are not fooled. Now all of the evidence
points to the fact that the Prime Minister's offers were tabled in a
mad panic. For example, the last minute press conference. The
phoney committee chaired by the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs had not even finished its deliberations.
The Liberal caucus had not been consulted either, and was put in
the picture only after the Prime Minister's press conference. The
offers presented are far from having unanimous support from the
other provinces. This is a put up job, and a bad one at that,
indicating that the Cabinet was beginning to panic about the
challenges to the Prime Minister's ability to lead.
Many political figures on the Canadian scene, particularly in
Quebec, gave an extremely chilly reception to the proposal for a
regional veto, which was probably a great blow to the Liberal
government. What explanation can there be for such a uproar of
disapproval in response to the Prime Minister's proposals?
While the Meech Lake accord offered all provinces the right of
veto over constitutional amendments, particularly those relating to
federal institutions, here we have the Prime Minister reheating an
old amending formula dating back to the seventies and the Victoria
Charter. There is only one tiny change, the percentage of
population required for the maritimes. The reactions were more or
less the same in all the rest of Canada. English Canada reacted
strongly to a proposal dating back to a distant time we were only
too pleased to think had been forgotten forever.
First of all, the premiers of the two most populous western
provinces voiced strong opposition to this offer. In British
Columbia, Mr. Harcourt was not terribly enthusiastic, and a
number of academics in the province even suggested the Prime
Minister would cause the birth of a separatist movement in British
Columbia. To show you how hard it is to grant these veto powers,
the Prime Minister immediately turned around and promised
British Columbia it would have a veto too. All in less than 24
hours. If you want a veto, the Prime Minister has a drawer full and
will hand them out to anyone who makes a fuss and does not like
his proposals.
17549
That is not the kind of veto Quebec had in mind. The same kind
of reaction came from Premier Klein of Alberta, who was not at all
keen to see Ontario have a veto while three western provinces had
to share. He maintained it was unfair to one of the three richest
provinces in Canada and a province whose population was
increasing at the fastest rate. Need I recall the position taken by the
Reform Party, which is opposed to special privileges for any
province and in the case of Quebec refuses to recognize anything,
not even a symbolic and meaningless distinct society with no legal
validity?
(1110)
In Quebec, reactions were harsh as well. In one of his speeches,
the Prime Minister maintained that Quebecers would recognize
themselves in his proposals and that these would respond to the
aspirations of Quebecers. Obviously we are not talking about the
same Quebec.
His comments now and during the referendum indicate that the
Prime Minister no longer knows Quebec and that the fact that he
has been living in Ottawa for more than 30 years has probably cut
him off altogether from what is happening in Quebec.
His proposals were intended to satisfy Quebecers, but he made
the serious mistake of wanting to please everyone. By giving
everyone half a loaf, he managed to please no one.
Most political parties in Quebec either reacted very negatively or
were not satisfied with the proposals or dismissed them out of
hand.
When there is a fire in Quebec, the other provinces panic. They
show Quebec a whole arsenal of firehoses, telling us we can now
feel safe and sound, protected by the other provinces and this array
of firehoses. Too bad there was not enough water in the hoses to put
out the fire. What we are being offered is not the real thing, but
Quebec wants the real thing.
As I said to a colleague yesterday, we want to be recognized as
horses, but they recognize us as little ponies. A horse is stronger
than a pony. Quebec claims to be that strong and powerful; it does
not want to be seen as small, weak and disadvantaged.
Mr. Dumont's Action démocratique also argues that what
Quebecers want is not mere motions or bills but real constitutional
reforms.
Both the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois have rejected
the Prime Minister's proposals. Labour indicated that it was too
little, too late. As for the very federalist Liberal Party in Quebec,
all it had to say was that it was a step forward, but without any great
enthusiasm. At a regional council held the day before the Prime
Minister came out with his proposals, the Liberal Party in Quebec
went much further in its constitutional demands.
The Premier of Quebec and even Mr. Bourassa before him would
never have agreed to the Prime Minister of Canada's watered down
proposals. Beyond partisan politics, however, the media's reaction
was the most revealing indication of how the federal government's
proposals were received. The editorial writer for Le Devoir refutes
the federal proposals, arguing that enshrining this veto power in an
act of Parliament would not really give Quebec its veto back.
Quebec would not really get its veto back because although its
veto was recognized by tradition, the Supreme Court stated that
Quebec never had a legal veto. This editorial writer points out that
any government could very well revoke this act. Reform would
probably make it a point of honour to do so upon taking office. The
most telling comments in the newspapers, however, are in La
Presse, whose chief editorial writer, Alain Dubuc, who is
well-known for his pro-federalist positions, wrote that Quebecers
want much more than that. He added that, as long as these
principles are guaranteed by legislation, all it would take for
Quebec to lose its guarantees is a shift in policies or a change of
government. The Prime Minister's proposals are held up to ridicule
from all sides and considered as plainly unacceptable, both by
English Canada and by Quebec.
(1115)
To conclude, I would like to add that the main problem with this
bill is its very essence; after all, it is just a bill. As long as all the
provinces do not agree on its principle, it will remain just a bill.
This simple bill has the same force in law as any other bill,
which means that it can be repealed by any government, as it sees
fit .That is its weakness and that is what we condemn.
[English]
Mr. Janko
Peric
(Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak on this
issue. I should like to share my vision of Canada with members
opposite, the Canada that I dreamed of as a 10-year old boy in
Croatia.
I dreamed about Canada. It was a huge country. I dreamed about
Canada when I asked my parents whether there was anything for
breakfast. Today as a parent I am asking my children what they
want for breakfast.
My dreams became a reality in 1968 when I arrived in Canada. I
was by myself and not even 19 years old. The question is why
Canada. I cannot answer that question. However today I know that I
made the right choice. I had the chance to go to Australia or New
Zealand or to stay in Croatia. However I chose to come here. Three
years later when I became a Canadian citizen I was the luckiest
person on the planet.
I did not know about the differences within Canadian society
until I arrived in Canada and I found out about English speaking
Canada and French speaking Canada. That was great. There are
Canadians in the middle, Canadians like myself, who came to build
17550
this great country. We cannot ignore that they built it and they made
it the best country on the planet.
We do not know how to appreciate that. Sometimes I ask myself
what is wrong with us. When we return from travelling abroad and
seeing how other people live and how much they have, we really
appreciate what we have here and what we are.
October 27 was an historic date for Canada. We gathered in
Montreal and told Quebecers that we loved them. The Prime
Minister made a commitment which I fully support. It is not just to
recognize Quebec as a distinct society. It also recognizes the
historical fact that French people in Canada are different. It is not
that they are better or worse than anybody else, but that they are
different. They have a different language and a different culture.
That is great and we have to respect and admire that. We have to
tolerate that if we want to be a strong, united Canada.
(1120)
On October 27 I took my eight-year old son along with the rest of
the 250 constituents from Cambridge to Montreal. He was a part of
that historic day. He was proud to be part of that historic day, the
beginning of a new Canada. Today he is learning French in school.
He will probably share some time in Quebec with his eight and nine
year old colleagues in the near future.
Unfortunately maybe we do not know each other very well. It is
about time that we took the effort to know each other, to get to
know Canadians from British Columbia, Newfoundland, Prince
Edward Island, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan and the Northwest
Territories. It is about time we know about our unique Canadian
culture to which many newcomers and I contribute.
By giving this recognition to French people in Canada, I am
convinced that Canada will survive. We are facing difficulties
today, but it is not the end. It is evident that we have to solve the
problem today and continue building a stronger and better Canada
for our children and grandchildren.
I urge members from all three sides to work together to make
Canada even better, to put our differences aside and work together
to build a unique and stronger Canada. We can accomplish that, so
help us God.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure to speak to Bill C-110. As we all know, the bill was
designed to give a veto to the province of Quebec over the
Canadian Constitution.
We thought at one time that we had dealt with the issue during
Meech Lake and the Charlottetown accords when we gave all
Canadians a say in the matter. Lo and behold Canadians said: ``No,
we don't accept what politicians have done. We are staying with the
way it is''. Here we are today after a referendum and the Liberals
are right back at it again, on the top down approach.
The bill also gives a veto to B.C., the prairies, Ontario and the
Atlantic provinces. B.C. was not included originally. Six B.C.
Liberals would like to say they had some influence on the
acknowledgement of British Columbia as a separate region, so to
speak, because of its position in the federation. They would like to
take credit for that, but the fact is we are back to the way it has
always been. They do what they are told over there. They had little
or no influence. The party said ``you will'' and they did. They did
nothing.
(1125)
It was the outrage of people in British Columbia and across the
country who said: ``What are you doing with four regions as
opposed to five?'' The government changed its mind. The problem
is that they are still talking about the governments of the regions
and not the people of the regions. I do not believe that will ever get
through to the government, ever, until the government is replaced
by a populist party and not a party that works from the top down.
Let us make no mistake. This is once again an act of
appeasement to separatists in Quebec. Over the years we have been
giving the country away piece by piece. Every time the separatists
squawk this government and the government before it overreact.
Let us look at why we are in this mess in the first place. Over all
these years we have had some issues to deal with such as the
finances of the country. The Liberal targets at best are weak. Their
economic fiscal management, as well as that of the previous
government, is a disgrace.
At least the province of Quebec is open enough to say: ``Look, if
you can't get your act in gear we are going to leave''. Other people
are saying: ``If you can't get your act together, we are going to stay
and try to fight it''.
Let us look at the battle against crime. The Liberal government
still does not understand how bad it is out there. It is still doing a
messy, pathetic job at fighting crime in the country. We have one
separatist province saying: ``We don't like the way you are doing
that either, so we want out''. Whose fault is it that we have this
spoiled child of separatism sitting here? It is the governments that
have done very little to help the country since the current Prime
Minister was finance minister.
Today the government still appoints its friends and hacks to the
Senate. It is still ripping off Canadians with an MP's pension. It
voted out recall. All these issues are part of the problem in the
country today. They are rubbing everybody the wrong way, from
the east coast to the west coast.
What did the Liberals come up with? They came up with a veto
power in the Constitution. They said that it was the best a Liberal
majority government could do in the country. That is very sad
indeed.
17551
When the Bloc appeared for the first time in the last election in
1993, what happened? How did the Liberal government deal with
it? First it agreed to official opposition status. That was the first
mistake. It has been dealing with that problem since we have been
here. It is not dealing with all the problems across the country. It is
only dealing in self-interest.
The referendum came along. We saw a Liberal government with
no vision. Its members were stumbling and bumbling through a
referendum until in the dying days when it looked like they were
going to lose it and they threw out a few carrots. That is a heck of a
way to run a country. Now we see the government shelling out veto
powers, not to the people but to the governments of the provinces
within those regions.
Why do we give vetoes in any event? To my knowledge no
democratic country in the world provides vetoes on constitutional
issues to a body, particularly to a provincial body that just happens
to be a separatist government.
(1130)
What exactly does the government think it will achieve by doing
that? It has not thought about it. It is another knee-jerk reaction to a
group of separatists in the House.
Coming from British Columbia, having lived there, with my
riding being there, I can see the time is coming when British
Columbia needs a very forceful government.
We in the House had better understand why that will be
necessary. It seems the only way we can improve a federation is to
threaten these guys. That seems to be the game. The separatists
show up and give a little more. The separatists speak out and the
government gives a little more, piece by piece. They are never
happy. What happened last night when distinct society came up in a
motion to vote on? They voted against it. That is because they have
not been given enough. When they are given enough, it will very
likely be too late.
An hon. member: Sovereignty.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): A member says sovereignty.
They are really saying separation.
At what point is the government prepared to draw a line and say
enough is enough? It proposes there is no point and there is no line;
just keep shelling and giving until there is no more to give. That is
not a plan. That is acquiescence.
How do the people in my riding feel? If one has a spoiled child,
how does one deal with it? A lot of people would say if one has a
spoiled child perhaps one has parents who are not running it right.
Here we have governments that do not run it right. That is the
problem. We have a Prime Minister and a cabinet with many
members from Quebec. There is a conflict of interest when they sit
behind closed doors and make deals about the province they are
from.
People in my riding say draw a line, tell these people where the
line is. They say not to give a veto to governments. If they have to
give a veto, if they will make that decision anyway, give it to the
people, not to governments, particularly not to a separatist
government.
We have to say in the House and throughout this land to give
these people the facts. Draw the line in the sand somewhere so they
know what can be given and what cannot be given, not this year
after year of saying more for you, more for you, at the alienation of
every other province.
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
understand I have only 10 minutes, unfortunately. I wish I had an
hour to respond to the remarks I just listened to very quietly, as
difficult as that was.
I heard so much fiction from the member for Fraser Valley West,
so many dangerous interpretations of our history and society that I
feel compelled to respond to at least a few of them.
(1135 )
The hon. member and members of the third party are repeatedly
saying that in the veto bill the federal government is giving the
separatists a veto. That is patently nonsense.
Mr. White (Frazer Valley West): What do you think it is?
Mr. O'Brien: I listened very carefully to the member for Fraser
Valley West without interrupting him. I would appreciate if he
would do the same for me, as that is the nature of democratic
debate in the House. We can disagree without interrupting each
other as we speak.
The current Government of Quebec unfortunately is a separatist
government. We all know that. We do not need to be rocket
scientists to know that. However, the mistake made by the hon.
members opposite is they assume we will have a separatist
government forever in Quebec. That is ridiculous. All we have to
do is review the history of the province of Quebec to know there
have been very few years when a separatist was in power.
The bill proposes to give to the province of Quebec, as it does to
the governments of four other regions, a veto power. It is not to the
people or to the separatist Government of Quebec in a sense that it
will be there ad infinitum.
The hon. member mentioned that the six Liberal MPs in B.C.
like to say they have influenced the government's change of mind
in recognizing B.C. as a region. I think my colleagues did have an
influence in that change of decision. One thing I do know for sure is
the Reform Party certainly had no influence in changing the mind
of the government in giving B.C. a regional veto.
17552
The ignorance of Quebec and the situation in Canada in terms of
our veto power from some members opposite is unbelievable. As a
Canadian and someone who taught Canadian history, the degree of
ignorance, even by certain members of the House, about our
history alarms me.
Where did this idea of veto power for four regions come from?
Was it dreamed up out of thin air? It was not dreamed up out of thin
air. In the early 1970s at a conference in Victoria a decision was
made to give veto powers to four regions in the country. That
Victoria formula was endorsed by all 10 premiers of all 10
provinces, including the province of British Columbia at that time,
as well as by the Government of Canada.
It is ignorance of Canadian history to suggest that somehow the
government and the Prime Minister have dreamed up this plan. It is
based in fact and it is based in history. The lack of knowledge of
Canadian history by some members in the House is appalling.
My colleague from Fraser Valley West said no democratic
government in the world provides a veto. I am almost quoting him
directly.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): That is right.
Mr. O'Brien: He is now saying that is right. I am sorry to see
him lead with his chin like that. Let me introduce him to a nation to
the south called the United States of America in which one
democratically elected person, the president, has a veto power.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): That is not a state.
Mr. O'Brien: The last time I checked, I thought the United
States of America was a state. I thought it was a democracy. I
thought the President of the United States had a veto power. I invite
the hon. member for Fraser Valley West to enrol in some basic
courses in political science and Canadian history. I would be very
happy to recommend some for him.
The United States of America empowers one person, its
democratically elected president, with the right to veto legislation.
It is incredible for me to hear an elected member in the House say
that no democratic government in the world has a veto power. I will
put it down to a bad day for my colleague from Fraser Valley West.
(1140 )
The last point I will address from the hon. member is the
characterization of Quebec as a spoiled child. The attitude that
somehow Quebec is a spoiled child, to generalize and make the
blatant characterization of Quebec as a spoiled child on the basis
that 30 per cent of the people are separatists, is part of the problem
we have. It is ignorance of the real demographics in Quebec. It is
ignorance of what the people in Quebec really believe. It is a
dangerous generalization that the most basic student of history is
taught not to make. Because 30 per cent of the people of Quebec
are very hard core separatists, we should not be foolish enough to
characterize the people of Quebec as spoiled children.
What makes that all the more dangerous is that the people
applauding the loudest secretly when members like the member for
Fraser Valley West make these blatant generalizations are the
separatists. Every time a member in the House of Commons spews
that kind of logic, every time a Canadian anywhere in Canada
makes that kind of ridiculous comment, it only advances the cause
of separatism in Quebec. It only makes the job of the Bouchards
and the Parizeaus easier in Quebec.
It is a pity we have elected members saying that. I know the
member for Fraser Valley West does not like to hear these truths
and that is why he interrupts me, even though I did not interrupt
him when he made these comments. That is okay. I will debate him
now on the point that he does not have his basic facts correct. I will
debate him here on the point that he does not have his basic facts of
Canadian history straight. I will debate him anywhere he chooses.
He does not have the facts of Canadian history, the history of this
veto power, or the knowledge that the United States has a veto
power.
I am shocked. I am disappointed. Most dramatically, I am
alarmed that an elected member would come into the House of
Commons and make the kind of statements, the twisting of facts,
and display the ignorance I have heard.
I say these things in kindness. I offer them as constructive
criticism. I think we can help the member for Fraser Valley West to
learn more Canadian history if he has an open mind. That is the
problem. One wonders if the attitudes are not so ingrained in some
members of the House, if they do not bring the kind of attitudes and
the lack of knowledge of Canadian history in such a visceral way
into the House that perhaps they are not willing to listen to facts,
not willing to learn some Canadian history and not willing to
change.
An hon. member: What do you know about the west?
Mr. O'Brien: I have been in western Canada many times. I have
an uncle in Quesnel, B.C. I have an aunt in New Westminster, B.C.
I converse with them frequently. I know their views on this
situation as people living in British Columbia now.
There is some knowledge of western Canada on this side of the
House. All wisdom, all logic, all knowledge and all defence of
western Canada, thank goodness, do not rest with the party
opposite.
(1145)
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome this opportunity to speak after the hon. member for Fraser
Valley West to set the record straight. The hon. member does not
seem to understand a thing about what is happening in Quebec right
now when he describes the province as a spoiled child. All that we
17553
in Quebec are asking is merely for Quebec to be sovereign. We are
asking nothing of him and, if he just agreed to Quebec's
sovereignty, he would have nothing to do with us any more.
I am also pleased to speak here today on Bill C-110, an act
respecting constitutional amendments, to establish a regional veto
so that no constitutional change can be made without the consent of
all Canadians, according to this government.
Is the government for real? No. And the same way I voted
against the distinct society motion yesterday evening, I will vote
against this bill out of pride and respect for the people of my riding
and of Quebec as a whole.
How can Quebec be recognized as a distinct society through a
motion that is binding on the federal government but not on all of
the provinces, a motion that may be overturned by a new
government? And how can the government at the same time
introduce a bill establishing a regional veto that is the same for
every province? Only our Prime Minister can do such somersaults.
This only meets the election minded expectations of the Liberal
Party of Canada. These projects are meaningless; they are a smoke
screen and they also show a lack of respect for Quebecers. This
government never gave a better illustration of how panic-stricken it
is, which explains why it is totally improvising. After saying loud
and clear before the referendum that it was not going to talk about
the Constitution, the government started alluding to changes one
week before the referendum. Then, after a narrow victory, it tabled
a motion on the distinct society, followed by a bill on regional
vetoes.
After dragging its feet for two years, the government introduces
a UI reform which clearly shows that it intends to bypass the
provinces, regardless of their distinct nature, and not give them an
opportunity to be heard. Then it tells us that we must refer to a
Canadian, not Quebec, culture. Finally, the federal government
reconsiders its decision and gives British Columbia the status of
region, for the purpose of its Bill C-110.
In the meantime, a phoney committee is on standby, waiting for
the government to stop its antics and give it a mandate. This is
mind boggling. I would be hard pressed to show the logic in all this.
The government acts like a chicken running in all directions with
its head cut off, trying to save its broken eggs. It did not even
realize that it came very close to losing Quebec. Will the
government finally realize that, in spite of all its foolish attempts, it
clearly shows that it will never be able to come up with a
constitutional reform project that meets the expectations of
Quebec, as well as those of the rest of Canada?
We are two peoples in Canada, but one country is missing. What
would be a worthwhile and possible undertaking would be to
accept that we are a people and that Quebec is a country. The Prime
Minister told us here in this House just recently that he was most
anxious to see the Bloc members vote against his motion on
Quebec as a distinct society, against Bill C-110 and against
unemployment insurance reform. I would like to tell him that the
people in my riding are equally anxious, but not for the same
reasons.
The 58 per cent who voted to elect me in October 1993, and the
58.3 per cent who voted in the October 30, 1995 referendum, asked
me to attend the House on Monday, although that is the day I am
generally in my riding office. They wanted me to be here to vote
against this ridiculously out of date project. It is a matter of too
little, too late. The 49.4 per cent of Quebecers who voted in favour
of Quebec sovereignty in this referendum were voting for the right
to pass our own laws, to collect our own taxes, to sign our own
treaties.
(1150)
They do not want a bill aimed at making it impossible for any
government, including the Government of Quebec, to change the
Canadian Constitution.
The Minister of Justice has stated, and I quote: ``True, this
resolution will satisfy neither the Parti Quebecois nor the Bloc
Quebecois. As we know, sadly, nothing short of breaking up this
country would satisfy them''. What a wonderful red herring to push
through a bill that will make any in depth changes to the
Constitution impossible until the end of time. Canada does not
need the Parti Quebecois or the Bloc Quebecois to break itself
apart, the Prime Minister and his centralist federalism are doing
well enough on their own. Unfortunately, they do not realize this.
On Friday, December 8, a SOM-La Presse poll reported that
Quebecers are not satisfied with the Chrétien government's
proposals. A meagre 31 per cent of Quebecers now admits to
having supported the federalist option. Furthermore, no sooner was
the bill tabled than the Minister of Justice made an about-face and
agreed to the concept of a fifth region to satisfy British Columbia,
which proves this government is playing it strictly by ear.
The minister asked us to trust him, saying it was hard to imagine
how the government would support a constitutional amendment
that did not have the support of all regions. In other words, the
federal government should not support a constitutional amendment
unless all regions agree. The minister has a poor memory. He must
have forgotten the lesson we learned in 1992. The minister ought to
know that once bitten, twice shy.
Remember when in 1982, the Canadian Liberal government
patriated the Constitution and amended it and adjusted it in the
image of English Canada, without the consent of Quebec. What
may seem immoral to the present Minister of Justice did not seem
17554
so to the then justice minister in 1982, who is now the Prime
Minister. All things considered, we are not inclined to trust the cat
who tells mousie he loves her dearly, but well done, with stuffing à
la Clyde Wells.
This is not about giving Quebec a veto, let us be clear about that.
What we have here is a cosmetic exercise that gives a pseudo-veto
to four, five or six regions unilaterally identified by the federal
government. These regions are both distinct and equal, as far as I
can see. The government probably thinks it has found a way to give
the impression it is giving Quebec what Quebecers want, while
giving the other regions in Canada the impression this does not
mean a thing. Not surprisingly, the rest of Canada is not any more
pleased than Quebec with this sleight of hand. This
extra-constitutional exercise is only an exercise in wishful
thinking.
After the first constitutional veto, requiring unanimous consent
on any change in the responsibilities of the Queen, the governor
general or the Senate, came the veto on amendments involving one
or more provinces, such as to borders, then came the veto on
general amendments-the rule of seven and fifty: 7 provinces and
50 per cent of the population-and now we have the so-called
regional veto, the criteria to be determined by the government,
such as: a resolution by a legislative assembly, an order in council,
a notice signed by the provincial premier, a notice signed by a
provincial lieutenant governor, a provincial referendum organized
by a province, a federal referendum in one or a number of
provinces or a vote by federal members of Parliament from the
province in question.
With such a collection of distinct criteria, the federal
government has any number of ways to go over the heads of the
provinces.
The last piece the government needed to never again change the
Constitution has just been tabled in the House, and all those who
voted no believing in the fine promises of the Prime Minister to
amend the Constitution to meet Quebec's requirements are, today,
in mourning. On their behalf, I will vote against this bill.
I must, nevertheless, in closing, thank the Prime Minister for the
10 per cent of electors we lacked to achieve Quebec's sovereignty.
With this sort of understanding of Quebec, the next referendum
will be the winner.
(1155 )
[English]
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
November 27 the Prime Minister introduced three initiatives for
change in how government works in Canada. It is important to
remember that these changes are not constitutional changes in
themselves. Rather these initiatives respond to how Canadians
want their government to respond to the realities of Canadain the 1990s.
Canadians want the government to move forward, to respect the
needs of our people, to make government more accessible. In the
wake of the Quebec referendum, Canadians expected the federal
government to make good on its commitments to maintain a
unified country.
Canadians recognize the need for governments to remain
focused on the issues of importance; issues such as employment
creation, consumer and investor confidence, government spending
and control.
Canadians also recognize that initiatives on distinct society,
regional veto and manpower training will permit the government to
fulfil its obligations to Canadians without allowing the country's
agenda to be hijacked by those who wish to further their own
personal agenda of destroying rather than building our country.
These unity incentives are a very important first step. These
initiatives are also an effective way of dealing with the concerns of
Canadians and of building partnerships with all regions of Canada,
while at the same time not reopening the whole constitutional
debate.
The proposed actions are consistent with what Canadians want
and are the most expeditious way of achieving those goals. For
many of us, both inside and outside government, constitutional
discussions gave rise to concerns of lengthy, protracted debate
without meaningful resolution.
Bill C-110, the act respecting constitutional amendments, does
not raise these concerns. Evidence of this can easily be found in
how government reacted to the issue of regional vetoes. By
responding quickly to the concerns of B.C., the government has
modified its regional veto to include British Columbia as a separate
regional veto. This action flows directly from the commitment to
listen to people and to introduce actions that bring people from all
regions together.
The act, in its present form, would require the consent of
Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, the Atlantic and the prairie
regions before any constitutional amendment can be proposed in
Parliament by the Canadian government. This is, in effect, a
guarantee that each of these five regions will have a general veto in
areas where they do not already have a specific veto. This
authority, simply put, will allow any one of the five regions to stop
an amendment from the outset.
This bill keeps a commitment to all Canadians for increased
protection within the Canadian federation and it recognizes the
Constitution and its amending process is of interest to all parts of
the country. By recognizing a regional veto for the province of
British Columbia, the government is recognizing the existence of a
uniquely Canadian west coast situation.
British Columbia, with its size, population, location and
economic development, constitutes a region of interest that
requires its own recognition on regional issues. By extending this
regional veto power to British Columbia, the government is
reaching out to
17555
Canadians, acknowledging the variously uniquely Canadian
situations and bringing us closer together by helping this part of
Canada survive and strengthen its loyalties.
In a recent Regina editorial, the unity initiative was referred to as
having solid potential and the Prime Minister's olive branch to
Quebec could do what eight years of constitutional debate did not.
This is an indication that the prairie provinces recognize the
importance of a federal government that actively pursues
addressing the regional interests of Canadians. The inclusion of
B.C. in a veto power builds on an initiative and a decisive act that
can be a valuable component of national building.
In the same editorial, the Prime Minister's actions were
described as swift and bold in the government's accommodation of
Quebec. These are again descriptions that could justifiably be used
to describe the government's movement to address the B.C.
situation.
(1200)
The unity initiative promoted by the government is much more
simple than the Charlottetown accord of 1992. Today's bill is much
more concise and limited in its scope, yet it moves to achieve
certain goals that have been sought by regions. Even in Quebec,
sovereignists like Mario Dumont believe that this is a new, much
simpler proposal and should be judged on its own merits.
Before the proposed veto change for B.C., a Vancouver editorial
commented on the Prime Minister's unity package by saying: ``It is
an offer of tangible, substantive change that even Bouchard will
find hard to discredit''. Now that the B.C. veto is being promoted in
this package, one can only assume that certain of those reservations
have now been looked upon and completed with B.C. coming into
the union with a veto.
In Edmonton an editorial comment suggested that the Prime
Minister ``did all he could within the powers of his government'' in
reference to Quebec's uniqueness and the veto rights. Yet it was
this government that once again rose to the occasion by finding a
way to enhance western Canada's position, not at the expense of
others, but in recognition of British Columbia.
One can easily detect the concerns and desires of our Canadian
regions. If one listens and acts in a comprehensive way, the same
regions will recognize that efforts are for the benefit of the whole
and do not jeopardize or favour the position of one region over
another. Simply put, the veto proposal and the added recognition of
British Columbia says to the provinces that no constitutional
change will occur if regions oppose. This is more than any province
has today and the inclusion of B.C. as a separate veto does nothing
to favour one over another.
The Edmonton Journal noted: ``Albertans cannot have
something for nothing. Life, as we know it, would not end if
Alberta lost the provincial veto it never had''.
Many Canadians recognize that unity initiatives are probably
about as far as government can reasonably go in the political
climate of the 1990s. It is the recognition of the desires of
Canadians and a response to the same within the context of
Canadian society and will be acceptable by law. It will also give
Canadians a chance to view the Constitution before any changes
occur.
The proposals for a regional veto try as best as possible to
acknowledge that the country has great variation of population
densities. It would be much easier to divide the geographical area
without the need to regard the population of the regions of the
country. But this is not possible in Canada. What is possible is to
pursue and find a compromise that will address the regional
concerns within the context of national programs. The regional
veto is a logical attempt to balance the will of our regions and its
populations.
In central Canada editorial opinion suggests that the regional
veto is a move that recognizes the reality of the country and its
population. It is the recognition of what Canada is and what we
stand for and how best the government can deliver these services is
the driving force for change. It is not the government proposing
change for the sake of change, but rather change for the sake of
addressing concerns of Canadians.
There was also an observation in a central Canada newspaper
that the unity proposals allowed us to test drive the concepts of
them without enshrining them in our Constitution. Perhaps this is
the most telling observation of Canadian society. We are a people
that do need to be prepared to accept change. We must accept
change, not one region over another, not with the idea of the
contempt of change, but we must make certain that our drive
forward is to unify the country, what we can do to help Canada and
Canadians survive in this ever changing society.
(1205 )
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I will start by
telling the House why I ran for office. Why did I want to come to
this place? To sum it up I would say it was because I could add
something to this country. I believe in this country. I have travelled
extensively and I know what people think of this country.
What is wrong with the country? I thought there was a lack of
equality. The political system was one where the message came
from Ottawa back to the ridings and the parties were too strong. I
was mad because of the GST, because of the national energy
program. I was mad at the arrogance of government. I looked at it
and thought that this was a very centralist place. In the past as I
17556
have mentioned the national energy program and the GST were
forced on people by Ottawa.
I look at this Parliament and I do not see that much has changed.
I see employment equity being forced down people's throats when
others are getting rid of it. I see gun control being forced on people
without any attempt to change any of the clauses. There was the
Quebec referendum where we were told to be happy, that
everything was fine and it was not.
Now there is this unity package and I see closure. Closure is the
ugliest thing that can happen in this place. People are
disenfranchised and are not allowed to speak for their constituents.
Canadians are saying: ``We need jobs. We need tax reform. We
need somebody to deal with the criminal justice system. We need
the reform of Parliament itself. We need more free votes. We need
to know that our MPs can stand up for what we believe''.
Now we get this veto package, which totally lacks a vision for
Canada. This is supposed to be a unity package. It is anything but.
It is anything but creating the equality that we all believe in. We all
want change and this package does anything but allow us to ever
have any future change.
We now will need something in the neighbourhood of 92 per cent
of Canadians in order to get any change by a package like this. Our
hope of free votes, our hope of getting rid of that other place are
gone now. It does anything but provide any kind of unity for the
country.
We look at the government listening to the people. The PCs did
not listen during the GST. They did not listen during
Charlottetown. We saw what happened to them in 1993. We now
have a government that seems to be following the same pattern.
I look to an example of a week ago in Edmonton where the
member from Edmonton East had a meeting. Seventeen people
went to listen to the unity package of the Prime Minister while
across town 800 people were telling us exactly what they thought
of that unity package.
In my riding I have completed a survey that went out last
Thursday. So far we are into the hundreds of returns and 87 per cent
are saying not to give special status or the veto to anybody. That is
87 per cent of the people who answered that question.
The people of the west and the people of Canada are mad.
Yesterday, Mr. Klein dropped out of Team Canada. Is that building
unity? Listen to the message. The government is losing the country.
This centralist top down government will lose the country. Even the
national polls show that 53 per cent of Quebecers are unhappy with
this package as are 58 per cent of the rest of Canada.
Only 23 per cent of Quebecers think this package is worth
anything. It is just a rehash of Meech Lake and Charlottetown.
They did not get the message last time and now they are going to
wait until 1997-98 to get that message. We will never get rid of that
Senate.
There are 105 people who came here because their constituents
demanded change. The separatists want a different approach than
we do but they are asking for change. Not one province is not
asking for change. This government has no vision. It is into this
centralist philosophy of government.
We need some strong leadership to face Mr. Bouchard, a very
credible leader. We do not have it.
(1210 )
We no longer have an amending formula. We have a veto
formula drawn up by a centralist government. The veto is not fair, it
is not equitable and it was done without the consultation of the
people.
How would we get out of this problem? Our Prime Minister had
the obvious opportunity to get out of it by giving the veto to the
people. Give it to all of the people. Do not put in the hands of the
separatists. Do not put it in the hands of provincial politicians. Put
it in the hands of the people. We can trust the people. They have
shown they are involved and will be involved.
The people have spoken. They spoke in Charlottetown. They
spoke in 1993. Of course the people spoke to the referendum. It
was not the politicians that helped the yes side catch up, it was the
people. Everybody, even on the other side, agrees to that.
We need to show some leadership. We need to show some terms
and conditions. What does it mean if a province wants to separate?
Tell it. Put it straight. The people will understand it. It is the
politicians who want to manipulate it. Talk about what land goes
with separation. Talk about the language and the culture, the debt
sharing, the citizenship. Talk about all of those things, including
the protection of minorities, but talk about it. Talk about it with the
people.
We need a vision. We need to fight that separatist dream with a
vision. We need to fight deception and untruths with truth and
facts. That is what this vision is all about. We need to develop a
vision and a passion for Canada. That is what we need.
Many of us felt that in 1967 when we went to Expo in Montreal.
There was passion there. We felt passion during the Olympics in
Calgary. We felt passion whenever we travelled. Last year my
constituency hosted the World Junior Hockey Championship and
there was passion and feeling for what it was to be Canadian. We
were proud of our Canadian kids who won that championship and
who demonstrated what it was like to be Canadian.
Do not whine and cry. Plan a vision. Get a vision for the country.
Show that we are listening to the people. This country is worth
saving. I implore the Prime Minister to get out of the past, do what
17557
is right for Canada. Involve the people. Abandon the centralist
governments of the past which did not work. They will never work.
It will destroy this country if we keep following this path.
Continuing on this course will truly mean the Prime Minister will
go down in history as the Prime Minister who destroyed the
country. We must change that.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I too will begin by speaking about why I am in this House.
My sense of this country and therefore my mission as a member
of Parliament comes from two main things. First, my father was an
immigrant. I do not remember when I first heard how lucky I was
to be a Canadian, how lucky I was to live in this wonderful country,
to have this as my home and as my future. Having come from
Europe my father was very much aware of what a wonderful future
this nation has.
The second reason that gives me a sense of why I am here, of
what my purpose is and what this country is all about I owe to a
grade five teacher whose name I have even forgotten. I was 10
years old and I learned about this country from coast to coast from
that teacher. I learned about the Rockies, the west coast, the east
coast and the north. I also learned about the voyageurs who had
opened up this continent for us. They had travelled on rivers and
through mountain ranges nobody had ever travelled before, except
our aboriginal peoples. From that I have such a strong sense of the
importance of the two founding peoples of this country. Without
the French settlers and explorers who came to the country we
would not have what we have today.
(1215)
An hon. member: We would have something far better.
Ms. Catterall: A member opposite says that we would have
something far better. I could not disagree with him more. To deny
the contribution of the people who came to the continent from
France, who had the courage, as Champlain did, to last an entire
winter at Annapolis and to continue up the St. Lawrence and the
Ottawa rivers into the heartland of the continent, is a denial of what
the country is all about.
The country was built by consent and consensus, not by force
and not by dominance. The three measures now before the House to
reinforce national unity continue the marvellous tradition of
moving ahead together by consent and by consensus, not by one
exercising power over another.
As we came together as a Canadian family at each stage we made
special provisions for newcomers to the family and recognized
their special needs. Whether it was the size of Prince Edward Island
and the assurances it needed with respect to its representation in
Parliament, whether it was British Columbia with its need for the
recognition of a railway to link it to the east, we have always made
special provisions. We respected the fact that we were creating a
family.
That sense of family took a thousand people from my riding and
tens of thousands from all over the country to Montreal on October
27. The hon. member is absolutely right: politicians could not have
created that tremendous outpouring of goodwill and love for our
country and commitment to keeping Quebec within Canada.
However politicians could make it possible, as many of us did, for
the people we represent to have the means of expressing that
sentiment.
[Translation]
In the last week of the referendum campaign, the Prime Minister
of Canada promised Quebecers that Quebec would be recognized
as a distinct society within Canada, that no constitutional changes
affecting Quebec would be made without their consent, and that
changes would be initiated to bring citizens closer to services and
to decision making.
[English]
It may be unusual for the Reform Party to see in place a
government and a Prime Minister that keep their commitments.
Just as we did in the 1993 election when we put forward very
clearly our commitments to Canadians and our intention to keep
them, in the last two weeks we have been doing exactly what the
Prime Minister committed to do.
We are not trying to pacify, appease or please the separatists or
gain their consent for what we are doing. We know they will not
consent to anything that will unify and strengthen the country. We
certainly are trying to speak to Canadians across Canada who want
to see change, who want to see us moving forward together and not
as the western separatists or the Quebec separatists want.
With the recognition of a veto for each of the regions of the
country, we are saying that if we are to change the relationship that
binds us together we will have to work at building a consensus
around it. We cannot have parts of the country imposing their will
on other parts of the country. That is not easy to do, but it is
important that as we move forward we do it with consensus as we
have done to this point in our history.
(1220)
People have been concerned about distinct society and what it
recognizes. First I will talk about the meaning of the word distinct.
It does not, as some would have us believe, mean special, better,
superior in some way or deserving of special treatment. It means
different.
If there is one person in the Chamber who does not feel a great
pride or does not accept that Quebec, with its majority French
17558
language, its unique culture and its law system that is different
from that of the rest of the country, constitutes a part of Canada that
is different and by its very difference enriches the whole country, I
am not sure he or she understands what the country is all about.
Concern has been expressed about how this might affect our
attitude to people of different ethnic cultures, backgrounds and
origins. I say to them the respect for diversity of the country is
found in the original agreement that created the country, that we
would respect each other's differences and each other's languages.
Without the initial bargain of Confederation we would not have a
country that is now a model for the world of how people of
different cultures, backgrounds and languages can live together as
one while respecting each other's uniqueness.
For the House to simply say we recognize the distinct nature of
Quebec within the Canadian family and we undertake to respect
that distinctness as we move forward with the business of the
nation is not a threat to anybody. It is a reassurance to people who
badly need to know that the rest of the country does value and does
not intend to try to dominate, demean or diminish the special
society that has been built in Quebec. Nor does it diminish our
commitment as a federal government or our obligations of
fiduciary responsibility for aboriginal peoples everywhere in the
country inside and outside Quebec.
I will speak about the veto briefly. Perhaps there are some who
feel that the majority simply by its numbers should be able to
dominate and have its way. I am not one of those. I believe we can
continue to solve our problems and our differences and to change
and grow in the future by agreeing together as we have always done
in the past.
I am proud to support the changes that have been brought
forward. I am proud to look forward to a future for my children in a
united Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): As you know, Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the House of Commons passed a motion recognizing
Quebec as a distinct society. For us in the Bloc Quebecois, this
motion was pointless because it was insufficient. Why? Because it
does not recognize Quebec's special status and does not actually
grant that province any additional powers.
Today we are debating Bill C-110 dealing with constitutional
amendments. This bill would give certain provinces a say
concerning the federal veto over constitutional amendments.
There have been many speeches so far, and I think it would be a
good idea to remind those listening to us of the bill's purpose.
(1225)
The bill reads as follows:
No minister of the crown shall propose a motion for a resolution to authorize
an amendment to the Constitution of Canada- unless the amendment has first
been consented to by a majority of the provinces that includes:
(a) Ontario;
(b) Quebec;
This majority must also include the Atlantic provinces, provided
that at least two of the four provinces represent 50 per cent of the
population; and at least two of the three prairie provinces, provided
that these two provinces represent 50 per cent of the population.
Following the representations made by BC residents, and
particularly by the third party, British Columbia was granted a
veto. One might think that, had some pressure also been exerted by
residents of other parts of the country, for example Yukon or the
Northwest Territories, these regions might also have been given a
veto.
If Bill C-110 is passed, three provinces will have a veto: Ontario,
Quebec and British Columbia. The other provinces would have
such a veto by groups of two, as long as they represent 50 per cent
of the population of their region.
What did the 1982 formula provide? Let us compare the current
proposal with the 1982 formula. The 1982 Constitution provides a
veto, not only for the federal government, but also for the
provinces, although that constitution was rejected by Quebecers,
through their National Assembly, in 1982. There is a formula
provided in the Constitution.
What does it say? It provides that constitutional amendments
require the approval of seven provinces, or 50 per cent of the total
population.
In our opinion, Bill C-110 offers less than Meech and
Charlottetown. Quebecers thought Charlottetown did not go far
enough, while the rest of Canada, and particularly the western
provinces, felt that it was going too far. Since Bill C-110 provides
less than that, you will understand that the Bloc Quebecois, which
looks after the interests of Quebecers, is not happy with that
measure. The Reform Party, which primarily represents western
Canada, thinks it is still going too far. This is a catch 22 situation,
and the more we forge ahead, the worse things get.
Another major problem with Bill C-110 is that it only commits
the House of Commons. Therefore, it can be assumed that,
following a change of government, after an election, the Reform
Party could hassle the new government and, if it displayed its
current attitude, could prompt that new government to repeal this
piece of legislation.
17559
This is not really a constitutional change, but merely a bill that
could be superseded by another, as the current government could
easily do, given its majority.
But the fundamental problem with the federal system as we
know it rests mainly with a distribution of powers that favours the
federal government too much. Through its spending power and
under special circumstances, it invades provincial jurisdictions
from which it never withdraws afterwards.
The Quebecers who voted on October 30 were hoping for a more
meaningful veto. They will not buy this bill that may be amended
by the next government. The provinces did not consent to this bill
being introduced.
Why not have had this veto proposal tested by submitting it to
the provinces for discussion? No, the Prime Minister did try to get
discussions going, but he was put in his place in no time flat, as
they say. So, he consulted only with the members of his party in the
federal government.
(1230)
Now the amendment to include British Columbia in the deal
made the people of Alberta and the aboriginal peoples unhappy. As
we can see, instead of putting an end to the debate, this bill is
keeping it going. If that trend can be reversed, it should be pointed
out.
But what matters to the people of Quebec is that they are a
people, one of the founding peoples of Canada. For any
negotiations on the future of Quebec to be successful, it must be
recognized from the outset that the people of Quebec are masters of
their own destiny. Bill C-110 respecting a so-called veto for
Quebec does not meet the expectations of one of the founding
peoples of Canada, namely Quebec. This bill responds solely to the
electoral ambitions of the Liberal Party of Canada.
All of the governments of Quebec for the past 35 years have, as
representatives of the people of Quebec, demanded repatriation of
the legislative powers that will be essential for Quebec's social and
economic development. All of Quebec's efforts to negotiate a new
agreement with the rest of Canada over the past 35 years have
arisen out of a desire to change how powers are shared.
This bill is not a satisfactory response to the promises made by
the Prime Minister at the meeting in Verdun in late October. No one
in Quebec believed the federal government would propose such an
insignificant veto to the people of Quebec, not even the militants of
the Quebec Liberal Party who voted no on October 30, 1995. No
Quebec government, whether PQ or Liberal, has ever had such an
insignificant change to the constitutional amending formula in
mind. Quebec has traditionally demanded a true constitutional veto
for Quebec, not a mere legislative promise not to proceed
unilaterally during the lifetime of this present government.
It would appear that the Prime Minister wants to save face by
pretending to keep his referendum promises, but Quebecers have
not been taken in. This sham veto does not meet the needs for
change expressed by Quebecers-far from it. All that it is is a
continuation of the unilateral patriation of the Constitution in 1982
and the imposition of Trudeau's Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
and none of this was agreed to by Quebec, not only not by the PQ,
but not by the Quebec Liberals either. Even Claude Ryan, that ultra
federalist, who was then leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, did not
agree.
Instead of offering constitutional change, this is one more
padlock to prevent future constitutional changes in a process
already complicated by the so-called Canada Bill of 1982, which
required the consent of the federal government and seven provinces
out of ten representing 50 per cent of the population. And now, the
federal government will make exercising a veto even more
difficult. In addition to the veto powers I just explained, the
government's own veto will depend on how it is exercised by five
regions, in two of which the consent of at least two provinces will
be needed.
Quebec's motto is: ``Je me souviens'', and we on this side of the
House remember that the man who moved the patriation of the
Constitution of 1982 is the same person who is now proposing a
padlock that will prevent any future changes.
[English]
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure and a privilege to have the opportunity to
speak on such important legislation as Bill C-110, an act respecting
constitutional amendments.
Many hon. members over the past couple of days have spoken on
this most important issue and debate has flowed from both sides of
the House. We have have heard all the figures and all the
mechanics, such as the five and seven ratio. That is fine. I do not
want to go over the facts and figures and the mechanics. I want
begin my presentation with a quotation from two distinguished
Canadians who gave their heart and soul to Canada.
(1235)
I quote Sir John A. Macdonald:
If I had influence over the minds of the people of Canada, any power over
their intellect, I would leave them with this legacy. Whatever you do, adhere to
the union. We are a great nation and shall become one of the greatest in the
universe if we preserve it. We shall sink into insignificance and adversity if we
suffer it to be broken. It is God and nature who made Canada one. Let no person
be allowed to put it asunder.
Another great Canadian, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, said this:
This cathedral is made of marble, oak and granite. It is the image of a nation I
would like to see Canada become. For here, I want the granite to remain the
granite, the oak to remain the oak, and out of all of these elements I would build
a nation great among the nations of the world.
17560
Approximately 100 years later the words that were spoken by
these two distinguished Canadians we hear today from nations, that
Canada is the best country in the world in which to live. I reach out
to members in the House and tell them how blessed we are and I
continuously remind my family and friends of that.
I really do not know what is going on here. I noticed last week
that the new words inscribed in the coat of arms state: ``They desire
a better country''. These two distinguished Canadians desired a
better country. Each and every one who came to this country,
whether as immigrants, such as our parents or grandparents, came
because they desired a better country. People came to build on the
foundations that Laurier and Macdonald established for us.
Where do we go from here? Do we have the will to survive? I say
we must develop a Canadian soul. We must develop unity and pride
and share it publicly. We must share the joy of being Canadian,
share the joy of being unique among nations.
I am afraid of what has happened because this whole situation is
out hand. Specifically, there seems to be a shoving match because
neither the Bloc Quebecois nor the Reform Party are prepared to
say: ``Yes, we have made a mistake. Yes, our country comes before
petty politics. Yes, there are times for give and take as the Fathers
of Confederation did''.
The country said yes to the railway in order to appease British
Columbia in past years to make the union strong. I really fear what
is taking place in the country right now.
I took my family to see the Lion King not too long ago. What I
see across the way reminds me of the hyenas and the vultures, just
sitting there waiting to grasp on to a situation. It worries me
greatly. It worries me because we must be accountable to our
children and our grandchildren and their children in generations to
come. I am concerned because I do not even want to think of the
day when I will sit with my grandchildren, and if God keeps me
well, with my great grandchildren and tell them what a great
country we had called Canada. There is a possibility that my
grandchildren and great grandchildren will need a passport to visit
their friends in Montreal or Quebec City. I do not even want to
think about that.
Today I want to reach out, not just to members of the Bloc or the
Reform Party who say they speak on behalf of their constituents. I
do not believe that for a moment. On October 28, at three or four
o'clock in the morning many of my colleagues and their
constituents, seniors and students came together at Lawrence and
Midland to load on to buses and take that six and a half hour ride to
Montreal. They did not do it to beg Quebecers to stay in Canada.
What they did was show their true love for this country. They tried
to tell the nation from sea to sea to sea that we are one strong,
united country and it only makes sense to keep it strong and united.
(1240)
Their only means of getting to Montreal that day was in buses
and planes organized by the members of the Liberal Party. I want to
take this opportunity to thank the unity committee for its efforts in
putting that project together.
I am concerned because there seems to be a falsification of the
facts. The leader of the Bloc Quebecois stands up and through
innuendo creates strawmen in trying to touch the emotional aspects
of an ambiguous question, a question that was full of misleading
statements, a question that was full of gaps, a question that had no
substance, a question that was misleading.
I walked the streets of Montreal. I visited grocery stores. I
visited restaurants. The people were confused right up to the very
last minute. They did not know what they were voting for. God
forbid if there is another referendum. I certainly would advocate
putting a straightforward question to the people of Quebec: Do you
want to stay in Canada or do you want to leave Canada? Do you
want to continue to be a Canadian or do you want to become
something else?
We are a relatively young nation compared to most of the nations
in the world. But in that short period of time, we have managed to
attain the status of the number one country in the world.
Earlier I spoke about Laurier and Macdonald. They too were
immigrants. I am proud to stand in this House 100 or so years later,
another immigrant, defending this country. It is a darn shame that
we have members from the Bloc, members from the Reform. I was
not born here but I am blessed to be living in this country.
There are not words that I can say to the members of the Reform
or the Bloc that will change their minds. I am not going to attempt
to, but I will be speaking to my friends in Montreal and in Quebec
City and I am going to tell them what is the truth.
Members of the Reform Party keep flipping back and forth. The
vision of their 20-point plan is this. They say they represent the rest
of Canada and the rest of Canada does not want any province to
have special rights over any other province. They say that they will
never vote for a bill that gives one province more power than
another. They forgot they felt this way when they brought out their
20-point new Confederation package. In it the leader of the Reform
Party states that his party is in favour of Canada being split into
five regions, in favour-
Mr. Johnston: That is rubbish.
Mr. Stinson: Be honest for a change.
Mr. Cannis: Be honest with the people of Canada. Do not get in
front of the TV cameras and make a scene trying to score cheap
17561
political points. Members will have to answer to the people of
Canada. That day is not too far off.
Mr. Johnston: You bet.
An hon. member: That will not wash.
Mr. Cannis: The debate we are having in this honourable House
on this motion is a very unique opportunity. It is an opportunity to
lay the groundwork and to send a signal to Quebecers and all
Canadians for 1997. It is a signal to the official opposition. It is a
signal to the Reform Party to save face and to show solidarity, to
work together, to create a climate for economic prosperity.
Working Canadians are happy Canadians. This agenda is about
getting Canadians back to work, bringing some dignity into the
household.
We must make this Canada the nation that it deserves to be,
second to none. I am proud to support this legislation. Yes, I will
have to answer to the people of Canada come election time and so
will all members. God bless Canada.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am standing today to oppose Bill C-110 for a number of
reasons.
(1245 )
I find this bill extremely divisive. After listening to the hon.
member from the other side who just spoke I find it even more
divisive. Here is a government that had its opportunity during the
referendum in Quebec. The Prime Minister said: ``Don't worry, be
happy. We are happy. Canada has no reason for concern over what
might happen in Quebec''.
Government members told us and all of Canada that it was only a
small movement in Quebec that was looking for separatism, and
the Canadian people believed them. The Reform Party never
believed them. We told them there were all kinds of warning signs
that this was a stronger movement than government members were
telling the Canadian people. The Prime Minister likes to play like
an ostrich and bury his head in the sand, unfortunately. We almost
lost that province through acts such as this. This great government
decided to tell the people. It tells them anything but the truth.
Now we stand here today, the day after the vote on distinct
society, on which closure was invoked. We stand here today
discussing the veto. No matter how we look at this we see a
government that has gone on its hands and knees begging a
separatist government to please on board. In order to do this it is
willing to sell out the rest of Canada. When government members
start talking about veto powers to certain provinces, when they start
telling people that because of the regions they live in they will have
more power than other people in different regions, they are asking
for trouble.
When I was brought up and in school I was taught the number
one law in Canada is equality of all of its citizens, not a select few,
not for the few who sit here in government, but for all citizens of
Canada. The bills we have seen in the last few days absolutely
contradict everything we have been taught about Canada. The
government has decided that because of our ethnic backgrounds
some of us can no longer be classified as Canadians; they will be
distinct Canadians. What does it think this does to the rest of the
people in Canada?
We hear from hon. members on the other side that there are two
founding nations. That went out over a hundred years ago. There
are many Canadian citizens and they want to be called Canadian
citizens, not on the basis of their ethnic backgrounds. They came
here to be Canadians and yet bills such as this cut that all apart.
The government will create a backlash that will see once again in
all probability the ugly head of western separatism rise. Yet the
government has no fear of that. It does not worry about that. Its
members say: ``We gave B.C. the veto. Shouldn't you be happy?''
The Prime Minister was led kicking and screaming to give B.C.
the veto. I remind the government there is no way he wanted to give
B.C. the veto. It is not so much that B.C. wanted that veto; it was to
appease the rest of Canada. It is backfiring.
We heard another member say the Reform Party was in favour of
the five regions. Let us set the record straight. We put 20 questions
out to be discussed by the people of Canada, not by some high and
mighty, so-called little tin god the government thinks it is.
(1250 )
If there are concerns about any part of these 20 questions, please
come back to the Reform Party and address these problems. We
stand by taking it to the people and letting the people decide what
our policy should be. Not one of these becomes policy until passed
by our members, not by the elite few like the government members
with their policies.
Let us look at what we give up. Under this veto power there will
be no change. The status quo will go on forever. One region may
decide it is against its best interest or another region will decide it
is against its best interest. Therefore nothing will change except the
fostering of greater discontent from the Canadian taxpayer's not
being able to see change made.
We will not see a centralized government which is what the
government is trying to pull here. If anything, it will be torn further
apart. We will see the people finally rising up and saying they have
had enough of this dictatorial state from a one person government.
We will find that people will look at this as a return to the
Charlottetown accord, soundly defeated across Canada. Because
the accord was defeated, the government will find those back doors
17562
to open this up, bring it forward and pass it into law. It will pay no
attention to how that vote went.
The government does nothing to listen to the people. It has no
intention of ever listening to the people of Canada. Its members'
only intention is to make sure their plates are full of whatever they
need to eat, that they are warm, safe and cuddly while their pay
cheques comes in on time. That is the only concern I can see that
the Liberal government has ever thought about in the last two
years.
Look at their vision. The Liberals say they have a great vision, a
vision of a united Canada. All Canadians have that vision. It might
come as a shock to the government, but it does not really have to go
out and sell that. It has to be honest to the Canadian people. It must
tell them exactly what it is giving to the separatist government in
Quebec. People will understand. The government is selling them
out. It is selling out the Canadian public and making a poor job of
it.
These proposals will do nothing to promote national unity. We
sit here every day and listen to the sell, sell, sell idea from the
government. I have to admit, some members over there could sell
snow in Alaska. They practice very well. They study this: ``Be
happy, it will not hurt''. However, every time one of these things is
implemented it hurts. The Liberals will come back in about six
months and say: ``We did not realize there was any concern.
Nobody told us there was any concern''. That is their standard
answer on anything they do.
We came back here thinking we still lived in a democratic
country. No, we do not. When governments can put time closure it
is no longer a democracy.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased
to participate on the debate on Bill C-110.
(1255 )
I will outline some of the salient features of what I consider a
sound, innovative piece of legislation. The bill on the regional veto
will require the consent of Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia and
the Atlantic and the prairie regions before any constitutional
amendments can be proposed in Parliament by the Government of
Canada. Currently only the House of Commons has an absolute
veto over any constitutional amendment.
The bill guarantees Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, the
Atlantic region and the prairie region a general veto over any
constitutional amendment in areas where they do not already have
an absolute veto or right of withdrawl. This veto will apply to
changes to national institutions such as the Senate, the creation of
new provinces and any amendments regarding the distribution of
powers.
Under the bill a constitutional amendment will have to receive
the consent of at least six provinces, including Quebec, Ontario,
British Columbia, two provinces from the Atlantic region
representing more than 50 per cent of the region's population, and
two provinces in the prairie region representing more than 50 per
cent of the prairie's population, before it can proceed to Parliament.
The federal government could not proceed to table an
amendment if one of the regions refused to give its consent, even if
seven provinces or more representing 50 per cent of Canada's
population passed resolutions in favour of the amendment. The
consent of the provinces and the regions will be expressed in
various forms: by direct notice, a vote in the legislative assemblies
or by a referendum.
The bill does not amend the Canadian Constitution.
Nevertheless, an act of the federal Parliament is a serious measure.
This law will become part of Canada's consolidated statutes and
will be binding on the current government and on succeeding
governments.
In tabling the bill, the Government of Canada is keeping its
commitment to Quebecers and ensuring them increased protection
within the Canadian federation in a way that should not offend its
sister provinces. Moreover, the Government of Canada has
recognized that the constitutional amendment process is of interest
to all parts of the country. That is why the federal government is
lending its veto to the five regions of the country, treating all
regions fairly and equitably.
Now is not the time to hold a series of constitutional discussions.
The Government of Quebec and its premier in waiting are
unequivocally devoted to their secessionist option. If future
conditions were to change where Quebec and the other regions
were to agree the veto proposed by the bill could be incorporated
into the Constitution. This will be for future discussion and future
debate; this after due consideration and with the contribution and
input from our constituents, the citizens of Canada.
In the past attempts to accommodate Quebec within the
Constitution have failed. When the citizens of the country voted
against the Charlottetown accord in 1992 they rejected a complex
package of changes to the Constitution, including an elected
Senate, which I agree with, aboriginal self-government, a veto for
each province on changes to the composition of the Senate, the
House of Commons and the Supreme Court, and the recognition of
Quebec as a distinct society.
The Prime Minister's new, much simpler proposal is easily
understood and should be judged on its merits.
In the past in attempts to accommodate Quebec within the
Constitution Canadians outside of Quebec were united on one key
point, and I agree wholeheartedly with them, that Quebec not be
given powers which would make Quebecers more equal than their
fellow Canadians. A veto for Quebec alone, even if it applied only
17563
to language, culture and civil law, would have meant very special
status, which the majority of Canadians oppose. My constituents
would oppose special status for any region.
On the other hand, a veto for all 10 provinces would have
enabled situations to exist; for example, the claim that Prince
Edward Island, with a population 130,000, could thwart Ontario's
democratically expressed aspirations. A provincial veto would be
easier to champion if every provinces had the same number of
citizens. They obviously do not.
Some are not thrilled with having their province lumped in with
others in a geographical region. If they are honest with themselves
they will realize the regional veto recognizes the reality of the
country and its population.
The government's regional veto is a logical attempt to balance
fairly equal blocs of population so that aspirations of several
million people are not thwarted by several hundred thousand. Is
this not fair and equitable?
If every province had a veto a national compromise would prove
more difficult to negotiate than all of our combined frustrating
constitutional negotiations of the recent past.
It is important to point out that until 1982 Quebec had a de facto
veto, if not a constitutionally entrenched one, over fundamental
constitutional change. The proposed change restores the principle
which was done away with by René Levesque in the final
negotiations of the 1982 Canada Act.
(1300)
Despite difficulties, Canada grew and prospered for 125 years
with a Quebec veto. We should ask ourselves now how long it
could last without one. Canadians now realize that we cannot
continue to build a strong, unified federation by trying to force
Quebecers to accept a Constitution that is definitely not acceptable
to them.
Canadians from all parts of the country began the crusade for
Canada at the Montreal rally. We have a responsibility to take up
the mantle and seek the final victory. I further point out that we are
dealing with an act of Parliament which can be amended and
repealed, rather than a binding constitutional change. Let us give it
a try. We should think of what we might lose if we do not.
The legislation is a welcome attempt to wrest debate on
Canada's future out of the hands of separatists. All Canadians want
and are entitled to a say on the issue. It is an offer of a tangible,
substantial change that even the Leader of the Opposition and his
cohorts have found difficult to discredit. It is one with which the
rest of Canada can live, albeit with some reservations.
It was interesting to see how the Leader of the Opposition and
his cohorts explained to Quebecers why they were not interested in
accepting an offer that Quebec felt it required. The Leader of the
Opposition and his cohorts say that no federal offer to Quebec
would ever be acceptable. Their sights and their egos are set on an
independent country. They fail to appreciate that in the most recent
referendum Quebecers again rejected sovereignty. Yet these
separatists continue to contradict the people who elected them and
strive for the goal the majority of Quebecers have rejected. They
are democratic when the people agree with them and autocratic
when they do not.
The proposals send a clear message to Quebecers that the
Reform Party's shrill cries do not reflect the views of the rest of
Canada. There is a willingness in the nation to make some
reasonable accommodation for Quebec. The Bloc Quebecois does
not have the appropriate answer. I remind Reform members that
western Canadians wish for Canada to stay in one piece. Life will
not end if Alberta loses the provincial veto it never had. There is no
dishonour in losing a minor disagreement to keep a wonderful
treasure: Canada. It is a small price to pay for a united country. The
obligation to compromise is not really that difficult or that horrible.
Canada is weary of the Quebec issue, but at the same time it is
very concerned about the Quebec issue. Many Canadians will
admit to nights of fitful sleep leading to the referendum on October
30 and a collective sigh of relief when the majority of Quebecers
rejected separation.
Bill C-110 is a welcome step forward. It is not the end or even
the beginning of the end of our constitutional malaise. The
separatists who deem it unacceptable should ask their constituents
for their opinion and then be honest with themselves and with us, as
it gives much of what Quebecers want. At the same time the
constitutional veto powers to Quebec, Ontario, the Atlantic
provinces, the prairie provinces and British Columbia should
alleviate concerns that Quebec would have regional powers the rest
of the country would not. Have we not struck a reasonable
compromise, a compromise with which we can all truly live?
The government has acted in good faith. Although these
proposals lack constitutional clout, they could very well represent
the best and perhaps the only hope to keep our country strong and
united. I urge members of the House to put aside petty regional
jealousies and partisan politics. These proposals deserve the
support of all who would keep this great country together.
Give unity a chance. Give Canada a chance.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with
great interest and a sense of conviction that I rise in the House
today to speak to Bill C-110 introduced by the government, a bill
that would add to our constitutional jargon one more formula to
amend a Constitution that the Quebec nation rejected when it
refused to sign in 1982.
17564
I rise in the House today with a sense of conviction because since
yesterday, when the Prime Minister was again heard to deny the
very meaning of these meagre proposals for change, I feel I have an
even better case for attacking this government's indecent show of
irresponsibility on a subject as fundamental as an agreement
concluded in the past by two founding peoples.
(1305)
Yes, like millions of fellow Quebecers, I heard the Prime
Minister yesterday renege on his referendum commitments and put
on the back burner all good intentions he served up in a panic to
Quebecers towards the end of the referendum campaign.
Those who believed the Prime Minister was sincere, when he
promised sweeping changes after the referendum, realized
yesterday how thoroughly and rudely they had been tricked.
In an interview on the CBC, I heard the Prime Minister explain
the thinking behind the changes he is proposing. I heard the Prime
Minister say that he had promised Quebec three little things, and
those are his words.
So, if we are to believe the statement the Prime Minister made
yesterday to the nation, the government is inviting us to debate one
of the three little things-Bill C-110.
What of this little thing for Quebec? Really, it is not much at all.
We knew as much, even though, until yesterday, the government
members were doing their best to sell this provision to Quebecers
like it was the find of the century. In a gesture of magnanimous
imperialism, the federal government is trying to show its
generosity towards Quebec in lending it a veto.
In fact, the federal government is dangling a veto in front of
Quebec, which does not come under the province's jurisdiction, but
rather that of the federal government. At any time, the government
may circumvent the opinion and the jurisdiction of the National
Assembly by imposing its own rules on the use of this bogus veto.
What the federal government claims to be giving with one hand,
it is already preparing to take away with the other. In Quebec, we
have got used to this sort of double cross in the course of the
various attempts at constitutional reform. Never, however, has the
affront reached the level of being written into a bill. Never
throughout the fruitless constitutional negotiations of the past has
anyone thought of serving up such insignificance to Quebec.
In this regard, federalist utterances are fairly paradoxical. To the
Quebecers, the return of the veto is being heralded. To English
Canada, with the Prime Minister having to justify his poor
referendum performance, the bill is being touted as nothing at all.
Just enough to cobble together a few sad promises that they already
regret have made, while appearing to formally resolve the big issue
of national unity.
This bill must be rejected because it became obvious as soon as
it was introduced that it was thrown together hastily. Originally
designed, according to the government, to meet one of Quebec's
historical demands, it is now so watered down that every province
would also get a veto at the same time, including those who have
never demanded one.
Let us acknowledge right off the bat that the federal offer to give
Quebec its veto back is based on false premises. The government
accuses Quebec's sovereignist leaders, René Lévesque first of all,
of losing Quebec's veto after giving up on it. That is a false
premise, as federal mandarins and the Minister of Justice know full
well. In 1982, the Supreme Court ruled that Quebec did not have a
veto and never had one. In a second ruling following the irreparable
patriation of the Constitution led by today's Prime Minister, the
Supreme Court concluded that Quebec never had a veto.
It is clear that neither this government nor English Canada want
a real veto for Quebec, as demonstrated by the fact that this bill
provides for not one but four vetoes, with a fifth one that recently
surfaced. Since they do not really have anything to give, they are
generous: they are willing to give everything to everyone. Yet,
when the time comes to give Quebec what it has rightfully
demanded for decades, they only respond with pettiness,
narrow-mindedness, and a total disregard for the hope for major
changes expressed by Quebecers in the last referendum.
(1310)
It only took a short 40 days for all the solemn promises and
demonstrations of love and affection to boil down to three
meaningless proposals. First, a distinct society motion of no legal
significance, that has already been disavowed by the Prime
Minister who denies the very existence of a Quebec culture.
Second, a veto granted, or rather imposed on everyone, a veto no
sooner granted than it is taken back, given that the federal
government is the only one with fiduciary rights. And finally, a
travesty of transfer of jurisdiction over manpower training, an area
in which the government takes pleasure in shifting responsibility
without the related financial authority.
Indeed, the interpretation the Prime Minister gave yesterday is
accurate: these are three small things that he is giving the people of
Quebec to fulfil his promises and meet the expectations of those
who voted no in the referendum, confident that the change
promised were coming.
But a great people makes great things. It refuses to let
imperialism impose small things on it. That is what we call pride.
17565
And I will proudly vote against this bill.
[English]
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I deem it an
opportunity to speak to Bill C-110 which gives a regional veto and
to the amendment which changes the number of divisions from
four to five.
The question I ask today in rising to speak on report stage of Bill
C-110 is why we are here in this situation. Why are we here at this
time? What has led us to this discussion?
If we look back to the beginning of this parliamentary session in
October 1993 and the spring of 1994 we had certain expectations. I
had an expectation of the Liberal government. For nine years it sat
in opposition. The rules are clearly set out in Beauchesne's. Any
group that sits in the place of official opposition is there to prepare
to take over government and to be ready to take on the
responsibility.
I asked a question early in this session that I ask again today.
Was that Liberal opposition ready to be the Government of
Canada? Clearly it was not, for in the first session of the spring of
1994 the government did not move on its fiscal policy. There was
no plan to reduce the deficit of the country. There were complaints
about what the Conservatives did previously but nothing in terms
of a plan to deal with the deficit of the country and on a long term
basis to bring the deficit of the country to zero and balance the
budget. That was it.
In other areas, for example social policy, pension issues and
justice issues, there was a whole string of committee reports,
sittings and studies done. The House leader for the Liberal Party
mentioned over and over again that he had to study something. It
became an item of humour in the current House, in the 35th
session, that things were being studied and no decisions were being
made. That is what happened and things have been allowed to drift
because of it.
It has been a do nothing time since 1994. A huge social policy
review has now come forward and produced nothing. There is still
a white paper on pension reform that is 20 months overdue. That is
the setting in which the discussion on Bill C-110 is placed.
The government made it up as it went along. It has resulted in ill
conceived policies that do not work, for example the policies of the
human resources minister on employment insurance. The question
is: Will it really get anyone back to employment? We question that.
(1315)
They are hollow, symbolic policies that do not attack the real
problems which have been presented to us. The best example of
that in this current House is the justice minister's gun control bill
which is supposed to stop crime when a gun is registered. As we
have said over and over again, that is the most foolish thing we
have ever heard.
If we look at the current piece of legislation in that context, we
again find that even the Prime Minister's referendum strategy that
occurred before October 30, 1995 was a fly by the seat of your
pants stewardship. There was no plan for any renewed federalism,
only more of the status quo. There was no effort to dispel the
separatist myth of a painless divorce, only silence. There was no
concept of a referendum strategy, only a hope that if nobody said
anything it would turn out all right. We know that the vote was very
close. It almost cost us the country of Canada because of the
Liberal government being ill prepared and only knee jerk reacting
to every one of its responsibilities.
We look at this legislation and the Prime Minister has done it
again. Having made a desperate promise in the last week of the
campaign that Daniel Johnson would not let him forget, the Prime
Minister and three or four of his advisers huddled on the third floor
of centre block and came to the conclusion of providing a unity
package. They put that proposal before us to study.
The unity package is going to do more to divide Canada than to
bring it together. Looking at it within Quebec, what has it done
within Quebec? Has it brought Quebec into Canada? No, it has not.
The potential new premier of Quebec has said in this House
regarding the proposal: Is this all that Canada has to offer?
The federalist cupboards are bare. It has not satisfied that
seemingly unquenchable thirst in Quebec at all. It has caused more
division. Other Canadians are asking: ``Why do you keep giving it
things when you are not treating the rest of Canada in an equal
way?''
Is this package any better than the Meech Lake or Charlottetown
proposals? Many of us have called it Charlottetown light because it
promises less to Quebec. As such, how is it ever going to do more
for the federalist cause in Quebec?
Outside of Quebec what is it doing? Outside of Quebec we feel
this legislation and the distinct society resolution will only divide
Canadians, rather than unite them. For example, with this regional
veto proposal, even after the government amendments which are
being proposed here to change the divisions from four to five,
British Columbia and Alberta are still opposing the bill. There must
be something drastically wrong when the regions do not accept it,
even after they have had a little more say in the outcome of the
veto. Through its own actions, the Liberal government is creating
what we think are first and second class provinces. This is more of
the old style traditional politics of tired old federalists.
Over the course of a week or two the Prime Minister and his
cronies cooked up a Quebec package. Now they are trying to shove
it down the throats of not only Parliament, but of all Canadians. We
17566
must remember that we each stand in our place as representatives
of all Canadians.
We have to recognize that the provinces were not consulted. The
people were not consulted. Not even all the members of the Liberal
caucus were consulted in terms of the process in reaching a final
conclusion or proposals that were presented to the House of
Commons.
As my final point, I raise the matter that there has been some
confusion over Reform's own proposal on constitutional
ratification. Some people have misunderstood the regional aspect
of it and have asked about the difference between the government's
proposal and Reform's proposal. The difference is that we believe
there should not-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry, your time has
expired.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. When I rose on debate it was 10 after the hour and it is now
17.5 minutes after the hour. I have been standing for 7.5 minutes. I
would appreciate it if you would check your clock.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I have 1.13 p.m. I will give
you another minute and a half. Sorry.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): You have cut me off on other
occasions. I do not accept what you have just done.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): You may have the extra
minute and a half. I was not in the Chair and I do not intentionally
cut off any member of this House.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the
change in the course of events. I have a final point I want to make
within the minute I have.
It is very clear what we are attempting to do in this House of
Commons is to make an amendment to section 38(1)(a) of the
current Constitution Act of Canada. This amendment allows the
provinces and their legislatures to make a vote with regard to this
matter. The Reform Party clearly wants to have the people of
Canada by referendum vote in the regions to determine what
constitutional changes come about. That is the distinct difference
that we believe in.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I would like to correct the
hon. member. You started at 1.09 p.m. and the clerks have you
down as being 11 minutes and not 10.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent for a couple of
motions. I move:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, immediately after the disposal of the
report stage of Bill C-110 this day, the House shall consider the third reading stage
of Bill C-108, followed by the third reading stage of Bill C-99, followed by
consideration of Private Members' Business, followed by adjournment
proceedings;
That, during the consideration of Bill C-108, no member may speak for more
than 10 minutes, not more than one member of the Liberal Party, two members
of the Bloc Quebecois and one member of the Reform Party may speak, and at
the completion of the debate, the question shall be deemed to have been put and
a division thereon demanded and deferred until 5.15 p.m. on December 13,
1995;
That, during consideration of Bill C-99, no member may speak for more than
10 minutes, not more than one member of each recognized party may speak, and
at the completion of the debate, the question shall be deemed to have been put
and carried.
I should also advise there will be no questions or comments
following any of the speeches indicated in the motion I have just
read to the House. I seek consent of the House for adoption of this
motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I move:
That, during the consideration of the motion of the Secretary of State for
Parliamentary Affairs concerning the report of the Standing Committee on
Finance tabled this day, on Thursday, December 14, 1995, no dilatory motions
shall be received and no quorum calls shall be entertained;
That, after the the conclusion of Private Members' Business on Thursday,
December 14, 1995, the House shall continue to sit for two hours and thirty
minutes for the purpose of considering the aforementioned motion and shall
then adjourn, provided that the House may, by unanimous consent, order the
sitting further extended for a specified period for the purpose of considering the
said motion; and
That the House shall not sit on Friday, December 15, 1995, provided that, for
the purposes of Standing Order 28, it shall be deemed to have sat and adjourned
on that day.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-110, an act
respecting constitutional amendments, as reported (without
amendment) from the committee; and Motions Nos. 1 and 2.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (Secretary of State (Science, Research and
Development), Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill
C-110, the bill which provides for a regional veto over changes to
our Canadian Constitution.
17567
(1325 )
The bill provides for a historic recognition that the people of
Quebec should have input into and a veto over constitutional
change which affects national institutions such as the Senate, and
any amendments which might affect the distribution of powers. At
the same time with our amendment to recognize British Columbia
as a region we are giving historic recognition to the regional
make-up of Canada in which our 10 provinces are within five
regions.
The bill clearly recognizes the fact that British Columbia by
itself represents an identifiable region. This recognition is
consistent with the unique geographic situation of British
Columbia, the rapidly growing population of British Columbia and
the emergence of the Asia-Pacific trading region in which Canada
and particularly British Columbia have a major role.
In making this amendment we are also recognizing in law the
importance of the prairie region of Canada representing the
provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta as a region. As
the representative from Portage-Interlake in Manitoba, having
roots and family in Saskatchewan and having many friends and
having visited frequently in Alberta, this seems to me to be a
particularly timely and appropriate recognition.
The bill we are discussing today represents one part of a package
we are bringing forward in the follow-up to the recent referendum.
It has measures which are designed to strengthen and to promote
the unity of Canada and the ability of Canadians to be full
participants in our planet's global village. In this context I will
comment briefly on the place of this bill as part of the whole
package of changes which we are bringing forward.
The recognition of Quebec as a distinct society is appropriate
and timely. It provides within the framework of our country Canada
a vision of the make-up of our component parts. Quebec is
distinctive in having a system of civil law which is based upon the
Napoleonic tradition. This is different from the rest of Canada
which has civil law based on the English common law tradition.
Quebec is also distinctive linguistically and has its own distinctive
cultural traditions.
I would liken the development of this historic recognition to the
historic recognition and evolution of English and French as official
languages in Canada. The recognition of French and English as
official languages provides a recognition of the fundamental nature
of our country, Canada. The recognition does not give rights to
other languages: Ukrainian, German, Italian, Chinese, aboriginal
languages and so on. However it has sent a signal that individuals'
historic languages and cultures are important.
That signal has been fundamental to the evolution of Canada as a
country which is very different from the nature of the United States
south of our border. Instead of the United States model of a
melting pot, we have a pluralistic community in Canada, a country
which clearly recognizes and thrives on diversity, a country in
which the different regions of Canada can take pride in aspects in
which each is distinct.
I will argue that the tolerant diverse country we have built in
Canada is ideally prepared for participation in the future of our
planet. With multiple global languages around the world, with
multiple global cultures in which it is increasingly important that
we work together and trade together for our common benefit, our
background as a diverse and tolerant society is particularly fitting.
It is in the context of this changing world that we have presented
a new employment insurance program to decentralize training in
Canada. Individuals will have better access, more freedom of
choice and more opportunity to learn as they would desire to learn
for their own benefit and for the benefit of Canada.
We are entering the knowledge age, a time when the information
highway will dramatically change opportunities for learning,
opportunities for work and opportunities for self-expression.
(1330 )
We are moving to a model which people have called a client
service model in which individuals will have more choices, more
options and more opportunities. Therefore the government in many
respects is changing its own role dramatically; changing from the
old world in which government tried to do things alone to provide
solutions, to a new world in which the government is a facilitator
and a catalyst, helping Canadians from coast to coast find their own
solutions.
The role of Canada in the world has similarly changed. The
Canadian people, a people of diverse backgrounds, are an example
to the rest of the world of how to achieve a very high quality of life
which we have here, an example of how to work and to co-operate
together for our mutual benefit, an example of the benefits of our
linguistic, cultural, economic, scientific and technological
strengths in Canada, benefits which enable us to reach out to help
and to trade with the rest of the world.
In providing in products and services an understanding based on
our diversity and our tolerance to others in the world, we can help
others improve their quality of life even as we improve our own.
Through increasing our exports of products, services and
knowledge, Canadians can derive economic benefit and improved
quality of life even as we help others to improve their own
circumstances.
The tolerance and the diversity, the cultural sensitivity and the
linguistic abilities of Canadians provide us with a unique position
in the world which we should recognize and celebrate. It is the
Canadian paradigm that we have diversity and tolerance even as we
have unity and co-operation.
17568
In this bill we celebrate one further step being taken today: our
gradual evolution as a Canadian people and a strong and unified
country.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I rise in this House to speak to Bill C-110 respecting
constitutional amendments. It seems obvious to me that, by its very
substance, Bill C-100 cannot meet the demands of the people of
Quebec and Canada.
Quebecers have always asked for a real constitutional veto for
Quebec, not a mere legislative promise. This veto granted to
Quebec through Bill C-100 is reminiscent of the 1982
constitutional amending process. If they disagree, the federal
Parliament may overrule Quebec's veto.
Under Bill C-110, it is up to the federal government to determine
the criteria governing a province's approval. There are at least
seven different ways of doing that: through a resolution from the
provincial legislature; through an order in council, which means a
simple notice from the government; through a notice signed by the
premier of a province; through a notice signed by the lieutenant
governor of a province; through a provincial referendum held by a
province; through a federal referendum held in the province or in a
number of provinces; and, finally, as a last resort, through a vote by
the MPs representing the province concerned.
The Constitution Act, 1982 includes specific provisions
regarding the amending formula, but the government did not see fit
to include them in Bill C-110. There is a strong consensus in
Quebec regarding the need, for the province, to have a veto, and
Quebec's interpretation of that right is totally different from that of
the rest of Canada.
Quebecers always felt that Confederation was a pact between the
four original provinces and basically an agreement between the two
founding nations. Former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau
supported that view in 1967, when he said that the BNA Act of
1867, which was proclaimed by the imperial Parliament, was based
on an agreement reached by two parties.
(1335)
Thus, any constitutional amendment requires Quebec's
approval, as one of the two founding nations. The Constitution was
patriated with a new formula, in spite of the opposition of Quebec,
which was not granted a veto over future constitutional
amendments.
In his memoirs, former Quebec premier René Lévesque
explained why he accepted the right of withdrawal with
compensation, instead of the traditional veto power. He felt that a
veto could impede development, and that if Quebec got it, Ontario,
and perhaps other provinces, would demand it. His view of things
was right, since British Columbia in fact claimed a veto and
recently got it.
As my colleague for Joliette said earlier, the Prime Minister
opened his veto drawer, pulled out a copy and handed it to British
Columbia.
The government of Robert Bourassa, premier of Quebec at the
time-and this was before the failure of the Meech Lake
accord-then wanted to back both horses on the Quebec veto issue.
He claimed for Quebec both the constitutional right to oppose
changes to federal institutions and the creation of new provinces
and the right to withdraw with financial compensation.
The constitutional question was always at the heart of the debate
in Canada and, until 1982, no constitutional change affecting the
legislative powers of the Quebec National Assembly was adopted
in Canada.
The fact that Jean Lesage's Liberal government dropped the
Fulton-Favreau amending formula in 1966 and Robert Bourassa's
Liberal government rejected the Victoria charter in 1971 indicated
that Quebec, the other provinces and the federal government
considered Quebec had a veto on constitutional amendments.
However, the Supreme Court of Canada reminded us in 1982 that
Quebec had never had a constitutional veto and thus confirmed that
the federal government could, with the support of the Supreme
Court, circumvent the opinion of the people of Quebec.
And now for a bit of history, let us go back to the time of Honoré
Mercier, who has gone down in history as a great 19th century
premier of Quebec. From 1887 to 1891 his concerns were the
Constitution, education, the public debt, regional economic
development and the challenge of industrial change.
His great idea was to redefine the Constitution Act, 1867 by
totally affirming the principle of provincial autonomy, particularly
for Quebec. He said, ``Our cause is the cause of our nation, the
cause of provincial autonomy. It is the cause for which our fathers
fought, the cause of patriots throughout history, the cause of those
who do not want the province of Quebec to be a province in
bondage, who want it to be self-governing in accordance with the
wishes of its inhabitants. We do not want to hear our province
referred to with disdain any longer. We wish to be masters of our
destiny; we wish the voice of the majority to be heard and respected
by all''.
I should point out that premier Honoré Mercier governed with a
two-party government, the Conservatives plus the Liberals, in a
national unity government.
In 1887, 20 years after Confederation, premier Honoré Mercier
called a provincial conference in Quebec City .Although Sir John
A. Macdonald, the Prime Minister of the day, refused to send a
representative, the Quebec conference was a success. Twenty
ministers, five premiers among them, affirmed the principle of the
autonomy of the provinces making up our confederation. They
17569
protested against the centralist approach of the government in
Ottawa and that government's tendency to abuse its power of
disallowance, as it still does today.
(1340)
The conference was a milestone in Canada's political history in
that it confirmed the political and constitutional rights of the
provinces, thus reminding the central government of what should
be the very essence of a confederation's constitution.
Today, as the year 1995 draws to a close, what was said by
Honoré Mercier, Premier of Quebec from 1887 to 1891, seems as
topical as it was at the time.
Bill C-110 takes us back to the sad realization that there are truly
two solitudes, two peoples, two cultures, each with a completely
different vision of Canada's future.
On November 30, the Leader of the Opposition reminded the
House of the disastrous impact of this bill, and I quote: ``This leads
me to believe and shows us that Bill C-110, in fact, has a pernicious
effect in that, since the Canadian Constitution is so complex and
twisted in certain respects, this bill, and that is a paradox, will in no
way solve the current problems, but will make it even more
difficult to transfer the powers that the federal government might
be willing to give to Quebec''.
Quebec's demands for more powers have persisted since the
beginning of Confederation. The post-referendum of promises the
federal government appear in this bill, and this veto is just a lot of
smoke and mirrors. A real veto should be in the Constitution and be
binding on all parties concerned.
The federal justice minister claimed that Bill C-110 was valid
federal legislation, and I quote: ``Let me express my sincere
conviction that Bill C-110 is valid federal legislation. It does not
amend the Constitution in any way. Indeed, it is complementary to
the constitutional amending provisions''.
In its content, the bill remains silent about the manner in which
the provinces will be able to express their position.
This bill, which covers a scant two pages, merely indicates what
the federal government means by a majority of the provinces. To
the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and to most Quebecers, this
proposal is a step backward, a proposal that offers far less than
Meech Lake or even Charlottetown, which was rejected by Quebec.
There has been a succession of offers from Ottawa, but the
substance of those offers keep shrinking all the time so that in the
end it is just a joke, according to the Leader of the Opposition.
And what about the criticisms from the Reform Party?
Reformers are against this bill because it would give a
constitutional veto to Quebec's sovereignist government, which
should soon be led by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois. Which
brings us back to square one, in that it is impossible to satisfy both
English Canada and Quebecers.
This vision of Canada compels us to stop these endless demands
and deal with the real problems.
Quebec sovereignty will bring about a new climate allowing us
to negotiate as equals with the people of Canada. I submit to you
that the people of Quebec cannot support Bill C-110. We are still
waiting for real, valid offers from the Prime Minister of Canada, in
keeping with the promises he made before the October 30
referendum.
I have been a sovereignist for over 30 years and I cannot be
happy with a veto that is a mere legislative promise and a total
improvisation. That is why I will vote against Bill C-110.
[English]
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Madam Chair, it was
less than two months ago, on October 30, when 50.6 per cent of
Quebecers said no to separation and yes to Canada. The Canada
votes would have been higher were it not for the fraudulent
question, the fraudulent campaign and the questionable counting.
The leader of the Canada campaign was Daniel Johnson and the
leader of the separatist campaign was originally Jacques Parizeau.
The leader of the Bloc Quebecois displaced Mr. Parizeau as the
leader of the separatists and proceeded to conduct a campaign of
deceit and mistruths.
A week before the referendum the Canada side was 7 per cent
behind in the polls, and the Prime Minister became highly active in
the campaign. On October 24, to counter the winning campaign of
the separatists, the Prime Minister promised at a rally in Verdun
that changes would be made to recognize Quebec as a distinct
society and to ensure that future constitutional change would
require Quebec's approval. The Prime Minister's nationally
televised address to the nation on October 25 helped mobilize
Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
(1345)
On October 27, more than 150,000 Canadians gathered in
Montreal to express their love for Canada, a Canada that includes
the province of Quebec. Among those at the rally, close to 600 were
from my community. Had there been more buses available there
would have been 2,000 people there. People from my community
boarded buses at midnight on Thursday and did not get back home
until midnight on Friday. They put their lives on hold for a day to
go to Montreal to express their love for a Canada that includes
Quebec.
The 150,000 Canadians at the Montreal rally supported the
Prime Minister's promise for change. They will be the guardians of
that promise.
17570
On October 30, in spite of a fraudulent question, in spite of a
fraudulent campaign, Canada won. The Prime Minister was
instrumental in taking the pro-Canada side from a deficit of 7 per
cent a week before the referendum to victory on referendum night.
The separatists blamed their loss on money and ethnics, ignoring
the 40 per cent of French Quebec that voted yes to Canada and no to
separation. The leader of the Bloc Quebecois and future premier of
Quebec has stated that he is not in favour of constitutional change.
He wants a Quebec that is separate from Canada.
The Prime Minister introduced a regional veto and distinct
society clause through federal legislation, the only way he could
keep his promise that there would be no constitutional change
without Quebec's support. We approved the distinct society clause
on Monday and will approve regional vetoes tomorrow.
The Prime Minister has delivered on his promises. On Monday
evening the House of Commons approved the distinct society
clause. The Bloc Quebecois voted against it saying that it gave
nothing to Quebec. The Reform Party voted against it saying it
gave too much to Quebec. The leader of the Bloc Quebecois and the
separatists have been historically consistent in opposing distinct
society for Quebec as they worked for the failure of Meech Lake
and the Charlottetown accord.
The leader of the Reform Party and his followers have also
opposed accommodating Quebec in Canada. While the Bloc
Quebecois is trying to pull Quebec out of Canada, Reformers are
trying to push Quebec out. The Reform Party aided and abetted the
separatists before the referendum and is doing the same now.
Reformers would be revisionist historians who would deny the
Quebec Act of 1774 where the British Parliament recognized the
French language, civil code and the distinct culture of Quebec. The
reality is that the formation of Canada was a miracle based on the
coming together of two of Europe's leading peoples, the French
and the English, with the accommodation of the First Nations.
Without this coming together we would likely be part of the United
States.
Our willingness to embrace a bilingual society is welcoming to
new Canadians. We have evolved as a compassionate, humane and
understanding country. Together we have built a country that the
United Nations has judged on a number of occasions as the best
country in the world in which to live. Canada is the country of
choice of millions of would-be immigrants.
When we examine the demographics of Canada, 22.8 per cent of
Canadians are of French origin; 20.8 per cent are of British origin;
1.7 per cent aboriginal and the remaining 54.7 per cent have roots
in other countries, with half of those having multiple origins.
Canada represents a beacon of hope in a troubled world. We have
built a country that has its make-up from the rest of the world.
Canada is an example of civility and compassion, caring and
sharing, tolerance and understanding.
Canada welcomed my family after the Hungarian revolution in
1957. We were refugees and Canada offered us refuge. My wife is a
sixth generation Canadian whose roots go back to Ireland. My
daughter is nine years old and all three of us are fiercely proud
Canadians.
When my family first arrived in Canada we lived for the first
five years in Vancouver, B.C. I am acutely aware that B.C. looks on
itself as a distinct region of Canada. The fact that the regional veto
was extended to B.C. shows the flexibility of the government's
approach.
In the past 39 years I have had the opportunity to travel this
country from coast to coast. I have watched the sunrise on Signal
Hill St. John's, Newfoundland and have seen the sunset in Tofino
on Vancouver Island. I have viewed the majesty of the Rockies and
the vastness of the prairies, the wilds of northern Ontario and the
beauty of the Great Lakes. For me the Gatineau hills, the St.
Lawrence seaway, Isle d'Orleans, old Montreal, the Quebec winter
festival give meaning to la belle province. I have enjoyed the
quaintness of Prince Edward Island, the beauty of Nova Scotia and
New Brunswick. I have much more to see and I am awestruck at the
beauty of my country.
Early this past October, a delegation from Waterloo, Quebec,
visited Waterloo, Ontario, for a twinning ceremony. Bernard
Provencher, mayor of Waterloo, Quebec, informed the people at the
twinning ceremony: ``If by some magical way we could have all
Quebecers experience the hospitality that we have experienced
these last few days and do it in reverse and have Canadians outside
Quebec visit Quebec then we would not even have this referendum
on what we already own''.
(1350)
The two mayors a couple of weeks later exchanged their flags in
the Prime Minister's office and stated that they would fly the flags
at their respective city halls in the hope that Canada would remain
united. The two Waterloos are an example of how communities
from across the country need to foster exchanges to promote
goodwill and understanding among Canadians. Canada is a miracle
we cannot take for granted. We must nurture it, build it and
strengthen it.
The distinct society recognition for Quebec which was passed by
the House on Monday and the regional veto clause which will be
passed tomorrow are federal laws, not constitutional amendments.
Constitutional review must take place in 1997. It will be then that
the federal government will review the Constitution with the
provinces.
Historically, constitutional change has been a point of division
among Canadians. It was for this reason that the fathers of
Confederation could not agree on a constitutional amending
17571
formula when Canada was founded in 1867. Constitutional
amendments tend to bring out regional grievances that test our
mettle as a nation. It is easy for opposition members to criticize, as
they can attack everything and be responsible for nothing.
In putting forward the distinct society resolution and the regional
veto we did not expect the separatists across the aisle to support it.
They want to separate. They want to tear up Canada. Their leader,
the Quebec premier in waiting, has already made it abundantly
clear that no constitutional amendments will be acceptable to his
government.
The neo-separatist Reform Party does not want to support the
government's initiative. The Reformers lust after official
opposition status. They dream of forming a government in a
Canada without Quebec. The Reformers helped the Bloc Quebecois
before the referendum and they are helping them now.
We believe the majority of Quebecers and the majority of
Canadians will support the government's initiatives. Distinct
society and the regional veto are issues that have to be dealt with
quickly so the government can focus its attention on the economy
and getting people back to work.
Last week the media reported on a CROP poll conducted in
Quebec. When Quebecers were asked directly whether the
government should focus its attention on the economy or the
Constitution, 86 per cent said the economy and only 10 per cent the
Constitution. Four per cent had no response. Clearly, Canadians
from Quebec and Canadians from the rest of Canada have a lot in
common.
In July 1982 Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau succeeded in
giving Canadians their Constitution. He was assisted in his efforts
by the present Prime Minister who was then the justice minister.
They were both attacked for their accomplishments by the
separatists who would tear Canada apart. Mr. Trudeau and the
current Prime Minister are distinguished Quebecers who, during
the quiet revolution, helped transform Quebec from a society
dominated by Duplessis and the church into a modern society, but
the separatists questioned their Quebec roots.
The situation reminded me of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, our first
French Canadian Prime Minister, who during the election of 1911
set out the frustrations that beset him as he tried to follow the
middle path in politics: ``I am branded in Quebec as a traitor of the
French, and in Ontario as a traitor of the English. In Quebec I am
branded as a jingo, and in Ontario as a separatist. In Quebec I am
attacked as an imperialist, and Ontario as an anti-imperialist. I am
neither. I am a Canadian''.
Canada is an example to the world. It is made up of peoples from
around the world who have together built a country which is the
best in the world.
Vive le Québec. Vive le Canada. Vive le Canada uni.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on
behalf of the people of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt and
oppose Bill C-110, an act respecting constitutional amendments.
My constituents are proud and eager to have me rise on their
behalf to express the anger, outrage and fury over the insult which
the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party of Canada have hurled at
the Canadian people. The anger, outrage and fury is over the fact
that Canadians do not think the federal government's power to veto
constitutional changes should be delegated to provincial
legislatures. The power to reject or ratify changes to the country's
Constitution should be given to only one body, and that body
should be the people of Canada. Over and over we on this side of
the House and in the ranks of the Bloc Quebecois heard the
members of Parliament from western Canada and Quebec yelling
at the Liberals to listen to the people. The Liberals just do not
listen.
(1355)
The people of British Columbia, where I come from, are insulted
by the antics of the Liberal Party under the dictatorship of the
Prime Minister. One morning we wake up and find out that B.C.
has not been given the power of veto like the other provinces by the
Liberal Prime Minister. This comes right out of the blue. My
constituency telephone was ringing off the wall. The mail and fax
machine were working overtime and the people were asking what
was going on.
Then the Liberals start talking about four regions versus five
regions. They are trying to convince Canadians how great a thing a
veto is. The Liberals hope Canadians would not understand and the
Liberals could hide the fact that they were not giving the people of
Canada anything, nothing, zero.
The Liberal Prime Minister became afraid of the people of B.C.
like he is afraid of the people of Quebec and so another morning
comes along. My constituents wake up and discover the Liberal
Prime Minister from Quebec has given B.C. a veto. But it is too
late. The people of B.C. saw what the Prime Minister did. He thinks
so little of the people from western Canada and he thinks about
Quebec, so he inadvertently insulted western Canadians and
Canada's most western province.
The people of western Canada know that in the Liberal's
proposal under Bill C-110 and under the command of the Prime
Minister the federal government is giving the leader of the Bloc
Quebecois a consultation prize-no, it is not really a consultation
because there was no consultation. It is a consolation prize for
losing the Quebec referendum, a veto.
17572
The Prime Minister could be called the Bob Barker of Canada.
Quebec spun the wheel and lost but the Prime Minister turned to his
deputy and said: ``Sheila, tell them what they've won''.
It is unacceptable. The people in western Canada know that this
is typical of Ottawa and the Prime Minister. Liberal prime minister
or Tory prime minister, prime ministers from Quebec make it a
habit to give things to Quebec: the CF-18s, military bases, the
environmental secretariat, distinct society, all kinds of things.
Western Canadians are used to this.
The Prime Minister, because of his lack of understanding of what
the people of Quebec want and are saying, brought the nation to the
brink of disaster. Single-handedly he nearly smashed Canada to
smithereens.
Before the referendum in Quebec the Liberals were told to sit on
their ham hands until further notice: ``Don't even talk about the
referendum''. After months the Prime Minister allowed his caucus
to discuss the Quebec referendum but only at the very last minute,
within days of the people of Quebec taking their trip to the ballot
box.
Then the big mistake happens. The people of British Columbia
are watching a pathetic speech by the Prime Minister in Verdun,
Quebec one night. Verdun is a very cool place, especially for young
people. As a matter of fact Montreal boasts the best night life
anywhere in Canada. Unfortunately the Prime Minister got carried
away. He forgot himself and he forgot his speech. He started to
promise Quebec everything.
I am sure the leader of the Bloc Quebecois was very upset. The
Prime Minister on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada started
spewing forth a litany of gifts to the political elite, the rulers of
Quebec, win, lose or draw. The people of British Columbia
changed the channel on the television set because they could not
watch it any more. They were insulted.
The next day the people of B.C. got together and commenced a
long journey. They have to remind the Liberal Party and the Prime
Minister that they exist in British Columbia. They must not be
angry or hurt. They have to be diplomatic. We tell the Liberals:
``Don't give a veto to the provinces, territories, groups of
provinces, premiers, separatist governments, foreign nations, the
Ayatollah or anyone else. Give a veto to the Canadian people''. The
people of Canada deserve a veto. The Liberals do not listen to
Canadians.
On behalf of the good people of
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, I am proud to stand here today
and oppose Bill C-110.
The Speaker: It being almost two o'clock we will now proceed
to Statements by Members.
17572
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise in
support of the legislative proposal of the Minister of the
Environment for an endangered species act.
In our diverse Confederation there is always a danger of
government inaction simply because of the daunting prospect of
complex, legal and political negotiations. To get things done
someone has to have the nerve and energy to take a firm first step.
In the case of over 250 endangered species that do not know or
care in which jurisdiction they live, it is most appropriate the
federal government take the lead.
The minister has produced a detailed draft of an act that would
protect endangered species. If necessary, I urge that she proceed
alone with the legislation to the limit of her jurisdiction. However
it is my hope that the provinces and territories will move quickly to
join her.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
week, I had the honour and privilege of attending the sacred
assembly presided by my colleague from Churchill. Although the
themes of this assembly were reconciliation and spirituality, it
reeked of politics.
We were quite surprised to read in the hon. member for
Churchill's letter of invitation and to hear in his opening speech
that the Great Creator was in favour of Canadian unity. The Bloc
Quebecois denounced this unacceptable statement on Saturday and
wishes to do so again in this House today.
The notion of spirituality transcends politics and the Great
Creator has no use for national borders. The next step would have
been to come straight out and say that the Creator is a Liberal.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
registered voters in my riding were asked if a national referendum
should be held on the reinstatement of the death penalty. The
overwhelming response from 919 of over 1,000 voters was that a
referendum should be held at the time of the next federal election.
In another initiative my constituents are being asked whether
Quebec should be recognized in the Constitution as a distinct
17573
society. In just two short days my constituents have rejected such
recognition by a margin of 86 per cent. The survey will be ongoing
until the end of December.
It would appear that the days of government imposing its will on
the people are drawing to a long overdue close and direct
democracy will allow them to be heard.
However members opposite need not take my word for it. All
they have to do is ask their constituents, that is if Liberal members
have the same belief in the values and principles of democracy as
do Reform Party members.
* * *
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
there is increasing concern among Canadians concerned about
nuclear disarmament that the Canadian government, despite its
official support of various treaties, is not as serious as Canadians
want it to be about bringing an end to nuclear testing, about the
proliferation of nuclear weapons and about the destruction of
existing nuclear warheads.
The post cold war era was to be an opportunity for the world to
put behind it the fear of nuclear war. The public has been lulled into
thinking that significant progress is being made.
In reality, the nuclear club permits certain of its members like
France and China to continue threatening the planet with nuclear
testing. This same nuclear club, with which Canada is associated
through NATO, also refuses to countenance the significant
destruction or elimination of its nuclear capacity, thus encouraging
other countries to seek such weapons.
The doomsday clock is being advanced once more. The Liberals
need to wake up and show some courage on the issue instead of
speaking out of both sides of their mouth, saying one thing at the
UN and another thing through NATO.
* * *
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
December 7, 1995, St. Catharines lost a great Canadian, the hon.
Harry Cavers.
Mr. Cavers was born in St. Catharines in 1909. He practised law
until joining the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve in the
second world war, rising from ordinary seaman to lieutenant. After
the war Mr. Cavers practised law as a partner in Cavers, Chown and
Cairns.
(1405)
He was elected as the member of Parliament for Lincoln in 1949
and again in 1953. He was the first Liberal elected in the area in 50
years. He was an effective representative of Lincoln for nine years
and worked hard to make a difference for the area.
Following his time in the House of Commons, Harry Cavers
returned to the legal community as a judge for Dufferin County. A
former law partner, Mr. Roy Cairns, has spoken of Harry's
fair-mindedness and ability to see both sides of an issue.
St. Catharines has lost an excellent ambassador and elder
statesman who served his country well and was an inspiration to all
those around him.
Our sympathy is extended to his daughter and her husband, Anne
and John Carruthers, and their children, Megan and Meredith.
* * *
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to address what I believe to be the essence of
Canadianism. We are ten provinces, two territories, numerous
municipalities and many neighbourhoods, but above all we are
Canada.
We are a nation that shares common values, a nation shaped by
the challenges of nature, a nation forged by war but one that has
fought for peace. We are people who have developed compassion
and understanding for others in society. Most of all being Canadian
means understanding that the issue is not whether we get a fair
share of the pie but rather that the pie is shared fairly.
If we are to survive as a nation, those blessed by economic
advantage must be willing to help those areas not so fortunate. That
is the way it should be. I am proud to live in a society that cares for
the least advantaged and whose people share their good fortune
with their fellow Canadians.
In Canada, that is simply what we do.
* * *
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, under the 1992 legislation there will be a review of the
Bank Act in five years or in 1997.
I have received many calls and briefs from insurance companies
in my riding of Lambton-Middlesex that are very concerned, as I
am, about the potential changes in the Bank Act that could give the
very powerful banking sector the ability to retail insurance from its
branches.
While it is important to have a strong banking system in Canada,
I do not believe it is right or fair to other sectors of the financial
services industry to allow the most powerful sector, the banks, to
accumulate strength which would likely turn into a virtual
monopoly.
17574
As a government we have already acknowledged that many of
the new jobs created in Canada over the last couple of years have
come from small and medium size businesses.
Allowing banks into the retail insurance industry could decimate
small insurance companies in Canada, many of which are
policyholder owned and predominately serve rural communities,
like those in Lambton-Middlesex.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, two million
children have been killed, between four and five children crippled,
and ten million psychologically scarred by the ravages of war over
the past ten years.
That is what UNICEF says in its 1996 report released yesterday.
Various conflicts around the world have left in their wake some
horrifying and monstrous scenes in which children are all too often
the victims.
Confronted with this sad finding, Western countries, including
Canada, are forced to give serious thought to their moral
obligations. For example, UNICEF does not hesitate to blame this
sad situation in part on antipersonnel mines.
Yet Canada remains reluctant to dispose of its own mines as long
as the other countries have not done so.
In the name of these children who are war victims, Canada
should lead the way in eliminating these weapons of suffering.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, at a time
when Canada is overburdened with old ideas and old institutions
the government has come forward with far reaching, regressive
veto legislation that will etch in stone for all time parliamentary
anachronisms such as the current Senate.
The Prime Minister's outdated, outmoded, traditional political
practice of stuffing that institution with patronage appointments
has loaded this powerful unelected body with partisan failures,
flatterers and pleaders of special interests.
Tomorrow I will be introducing my private member's bill that
will give electors of a province a vote on who should be summoned
to represent them in that chamber. It is absolutely vital that we
remove porky patronage appointments from the Prime Minister's
paws, if we are to have any true legitimacy in Canada's upper
house.
Let us make no mistake. The Reform Party always has been and
always will be driving toward true Senate reform, that of an
effective, elected and equal Senate.
* * *
(1410 )
Mr. John Loney (Edmonton North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Waterton Lakes National Park in the province of Alberta, together
with the American Glacier National Park in Montana, was
officially designated as a world heritage site by the United Nations
educational, scientific and cultural organization during a meeting
held in Berlin last week. The name of this new world heritage site
will be the Waterton Glacier International Peace Park.
Waterton Lakes National Park protects 528.8 square kilometres
of land. The Canadian government established the park in 1895.
It is a great honour for the country that the outstanding universal
value of the site has been recognized by the international
community. It shares this designation with six other Canadian
national sites and with other protected areas in the world such as
Australia's Great Barrier Reef, the Equator's Galapagos Islands
and Yellowstone.
* * *
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
recently met with representatives of the Insurance Brokers
Association of Ontario. This association represents over 8,000
licensed brokers plus support staff employed in over 1,100 offices
contributing to local economies throughout Ontario.
These small business people have valid concerns about the
possibility of chartered banks being permitted to aggressively enter
the insurance business. On the surface it 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. It is about the survival of thousands of
Canadian jobs.
I implore the government not to alter the 1992 legislation which
is working very effectively. The banks are raking in record profits.
They have moved in on the brokerage industry. Now they want to
move in on the insurance industry. What is next? It is time the little
guy gets a break.
17575
[Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Conservative leader was quoted in the December 4 edition of
Le
Journal de Montréal as saying: ``The Progressive Conservative
Party will support the government motion recognizing Quebec as a
distinct society within Canada. This is a necessary first step in
recognizing Quebec's identity within our federation''.
However, the day after our government passed this important
motion in favour of Quebec, it is with sadness that the people of
Quebec have realized that not all the federalist allies they were
counting on were on board.
After so much energy was spent on having Quebec's distinct
identity recognized when the Progressive Conservative Party was
in office, it is a pity that not one Conservative member took part in
the whole debate on this issue in this House.
They could have joined us in taking this major step toward
recognizing Quebec within our federation, as the Conservative
leader did enthusiastically throughout the referendum campaign.
* * *
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Quebec's rural regions voted yes in the October 30 referendum.
Following that, the federal Minister of Agriculture showed up at
the UPA congress and said that he got the message. This is quite the
change, considering that the last federal budget dealt a direct blow
to the agricultural sector.
Producers are asking that Quebec's programs not be tampered
with, and that federal spending in the agricultural sector be spread
fairly. The minister has his work all cut out, given that he only
spends 10 per cent of his budget in Quebec, that he still managed to
close three research centres in the province, including the one in La
Pocatière, and that he also reduced dairy subsidies by 30 per cent.
I do not know what gimmick the minister will use to try to prove
that Ottawa looks after Quebec's agricultural interests. But I do
know that the facts speak for themselves and that agricultural
producers are not dumb.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
statement is about this high powered committee consisting of the
collections commissioner, parole board chairmen, deputy ministers
of justice and the solicitor general's department. They feel there
are problems, and these are some of the reasons.
They say that sentences are longer. Is that a problem? They also
say that there are more challenging prisoners, the criminally
challenged; increased periods of detention; a growing lifer group;
an aging prison society; declining parole grant rates; and the
toughening of laws.
(1415)
Perhaps I can help the Liberal government. Why not look for
new ways of doing things? Why not look at privatization of a
couple of the prisons? What is wrong with double bunking? Why
not restrict some of the ridiculous benefits like golf, project bleach,
GST rebates for prisoners, prisoner's ability to sue and the ability
to refuse work?
If the government does not like that, resign and let someone else
with new ideas and courage take over.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member who, for a while now, has
seemingly become a part time opposition leader paid us a rare visit
yesterday. Unfortunately, the heir to the throne did not come to
Ottawa to help build a better country. Nor did he come to protect
Quebec's interests.
The Bloc leader came to Ottawa to lead his troops in the charge
against Quebec and its distinct society status. Historians will
remind future generations that Quebec separatists were always
opposed to the recognition of a distinct status for their province,
and that it is thanks to the federal government if such status was
finally obtained.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Reformers have told Canadians they would restore respect
and decorum in the House of Commons.
Imagine the disappointment of Canadians, who believed their
promise, following the shameful display of shouting, finger
pointing and heckling during yesterday's vote on the Prime
Minister's motion.
Canadians are still trying to get used to the idea that Reform's
approach to national unity is voting with the separatists. Who could
imagine the Reform Party's joining forces with the Bloc? Politics
does make strange bed fellows.
We have finally found a promise Reformers have kept. They said
they would do things differently in the House of Commons. What
17576
they did not say is that it would be different from the promises they
made to the people who trusted them. Their idea of different is
unacceptable, unequalled and downright terrible behaviour.
_____________________________________________
17576
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
on the very day the government was boasting of having met its
referendum promises by a simple inconsequential resolution on the
distinct society, the Prime Minister was busy making unacceptable
and antidemocratic statements, claiming that he reserved the right
to use any means available to prevent another Quebec referendum.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Now that he realizes that
his phoney offers do not satisfy Quebecers, and since he plans to
use all means available to prevent another Quebec referendum, are
we to take the Prime Minister's words to mean that the only hope
remaining to him for winning the next referendum is to make up
the rules himself?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the contradiction is immediately obvious. The hon.
member says that I want to prevent a referendum, and then he
refers to what I will do to win it. Either there will be a referendum
or there will be none.
What I said yesterday is that we want a clear question. That is
what democracy is all about. We do not need the Bloc to give us
any lessons in democracy. As Michel Vastel said not too long ago,
``The Bloc is a hereditary monarchy. When it comes down to it,
eight people, six men and two women, decided how their leader
would be chosen, eight people representing 0.007619 per cent of
the total Bloc membership of 105,000''.
We need no lessons in democracy from a party accused of all
manner of funny business in the last Quebec referendum.
(1420)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the
Prime Minister wants to play it that way, I may remind him that he
and his cabinet ministers were guilty of violating the Quebec
Elections Act. To talk about democracy and refuse to recognize the
results of a democratic vote is really pushing it.
The Prime Minister stated yesterday that 2.5 million citizens
should not be allowed to determine the future of a country with a
population of 30 million. Does this mean he denies the Quebec
people the fundamental and inalienable right to determine their
future?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, they have already done so twice. There have been two
referendums in Canada in which Quebecers decided to vote in
Canada.
All I said yesterday was that the rest of the country has a say in
the future of that country. We have twice accepted the results of a
referendum in Quebec, and democracy is being denied by those
who refuse to take no for an answer.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
surprised that a politician of the Prime Minister's stature does not
understand one cannot stop a people on their way to becoming
economically independent.
How can the Prime Minister expect Quebecers to believe him
when he says he kept the solemn commitments he made during the
referendum campaign, when he changes his tune in English Canada
and refers to his own commitments as three little promises of no
consequence?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the promises I made go back a long way. Unlike the Bloc
Quebecois, I voted for Charlottetown and for the distinct society.
They voted against it. Since 1970, I have supported veto rights and
the Victoria formula. That has always been the position of my
party. In fact, I was merely confirming what our party has
supported for a long time.
And talking about democracy, again their leader said on
television a few days ago that they were going to take everyone by
surprise. And when he was asked: ``Do you intend to ask an honest
question''? He said: ``No, I will ask a winning question''.
The only way to win honestly is to have an honest question, a
question that everyone understands. In this way, there can be no
confusion about the result.
* * *
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, Paul Tellier has threatened to close the firm AMF in
Montreal, if the union refuses to accept the conditions imposed by
CN. The union and GEC Alsthom, the company trying to buy AMF,
have almost reached an agreement, but CN is blocking any
initiative that might lead to a settlement. At stake, let us not forget,
are 1,300 direct jobs and 5,000 indirect jobs in southwest Montreal.
In view of the fact that CN's attitude in this matter could end up
costing Montreal 6,300 jobs, does the Minister of Finance,
responsible for regional development in Quebec, intend to
intervene in this matter of importance to Montreal, the southwest
part of Montreal, in his area, near his riding? Will he bring CN back
to its senses?
17577
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my hon. colleague knows that the CN is now in the private
sector. We have, however, been trying for months to find a solution
for AMF. The CN had agreed to keep the plant open. Negotiations
have been very long and hard, but I am confident, given the
employees' attitude at the moment, that we will reach a solution.
(1425)
We will follow this very closely. I know that my colleagues for
the greater Montreal area are very interested in this. So are we. I
hope that, at the last minute, all those involved in this matter will
understand the importance, as the hon. member has mentioned, of
keeping the plant in operation with all the jobs involved.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, since the federal policy on rail transport has always
favoured western Canada, will the federal government, for once,
make CN listen to reason or will it turn a blind eye?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Duceppe: We will wait-
An hon. member: They do not like the truth.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie may
continue with his question.
Mr. Duceppe: I therefore ask the Minister of Finance, who is
responsible for Montreal's regional development, if he is still
responsible for it or if that is only one of his titles? Will he let
Montreal lose 6,300 direct and indirect jobs to Winnipeg?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there has never been any question of the jobs of AMF
going anywhere else but where they are.
The question we have been trying to address now for several
years, as the hon. member should know, is whether through
co-operation between Canadian National, GEC Alsthom and the
employees we can keep an operation going in Quebec that has
between 600 and 1,300 employees, depending on the level of
demand within the shop.
The hon. member would be far better advised if he spent his
efforts trying to convince the parties to arrive at an agreement
rather than raising the spectre of the jobs going somewhere else. If
the jobs are not kept in Montreal at AMF by GEC Alsthom and by
CNR they will not be going anywhere else, they will disappear.
That would be very unfortunate for Montreal, for Quebec and for
Canada.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, last night the Prime Minister talked about another Quebec
referendum after saying he would not talk about another Quebec
referendum. He went on to say: ``The Constitution has a lot of
powers for the federal government to act under peace, order and
good government. We have powers and we have to use the powers
to make sure the question in the next referendum will be fair to
Quebecers and will be fair to the rest of the country''.
Precisely what powers under peace, order and good government
was the Prime Minister referring to? Precisely how does he plan to
use those to ensure a clear question in the next referendum?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very important to have a fair and honest question if
there is another referendum.
I do not want to speculate on when there will be another
referendum because the leader of the Bloc Quebecois said that
when he goes to Quebec his priority will be to run a good
government and put the province's finances in order. If he wants to
do that we will help because we want Quebec to have a good
economy.
However, I said that if there is another referendum the question
has to be clear. We will not accept any more ambiguity and we will
take the necessary steps to achieve that goal.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we have heard all that. However, my question was what
powers under peace, order and good government does the federal
government propose to use to affect the question in the next
referendum?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, he can consult his lawyers. We know what to do.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister got into this discussion by talking
about the uncertainty another Quebec referendum would create.
These types of comments, saying the federal government has
powers to do something about that referendum, and then refusing to
explain how and what powers it will use add to the confusion.
(1430 )
I will ask the Prime Minister again: If he knows what he is
talking about, how does he propose to use federal powers to effect
the fairness of the next Quebec referendum?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last week the Reform Party had a plan with 20 different
points to deal with that.
The question was asked of me and I said that the question of a
referendum, if there is another one, is not only for the people of
Quebec to vote on, it is a question for all the people of Canada. I
17578
said that very clearly. I said that there are means available to the
federal government-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Mr. Speaker, they are always
asking political questions.
I said that the federal government has the obligation and the duty
to the people who are going to vote to ensure that the question is
clear. We will use the power we have to achieve that goal. Do not
worry about that.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Despite the Prime Minister's promise to completely withdraw
from manpower training, the UI reform package tabled 10 days ago
would introduce five new labour programs. Faced with this
announcement, the National Assembly unanimously reaffirmed the
Quebec consensus on the need to transfer all federal manpower
programs to Quebec.
With the Minister of Human Resources Development scheduled
to meet his Quebec counterpart tomorrow to discuss the issue of
transferring manpower programs, can the Prime Minister tell us if
his minister will have the mandate to discuss the transfer of all
manpower matters to Quebec, without conditions or national
standards, as provided for in the Quebec National Assembly's
unanimous resolution?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that
the primary mandate of all government ministers is to help people
get back to work, to provide jobs, employment opportunities and to
work closely with the provinces, the municipalities, the private
sector and all individuals who can be our partners in achieving that
mandate.
The Prime Minister made it very clear in his statement that we
are withdrawing from the area of manpower training. In the
legislation we made it clear that we will be working with the
provinces to gain their consent on any measures which would in
any way be involved in training. We will work in concert with them
as much as possible to develop effective employment measures and
partnerships for employment.
I am very pleased to have the initial round of exploratory
meetings with Quebec's minister of employment so that we can
clarify exactly what is in the bill. Clearly, the Quebec government
does not fully understand all the measures, just as the hon. member
does not. I look forward to the opportunity to begin a process of
good dialogue and good discussion so we can work jointly to help
Canadians become employed.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, from the
minister's comments, I understand that he will continue to decide
which agreements he can sign and negotiate.
Since the distinct society motion tabled by the government is
supposed to mean something, can the Prime Minister tell us if his
Minister of Human Resources Development has received a
mandate to make a distinct proposal to Quebec, which has the
largest consensus on the need to transfer responsibility for all
manpower issues?
(1435)
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is seemingly odd and
strange that the hon. member for Mercier would be citing the
decision by this Parliament to support distinct society when the
hon. member voted against the bill. It seems to me that the hon.
member cannot have it both ways. She cannot be telling us that we
have to respect distinct society when she does not have the
goodwill and the resolution to vote for distinct society for
Quebecers.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister says that he has the powers and the
means to ensure that the next Quebec referendum is fair.
What powers is he talking about? How is he going to use them to
ensure the next referendum is fair? If the Prime Minister does not
answer those questions, he gives the impression that he does not
know what he is talking about or that he is making vague threats.
He contributes to the unsettling nature which surrounds this issue.
I ask him again: What powers is he talking about? How does he
propose to use them to ensure that the next Quebec referendum is
fair?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if anybody is creating confusion in Canada at this time it
is the leader of the third party.
There has not been one day since we have been talking about this
problem that he has not been in bed with the Quebec separatists.
There has not been one day that he does not want to try to make life
difficult for a government that is trying to save Canada. There has
not been one day that he is not causing some disturbance in Canada
because he has no interest in keeping the country together.
He is dreaming. Perhaps he dreams all the time about becoming
the leader of the rest of Canada, but there will be only one Canada
from sea to sea.
17579
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if we are going to keep this country together, it will only
occur by providing clear answers to the questions that are being
asked. This type of political rhetoric just adds to the uncertainty
rather than to the certainty that Canadians desire.
Let me come at it another way. Last month in Toronto the Prime
Minister said that he did not want any more referenda and implied
that he would use the federal power to prevent future referenda.
Last night he conceded that there will be another referendum. He
said that he is going to use the federal power to ensure that it is a
fair referendum.
Which is it? Is he proposing to use the federal power to prevent
another referendum, or is he proposing to use the federal power to
ensure that the next referendum is more fair? Which is it, one way
or the other?
(1440 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is purely a hypothetical question. There is no
referendum at the moment. The leader of the Bloc Quebecois said
he does not want a referendum for the time being. He wants to run
Quebec and try to provide good government.
If they were to provide good governance in Quebec, of course
the rest of Canada would be very happy and we would help them.
At the moment I repeat, if there is another referendum, the question
will be clear, do not worry about that. I will make sure it is very
clear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
Yesterday, the Minister of Health made her intentions known
regarding advertising and sponsoring by tobacco companies.
Contrary to all expectations, the minister's plan will considerably
exceed the scope of the legislation that the Supreme Court
invalidated just three months ago.
Does the minister not realize that, with her clumsy measures, she
is pushing cigarette manufacturers to put an end to their voluntary
moratorium on advertising and to resume advertising tobacco
products without any constraints?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when I met with tobacco company officials not too long ago, before
making this announcement, they told me they were preparing to
start advertising again as of January. So, there was going to be
advertising one way or another.
We definitely want to exercise control over this advertising
because, as you know, cigarettes are harmful to the health of
Canadians. Companies are always looking for new customers and
these are often young people just taking up smoking. We will make
every effort to prevent young people from starting to smoke, and
this is a step in the right direction.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does the
minister realize that, by taking action without first consulting the
Supreme Court, she could drag us once again into a judicial saga
that will cost us $7 million at the very least and all for nothing?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it surprises me a little bit that the health critic for the Bloc
Quebecois is more interested in protecting the tobacco companies
than in working with us to ensure that we have the toughest and
best legislative package possible, having taken guidance from the
supreme court ruling.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, even
the Quebec Liberals oppose any use of federal power to disallow a
future referendum if the question is unclear. The Quebec Liberals
said that. Today, Quebec Liberal constitutional critic Jean Marc
Fournier said: ``The Prime Minister should have more confidence
in the good judgment of the people of Quebec''.
The Prime Minister now says that the question will be clear.
How can he guarantee that the question will be clear? What powers
is he prepared to use?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): If
everybody in Canada and in Quebec wants a question that is clear
and everybody wants to work to that goal, we will achieve it. We
will have to make sure that the question is clear. There will be
enough pressure on the government to achieve that. I repeat that the
next time the question will be clear and the people will know
exactly what they are voting on.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister says that we are not to worry about it. The country
is worried sick about the obsession the government has had week
after week after week after the referendum. The point is we want to
get on with jobs. The point is we want to get on with looking after
the economy, but this Prime Minister has forced the House to be
obsessed with this problem.
Plain and simple, why does the Prime Minister not cut his
national unity losses, go back to the drawing board and consult
Canadians in a nationwide referendum? If he has the faith in the
Canadian people, why will he not consult with Canadians and the
premiers, not just some of these people here?
17580
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we hope that some day the Reform Party will try to work
with the rest of Canada to make sure that Canada stays together.
That type of attitude is not helpful at all for the unity of the country.
* * *
(1445)
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Given the Prime Minister's answers to our questions and to those
of the Reform Party leader, we realize that he does not know how to
stop the constitutional circus that he put on the road a few weeks
ago. Six weeks ago, according to the Prime Minister, Quebec was
his homeland. One week ago, Quebec no longer had a culture and,
since yesterday, it is no longer entitled to democracy.
Are we to understand that, in order to save his skin in the rest of
Canada, the Prime Minister is prepared to do anything, even to
threaten Quebecers with using everything within his power to keep
them from achieving sovereignty?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is not very complicated. I simply asked the Bloc
Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois to be honest and to say that they
want to separate from the rest of Canada, pure and simple. They
have the answer.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): The Bloc Quebecois is very honest.
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, I ask you to choose your words
very carefully. We should never question honesty in this House.
Therefore, I would appreciate it if members would using that word
during question period, with the connotation given to it today.
As you know, some words tend to trigger a strong reaction.
Consequently, I ask the Right Hon. Prime Minister to avoid using
the word honesty with that connotation.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Mr. Speaker, I said that they
should ask a clear and honest question. They will be the ones
asking the question. All we want is a very clear question, and not
one that tries to include all sorts of conditions to get people
confused to the point where they do not know whether they are
voting for or against separation. All we want is a clear question. If
they want a suggestion, here is one: ``Do you want to separate from
Canada?'' This is very clear and everyone will understand. There
will be no problem. However, they know that they will lose if they
ask a question like this one.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, should the hard line towards Quebec announced yesterday
by the Prime Minister not be seen as a metaphor for his entire
career, in other words, as consolidating his base in Canada while
trying to crush Quebecers?
[English]
The Speaker: The question in and of itself is giving motive to
why one person is acting one way or another. A question should be
straightforward rather than asking or implying motive.
The question as it is stated is out of order. If the right hon. Prime
Minister wants to answer it, fine; if not I pass from there.
[Translation]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will reply, because they do that all the time. If you
happen to be from Quebec and you believe that Quebec's future is
within Canada, they brand you as a traitor, but the fact is that
French was able to survive in North America because of Canada.
* * *
(1450 )
[English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, recently the dollar went down and the interest rate went up
substantially. This is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the
finance minister's proud announcement that his deficit elimination
plan is on track.
Will the minister admit that drifting targets are not enough, that
overspending $4 million an hour is too much and that markets and
future generations of Canadians want him to do better like, for
example, the eight provinces whose finance ministers he will meet
tonight?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
knows full well the reasons for the volatility in Canadian currency
markets in terms of interest rates has an enormous amount to do
with speculation of what action the Fed is going to take and what
action a number of the European central banks is going to take. The
hon. member knows it.
It is a tribute to the budgetary action taken by the government
that the spread between Canadian interest rates has narrowed as
much as it has.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the provincial finance ministers are complaining, with
much justification, that the government has cut them more than it
has cut
17581
other federal spending. This is a typical Liberal approach to dealing
with problems. Shift the burden, let someone else take the blame.
Will the minister cut other federal spending more, not just to
restore harmony with his provincial counterparts but also to send
the right signals to capital markets?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when reductions in
transfers to the provinces by the government were made, unlike
previous governments there was a lengthy period of notice given.
The fact is that we cut the provinces less than we cut ourselves. It
was less than 2 per cent of provincial revenues.
If the hon. member will take a look at the Fiscal Monitor which
came out today he will notice that program spending by the
government is down and transfers to the provinces are up.
* * *
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of National Revenue. Under the child tax benefit
program Revenue Canada's responsibilities are to calculate the
amount of each benefit, maintain each account and respond to
inquiries.
Revenue Canada now has the added responsibility of
determining who is entitled to the benefit. Can the minister explain
to the House how this change has improved the child tax benefit
program?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, before I respond to the question may I thank the hon.
member for her consistent endorsement and championship of the
problems and rights of children.
In response to her question, the integration of the program in one
department is allowing us to maximize the efficiency and to
improve our client services in a number of ways: first, by
processing the child tax benefit applications at one stage instead of
as was formerly the case; second, by eliminating the duplication of
databases and the weekly transfers of information that previously
took place between two departments; third, by simply reducing
program costs and finally, by providing clients with a single point
of contact.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
On the weekend we heard that the federal government was
preparing to shut down Radio Canada International. According to
reliable sources, cabinet was to ratify this decision without waiting
for the conclusions of the Juneau report which was to examine the
mandate of the CBC.
Could the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell us whether he
recommended or intends to recommend that cabinet change the
mandate of the CBC so as to cut the services of Radio Canada
International, before the Juneau report is even tabled?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
No, Mr. Speaker.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, that was
short and sweet.
Since the government accepted the recommendation by
government members of the foreign affairs committee to make
every effort to fully develop the potential of Radio Canada
International, what explanation does the minister have for this
alleged about-face?
(1455)
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is no about-face. I have said in this House that
the future of the CBC would be considered by the government in
the course of a review of its mandate. We are waiting for the results
of a study of the CBC's mandates made by a special committee.
And we intend to determine the future of the corporation within
that context.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
minute ago the finance minister made the absurd statement that
somehow the government has cut more of its spending than it has
cut transfers to the provinces. I point out that it did back flips to
preserve Liberal pensions and the finance minister led the charge in
that whole argument.
The people who have been showing leadership in the country are
those in the provincial governments. The only leadership this
minister has shown is in defending his interests.
Will the finance minister commit to taking a page from the book
of the provinces? Will he balance the budget and will he hold out
the hope of tax relief for ordinary Canadians who actually pay
taxes?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, surely there ought to
be some connection between the preamble to the question and the
question itself.
The hon. member knows that the government's objectives are to
eliminate the deficit. It has pursued a very clear track of deficit
elimination. It has bettered its targets every time, which is the first
time in a long while that that has happened in this country's history.
17582
It is focused on the preservation of social programs and on job
creation.
The government is not going to throw the fabric of the country
away because of any narrow fiscal ideology as expressed by the
members opposite.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the fact
is job creation has stalled in the country. The fact is the government
is being forced to cut into social programs because the interest on
the debt is undermining those programs. The fact is that the
provinces are leading the way.
Will the Minister of Finance take a leadership role for a change,
go to the conference today and tell the provinces that he is going to
undertake to do what they have done and begin the process of
balancing the budget. Will he ultimately hold out some hope to
Canadians that there will be some tax relief, not in the 21st century
but in this century?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the history of the last
decade in this country and its deficit projections have been one of
missed target after missed target.
Since the government took office, not only has it hit the targets,
but it has bettered them. That is very clear. Rounding off the
numbers, when the present government took office the deficit was
at 6 per cent of GDP. Then it went down to 5 per cent, next 4 per
cent, then 3 per cent and then 2 per cent. That is a pretty clear track
and we are going to take it all the way to zero.
* * *
Mr. Elijah Harper (Churchill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Last week aboriginal spiritual leaders and elders, representatives
of many churches and faiths, political leaders, youth and ordinary
Canadians gathered in Hull for a sacred assembly. The assembly
asked for a national aboriginal day to recognize the contribution of
the aboriginal people to this country and to celebrate a distinct
people which has thrived on this land for thousands of years.
Does the minister support a national holiday to recognize the
tremendous generosity and contributions of the first peoples to this
country?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I did not speak with clarity
yesterday but I hope to today. I support the efforts to make June 21
aboriginal solidarity day.
This was put forward as a vision by the national chief on behalf
of his people. We talked about reconciliation, a day when
aboriginal communities can celebrate themselves and their
contribution. They can organize festivities.
(1500)
This vision was approved by his people, the grand chief and his
assembly, by all the spiritual leaders who were there, not only the
native spiritual leaders but the spiritual leaders from the Mennonite
church, the Anglican church and the Catholic church, every church,
and by this minister.
* * *
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
On January 1, the Minister of Finance intends to go ahead with a
plan that dates from 1991 and has been repeatedly postponed. It
involves limiting the deductibility of provincial taxes on capital
and payroll from federal income tax. Implementing this proposal
would penalize business in Quebec especially, because Quebec
takes half the taxes that would be affected by the federal measure.
Will the Minister of Finance agree once and for all to do away
with the plan to limit the deductibility of taxes on capital and
payroll from federal income tax, a plan that would hit Quebec
business hard?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member is
aware, this measure hits a number of provinces. The member also
knows that, when I was in his place, I asked the same questions and
had the same discussion as opposition critic.
It is certainly our intention to resolve the question, but we want
to resolve it as part of discussions on all taxation measures between
the provinces and the federal government.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have just received what Correctional Services Canada calls its
latest amended version of the commissioner's directives. I quote
from that document: ``Overtime shall only be awarded where no
other reasonable alternative exists''. This is in prison.
17583
Would the Deputy Prime Minister confirm whether this
ridiculous policy still remains on the books or whether if a parolee
is sent back to jail he somehow qualifies for time and a half?
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has
informed us of the information he has just received. Therefore for
the benefit of members concerned I will take this under
advisement. I am sure the minister will answer him appropriately.
* * *
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Tomorrow the Chinese government will be trying leading
dissident Wei Jingsheng, the winner of the 1995 Olaf Palme Award,
on charges that could lead to the death penalty.
I ask the minister to tell the House what steps the Liberal
government has taken to protest this rushed show trial? He was
given five days notice of this trial. Will the minister assure the
House that the Canadian embassy in Beijing will send a senior
representative to monitor this trial tomorrow?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I assure the hon. member we will investigate this
situation. Our official in Beijing will act according to the spirit of
Canada which has been never to hesitate to speak out on behalf of
human rights, particularly in China.
* * *
The Speaker: Colleagues, today it gives me great pleasure to
introduce a very select group of Canadians. Because I want to join
you in applauding them, I ask that you wait until I have introduced
all of them.
I want to introduce your very own Canadian space heroes, our
first Canadian mission specialist, Major Chris Hadfield, his wife,
Helena, and the following astronauts from the Canadian Space
Agency Astronaut Corporation: Dr. Steve MacLean, Mrs. Julie
Payette, Dr. Dave Williams, Dr. Marc Garneau, Mr. Bjarni
Tryggvason, Dr. Robert Thirsk.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1505)
[Translation]
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, this is a very special day.
[English]
I invite all hon. members, if their duties permit them to attend, to
Room 218, the Speaker's salon, where I will be holding a reception
for our astronauts, who have made us so very proud.
Mr. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There has
been some comment on votes taken in the House. I want to make it
clear, if only for the record, that with respect to the votes taken
yesterday I would have voted against the amendments and in
favour of the resolution.
With respect to the vote that will take place tomorrow, for which
I will be absent, I would vote against-
The Speaker: That is not a point of order.
* * *
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of a ways and means motion to
amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Act, the Excise Tax Act, the
Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act, the Old
Age Security Act and the Canada Shipping Act. I ask that an order
of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.
_____________________________________________
17583
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-110, an act
respecting constitutional amendments, as reported (without
amendment) from the committee; and of Motions Nos. 1 and 2.
(1510 )
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to speak on Bill C-110, part of the unity package by the Liberal
government and the Prime Minister, which appears has created
more disunity than any recent package.
As minister Petter from British Columbia recently said, it not
only fails to promote national unity but it has impaired national
unity, a position with which I heartily agree.
In the north, in particular Yukon and Northwest Territories, and I
hope my colleagues from Western Arctic and Nunatsiaq will speak
up on this issue, this bill will make it even more difficult for the
creation of new provinces. I find it difficult to understand why
17584
those two important members of the Liberal government would
not be speaking out strongly against this proposal.
The west, as we know, feels alienated. Quebec says no. Clearly
this bill is not creating unity. As has been said recently, when you
have painted yourself into a corner, you walk out on the paint. The
Prime Minister has really walked out on the paint in this case. The
footprints are causing reverberations right across Canada. They are
not reverberations of unity but of discontent with the actions of the
government prior to the referendum in Quebec and with its actions
to address issues since then.
I will talk about three issues: the purpose of this bill, the process
surrounding this bill and the other two aspects of this package, and
the content. As good New Democrats always do, I will give some
specific suggestions to what should be done with this bill.
I have listened very carefully to various members who spoke
before committee, in particular the Minister of Justice, about why
it was important to have this bill. I am left wondering whether there
has been someone out there hiding behind a rock, excuse the
expression, waiting to leap out and spring some kind of
constitutional proposal on us that somehow the federal government
has to be protected against and enshrined in legislation such as Bill
C-110 so it will know what to do. Maybe that is one purpose, but it
was something that was certainly a surprise to most of us.
Bill C-110 instructs the government on how it will use its power
to accept or not accept constitutional amendments. It does not
change the Constitution. Therefore that was obviously not the
purpose of the bill.
The leader of the Liberal Party in Yukon, always with
constructive comment, said in the Whitehorse Start of December 5
that the Prime Minister is trying to fulfil his promise of coming up
with a plan that will satisfy the people of Quebec. He clearly has
not done that.
What could be the other purpose? The Minister of Justice said in
committee hearings: ``This bill is just a bridge to the April 1997
constitutional conference on the amending formula. It can be
changed. It is just in place temporarily''. Again, we have to ask
why. If it is there temporarily, it is satisfies no one, what is the real
purpose?
The leader of the New Democratic Party, Alexa McDonough,
called this constitutional package a fly by the seat of its pants
response to yesterday's polls and today's editorials. That about
sums up the purpose of this package, in particular this piece of
legislation under discussion today.
The Minister of Justice said in terms of purpose that Quebec is
acting and so we have to act. I guess by that sense of logic if
someone decides to leap off a building, they will decide to leap off
a building. There does not seem to be any comprehensive reason
for this package other than for the Prime Minister to save face. He
has not succeeded. It is a heck of a way to run a country if the
government and the Prime Minister are simply putting proposals
forward to keep a promise. These proposals do not keep that
promise and they alienate not only the province to which they are
destined but the other provinces and territories.
(1515 )
What about the process? There was no consultation with
provinces, territories or aboriginal people. Apparently there was no
obvious consultation even with members from British Columbia on
the Liberal side.
It is fair to say that the process generally in place for
constitutional discussions was totally circumvented. Those of us
who have been a part of many constitutional endeavours in the
House know how difficult it is and are empathetic to it. However,
no process is not a substitute. No process is no democracy. That
cannot be the essence and principle on which constitutional change
is made.
The Prime Minister said that he responded to British Columbia,
that it would now have the veto it requested. He added in a recent
television interview that he knew the country well and had
travelled it for 32 years. If the Prime Minister knows the country
and the people so well, why does he not listen beforehand rather
than act in an ad hoc manner?
I have to say, because I want to be fair to the government, that
there was not a complete lack of consultation. In the same article of
December 5 in the Whitehorse Star the president of the federal
Liberal association is quoted as saying that she received calls from
the prime minister's office and was reassured that changes would
not be a hindrance to Yukon. The president went on to say that she
felt very reassured after speaking with officials from Ottawa.
I would only say: ``It should be so easy''. If we have Canadians
and members of the Liberal Party in other parts of the country who
simply by making a phone call to Ottawa can be reassured by the
Liberal government that everything they are doing is fine and there
is no worry, I have to say we are in big trouble.
To the people of Yukon and elsewhere I say that a simple
reassurance will not do it. It has not done so in this package. It has
not done so in Bill C-110. Clearly the Minister of Justice has
difficulty defining for Canadians and members of the House what
purpose it will actually serve. The process was clearly not
respected in any way in the development of the legislation.
In terms of process, the Liberal Party brought in closure on
debate. It is something we have great difficulty with because we
feel in a democratic system everyone should have an opportunity to
speak. Although my party and I did not support closure, in this case
I suppose the Liberals are only talking to themselves anyway. We
have to wonder how serious that will be.
17585
Now I will refer to the content. How does Bill C-110 relate to
section 38 of the Constitution? That is the real question. Section 38
talks about the amending formula of seven provinces with 50 per
cent of the population. This legislation would require over 80 per
cent of the population to make change. It is clearly a very different
intent from the actual Constitution.
The Minister of Justice says that it does not matter, that it is only
temporary. Again I ask if there is someone out there lurking,
wishing to spring something on us, from which we have to be
protected. Why can we not have a process that people are involved
in, with full consultation involving all the provinces, territories and
aboriginal people?
We ask whether the formula being proposed under Bill C-110
will be the position of the federal government in the talks in April
1997 on the Constitution and the amending formula. The
government has been very unclear about that and has not
committed at all to what it will do.
In the generosity of spirit for which my party is known I should
like to make some recommendations. The first one is to withdraw
the bill. It is ill advised. It is not achieving any objective. The
process has been illegitimate and the content does not address the
real issues of Canadians today.
The second one is to undertake consultations with the provinces,
the territories and the aboriginal people to reach a consensus.
(1520)
The third and most important one is if the bill is simply for the
Prime Minister to save face and to be seen to keeping his promises,
he should keep his promises and create jobs. Last month 44,000
Canadians lost their jobs. If the Prime Minister wants to keep his
promises, he should create jobs and help the youth to participate in
the economy. The participation rate of youth in our economy is the
lowest in 20 years. He should put in place the 50,000 child care
spaces promised by the Liberal Party and ensure cash transfers are
maintained so that the national health care system is preserved.
In other words, unity will be achieved by what we do to ensure
economic security, safe communities and the rights of Canadian
citizenship, which surely must mean good health care, jobs,
security for the elderly and the eradication of child poverty. Instead
of trying to devise formulas for 50 ways to say no, the Prime
Minister must create unity by creating a country in which every
Canadian wants to say yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with
considerable interest that I rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C-110
concerning a veto for Quebec.
You are aware that, during the referendum, the Prime Minister
spoke of major change and promises. What is odd, immediately
after the referendum, is that the Prime Minister is saying he made
little promises and that he has just acted on his little promises.
As regards Quebec's veto and the concept of distinct society, it
would be a good idea perhaps to remember the people of Quebec
have a motto, which is: ``Je me souviens'', or ``I remember''. We
often have to remind the Prime Minister of Canada, a Quebecer
himself, to remember a little bit of Quebec's history. We must also
remind Quebecers that they have a history that they must never
forget.
Quebecers have been demanding their rights and privileges since
Confederation, when they were misled. This Confederation was
decided on without Quebecers being asked for their opinion,
without a referendum, probably with the help of a few Quebecers
who were richly rewarded afterwards. Between 1936 and 1940, Mr.
Duplessis was already saying that, of course, Quebec had to
``repatriate its booty''. The Union nationale, a party of Quebec
nationalists, was created as early as 1936. Mr. Duplessis managed
to stay in power for almost 20 years by repeating that the federal
government must not be allowed to encroach on Quebec's
jurisdiction. Then, in the 1960s, Mr. Lesage was elected by talking
about being ``Masters in our own house''.
You must remember that these slogans were very important; Mr.
Lesage, a former deputy minister in Ottawa, came to Quebec City
after realizing that Quebec was being taken for a ride. He led the
Liberal Party to power with a slogan that went like this: ``Masters
in our own house''. A little later, Mr. Johnson senior became
Premier as leader of the Union nationale by calling for ``Equality or
independence''. In 1976, Mr. Lévesque won the election on a
sovereignty-association platform. As you can see, this is nothing
new.
(1525)
I wish to remind him today that this is nothing new and that the
Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois are not the only forces
behind the recent referendum. It has a long history. In 1980, Mr.
Lévesque lost his referendum because of Mr. Trudeau's promises
that they would patriate the Constitution and amend it in line with
Quebecers' legitimate needs.
Again, this promise was not kept, since the Constitution was
patriated and amended without Quebec's consent. This is
somewhat reminiscent of the Prime Minister's promises in the last
referendum.
I was elected here for the first time in 1984 with a mandate for
national reconciliation. We wanted to reconcile all that. From early
1985 all the way up to 1987, we worked very hard on what was
called the Meech Lake project, which met with the provincial
premiers' approval in 1987. But since it had been decided that the
consent of seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the popula-
17586
tion was required to amend the Constitution, consent had to be
sought. The provinces were given three years to approve the
agreement signed by the premiers in 1987.
You will recall that, in 1990, the Meech Lake accord was
rejected, by English Canada in particular, once again with the
support of the current Prime Minister, who made every effort to
have it fail, in co-operation with premier Wells of Newfoundland
and Ms. Carstairs, who was leader of the Liberal Party in
Saskatchewan at the time and has since been appointed to the
Senate. She was rewarded for doing that.
All this to show that, once again, the current Prime Minister was
against it, because his only goal at the time was to become the next
Prime Minister of Canada. He made every effort to ensure that the
Meech Lake project fail because, had it worked, it would has been
to the credit of the Conservatives. Since they could not allow that to
be, the current Prime Minister, then preparing to become the leader
of the Liberal Party, did his best to have this project fail, so that he
could have a chance of becoming the Prime Minister of Canada.
That is what we must bear in mind.
When the Meech Lake accord failed, they panicked, so to speak,
wondering what to do. That is when the commissions started, the
Castonguay-Dobbie commission and all the others. There was also
Keith Spicer's travelling commission. That cost us millions. At the
same time, Quebec got into the act and established the
Bélanger-Campeau commission. That was the most serious
exercise ever conducted in Quebec since Confederation.
More than 600 briefs were submitted to the commission. Over
200 witnesses were heard, and 55 experts were hired by the Quebec
Liberal government of the time. The commission came to the
conclusion that, to thrive and grow, while also preserving its
culture and its language, Quebec needed greater powers, more than
20 real powers, to achieve its destiny as a nation.
During that period, as I mentioned earlier, the
Castonguay-Dobbie and Spicer federal commissions were working
on a project called the Charlottetown proposal. A referendum was
held in 1992 and, unfortunately, the project was still not quite
complete. It was called a draft and it was truly that.
(1530)
In spite of all that, English Canada turned down the proposal
because it felt that Quebecers would be getting too much. As for
Quebecers, they felt that they would not get enough. So, everybody
voted against the proposal, though not for the same reasons.
As you can see, it is not possible to reach an agreement. There
are two irreconcilable views in this country that must be
acknowledged. Following that referendum, Quebecers elected a
sovereignist federal party, the Bloc Quebecois, in 1993. Out of 75
MPs, they sent 53 Bloc members to Ottawa. Let us not forget that.
Then, the following year, another sovereignist party, the Parti
Quebecois, was elected in Quebec. Finally, a Quebec referendum
was held in 1995. This is when the Prime Minister promised major
changes. But now he comes up with minor changes and he has the
nerve to say: ``Here are the small changes I promised you''.
However, during the referendum, Quebecers were led to believe
that there would be major changes.
Unfortunately, we lost that referendum. However, 49.4 per cent
of Quebecers supported sovereignty. The two sides were literally
neck and neck. Sixty per cent of Quebec's French speaking voters
supported sovereignty, but this is not enough to achieve our
destiny.
As I said, in 1980, Mr. Trudeau promised major constitutional
changes. Quebecers believed him, but he did just the opposite of
what he had said. In the 1995 referendum, the current Prime
Minister also promised major changes. Everybody was expecting
great constitutional amendments. But instead, all we get are not
even amendments, just a House of Commons bill, Bill C-110,
which gives Quebec a veto and recognizes Quebec as a distinct
society. This is a far cry from constitutional amendments.
We know full well that a bill can be amended at any time. Even
the present government could amend this act tomorrow morning,
next week, next month. The Liberal government could be replaced
and its successor could decide to change this constitutional
amendment. This does not mean anything. This is an affront to the
people of Quebec.
Moreover, five regions are given a veto: British Columbia, the
western provinces, Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes. A veto for
Quebec would mean, for instance, that Quebec has a veto on
account of it being a people who is a minority in Canada. The
Quebec people must have a veto. But if it is also given to
everybody else, it does not mean anything any more.
The Prime Minister is once again trying to deceive Quebecers, to
trick them. He keeps on repeating: ``We want to give Quebecers a
veto, we want to recognize Quebec as a distinct society''. But at the
same time, he does not mention the he is giving a veto to the others.
Essentially, what this really means is that the Prime Minister and
the Liberal Party have decided that there will never be any
constitutional amendment. By giving a veto to five regions, you
make sure that there will always be a region which will not agree to
the amendments put forward by the federal government or
somebody else. There will always be obstacles and the Prime
Minister is deceiving the Quebec people trying to make them
believe that they are being given veto power. By giving veto power
to everybody he is not willing to amend the Constitution. It is as
simple as that.
17587
(1535)
It is a trap and I am telling Quebecers that the Prime Minister
and the Liberal Party of Canada are trying to deceive them. If we
are voting against this veto power and against this distinct society it
is because it is a trap set for Quebecers. I want to say that clearly to
Quebecers today.
It is an insult to Quebecers and they should remember the little
story I just told, because we tend to forget it.
At the present time, what the Prime Minister is doing is making
fools of Quebecers. He believes they are not too bright. He seems
to think that Quebecers have a short memory.
I remind the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party that in Quebec
the motto on the license plates is ``Je me souviens'', I remember. I
often tell my constituents: Never forget to look at the car in front of
you, its license plate probably says: ``Je me souviens''. We should
remember our history, it is not that long. If we do, maybe we will
not be duped so easily.
During the last referendum, people in English Canada panicked
because polls were saying the yes side was leading. They were
totally panicked. Why? Because the Prime Minister of Canada had
made these people believe that there was no danger whatsoever that
Quebecers would ever vote for sovereignty. Yet, it was close. It was
very close and I find it regrettable that the Prime Minister had
concealed the Quebec reality from the rest of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, you are indicating that my time is up. Is it, really?
The Deputy Speaker: It is the Chair's fault; your time was up
four minutes ago.
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I
would have a lot more to say, but I think that what I just mentioned
will certainly enlighten Quebecers.
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the more I hear from the government, and from the Bloc
Quebecois and its leader, it begs the question: Why are we wasting
time trying to fix the problems of Confederation in Quebec when
the leader of the Bloc, the heir apparent of the separatist Parti
Quebecois in the province of Quebec, has stated that he will not
accept anything that is done? Why not get on with fixing the
problems that affect all of Canada, including Quebec? When the
Government of Quebec is ready to sit down at the table and discuss
its concerns, that is the time to do fine tuning on Quebec's specific
problems.
Let us look at our humble beginnings in this country. What is
now Quebec and Ontario was thought of as the main part of
Canada. The rest was looked on as the colonies. The Atlantic
region was mainly considered an east coast access, the prairies as
farm country and British Columbia as west coast access. Each
outlying region was expected to harvest its raw materials or
produce and send it to the centre for processing and consumption. It
was not until the 1930s that the prairies gained control over its oil
and gas reserves.
The government of the day primarily represented central Canada
and concerned itself mainly with the issues of central Canada. The
rest of the country was simple, under developed and relatively
unconcerned with the concentration of power at the centre core.
That notwithstanding the fact that there was a certain reluctance on
the part of many people in British Columbia to join Confederation.
It was not until late this century that Newfoundland on the opposite
coast finally agreed to join Confederation.
Overall this worked acceptably but times change. Consider how
the average family operates. Within that family there are certain
rules by the head of the family, by a parent laying down rules that
are appropriate for the time and place of that family. As the
younger members of the family become teenagers, if the parent
group continues to treat them like pre-schoolers, there will be a lot
of resentment and problems within that family.
(1540 )
As those teenagers grow into adults, as times change and as
evolution takes place in their personal development, it will be time
for them to move on and become adults in their own right, to stand
on their own. If the rules of the family have grown with them and
been proper and reasonable, then there will always be close family
ties and there will be an interdependence and relationship between
family members. However, if the head of the family is unyielding
and unreasonable, then the younger family members will flee the
family, never to be a part of it again. This is a very fitting analogy
to view the way Canada is going at this moment.
Quebec is distinct. No one could or wishes to dispute that.
However, the Atlantic provinces are distinct in their heritage and
culture. The prairies had a much harder struggle for survival and
development than central Canada. That makes them unique, or as
the popular buzzword goes today, distinct. British Columbia is
geographically and culturally distinct from the rest of this country.
Perhaps the most distinct of all is the territories. Their unique
geography and climate sets them apart form the rest of the country.
It takes a special kind of person to develop the territories and those
people and their area are unquestionably distinct.
The only way the concept of a distinct society can be dealt with
fairly is to recognize that all of Canada is made up of a collection of
distinct societies, each with its merits. Saying this does not
diminish the uniqueness of Quebec's language or culture but no
province, territory, region or group should have any special powers
not bestowed on the others.
17588
Each of the provinces should have more autonomy to deal with
its needs. Most of what Quebec apparently wants should be granted
to all provinces. When the federal government finally realizes that
not only the 19th century is gone but most of the 20th century as
well, perhaps it will start to deal with the needs of the 21st century.
It is time to realize that Canada is no longer a central core with
supporting colonies on either end.
The whole concept of a constitutional veto is wrong. What is
needed is constitutional ratification which is now in place with the
seven and fifty formula. The current veto legislation is a knee jerk
reaction from a government that felt it needed to do something and
frankly did not know what to do.
First it was a veto for Quebec. When that did not sell, it added in
the provinces and regional concept. Still no sale, so the government
tinkered a bit more. As it now stands there are senior provinces and
junior provinces. Reform's position has always been that if there is
a veto it is the people of the various provinces or regions that
should have it.
When the government first came forward with its ill-conceived
veto idea, it could not have gotten it more wrong if it tried.
Sometimes I think it probably did try. First and most important, it
provided this veto to the regional governments instead of the
people. Second, it did not even know the proper concept for the
regions. Belatedly it tried to correct its error on the real number of
regions but in so doing it continued to provide vetoes to
governments instead of the people.
Imagine the horror of people right across this country: a veto on
the Constitution in the hands of a separatist government. Bill C-110
is not a unity bill. It is a disunity bill.
The Prime Minister thought he could get away with his standard
strategy during the Quebec referendum. That strategy is doing
absolutely nothing. What the heck, it has kept the government
artificially high in the polls ever since the election so why not
continue? The swing to the yes side leading up to the referendum
provided the answer to that. The Prime Minister's lack of
leadership, which had worked so well for him in the past, proved to
be a problem which almost cost us the country.
His continued lack of a real plan and his unwillingness to deal
with the real problems may yet destroy the country. For too long
divisiveness has been a great problem in Canada: English versus
the French, aboriginal versus non-aboriginal as well as cultural
issues.
(1545 )
Instead of working to resolve the differences and making all
Canadians equal, the government has worked on the basis of divide
and conquer. It seems to believe that only where there is
confrontation is there a real need for government. It is time for the
government to realize that it is not the solution and in fact is the
problem.
This latest bill by the government, often referred to as something
drafted on the back of a napkin, follows the old divide and conquer
philosophy. However the government is losing its ability to
conquer. When that happens, all that is left of the old formula is
divide.
The Bloc Quebecois and Parti Quebecois are really one and the
same. They must be taking a secret delight in the government's
latest faulty strategy. Both of them want to break up the country at
any cost and the Prime Minister is playing right into their hands.
The country's problems cannot be solved by playing one problem
against another, and that is exactly what Bill C-110 does.
The Prime Minister knew that offering a deal to Quebec alone
would not be accepted so he included another province, Ontario.
When that did not appear to be working he added one more, British
Columbia. When Alberta protested he suggested that it effectively
had a veto over the rest of the prairies by virtue of its population
mass.
Indian versus white, immigrant versus citizen, English versus
French, east versus west, and now province versus province. When
will the government wake up and realize that it is not saving or
protecting the country but is destroying it?
Bill C-110 is not the answer to the country's problems. It is a
symptom of the problems. Not only should the bill not be passed. It
should not even be voted on. If the government had any integrity at
all it would withdraw the bill and proceed instead to a process of
decentralization.
Not only will I not be supporting the bill, but as a member of
Parliament from B.C. and one who has certain unquestioned
loyalties to my home province I will also vote against the
amendment to give B.C. a veto. To do otherwise would be
providing an indication of endorsing a nationally unacceptable
concept.
Instead of the continuing policy of divide and conquer, it is long
past time that the government started practising a new policy of
equality of all people and provinces in Canada. It may be a bit
much for me to expect it. However it is Christmastime. Maybe
miracles still happen. What a Christmas present it would be for
Canada if it happened now.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today, we
are rushing through debate on Bill C-110, an act respecting
constitutional amendments.
I say rushing, because, as you know, the Liberal government has
been attempting in the last few days to speed up the political
process to ensure speedy passage of Bill C-110.
Let us first take a look at the general context of this real crab trap
the Prime Minister got himself caught in, according to some
analysts, and we certainly agree with them.
17589
A few days before the October 30 Quebec referendum, the
federal Prime Minister, driven by panic, made an about-face and
promised major changes to Canadian federalism. So, in early
November, he created two committees made up of federal ministers
in order to examine the issue of constitutional and administrative
changes. I want to point out that, since then, we never heard
anything more about those committees.
Then, on November 27, two weeks ago, even before knowing
what these committees werre going to propose, the Canadian
government announced its intentions on constitutional matters:
first, a resolution symbolically recognizing the distinct nature of
Quebec, then a bill where the federal government committed itself
to never adopt constitutional amendments to which one of the four
regions of Canada, namely, Quebec, Ontario, the Maritimes and the
West, were opposed.
Finally, the third measure expressed Ottawa's intention to
partially withdraw from manpower training programs, while, of
course, maintaining control over funds and national standards. One
can understand the government for trying to gag any opponent of
its constitutional reform package. The utter mess it has created and
cannot get itself out of verges on the most grotesque cynicism.
(1550)
Quebecers have nevertheless seen through its scheme. The
results of a SOM poll which was released last Friday show that 53
per cent of Quebecers find the federal proposals inadequate, and a
meagre 24 per cent find them adequate.
Interviews for the poll were conducted between December 2 and
December 5, two days before the last episode of government
bungling over the veto for B.C. and Alberta. Results would be even
more critical if the poll were taken today.
As far as improvisation and inconsistency go, in an area as
fundamental as constitutional changes, the federal government
takes the cake. Even before Quebecers had a chance to say these
proposals were unacceptable, the federal government yielded to
pressure from the west and granted a veto to B.C. and a veto by
default to Alberta.
But the show did not end there. Last week, federal Liberals fell
all over themselves to tell us Quebec does not have a distinct
culture and there is only one Canadian culture from coast to coast.
We have a government that claims to be willing to grant
symbolic recognition of Quebec's distinctive character, but says at
the same time that this does not mean anything and that Quebecers
do not have a distinct culture. As I already said, these intellectual
flip-flops are tragically funny and deceptive.
With Bill C-110, the roundabout ways of the government are just
as difficult to follow. First of all, we are told that this bill gives
Quebec a veto power, which Quebec thought it had until the
Supreme Court stated otherwise in 1982. Since it is one of the two
founding nations, Quebecers had always thought that, in order to
maintain a good relationship, both partners had to agree before
major changes could be made. However, Bill C-110 does the exact
opposite and achieves an incredible feat by annoying all Canadians
from sea to sea to sea.
Quebecers have always considered the veto power as, by
definition, a kind of constitutional protection, because they did not
want to relive the events of 1982 and be excluded from the
constitutional amendment and reform process. But Bill C-110 is
only a bill. All it will take is a majority of members in this House
and Quebec can say goodbye to its veto power.
We are far from entrenching this power in the fundamental law
of Canada. This unconstitutionalized veto will not be granted only
to the two founding nations.
At first, besides Quebec, Bill C-110 was to grant this veto power
to Ontario, the Atlantic provinces and the Western provinces. A
week later, after a press conference given by the premiers of B.C.
and Alberta, these two provinces also got the veto power. By the
end of my speech, the federal government may have granted a veto
to Nova Scotia and Manitoba.
As my colleague from Bellechasse put it, in his colourful
language, this is the Colonel Sanders' veto power, a big chicken
with legs for everybody.
The message the Liberal government is conveying is pretty
simple: Quebec is a province like any other and only gets a veto
because of the size of its population. With the recent presents
offered to us by our federal Santa Claus in this Christmas season,
any change will require the support of at least seven provinces
representing at least 91.8 per cent of the Canadian population.
In other words, Quebec is not getting a veto, but rather a
guarantee that all future constitutional negotiations will have the
same fate as Meech or Charlottetown. We have reached a
constitutional dead end and there is virtually no way of getting out.
One has to be particularly out of touch-and we thought we had
seen the worst of it with the Charlottetown Accord-to add insult
to injury.
(1555)
In a press release dated November 27 of this year, the Liberal
government said, and I quote: ``Now is not the time to hold a round
of constitutional talks since the Government of Quebec is
completely dedicated to the secessionist option. If conditions
changed, that is if Quebec and the other regions agreed, the veto
proposal contained in this bill could be enshrined in the
Constitution''.
17590
So the federal government is imposing its own constitutional
rules without seeking the approval of Canada's four or five
regions-the number varies from one day to the next. Already the
government is not respecting the principles of Bill C-110 in its
current approach. Like Trudeau in 1982, this Liberal government is
trying to impose a formula for amending the Constitution through a
process that goes against the very principle underlying the
proposed formulas.
In closing, I urge Liberal members to oppose Bill C-110-I
know I am dreaming but one more nightmare will not make a
difference-for the simple reason that if Liberal members love
Quebec so much, as they came to tell us before the referendum,
they should understand that Quebecers will never be satisfied with
empty shells and constitutional footballs that have no more
credibility that the rhetoric that comes with them. The least we can
say is that, in the best country in the world, even crabs are laughing
their heads off.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's
very important debate which, as you are aware, has grown out of
the referendum debate we had not long ago. On October 30, Canada
gained more than a mere referendum victory.
History will recall this referendum as one in which not only
Quebecers but millions of Canadians renewed their allegiance to
our country and proclaimed their pride at being Canadian. From sea
to sea, millions of Canadians realized more clearly than ever before
how important it was for them to live in this great country rich in
resources and in potential.
People everywhere also became aware that the unity of our
country is more important than many individual demands. People
everywhere said that keeping this country together was a
worthwhile undertaking, was worth a few concessions and
compromises. The Prime Minister clearly understood what
Canadians were feeling on the eve of the referendum. He saw our
desire and our determination to continue to see this best of all
countries progress even further. He also recognized the desire
everywhere in the country for change, concrete and progressive
change within Canada.
The Prime Minister kept his promise. Barely a month after his
promise to Quebecers to recognize the distinct society, to give
Quebec a veto and to decentralize powers, he has made good on
that promise. Last Monday we passed the motion the Prime
Minister had promised recognizing Quebec as a distinct society.
Today, we are looking at Bill C-110 on the right to a veto.
A few days ago, my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources
Development, proposed a new employment insurance plan which
gives the provinces full jurisdiction over manpower training. This
is a real and effective way to bring services and decision making
closer to the people.
(1600)
The Prime Minister's initiative for change is a high point in the
recognition of Quebec's traditional claims.
These three elements-the distinct society, the veto and
decentralization of powers-form the essence of what Quebec has
wanted and has sought for 30 years.
We now know that there is no need to throw everything up in the
air or to give up our country, our citizenship or our future for our
identity to be recognized with dignity and our place to be
confirmed with pride in Canada's confederation.
Obviously, I am under no illusions. The opposition parties do not
recognize the immense value of the Prime Minister's proposals.
For the members of the Reform Party, the whole thing goes way too
far. To them, Quebec is not different, it is insufferable. It is not
distinct, it is incomprehensible. It does not need a veto, but rather
an ultimatum.
In fact, what the Reformers want is to separate Canada from
Quebec and thus rend a most noble fabric that forms the heart of an
independent, autonomous and unique Canada.
For the members of the Bloc Quebecois, opposite, the Prime
Minister's initiative does not go far enough. They treat it with
disdain and contempt. The leader and the members of the Bloc
Quebecois should remember that, on October 30, a majority of
Quebecers rejected their option of sovereignty. They said no to
their plan to separate Quebec from Canada. They said no to the
farfetched promises that were made. They said no to the enormous
economic risk the Bloc Quebecois wanted them to take.
Our friends opposite should humbly recall that on October 30,
Quebecers chose Canada. They chose to keep their Canadian
citizenship. They chose to keep their Canadian passport, invaluable
when you travel. They said they wanted to go on living in the best
country in the world.
On October 30, Quebecers chose to go on living in the country
that affords them the best guarantees for progress, success and
prosperity. And on October 30, Quebecers chose to live in Canada.
Of course Quebecers and Canadians as well indicated they
wanted change, but change within Canada. That is exactly what we
are proposing. The Bloc Quebecois maintains that it is not enough,
the Reform Party that it is too much. It should come as no surprise
that our position differs totally from that of the opposition parties.
The Bloc wants to isolate Quebec. We encourage Quebec to look
outward. The Bloc rejects everything we have built in the past 127
years. We are using our experience to make social and economic
gains. The Bloc wants to destroy our country. We are working to
make it even more prosperous, fairer and equitable.
17591
What we are proposing to Quebec today and what we have been
discussing for the past few weeks is a new way of approaching
constitutional amendments that might affect the powers, rights and
privileges of the National Assembly and the Government of
Quebec. In fact, what we are proposing to Quebecers is the
assurance that we will never amend the Constitution without their
consent. What we are proposing to Quebecers is an authentic
partnership that respects the rights and responsibilities of each
partner.
(1605)
We often said during the referendum campaign that federalism is
a flexible and dynamic formula. We said that we were open to
change and that change is possible within Canadian federalism.
The Prime Minister is a man of his word who leads a government
that keeps its promises. We had further proof of that today. Thanks
to the Prime Minister's initiatives for change, Canada and Quebec
are turning a new page in our history. This page and the pages that
follow will be imbued with the openness, respect and pride shown
by so many Quebecers and Canadians during the referendum
campaign.
In keeping with the will expressed by a majority of Quebecers on
October 30, we are now full partners. Thanks to this modern and
strong partnership, we will enter the next century still at the head of
the line and we will stay there.
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to enter this debate with mixed emotions, emotions of sadness
and gladness at the same time. I am reminded of the novel A Tale of
Two Cities. The opening sentence goes something like this: ``It was
the best of times; it was the worst of times''. Today we find
ourselves with that ambivalence in Canada.
In the last three weeks and the weeks preceding the October 30
referendum we have seen some of the most terrible things happen.
We have also seen some of the most wonderful things happen.
People have been divided and people have come together on this
issue. The Montreal rally was a coming together that we have
probably not witnessed ever before in this country, yet the occasion
was a negative one. It was one of tearing people apart.
Our country is a democracy. Unlike the words that were used
only a moment ago about the mutual respect that we need from one
another, the unfortunate part of it is that too often we impute
motives to people. People impute motives to members of the
Reform Party and say we want to tear Canada apart. Nothing could
be further from the truth than that.
I stand here today as a proud Canadian, as someone who was
born in this country, as someone who can look back to a
grandfather and father who left a country that was being taken over
by a
government that was not democratic. The Bolshevik revolution
brought about my family's emigration from Russia.
My grandfather came to Canada with his children and they
became citizens. They were buried here. Now I stand here and say I
am proud to be able to be in Canada. It is a privilege to be able to
speak one's mind and not be afraid that one might be stricken down
or killed because of opinions that one might hold.
While there are a lot of differences and variations in this country,
the real reason we are here is that this nation is free. It is here where
we can express our religious beliefs, where we can express our
political beliefs, where we can move forward and build a country
that is strong, a country that is united.
We saw a few days ago how fragile that peace can be. It reminds
me so much of a conversation I had with one of my constituents. He
is a person who came to this country seeking freedom, seeking a
domicile that would allow his children to grow up in peace and
harmony. This person has family in the old Yugoslavia.
(1610 )
My constituent said to me: ``I want you to know that I am not so
much concerned about what is happening in Bosnia right now
where my people are suffering the ravages of so-called ethnic
cleansing. I was very concerned. Two years ago when you were
elected all I could talk about was the way in which my forefathers'
country and the things they built were being taken apart. Now, I
want you to pay attention to what is happening in Canada. The very
things that are happening in Canada today, in October 1995, are the
very things that brought about the division and the terror we now
see as the Bosnian conflict in the former Yugoslavia''.
That is so serious. Why do we not listen to those people? Why do
we think that we must somehow create differences and create a
distinct society based on where people live because of a particular
language, culture or race? It is wrong. Not only is it wrong, it
carries within it the seeds of disintegration of what is a nice
country. We should do everything we can to make sure that those
seeds do not sprout. We must make sure that we can continue to
develop a mutual respect for one another without fear and at times
perhaps even express love for one another. I wish we could do that
all the time.
I also want to draw attention to the west. The west is a very
interesting part of the country. I was born in Alberta and moved
across the mountains into British Columbia. Those of us who were
born in Alberta can detect the difference. Something happens to all
of us in western Canada. We are fiercely independent but we are
also very, very patient. We know how difficult it is to eke out a
living on the prairies. Quebec and Ontario think they know
everything and that they can tell the westerners how to live. They
cannot. They do not know how but Ontarians say: ``We will tell you
how''.
17592
Mr. Harris wrote an article in one of our local newspapers which
I think covers it very well. With respect to the unity question he
said: ``But the sleeping giant in all this may well turn out to be
Manning's west''. Why it is Manning's west I do not know. I think
it is just as much Schmidt's west as it is any other person's west.
Nevertheless, that is how it was said.
He went on:
This great and insanely loyal part of Canada has waited for more than 100
years to take its proper place in the Confederation; it is still waiting.
The PC Party died on the prairies because it sold out the notion of a strong and
equal Canada in the name of winning in Quebec, just as the Liberals have for
generations.
If Ottawa continues to fail the west while it woos Quebec with special status,
the country may still fall apart like a soggy jigsaw puzzle starting with the
Rocky Mountains rather than the Laurentians.
That is the opinion of one columnist.
If members had been in my riding in the last four days and
listened to the comments that were made, particularly when the
Prime Minister presented the motion we voted on last night and the
bill we are now facing closure on today, they would have heard
people ask: ``How much longer do we have to put up with this?''
They do not want to put up with it at all. Do they want to be part of
Canada? Absolutely. They want desperately to be part of Canada,
but they want to be part of a united Canada, a part of Canada that
says people are equal, the provinces are equal and that no one
deserves any special status regardless of language or geography.
That is what they want and it is what I want.
I do not think there is one person in the House who is any better
than anyone else. I do not think anyone on this side of the House is
any better than anyone on that side of the House and vice versa.
We are trying to build a united country. There are those of my
colleagues who would say: ``Well, those guys over there cannot
possibly be as good as we are''. In reality and in our hearts we
really are trying to do the best we can for our constituents, but we
certainly disagree on certain things. In particular we disagree with
what happened yesterday.
(1615)
Yesterday the government had a chance to recognize that special
status does not mean unique powers, and what did it do? It refused
to accept certain amendments which stated that if we were to
recognize special status it should not be conferred or interpreted as
conferring upon the Government of Quebec any new legislative or
executive powers, priority rights, status or any other rights or
privileges not conferred on the legislature or government of any
other province.
That was a good step forward and it was rejected. It would have
brought about unity. Instead the government did the opposite. It
said: ``You have special powers and you may indeed have unique
powers that other provinces do not have''. That was completely
unacceptable to me and to my constituents. They have told me 100
times, if they have told me once, that it is not acceptable to them.
The government had another chance. It could have said that it
was not to be interpreted as diminishing in any way the rights and
freedoms of any citizen of Canada under the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms by virtue of province of residence. This
second chance was turned down. It would have helped. It would
have brought about unity but it was rejected.
The final chance was to deny or be interpreted as denying that
Canada constitutes one nation. This too was rejected. I went home
sad last night because an opportunity to bring about a direction that
could have healed the nation was denied. It was a sad day.
Today we are not approached with recognizing Quebec as a
distinct society. We are told that society is distinct and shall now
have a veto. It is totally contrary to democracy that any one group
would have the power of veto when the group cannot constitute a
majority. It is wrong in principle.
We are in danger of committing one of the worst possible actions
we have seen in a long time. This is where a positive comment can
also be made. If the Prime Minister wants to bring about the
unification of the country, he would come to the House and
withdraw Bill C-110. If the Prime Minister would do that he would
recover some of the losses he has experienced in the last little
while. We could then respect him as a leader.
Mr. Milliken: He would want that, because then we would win
an election with 70 per cent instead of 60 per cent.
Mr. Schmidt: It is possible for the Prime Minister, even though
he has a majority, to make a mistake. It is not a sign of weakness to
admit an error. It is not a sign of weakness to stop yelling across the
floor.
It is important to recognize that we can bring about a positive
Canadian unity. We ask the Prime Minister to withdraw the bill. He
would re-establish himself as a good thinking, unifying Prime
Minister instead of forcing an issue like this one that we cannot
even debate as much as we want.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is a
great pleasure to participate as a member of the official opposition
17593
in this debate on Bill C-110, an act respecting constitutional
amendments, and more specifically implementing what must be
referred to as a symbolic veto.
(1620)
I am very happy to participate in the debate on this bill, because I
was immediately struck by both its form and its content. Its form is
a beauty.
This bill is being touted as a historic response to the Quebec
people's democratic impulse, because, as you know, Quebec is
mostly responsible for Canada's constitutional problem.
This bill has six pages, including three blank ones. Including the
front page, we end up with the equivalent of about a page and a
quarter of text as a response or a semblance of response to the
constitutional debate that, as you know, has been hurting Canada
for some 30 years.
The content of this bill is also a beauty. As for a symbolic veto, I
am reminded of one of our greatest hockey stars, Guy Lafleur, who
when questioned about his reasons for supporting the no side said
in 1992-if I remember correctly-that he had interpreted the right
of veto as meaning the right to vote. That is about the extent of it.
Talking about symbolic, this veto will allow Quebecers to vote, and
very soon, in favour of sovereignty.
This bill and this exercise seem totally improvised, like the
spontaneous show of love-albeit at bargain prices-made to
Quebecers in the last weeks and days of the referendum campaign,
and they also lack depth. More importantly, it seems to me that this
is a pitiful non-event from an historical perspective.
Let us not forget that this process by the Liberal government is
meant to be the answer to the historical claims of the Quebec
government and people within the Canadian confederation. As a
Quebec voter and citizen who has had an interest in this issue for a
number of years, I try to get a better understanding of what is going
on by going back to 1954, when premier Duplessis led the fight
against the federal government's unconstitutional interference in
fields of provincial jurisdiction, eventually winning a hard fought
battle to have the province collect a direct personal income tax.
This is truly an historical event, following which Quebecers
became more proud, more assertive and more determined to gain
full dignity as a sovereign people.
Then came the Tremblay royal inquiry commission on
federal-provincial relations in Quebec and Canada. Then, in 1960,
just after Duplessis died, we had the advent of a Liberal
government, the quiet revolution, with all the good things it
brought about, and Quebecers taking their future in their own hands
through the government takeover of the hydro sector, the set up of
the Caisse de dépôt, the Quebec pension plan, and so on.
In 1964, an eye-opening event took place: the Queen's visit. I
was there. The police force deployed was larger than the crowd.
That day was later described as the day of the visit of shame, in the
city of shame, Quebec City, because the people had remained
indifferent to this visit, which, unfortunately, led to what came to
be known as the samedi de la matraque, or ``Billy-club Saturday'',
of 1964.
In 1966, still in that historical perspective-and that is what we
on this side of the House, let alone the hon. members on the other
side, cannot understand-there was this collective surge. As early
as 1956, the sovereignist movement, which then became
established in 1959, came into play. In 1966, it was represented by
Pierre Bourgault in the riding of Duplessis. Few people know that
39 per cent of the voters of this riding voted for Mr. Bourgault, who
was the leader of the Rassemblement pour l'indépendance
nationale, the RIN, at the time.
(1625)
In 1967, a prominent figure dropped by on the occasion of the
centennial of Confederation. General de Gaulle sent out the
message, for the whole world to hear, that the people of Quebec did
exist when he declared: ``Vive le Québec libre''.
The next year saw the foundation of the Parti Quebecois by René
Lévesque. This was a turning point in our modern history. Two
years later, with 23 per cent of popular support, the PQ won seven
seats in the National Assembly. Three years later, in 1973, he got
30 per cent of the votes and 6 members, because of the well-known
incongruities of our British parliamentary system. Three years
later, in 1976, a sovereignist party was officially and
democratically elected in Quebec for the first time in the history of
the province and of the country. The 1980 referendum followed,
with, even then, 41 per cent of Quebecers giving a mandate to the
Government of Quebec to negotiate. The majority, unfortunately,
decided otherwise.
At the same time, on the Canadian side, people were becoming
aware that something was wrong. In 1963, the Laurendeau-Dunton
commission was talking about two solitudes. We could have taken
big chunks of the Laurendeau-Dunton report and read it here. It
would have been extraordinarily relevant.
So we had the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, then we had the
Macdonald commission at the end of the 1980s and then the
Pepin-Robarts commission, an event in constitutional terms, but a
dead end, because Mr. Trudeau, the Prime Minister of the time, did
not believe in their view of things. Then there was the
constitutional bog of the 1990s with the Spicer commission and the
Castonguay-Beaudoin-Dobbie-Edwards commission.
As Mr. Castonguay will remember, these people were
upset-which should give Quebec federalists food for thought-at
the degree of willingness to recognize a Quebec people within
Canada that they saw. Mr. Castonguay even withdrew from the
commission at that point, and, as you saw in the recent campaign,
he remained true to himself and logical, warning everyone that he
17594
could not try to convince his Quebecers that Quebec should remain
in confederation, so shaken was he in his deep convictions.
Continuing with the major landmarks in the history of Quebec,
we arrive at the aftermath to the no vote in the referendum, the
great initiatives of Mr. Trudeau, the unilateral initiatives which
were condemned by the Supreme Court. Trudeau had to call in the
provinces. Quebecers will all remember the Night of the long
knives, when the Constitution was patriated. One of the instigators
of this was the Minister of Justice at the time, then and still the hon.
member for Saint-Maurice. He cannot plead ignorance of the harm
that has been done historically to the people of Quebec by such
actions, yet he does not recognize-it cannot be repeated in this
House too many times, a place where the existence of the Quebec
people is not recognized-that Quebec as a people and a culture
does exist, whether the Prime Minister likes it or not. The
Quebecois culture does exist, and this must be said.
All of the efforts now being expended represent one of the three
little promises made by the Prime Minister, as he himself qualifies
them, to Quebecers and to Canada in the referendum campaign.
One of these was recognition of the distinct society, an empty shell;
the second was a token right of veto; the third was the Minister of
Human Resources Development's nice little present which will
make the poor poorer and the rich richer.
A fine country indeed to invite Quebecers to remain part of.
Everyone in Quebec is aware, whether our federalist friends like it
or not, that they are a people making democratic advances, a people
marching toward collective pride, a people prepared to say yes to
their very existence.
[English]
The Speaker: I have made a mistake. I should have recognized
the hon. member for Vancouver East before the hon. member for
Trois-Rivières. I will now recognize the hon. member for
Vancouver East.
(1630 )
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak on Bill C-110, an act respecting constitutional
amendments. The bill, which grants a veto to various regions of
Canada, has been recently amended to include British Columbia as
the fifth region that can exercise a veto to block a constitutional
change.
[Translation]
This veto can only apply to a constitutional amendment
requiring the support of seven provinces representing 50 per cent of
the population.
This amendment to the bill was requested by the people of
British Columbia, who exercised a great deal of pressure to obtain
this right.
[English]
The amendment is welcome and gives B.C. a well deserved
autonomy in the exercise of the veto and the recognition by the
government that B.C. is a distinct region in all aspects. B.C., which
has a powerful economy and a strong Asia-Pacific connection, sees
itself is a region because of its geographical location and a
tremendous growth potential both economy and people wise.
Furthermore, British Columbia has been called the Pacific
region for many years in many government departments and other
agencies. In British Columbia, beyond the Rocky Mountains, we
have a vibrant population that is more and more requesting to be
recognized for its distinctiveness. Its population of over 3.7 million
people, almost 13 per cent of the Canadian population, feels more
and more a sense of pride in its achievements and successes.
British Columbia has been changing dramatically over the years
and has become the home of many immigrants, a large number of
them from the Pacific Rim, being the closest region to B.C. For a
long time B.C. was somewhat isolated, far from Europe and from
eastern Canada. It did not seem to attract as many people as Ontario
and Quebec. At this point British Columbia is one of the most
desirable places in Canada and in the world in which to live.
The growth in population and its variety have made British
Columbia a booming place. In 1997 Vancouver will host APEC, the
Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation Conference, 10 years after
Expo' 86, the time when Vancouver and B.C. seemed to be
discovered by the world.
Even my family members in Italy often comment on Vancouver.
They often see it on television and read about B.C. in the papers.
This is quite recent, and we seem to like the attention.
I arrived in B.C. in 1966 and I have seen many changes since
then. I saw Vancouver's skyline change dramatically. I saw the
composition of the population constantly alter to eventually create
a mosaic of cultures and beliefs. I saw these cultures coming
together to celebrate a province more and more conscious of its
great location and appeal.
[Translation]
I would like to thank the Prime Minister and the Minister of
Justice for the change they made in this bill. This amendment gives
British Columbia an important place in the history and future of our
country.
17595
We know that Canada is a remarkable country where people
respect each other and are unique in their understanding of one
another.
[English]
B.C. remains part of the west. We are in the west but there is a
difference between being a prairie province and a province that lies
on the Pacific Ocean and which is becoming more and more a part
of international trade.
The Prime Minister with his missions to the Orient has
strengthened Canada. B.C., being the coastal province, has
received many benefits and continues to receive them.
This amendment will help British Columbians feel their rights
are being respected and that their voice is being heard because they
demanded the veto and they obtained it.
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
commend my colleague from Okanagan Centre for being happy
and sad at once.
(1635 )
I am disgusted with Bill C-110 with its proposed constitutional
veto. However, I am pleased as always to honour my commitment
to represent the people of the great riding of Yellowhead. They are
against this bill. I am against it. I am proud to denounce it here
today on their behalf.
The people of Yellowhead are certainly not opposed to national
unity. They are not what some prime ministers have foolishly
called them, enemies of Canada. A few months ago I
commissioned a scientific poll and about 70 per cent of my
constituents want Canada to stay together.
What they are opposed to, which came through loud and clear in
the poll results, is the strategy of saving Canada by appeasement,
appeasing the separatists in Quebec. They overwhelming oppose
the notion of Quebec as a distinct society and oppose sovereignty
association.
As a member of a caucus which listens to the people instead of
lecturing them, I do more than take polls. I go on tours in my riding
to hear what the constituents are saying and how they are saying it.
I just finished doing that again. I want to tell everyone here what
they said. That is my job. Some of the members opposite would do
well to remember that is their job as well.
My constituents told me overwhelmingly they do not
understand, and quite frankly neither do I, why we are even talking
about caving into Quebec, why distinct society and veto powers are
even on the table. People in my riding are so sick of this never
ending debate. I hear that some are wondering if there is anything
they can do to kick Quebec out of Canada. That is how angry they
are. That is how frustrated they are.
It is not ordinary Quebecers they are sick of. It is this constant
giving in to the whining and snivelling Quebec politicians, both
separatist and federal old style politicians. This weak-kneed policy
of giving the spoiled child of Confederation whatever it wants is
driving my constituents to despair. I call on my colleagues opposite
to listen to the people and stop this policy of appeasement before it
is too late.
My constituents want, indeed demand that a line be drawn in the
sand. This line should signal a few things: no more favours, no
more appeasement, 10 equal provinces, not 9 provinces and
Quebec.
I do not think I pay my constituents any great compliment when I
say they are smarter than most politicians, especially when I look at
the government side across. People are saying that 30 years of
appeasement to Quebec has failed miserably. People are saying that
30 years of government by politicians, of politicians and for
politicians has left the people of Yellowhead as disgusted as the
people of Quebec with the way things are done in this place.
The people are saying stop already. Enough is enough. Treat
everyone as equals. Treaty everyone as grown ups, not as some
spoiled children. Treat everyone fairly, equally.
The Trudeau Liberals, the Mulroney Tories and now this Liberal
administration drifting aimlessly have virtually ruined this once
great country. In my riding it is pretty common observation that the
three prime ministers responsible for this disaster have all been
from Quebec. Yes, it took them only 25 years to virtually bring the
country to its knees, to almost wreck it, 25 years of tearing apart
our country which took real nation builders centuries of toil and
tears and sweat to build; 25 years thrown to the wind.
The common thread here is that people in most parts of the
country, the ordinary taxpaying public, the public that pays the bills
for big oppressive governments has had it. It will not take it any
more. People will no longer sit idly by and watch the concessions,
the favours, the appeasements to sell out the country to the
separatists in Quebec.
(1640)
Concessions to Quebec continue to march forward with the
government. It is not only with the distinct society motion and the
Quebec veto, the matters currently before the House, it is Bill C-89,
the act that supposedly privatized Canadian National Railway;
major concessions to Quebec by statute. CN's head office must stay
in Montreal and by statute the heavy handed provisions of the very
undemocratic Official Languages Act must prevail.
I will not go into the litany of favours given to Quebec during the
Trudeau-Mulroney years or, more aptly stated, the Trudoney years.
One glaring example comes to mind, and it especially sticks in the
17596
craw of westerners, the CF-18 contract assigned to Winnipeg but
which went to Quebec. Air Canada is another example.
Bill C-110 really takes the cake. This will turn out to be the
mother of all concessions and appeasements granted since
Confederation. The bill enshrines in legislation, not mere
discussion or some off the cuff remark, the ultimate in legislative
lunacy. It even exceeds the lunacy of Bill C-68, the gun control bill.
Bill C-110 gives the separatist government of Quebec on a silver
platter a veto over all future constitutional change. In effect, there
can be no change. With this bill the Constitution would be buttoned
up in a strait-jacket because it is the intent of the Prime Minister to
eventually entrench this loathsome legislation in the constitution.
The Liberal government is so sadly lacking in leadership, as
evidenced last night on the Prime Minister's town hall meeting.
Even the $1 billion subsidized federal institution, the CBC, could
not make the Prime Minister look good.
The Liberals are stuck with another Chamberlain when what
they really need is a Churchill. Look at the ranks of the Liberals.
There is obviously no Churchill forthcoming, only little bitty
Chamberlains.
With this bill and a dozen or so others the Liberal government,
come the next election, will be gone. For a lot of Canadians that
cannot be too soon.
The Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to
inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time
of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Burnaby-Kingsway, Criminal Code; the hon. member for
Edmonton East, medicare; the hon. member for Ottawa West,
pensions.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I feel we
have been here before as I rise in the House today to speak to Bill
C-110, an act respecting constitutional amendments. The purpose
is to condemn again the constitutional position taken by the
Chrétien government.
I sometimes have the impression I am using that well-known
teaching technique which repeats the same message in every
possible form, the purpose being, of course, that its content will
eventually be understood and retained.
Following the results of the referendum, members of the Bloc
Quebecois unanimously decided to continue to defend the interests
of Quebecers in the Parliament of Canada. Furthermore, since our
members decided to continue the dialogue with the elected
representatives of English Canada, it is important to repeat the
message so that some day it will finally be understood and our
Canadian friends will accept our future decision calmly, with
dignity and respect, and be prepared to co-operate with us, albeit
within an entirely different framework.
I think it is sad that the present Prime Minister still does not
understand his fellow citizens from Quebec and especially what
they want.
(1645)
How can we in fact not get upset at such insipid statements as
those made last week to the effect that there was no Quebec
culture? How can we expect our Canadian friends to understand our
position, if the Prime Minister himself and his Quebec cohort
cannot explain the reality of Quebec to their colleagues? On this
level, it is really a disaster. So much time and money spent harping
on the same ideas.
Unlike the Prime Minister, we in the Bloc Quebecois consider
good relations with our Canadian friends important. This is why I
will try once again to explain Quebec's position in this House. Bill
C-110 is unacceptable to Quebec. It is unacceptable for a number of
reasons.
First, the veto is not given to the provinces, it is lent to them. Has
anyone ever heard of such a thing in constitutional matters? A veto
that is not actually granted, but is only on loan. In everyday life,
when we lend something, we expect to get it back. Both the lender
and the borrower know that there is nothing definitive about the
transaction. Le Petit Larousse defines the verb ``to lend'' as to give
for a time, upon condition of restitution.
Does the Prime Minister think for one instant that Quebecers
will be satisfied with a loan? I think this makes a mockery of
Quebecers and resolves nothing at all. Any government can decide
to ask for its marbles back, and the provinces have no say, because
the marbles do not belong to them. This is totally off the wall.
Is that what the Prime Minister had in mind when he made the
people of Quebec the following promise, and I quote: ``Any
changes in constitutional jurisdiction will only be made with the
consent of Quebecers''? As we know all too well, a veto on loan
does not give the people of Quebec any guarantee or any security. It
is therefore totally unacceptable.
Another problem adds itself to the first, as the federal
government could apparently decide that this veto will be exercised
either through the National Assembly or by referendum. I say
apparently because there seems to be some confusion about this
within the government. In fact, Bill C-110 only refers to the
provinces. It is not specified whether this means their legislative
assemblies or their people.
Also, when he tabled his bill before this House on November 29,
the Prime Minister said: ``This bill requires that the Government of
17597
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 regions before
proposing a constitutional amendment to Parliament''.
As we can see, he did not specify either the conditions of
approval. We took for granted that he meant the provincial
legislatures. Surprise. If you take a look at the documents prepared
by the Minister of Justice, in the section dealing with how the bill
applies to constitutional amendments, you find out that, after at
least six provinces have given their consent (through resolutions,
referenda or government approval), the federal government will be
released from the obligation to proceed with motions in the Senate
and the House of Commons.
There, it is in the bag and the cat is out of the bag. Not only does
the federal government only lend its veto, it is set to have absolute
control over the process, given that it plans to go directly to the
people if it suspects that the provincial government might not take
the direction that it, the almighty central government, thinks it
should take. That too is taking Quebecers for fools.
I wish to point out to this House that my suspicions were
confirmed as recently as this morning, when the Prime Minister
was quoted as saying that a referendum is a frustrating process held
under provincial legislation and led by provincial politicians. The
Prime Minister has no qualms about telling everyone that he fully
intends to interfere in provincial matters whenever he feels like it,
thus going over the heads of provincial politicians.
(1650)
This is not a good sign of respect for democracy and the
Constitution. It can be said, however, that this undemocratic
approach is consistent, in light of the Prime Minister's repeated
admissions that he would not abide by the results of the referendum
should a majority of Quebecers vote for sovereignty.
I could go on and talk about the other reasons why this veto bill
is totally unacceptable to Quebec, but I do not have enough time.
Although, as he himself admits, he had made only three small
promises to Quebecers, we and all Quebecers now realize that it is
nothing but a sham, nothing but false representations. Rhetoric and
crocodile tears will not change anything.
The Chrétien government still does not understand anything and
I fear that it has no intention of changing the federal system in line
with Quebecers' aspirations. Everyone knows that. The time for
deception is over. I therefore urge our Canadian friends to discuss a
new partnership that would finally accommodate the aspirations of
Quebecers.
The Speaker: Dear colleague, I did not want to interrupt, but in
the future, we ought to have ``the Liberal government'', or
something similar, instead of ``the Chrétien government''.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak
on Bill C-110 today. I was next in line when the time allocation ran
out at second reading. It is nice to see that the time closure is not
going to affect me today.
Since that time the government saw fit to make an amendment to
the bill to include British Columbia as a region and give it a veto. It
is interesting how the Liberal government seems to be surprised at
the reaction it has received from people in British Columbia. This
bill and the amendment have united the people in British Columbia
as it would appear that they are all against it.
What the Liberal government does not seem to understand is that
the people of British Columbia do not want any one province to
have a veto. They do not want the veto themselves and they do not
want any other province to have the veto either. They understand
very clearly that the veto will entrench the status quo.
What the people in British Columbia are looking for and fighting
against is the establishment of the status quo and entrenching it.
What they want is a Constitution that will evolve, change and
recognize the changes that have taken place in this country since
1867. What they do not want is for British Columbia to be left in
the position that it is in right now.
British Columbians are not happy that almost 13 per cent of
Canada's population lives in British Columbia but it has less than
11 per cent representation in this House and less than 6 per cent of
the seats in the other place. Those are the things British
Columbians want changed. They want a Constitution that will
allow those changes. That is why they see the amendment to
include British Columbia as a distinct region as not mattering at all
because they do not want a veto. They do not want anybody to have
a veto.
What B.C. wants is to gain its rightful place in Confederation. In
order to do that, one of the players in Confederation is going to
have to give up something. If Bill C-110 passes and we have a veto,
it will mean that the provinces which are required to make
concessions by giving up something in order to give British
Columbia its rightful place will have a veto and will prevent that
from happening.
This bill will deny British Columbia its rightful place in Canada.
However, Bill C-110 has united British Columbia. The provincial
Liberals are against it, the provincial Reformers are against it and
the provincial NDP is against it. It is dangerous for this Liberal
17598
government to create that kind of unanimity among otherwise
diverse political parties.
(1655 )
I remind the House that in the late 1870s the British Columbia
legislature actually voted to secede from Canada twice. I am afraid
that this Liberal government in instituting Bill C-110 has wakened
a sleeping giant and it does not have any idea what the results will
be from the feelings of deep resentment that are surfacing in the
people of British Columbia.
By originally grouping B.C. with other western provinces, the
government ignored our people, our history and our geography. I
wonder why government members did not read the items in the
book they released this past week on the symbols of Canada. I want
to share with the Liberal government what the book that it
published has to say:
British Columbia was inhabited by the greatest number of distinct Indian
tribes of any province or territory in Canada. They were not only different from
each other, but also from the rest of the Indian tribes in Canada.
Unlike eastern Canada where the French and English disputed control of the
land, the first two countries to contest areas of British Columbia were Spain and
Russia.
In 1778 Captain James Cook of Great Britain became the first person to
actually chart the land. Having firmly established her right to the area, Britain
proceeded to settle disputes with both Spain and Russia.
When gold was discovered in the lower Fraser Valley in 1857, thousands of
people came in search of instant wealth. To maintain law and order, the next
year the British government established the separate colony of British
Columbia. The colony was cut off from the rest of British North America by
thousands of kilometres and a ridge of mountains.
I would suggest it is very clear in the Liberals' own publication
that B.C. is a distinct region. It was a travesty for the government to
completely ignore that distinctiveness and to lump us in with all
western provinces.
Then the Minister of Human Resources Development cut $47
million in federal transfer payments to the province of British
Columbia. The government seems to think it is okay to fund only
33 per cent of British Columbia's welfare bills when every other
province gets funded up to 50 per cent. That is just one example of
how the province of British Columbia is getting shafted.
Last month Business and Industry Development B.C. released
the results of a Peat Marwick study which was done on its behalf.
The study showed that not only has B.C. not received its share of
federal spending, but its proportion of federal spending is
continually declining. The province of B.C. receives only
two-thirds of federal spending when compared to a composite
indicator of its population, GDP and amount of federal income tax
paid. While the federal government puts in less than two-thirds of
the money it should, it takes out over 10 per cent more in income
tax.
This is the status quo the federal government wants British
Columbia to maintain. The message I am getting from my
constituents and from the people in British Columbia is that they
are mad as all get out and they are not going to take it any more.
They are going to start to fight back.
When Bill C-110 passes, the Liberal government will be sending
British Columbians a message. The message is that they had better
get used to this because with all the vetoes that have have been
spread out all over the country, especially the veto given to the
separatist government in the province of Quebec, the constitutional
changes, changes in Parliament and changes in the way that
government does business will never happen.
The people in British Columbia are being told to sit down, shut
up and be grateful for whatever small crumbs are being thrown
their way. Members opposite may be surprised to find out that this
approach will no longer wash with British Columbians. We will not
be denied our rightful place in Canada any longer.
I join with other British Columbians who will fight to see that
the government does not accomplish what other governments have
tried to do. That is when the people of British Columbia will see no
other option than to follow in the footsteps of the province of
Quebec.
(1700 )
The Speaker: It does not happen too often in Parliament that we
get a new table officer, as they usually stay with us for decades.
However, at this time I would like to take a moment on behalf of
the House to welcome him.
I would like our new table officer, Tranquillo Marrocco, to
please stand. Welcome to the House of Commons. I wish you well
and many years with us.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
join you in welcoming the new staff member to the House.
I am pleased to participate in the debate, at second reading, on
Bill C-110, an act respecting constitutional amendments.
This bill is meant to embody the commitments made by the
Prime Minister during the Quebec referendum campaign,
particularly in a speech made in Verdun, on October 27.
The Prime Minister's answer to the results of the referendum is
clearly less than what was proposed in the Meech Lake and
Charlottetown accords.
17599
As for the motion tabled by the government to recognize Quebec
as a distinct society, it merely provides a symbolic and meaningless
recognition, with no real substance. The motion passed yesterday
merely describes Quebec's reality: its French-speaking majority,
its unique culture and its civil law tradition.
However, a few days after tabling that motion, the Prime
Minister refused to acknowledge the existence of a Quebec culture.
This is quite the contradiction.
Bill C-110 on an so-called veto for Quebec does not go any
farther in terms of meeting Quebecers' expectations. This is a bad
piece of legislation, done in a hurry and without any substance.
Even some Quebec Liberals are starting to criticize that bill. It is
not an acceptable proposal for Quebecers. The referendum results
clearly show that people want real change.
It was the government's intention with this bill to put us into an
awkward position by forcing us to say no to the veto and to the
distinct society. But we have the people of Quebec behind us.
I have met many voters from my riding of Bourassa, in Montreal
North, in recent days and I have asked what they think. The vast
majority do not approve of the federal government's proposals.
They ask: ``Why would we accept something that contains less than
the Charlottetown accord turned down by 56 per cent of Quebecers
in the 1992 referendum?''
As I have said, the concept of a distinct society is even less than
what was in Meech.
First of all, neither the concept of a distinct society nor the right
of veto will be entrenched in the Constitution. Recognition of the
distinct society will be nothing more than a simple statement by the
House of Commons.
If Bill C-110 become law, it can easily be amended or repealed
by the present government or any other in the future. The Reform
Party has come out clearly against this bill. If they were to win the
elections-not that I would wish it-this law would most definitely
disappear.
Certain provinces, such as British Columbia and Alberta, have
already expressed their opposition to the concept of Quebec as a
distinct society.
As I was saying, this bill on the right to a regional veto was
poorly drafted. Initially, the federal government was committed to
not proposing any constitutional amendments without setting itself
the obligation of obtaining the consent of the four major regions of
Canada: Quebec, Ontario, two eastern provinces and two western
provinces, provided that in each case those two provinces
accounted for more than 50 per cent of the population in their
region.
(1705)
However, 24 hours after excluding such a possibility, the federal
government has now included a veto for British Columbia. Ottawa
seems to be improvising its policy as it goes along. Practically
speaking, this decision also gives Alberta a veto, since two
provinces in the new Prairies region with at least 50 per cent of the
population will have to give their approval for an amendment to the
Constitution.
According to the 1991 census, Alberta has 54.6 per cent of the
population of the Prairies. Because of this double veto, from now
on any amendment to the Constitution becomes virtually
impossible. Tomorrow the federal government will give a veto to
all the provinces including Prince Edward Island. I wonder what
the criteria are, demographic or otherwise, for obtaining a veto.
Does this bill have any serious purpose?
In 35 years, successive governments in Quebec have requested
the patriation of legislative powers essential to the economic,
social and cultural development of the province. Since I arrived in
Montreal in 1974, I have found that all governments, the Parti
Quebecois as well as the Liberal Party, have demanded a real
constitutional veto for Quebec and not a mere legislative measure
that can be easily changed or abrogated later on.
We can assume that in the case of a major conflict between
English Canada and Quebec, the federal Parliament will override
the veto given Quebec in this bill. That is why this insignificant
veto was even rejected by many people who voted no in the
referendum on October 30.
Furthermore, Bill C-110 does not guarantee that the Quebec
National Assembly will be the sole possessor of this veto, as
demanded by all Quebec governments. The federal government
reserves the right to seek the consent of the provinces by means of a
national or regional referendum, as required. It will be able to
consult citizens directly, without going through the provinces.
The main weakness in this bill is its failure to recognize the
Quebec people and the status and powers that would accompany
this recognition. The bill refuses to recognize one of the founding
peoples of Confederation.
This bill has raised a ground swell of opposition from almost all
parties, the Bloc Quebecois, of course, the Reform Party and even
the Conservative Party, which was a meek ally of the federal
government during the referendum campaign.
The government hurriedly changed its mind to give a veto to
British Columbia and, indirectly, to Alberta. By doing so it is trying
to please everybody, but the effect is exactly the opposite.
A recent poll shows that a majority of Quebecers consider
Ottawa's proposals inadequate. The constitutional amending
formula providing for the agreement of seven provinces with 50
per cent of the population was already considered particularly
restrictive. With this bill, we will need the initial consent of seven
provinces with 92 per cent of the population.
17600
For all these reasons, all the members of the Bloc Quebecois and
I will vote against Bill C-110.
Mr. Milliken: Oh, what a disappointment.
Mr. Nunez: I hope this is what the hon. member was expecting.
An hon. member: It is an empty shell.
Mr. Nunez: It is an empty shell, and I will be happy to vote
against this bill along with all my colleagues in the Bloc
Quebecois.
(1710)
[English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to speak against Bill C-110.
Mr. Milliken: Not another one.
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Yes indeed.
Ontario feels very strongly about what is happening here and I
am pleased to be able to stand up and represent that voice. We are
here because of a promise that was made in panic, a knee jerk
reaction. It was a reaction to what was a dishonest question. It was
a dishonest question that never at any time had the Canada
response. What was Canada's response to the dishonest question
that was being posed by the separatists?
To indicate how much of a panic the government is operating in,
the fact that British Columbia was originally excluded from this
bill is unbelievable. However, it is testimony to the complete lack
of thought and planning that went into this and attests to the fact
that all of this has been nothing but a knee jerk reaction to the
separatist agenda, rather than standing up to them.
I would like to go back and cover a little of the history that has
brought us to this point. In June 1994 Reformers wrote a letter to
the Prime Minister asking 20 questions that needed to be answered
in advance of a separatist referendum. The Prime Minister never
answered those 20 questions and when we raised them in the House
they were dismissed as hypothetical, ``it isn't going to happen,
don't worry, be happy''.
Mr. Milliken: And it didn't.
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): No thanks to this government it
did not. It was thanks to the Canadian people that it did not. Had
those 20 questions been responded to the people in the province of
Quebec that voted no thinking they were going to have it all ways
would have known better.
It was interesting that the don't worry, be happy response is still
being used by the Prime Minister. It was used in response to my
leader's question today about how the government is going to
ensure that the question will be fair in the next referendum, about
what powers the government is going to use. That question must
have been asked three times today with the standard response of
don't worry, be happy. Don't worry about it.
Canadians have had that don't worry to the point that the country
was almost lost. I do not know when the time is to start worrying
but I suggest that it is long overdue.
Not only did the government not respond to the what ifs, the
share of the debt, boundaries, dual citizenship, passports, but at no
time did it accept Reform's challenge to put forward a positive
agenda, to give the people in Quebec who wanted to reject the
separatists a reason to do so and not try to fight the leader of the
Bloc Quebecois' dream with a bunch of negatives.
I am proud to say that we put forward 20 proposals for positive
change that would have gone a long way to addressing the concerns
of Canadians inside and outside of Quebec.
The other tragedy in the referendum was the failure of the
government to respond to the 50 per cent plus one which was first
introduced by Mr. Johnson in Quebec. He was prepared to accept
the democratic will of the people of Quebec and was going to
accept 50 per cent plus one, as was the Minister of Labour, the
government's point person in the referendum. They were both
prepared to accept 50 per cent plus one as the democratic will of the
voters of Quebec.
The Prime Minister was not prepared to accept that and without
indicating what he was prepared to accept, he made it easy for
those people to vote no on the basis that there probably was a better
deal coming. That was one of the tragedies of the referendum
which the government did not address. The Prime Minister played
right into the hands of the separatists in not drawing a line in the
sand, in making it clear to them what the consequences of
separation were. As a result of that failed tactic, 30 per cent or
one-third of the people in Quebec voted thinking that they were
going to have it all ways.
Canada is a blessed country. That was indicated in an article in
the Globe and Mail just a couple of weeks ago. The headline was
that Canada is blessed but stressed. All Canadians are stressed both
inside and outside of Quebec. This bill just adds to that stress. It
does nothing to address it. It is a disunity bill and not a unity bill.
Make no mistake about it, we must change because Canadians are
demanding change. The 1993 election, when 205 new members
were elected into the House, and the referendum on October 30
were strong messages that Canadians want change. More than that,
Canadians want a voice in what that change will be. However, this
bill denies that Canadian voice.
The separatists were given 30 days to spread their break-up
Canada message. In the House because of closure the Canadian
voice has been given three days. The separatists had 30 days.
Because of closure, after only three days of debate the government
is cutting off debate and ramming it through in spite of the
Canadian people, who have already rejected it. The Liberals tried
this at the front door and Canadians said they do not want it. Now
they will bring it in through the back door. So much for open
17601
government, listening the people, freer votes in the House of
Commons and members of Parliament who represent the people in
their ridings.
The majority of Canadians do not want this bill. Quebec does not
want this bill. Who are we doing it for? The bill will not unite us.
The bill gives a veto to a separatist government. It is unbelievable
that the government would do this. If it is to give a veto, give it to
the people of that province. Trust the voters. That is what has been
missing in this place. We need to restore the level of trust that has
been lost. This bill does nothing to restore that trust. It alienates the
voters.
The Deputy Speaker: I regret the time has expired.
[Translation]
It being 5.15 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to the order adopted
earlier today, to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith all
questions necessary to dispose of report stage of the bill now before
the House.
[English]
The first question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76, the
recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76, the
recorded division on Motion No. 2 stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
divisions on Bill C-110, an act respecting constitutional
amendments. The first vote is on Motion No. 1.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 397)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Manning
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -45
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Althouse
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
17602
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacDonald
Maclaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Ménard
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robinson
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-196
PAIRED MEMBERS
Blondin-Andrew
Bouchard
Canuel
Copps
Culbert
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
MacAulay
Marchand
Mercier
Paré
Pomerleau
Skoke
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Szabo
(1745 )
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 lost.
(Motion No. 1 negatived.)
The Deputy Speaker: The next question is on Motion No. 2.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it perhaps you
would find unanimous consent that members-
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There does not appear to be unanimous
consent.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 398)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Adams
Alcock
Althouse
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harvard
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Kerpan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
17603
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacDonald
Maclaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McKinnon
McLaughlin
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Riis
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Robinson
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speaker
Speller
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Wood
Young
Zed-164
NAYS
Members
Ablonczy
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Caron
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Ménard
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Stinson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
Williams-77
PAIRED MEMBERS
Blondin-Andrew
Bouchard
Canuel
Copps
Culbert
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
MacAulay
Marchand
Mercier
Paré
Pomerleau
Skoke
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Szabo
(1755)
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I declare Motion No. 2 carried.
(Motion agreed to.)
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved that Bill C-110, an act respecting
constitutional amendments, as amended, be concurred in at the
report stage.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 399)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anderson
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bélair
Bélanger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
17604
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacDonald
Maclaren
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Speller
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-147
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Caron
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Debien
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Duncan
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McLaughlin
Ménard
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Nunez
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West/Ouest)
Williams -95
PAIRED MEMBERS
Blondin-Andrew
Bouchard
Canuel
Copps
Culbert
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
MacAulay
Marchand
Mercier
Paré
Pomerleau
Skoke
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Szabo
(1800)
The Deputy Speaker: I declared the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to.)
[English]
Mr. Williams: A point of order. While I understand that the
current motion has been carried, I was wondering if it is the
intention of the House to keep the final tally open for another day
until we hear from the leader of the Tory Party-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.
* * *
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.) moved that Bill C-108, an act to
amend the National Housing Act, be read the third time and passed.
(1805 )
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of Bill
C-108, an act to amend the National Housing Act.
17605
[Translation]
I would like to point out at the outset that Bill C-108 deals with a
purely administrative matter. It is essentially aimed at setting the
maximum amount of all outstanding loans insured by the mortgage
insurance fund.
This bill will amend the National Housing Act by increasing the
authorized ceiling of outstanding loans from $100 billion to $150
billion, thus allowing the CHMC to continue offering mortgage
insurance services throughout Canada.
I want to stress that this $50 billion increase is not an
expenditure and is not costing the government anything. The bill
also stipulates that any future increase in the aggregate amount of
outstanding loans is subject to parliamentary approval.
[English]
While the amendments contained in the bill represent
administrative matters, passage of the bill is essential to the
continued operation of CMHC's mortgage loan insurance.
The federal government provides mortgage loan insurance to all
Canadians regardless of where they live in Canada, at the smallest
feasible down payment and the lowest possible cost. Due to the
success of mortgage loan insurance, the current ceiling needs to be
increased to allow CMHC to continue to insure new mortgages.
In 1994 CMHC's total mortgage insurance activity was over
$24.7 billion, representing over 300,000 units. Approximately 40
per cent of the mortgage stock in Canada has involved financing
with CMHC mortgage insurance. As well, approximately one-third
of the housing stock in Canada was built with the help of National
Housing Act insured financing.
Allow me to take a minute to explain why this bill is so
important to Canadians.
[Translation]
Housing is a basic need. It is generally recognized that access to
affordable and adequate housing is essential to individual
well-being and therefore to a healthy, productive society. It goes
without saying that a well-housed person is more inclined to
contribute to the community.
For these reasons, the desire to own a home remains strong
among Canadian people.
[English]
CMHC mortgage loan insurance allows Canadians to access
affordable housing. Homebuyers can secure up to 95 per cent
financing from an approved lender because CMHC insures the
loans that are made by the approved lender. Because CMHC will
assume the risk should a borrower default, mortgage lenders are
able to make available more money to finance mortgages for
Canadians and at lower cost than would otherwise be possible,
thereby making home ownership more affordable.
With CMHC assuming the risk of borrower default, lenders are
able to reduce the mortgage financing rates. Lower mortgage
financing rates mean more affordable homes for Canadians.
One of the most important aspects of CMHC's mortgage loan
insurance is its public policy mandate to provide equal access to
mortgage financing at the lowest possible cost for all Canadians
regardless of where they live in Canada. This equal access is made
possible through the pooling of higher risk business with lower risk
business.
Without access to CMHC's mortgage loan insurance, Canadians
in some parts of the country would have to come up with the
conventional 25 per cent of the value of the house as a down
payment.
Needless to say, many Canadians would hardly ever be able to
purchase a home if this were the case. CMHC's mortgage insurance
is therefore critical to helping Canadians access home ownership.
[Translation]
The CMHC's mortgage insurance fund is self-financing and
therefore is not costing the government anything. Under CMHC
policy, the fund must become self-financing in the long term but
only through the premiums and fees paid by borrowers.
Premiums are equal to a percentage of the loan, which varies
according to the amount borrowed and the ratio between this
amount and the value of the property. Premiums are set so that
there is always enough money in the fund to cover any claims.
(1810 )
[English]
The government introduced the first home loan insurance
initiative in 1992 and reduced the minimum required down
payment to 5 per cent for first time homebuyers. This 5 per cent
initiative has been a tremendous success in helping to increase
home ownership in Canada.
Since November 1993 over 235,000 Canadian households have
taken advantage of the lower down payment to become the proud
owners of either a new or existing home. First home loan insurance
is an excellent example of CMHC's ability to adapt its mortgage
loan insurance activity to ensure that Canadians can enjoy the
benefits of home ownership.
17606
[Translation]
Some have suggested that the government should get out of the
business of mortgage loan insurance and leave it to private
industry. But it is important to know that, without CMHC
providing mortgage insurance, Canadians would be forced to deal
with a private sector monopoly, which would result in higher prices
and fewer choices.
We must also bear in mind that the NHA mortgage loan
insurance provides Canadians with equal access to mortgage
insurance in whatever part of the country they live in.
GE Capital Mortgage Co, our competitor, does not provide
similar services in 18 areas in the country. Competition is the best
way to keep prices at the lowest possible level to encourage
innovation in the mortgage industry to meet the changing needs of
Canadian consumers.
[English]
It has been suggested that CMHC should get out of the mortgage
loan insurance business and leave it to the provinces. I would like
to point out that the federal government has a constitutional
responsibility for banking and finance. CMHC mortgage insurance
and guarantee are a demonstration that the federal government is
fulfilling this responsibility.
Without CMHC, there would be a federal policy vacuum in the
system of housing finance. The result would be unequal access to
home loans across the country. Furthermore, borrowers of modest
means could pay more for low down payment mortgages or have no
access to financing altogether. Housing constitutes an engine of
economic growth responsible for creating many thousands of jobs
and business opportunities in communities across the country.
Housing accounts for about 7 per cent of the world's domestic
product, over half of all construction and one out of every 12 jobs
in Canada. House construction and renovations create jobs and
business opportunities. For every $100 million of construction
spending, 2,310 person-years of employment are created on site
and in directly related supply and service industries.
The federal government through CMHC has been providing
national mortgage insurance for four decades in Canada. CMHC
has remained a significant player throughout this time with a
mandate from the federal government to provide mortgage
insurance to support loans to all Canadian homebuyers regardless
of where they live in Canada at the smallest feasible down payment
and the lowest feasible cost.
In conclusion, today the private housing market is able to meet
the housing needs of the vast majority of Canadian households.
There is no doubt that CMHC's mortgage loan insurance has
played a critical role in that achievement.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise in
this House today to participate in this debate on Bill C-108 to
remind the hon. members how important social housing is.
Social housing is an issue of great concern to me because I know
how much some of the people in my riding who are living under the
poverty line-50 per cent of the people in my riding are living
under the poverty line and 28 per cent are on welfare-rely on
social housing.
That is why, in April 1994, I presented in this House a motion
requesting that several major measures be initiated, such as
entering into agreements with the Government of Quebec to
reactivate the co-operative housing program, putting in place a
rental housing renovation assistance program and restoring the
public housing program, and that Quebec oversee, of course, every
aspect of these programs.
(1815)
In response to that motion, government members assured me
that social housing was a laudable and important principle. In
particular, the parliamentary secretary to the solicitor general told
me, with a hand on his heart, about the great co-operation between
Quebec and its big brother, the federal government. He even
criticized me, sardonically, for asking that the province be given
back the moneys allocated to social housing, given the harmony
that prevailed.
Nothing is settled yet. Worse still, particularly for a government
elected on the basis of its commitments to social justice and
dignity, nothing was even done. Nothing at all. As we say, nothing
not. Sure, the nice principles remain nice. They are still used
occasionally to illustrate the virtues of certain policies, particularly
federal ones. We no longer believe them. But, for my constituents,
for other Quebecers, and even for Canadians, nothing has changed.
Figures do not lie. They do not indulge in nice rhetoric. They do
not wax eloquently on noble feelings. Figures are there and they
tell the story. What do they tell us or, rather, what do they keep
telling? They tell us that nothing has changed. Last year, the federal
government did not build a single social housing unit. This year, it
is a repeat performance, zero. You heard me right, zero. The federal
government is no longer involved in building social housing units.
It is content to express noble feelings.
Figures also tell us that, from 1989-90 to 1993-94, Quebec
received barely 19 per cent of the total money spent by the CMHC.
Yet, 25 per cent of the country's population live in Quebec.
Moreover, during that same period, Quebec accounted for close to
30 per cent of Canadians living in inadequate dwellings.
17607
Then they tell us that the federation is good for Quebecers. They
try to make us feel guilty to want to leave such a nice family, a
family that is so fair to one of its children. The facts speak for
themselves, and eloquently so. For five years, the federal
government acted in an absolutely unfair manner towards
Quebecers living in inadequate dwellings. Then, it totally withdrew
its support to social housing. It did not care at all. The results are
tragic for Quebec: an estimated $1.3 billion shortfall, taking into
account existing needs.
In the meantime, our Ontario neighbours, who were so fond of us
just before the referendum, took considerable advantage of the
federal manna. Now, let us look at figures. In 1991-92, Quebec
received 19.3 per cent of the expenditures of the Central Mortgage
and Housing Corporation. Ontario got 34 per cent. This is a
difference of 14.7 per cent. I am not making it up, these are the
figures.
In 1992-93, the difference between Quebec and Ontario was 16.8
per cent and, in 1993-94, it was 14.1 per cent. As I said a few
moments ago, the figures speak very clearly. For those in my riding
with housing problems, the figures do not count for much. What
counts is results. In their experience, public housing is becoming a
very rare commodity, especially in Quebec.
My constituents know that, for many of them, public housing is
often their only means of getting decent and affordable housing.
The 4,300 single mothers waiting for public housing in my riding
know this to be so and do not find the situation amusing. The
federal government got out of public housing without transferring
tax points in exchange. Quebec is now stuck, as is happening in
more and more instances, with needs to fill and no money to do it.
So much for their great federalism, we have no use for it.
(1820 )
[English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-108, an act to
amend the National Housing Act.
Bill C-108 proposes to increase the aggregate amount of
outstanding Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC,
loan insurance from $100 billion to $150 billion, plus any
additional amounts that may be authorized by Parliament. Put
simply, Bill C-108 increases CMHC's liability limit by $50 billion.
Many members on the government side seem to think that $50
billion in liability is not a big deal and they are affronted that
Reform is questioning the bill. They are in such a hurry that they
pushed clause by clause consideration of Bill C-108 through
standing committee in a record 30 seconds, a record 30 seconds for
$50 billion. This is hardly the fiscally responsible approach that
Canadians expect from their government.
Our deficit continues to be a reality that will not go away until
something constructive is done. The debt load that each taxpayer
has to carry is immobilizing the nation. Yet the Liberals continue to
overspend. The Liberals are not cutting back; they are spending
more. For example, last year alone their spending increased by $2.8
billion.
The national debt is presently at $566 billion and is increasing
every second. Canadians are so strapped with debt that they cannot
move forward. It is little wonder, given this situation, that the
housing market has slowed to a crawl in Canada. The average
person simply does not have the money or financial security
required to invest in a long term mortgage. Increasing the loan
liabilities for CMHC will not change the hard financial reality that
many Canadians are facing today.
The government promised jobs and it promised deficit reduction.
Yet Canadians are facing higher unemployment and more taxes.
Things are not getting better, and the government refuses to make
the changes necessary to turn things around.
The Liberals are still practising the same old politics that got
Canada into this deficit in the first place. Liberals are spending,
buying jobs, artificially propping up private industry and messing
up private markets. All this does is drive us deeper into debt.
Increasing the CMHC liability limit for insuring mortgages is
nothing more than government speculation without money. The
government has done this on several occasions. For example, Bill
C-91 expanded the loan liability of the Federal Business
Development Bank from approximately $4 billion to $22 billion.
Bill C-75 increased government loan liability for farm
improvement and marketing co-operative loans from $1.5 billion
to $3 billion. Outstanding loans under the Small Business Loans
Act rose from $3 billion to $6 billion in 1995 and is now up to $12
billion. This is only a small segment of Liberal initiatives to
increase federal loan liability.
Although liabilities may not involve borrowing money, they are
a risk that if defaulted will cost taxpayers money. The government
has grown accustomed to handing out grants left, right and centre.
Accordingly government liability simply increases our chances of
going deeper into debt.
In addition, Canadians should be particularly concerned that the
government does not know what its outstanding liabilities are at
this time. CMHC could not tell me its outstanding liability at this
time or 10 or 15 years down the road. This is not acceptable.
Liabilities are risks. When mortgages are defaulted these
liabilities fall back on the taxpayer. When the bill was in the House
for second reading a few weeks ago, Reform members asked the
Liberals again and again who pays on defaulted mortgages.
17608
Mr. Forseth: Who pays?
Mr. Gilmour: The taxpayer pays. Let me make that perfectly
clear to members on the government side because there was a great
deal of confusion with government members on the Reform
position on the bill. We are not advocating an end to CMHC
mortgage insurance. We are saying that $100 billion worth of
liability is enough. The government does not need to add another
$50 billion in liabilities.
(1825)
The fact that the government is asking for the additional liability
to be retroactive to 1994 indicates that CMHC has already
overextended its liability limits. Canadians should be concerned
that CMHC needs to increase its liability funds, not only because
there is no guarantee outstanding liabilities will not cost taxpayers
but because there are obvious problems with government
management of CMHC programs and funding.
I mentioned earlier that CMHC does not know what its
outstanding liabilities are. This should concern many Canadians
because CMHC does not appear to be keeping records of its
outstanding liabilities to the expiry of its term 10, 15 or 20 years
into the future.
To illustrate, access to information requests reveal, first, that
CMHC does not have records of how much money it has forgiven
under its residential rehabilitation assistance program. Second, it
does not keep records of past contracts, only of current contracts.
Third, it has no centralized records of the financial subsidy
amounts and operating agreements for many of its programs,
including its public housing program. Fourth, no centralized
records were kept of moneys going into its aboriginal programs,
which is a major component of CMHC. This is only the tip of the
iceberg.
If the government through CMHC is to be doling out money and
insuring loans, surely it should keep track of what it is spending,
how much it owes and how much it is liable for. If the corporation
cannot keep track of its fiscal activities, we should not be
increasing its liabilities, especially by another $50 billion. This is
not only irresponsible. It is absolutely ridiculous, particularly when
we consider our debt situation.
The bill is not only a step toward deeper fiscal uncertainty. It is
clearly a move in the wrong direction. The government should not
be leaning toward a greater federal role in housing but rather
toward a more decentralized government role.
Whatever happened to the Prime Minister's promise to
decentralize federal powers? It has obviously gone out the window
with many other Liberal promises.
Canadians do not want a bloated federal government. They do
not want the federal government meddling in every level of
provincial, municipal and private enterprise affairs. Canadians
want a leaner, more efficient federal government.
The minister responsible for CMHC claims that his department
is moving toward a smaller organization. Yet if the federal
government is downsizing and moving away from the housing
market, why is it asking for another $50 billion in mortgage
money? It does not fit.
This will not downsize federal responsibilities. On the contrary,
it will strengthen and increase the federal role. It is time for the
federal government to realign its responsibilities with other
governments. Canadians are taxed beyond belief from all levels of
government. They have simply had enough.
The federal government is long overdue in easing out of a
number of responsibilities duplicated at the provincial level.
Canadians want a clear separation of responsibility between levels
of government. They want a shift of power away from bureaucrats
toward the people who pay for the programs in the first place.
Canadians want an end to federal interference in the private sector.
They do not want or need big brother meddling in their affairs, and
Bill C-108 allows CMHC to significantly increase its presence in
the mortgage market.
It is time for the government to allow private industry to do what
it does best: offer consumers competitive mortgage rates. It is time
for the government to stop interfering in the housing industry.
Canadians want a clear separation of responsibility between levels
of government and they want responsibility toward the people.
(1830 )
It is time for the government to get out of the face of private
industry. Reformers are saying we do not want an increase of the
$50 billion. We are not saying CMHC should get out of the market,
but $50 billion is too much and because of that we will oppose this
bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, many
petitions have been submitted in the House since this government
took office, and several of them, from all over the country,
concerned social housing.
I personally submitted a number of such petitions. The former
Conservative government gradually withdrew from the social
housing sector by adopting various measures.
In 1989, it withdrew from the rental housing rehabilitation
program. In 1992, it took another devastating measure in that it
17609
reduced by 21 per cent the number of new housing units. In 1993, it
ended the long term financing of new low-cost housing units. As
well, the RRAP, which provided assistance to repair social housing
units, was abolished. Quebec thus sustained a major shortfall.
This Liberal government made promises during the last election
campaign. In October 1993, several Liberal candidates, including
the current Minister of Foreign Affairs, attended a meeting with
officials from the Confédération des coopératives d'habitation de
la grande région de Montréal, and made commitments regarding
social housing. Among other measures, they were supposed to
unfreeze the CMHC budget, so as to make it possible to build 5,800
new co-op housing units in Canada. They were also supposed to
re-examine the percentage of investment required of the
municipalities. Hooray for this wonderful platform. But after
October 25, 1993, as if by magic, the Liberal government forgot its
commitments.
Let us look at what the Liberals have done since they came to
power. They have dashed all hopes of new housing units being
built. They have required CMHC to turn back to the government
close to $270 million saved in current operating expenses which
could have been ploughed back into the community.
In 1995, this government pressured the provinces to raise rents
in social housing. Six provinces gave in, while Quebec made it
clear that it would not. The present government is quite simply
continuing along the same political path as the Conservatives
before it.
Yet the last time they campaigned, the Liberals condemned the
brutal cuts in subsidized housing. Even the Minister of Finance, the
same gentleman who predicted that one million jobs would
disappear if Quebec voted yes in the referendum, himself
committed to ensuring secure, guaranteed funding for social
housing. Nothing has come of this. In Quebec, the losses over the
past five years are estimated at very close to a billion dollars.
The Bloc Quebecois cannot tolerate such a situation. Social
housing is more than a roof over people's heads. It is a vital
element of economic and social policy. A good housing program
must enable people to acquire a feeling of social identity and must
provide them with the opportunity to control one of the factors
influencing their lives.
For example, a co-operative housing project allows its members
to live within a co-operative framework. Often various recreational
activities are organized. Furthermore, members have to get
involved in running their co-operative. Without their social
housing, many of them would live in isolation. By dropping social
housing, the government aggravates housing conditions that in turn
substantially increase other problems such as poverty and hunger.
Poverty, hunger and housing are closely linked.
(1835)
Consider the situation in my riding. In Chicoutimi, more than
9,000 households or 44 per cent are tenants. Of that number, 3,000
have to spend more than 30 per cent of their income on housing.
This is unacceptable. This percentage is critical. Thirty-five per
cent of tenants face this kind of situation. And more than 16 per
cent spend half their income on housing.
This is a situation that has dramatic consequences and must be
corrected. To pay the rent, an increasing number of tenants are
obliged to cut back on essentials like food. In many households,
even that is not enough. The statistics of the Régie du logement
show that the number of tenants behind in their rent is increasing,
not because they are more reluctant to pay but because the
proportion of their income they must spend on rent is too high.
In its health and welfare policy, the Quebec government stated in
1992: ``The cost of housing is a major item in a family's budget. If
the cost of housing constantly causes major cuts in the budget for
food, clothing and recreation, the quality of physical and mental
health will be affected''.
In 1993, the UN committee on economic, social and cultural
rights published a report on poverty in Canada. The report paints a
damning picture of the housing situation. This committee was
surprised to learn that social housing expenditures did not exceed
1.3 per cent of public spending.
In this era marked by a lack of permanent jobs and basic social
rights, social housing is an important problem and will become
increasingly so. The very health of those living in inadequate
housing is at stake. We know who these people usually are: women
who are the main breadwinners in their families, people who live
alone, single parent families.
To tackle the problem, the government must substantially
increase investments in housing, which would result in significant
savings in health and social services. We must also consider the
considerable impact on employment, which would be very
beneficial at this time.
The government should develop an ambitious housing policy
focused on building new social housing units by the year 2000,
with a view to offering quality, environmentally sound housing,
with adequate services and facilities for handicapped and mobility
impaired people, among others.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to an order made earlier today
by unanimous consent, the question is deemed to have been put and
a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until tomorrow
at 5.15 p.m.
17610
Hon. Sheila Finestone (for the Minister of Industry) moved
that Bill C-99, an act to amend the Small Business Loans Act, be
read the third time and passed.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Again, under the terms of the agreement,
a member from each party will be allowed to speak to this bill for
10 minutes.
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak
on third and final reading of the amendments to the Small Business
Loans Act.
I will review some of the initiatives we have accomplished in the
industry committee over the last year. It is important to do this
because I see in the House tonight the member for Okanagan and
the member for Trois-Rivières, the members who led the debate on
behalf of their parties.
(1840)
The industry committee in the last year was one of the most
unique committees on Parliament Hill. When the public sees
Members of Parliament getting together, especially in the chamber,
all it sees is the adversarial debate. It sees by and large the
experience of question period, which is such a misleading image of
what the Parliament of Canada is all about.
This will be my last speech in the House for this year on matters
related to industry and on the whole issue of access to capital. To
the members for Trois-Rivières and Okanagan, it was a real
pleasure.
When I leave the House to go back to whatever I will do when it
is all over and reflect on my experience in Ottawa, I will say one of
the most productive years in Ottawa was working on this
committee when our focus was so united on the whole issue of
access to capital for small and medium size business men and
women.
I believe with all of our differences on distinct society and veto
and so on, and goodness knows there are a lot of other issues we
have differ on, there is one common cause shared by every member
of the House: the small business community represents the greatest
hope for putting Canadians back to work.
The number one issue or the number one difficulty that
community faces is issue of access to sufficient capital to support
its risks, to support its basic business activity. If we move the banks
an inch, and I think we have moved them only an inch, it is because
banking institutions have not been able to break up or divide the
industry committee. We have worked as a team.
I have to confess to Canadians that the best lobby system on
Parliament Hill is the financial institutions. They have a way of
lobbying and intimidating, but we held firm in our convictions, in
our cause in the last year. I hope that over the next year we can keep
that type of commitment. Whoever else is on the industry
committee, I hope they carry on with the torch and keep that cause
moving forward.
I am optimistic about this. Last night I watched the Prime
Minister in the second national town hall meeting. Canadians from
across the country asked the Prime Minister many questions. I
remember vividly the question from a small business entrepreneur
who ran a grocery business. He asked the Prime Minister when he
was going to get serious about his commitment to take on the
banks.
(1845)
I was pleased that question was put to the Prime Minister and for
a split second it caught the Prime Minister off guard. The Prime
Minister is well aware that we are working hard on the issue.
Because we are working as a team one would think we would be
moving the banks forward, but it is such a small movement that it
has not really impacted yet. The Prime Minister said that we have
been working on that.
The idea was put forward by the member of Parliament for
Trinity-Spadina. He has been pushing, debating and arguing for
the past year and a half that all banks in Canada should have a
target of approximately 30 per cent of their total corporate loan
portfolio devoted to the small business sector. I was stunned that
the Prime Minister mentioned that objective. Many members of the
committee thought that the member for Trinity-Spadina was
being overly aggressive in directing the banks on to whom they
should lend money. I opposed the member's recommendation that
these targets be put in writing.
I am beginning to think that maybe the member for
Trinity-Spadina was right when he told us a year ago that the
banks were not really going to deal with the issue unless we gave
them a specific benchmark. The member for Okanagan remembers
how we almost ganged up on our fellow member saying that we
cannot go quite that far, that we cannot dictate 30 per cent of the
total loan portfolio.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. My hon. colleague does not seem
to realize that the agreement was said to be a maximum of
10-minute speeches for anybody from the three parties speaking on
the bill.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, in
summary, the bill before us tonight is a reinforcement of the
government's commitment to support small business loan activity.
We have accepted amendments to the bill from the Reform Party.
17611
I hope that as we head into the new year which is just around the
corner, that the signal all members of the House have sent to all the
financial institutions through speedy passage of bills and through
the speedy and united recommendations in our ``Taking Care of
Small Business'' report will be recognized.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I rise to participate in the debate at third reading
on Bill C-99, an act to amend the Small Business Loans Act.
Before going any further, I would like to make a few comments
about what our colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Industry, said. If I understand correctly, our colleague
told us that he was leaving at least-unless I misunderstood-the
Standing Committee on Industry, if not the House itself.
(1850)
In any event, if he is indeed planning to leave the industry
committee, I would like to tell him again-I say again because I
already had the opportunity to tell him through the Speaker-how
much I appreciated working with him and what a distinguished
parliamentarian the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood is. I
was in a position to appreciate his many fine qualities and his great
contribution to the work of the committee. As a man, I have always
considered the hon. member to be a liberal in the noblest sense of
the word and a humanist as well. I hope to have the pleasure of
continuing to work with him.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): A true liberal.
Mr. Rocheleau: A true liberal. The personification of distinct
society.
I shall now turn to Bill C-99, and to make the most constructive
criticism possible. We must bear in mind that Bill C-99 was
introduced as a result of one the measures announced in the last
budget speech, when the finance minister expressed hope that the
Small Business Loans Act would become self-financing. As we
know, in 1993, the administration of this act is said to have cost the
public purse in terms of coverage-let us call it bad debt for the
sake of discussion-nearly $32 million on a $4 billion small
business envelope.
This $32 million in lost income for the government is expected
to grow to approximately $100 million this year on an envelope
now totalling $12 billion; that is how much can be loaned to small
business through lending institutions.
We agree that this is a burden that must not be overlooked, a
burden on the taxpayers. But at the same time, we believe that,
before limiting in any way the scope of this bill, which is a good
bill, the government should conduct-and this is one of the
recommendations made by the official opposition that was almost
approved by the industry committee-a cost-benefit analysis of
administering the act. Because, if the $32 million or $100 million
in question are considered as money injected by the government in
the economy, then we have less trouble talking about this shortfall.
Talking not only of cost, whether it be $32 million or $100
million, but also of benefits, would give a better idea of the jobs
created, the direct and indirect taxes collected by the government
because of such job creation and the survival or expansion of
companies as a result of incentives provided by this act.
We know the social and economic importance of jobs-there are
consequences, we will never say it enough and this is a particularly
good forum to do so-and of lower unemployment; it may be better
education for children, less family violence, less violence against
women, less violence against children. It may also lead to a
lowering in drug consumption; it may be workers more inclined to
do their bit to get the economy rolling, that is for sure.
Coming back to this act, before amending it in a significant way,
we should bear in mind all the benefits. Unfortunately, the
government did not accept the recommendation of the official
opposition which had been approved by the industry committee.
Now for the particular provisions of the bill we do not agree
with. There are three of them. The first one is the liability, whereby
the government guarantees 90 per cent of the loan provided by a
lending institution. This liability will be reduced from 90 per cent
to 85 per cent. This is our first objection. The second one deals with
the fact that we still require personal securities. Thirdly,
administration fees will be offloaded onto borrowers through
higher interest rates.
(1855)
As I was saying, our first objection deals with the reduction in
liability from 90 per cent to 85 per cent. We argue that it will have
particular significance for smaller lending institutions. In Quebec,
this means the caisses populaires you find in every village and
which make only a few dozen loans per year and which, seeing
their protection lowered, will be inclined to lower their risks, and
therefore limit their loans to the most secure businesses. Therefore,
the effect on smaller lending institutions will probably be felt
rather quickly.
Our second objection is even more important, because this bill
will have particular impact on high tech businesses, which are the
future of our economic development. These businesses are based
on the knowledge, the expertise and the skills of the employer, the
owner-manager, who cannot offer tangibles guarantees to the credit
institution. All he can offer is his skills, which are impalpable,
intangible. Therefore, there is a higher risk for the credit institu-
17612
tion; the same thing is true for businesses which are starting and
have no background, who have nothing to offer.
Since they have no records to show, these businesses cannot
reassure the bank. Consequently, the banker's risk being higher, it
is expected that it will be the high tech businesses on which we are
counting increasingly, as well as the new businesses that will be
mostly affected by these new provisions.
Particularly if the government sees, in the coming years, that
only 85 per cent coverage is still not sufficient, it may further
reduce its risk. It will be able to reduce it to 80 or 75 or 70 per cent,
and this, by way of regulation, without holding a debate in the
House, without permitting us to talk about the borrowers' interests,
without permitting us to face the executive branch and either
applaud or condemn the government's policies. To act by way of
regulation in such a matter is not very nice.
The second major objection, the one which maintains the
personal guarantee that could be required by the lender, was a
commitment made in the red book of the Liberal Party of Canada;
it was conveniently forgotten. This makes us sad, because we
believe that, because of the guarantee that the lender enjoys
through the involvement of the federal government in the
transaction, personal guarantees could have been applied instead to
another transaction between the banker and the borrower, who
could have offered his home, his car or part of his personal wealth
as a guarantee to develop another type of project that would not be
covered by the Small Business Loans Act.
Finally, we are concerned by the establishment of an
administration fee the percentage of which could be set through
regulation, again without any debate, surreptitiously, arbitrarily by
the government, and also by the fact that the fee provided for in the
legislation can be passed on to the borrower through interest rates,
so that the lender can get even richer.
Therefore, for these three reasons, we will vote against this bill.
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is a pleasure to rise to debate Bill C-99, an act to amend certain
parts of the Small Business Loans Act.
I too was rather impressed by the parliamentary secretary's
comments as to how the industry committee functions. From his
description of that committee I cannot help but say I have to be one
of the most fortunate MPs in the federal House of Parliament. My
first experience in Ottawa was to be made a member of the best
committee on the Hill. That is really something. My hon. colleague
has been on other committees and if this is the best committee, that
is great. The committee has worked well.
(1900 )
What has happened with Bill C-99 is an example of what can be
done and how Parliament should function because all members put
aside their partisan differences, their political affiliations and came
to an agreement on some very significant matters that are
exemplified by the provisions of the bill.
Members of the Reform Party are going to support this bill,
despite the fact we have some rather grave reservations about the
whole concept of the Small Business Loans Act. The Small
Business Loans Act is based on the provision of a form of subsidy
of certain kinds of financing to private enterprise. The reason we
can support the bill is because the amendments bring about an
accountability of that program and it is supposed to have 100 per
cent cost recovery. If that in fact happens, then some of the our
concerns are going to be mitigated to the point where they do not
exist.
We also want to support this bill because the Reform Party
motions that were presented in committee were accepted by the
committee and by the minister. It is necessary to recognize the
significant role the Minister of Industry played in this decision.
Communications went back and forth about the provisions,
especially the one which removed the authority of Parliament and
shifted it to the cabinet. This took authority away from the
representatives of the people and put it in the Privy Council
committee to make decisions behind closed doors.
The committee, as well as the minister, saw that was probably
not the most democratic thing to do and went so far as to say that it
should be taken out. An amendment to that effect was presented to
the committee by the Reform Party and it was accepted.
Members need to recognize that these are the kinds of things that
Parliament really should be doing. In certain instances we should
put aside political and partisan differences and say that for the good
of the people of Canada, for the business development of
Canadians, we need to do something that will help all of us. In this
instance that was accomplished and it was to the credit of all those
who had a part in it.
I want to talk about the concept behind the Small Business Loans
Act. Reform Party members do not think that the government
should take risks on behalf of the taxpayer. Those risks should be
taken by the private sector. That is why we object to the principle
behind the Small Business Loans Act. However, that is not our
concern at this point. Our concern is to make the act better and the
amendments do that. That should demonstrate to all and sundry
that the Reform Party is a reasonable party.
We recognize there are certain gaps that need to be filled from
time to time and we have done that. In this instance that has
happened. I want to credit the committee, the Minister of Industry
17613
and the parliamentary secretary on recognizing that and getting to
work and doing it.
The House needs to recognize that the financial industry in
particular is one of the most difficult industries or institutions to
move. The parliamentary secretary suggested that maybe we have
moved the banks an inch. I am not so sure. Almost I think that is
optimistic.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): I was exaggerating.
Mr. Schmidt: Maybe we only moved them a quarter of an inch.
The important thing is we moved them and that is significant.
I recall the first day I met the hon. member at the committee
meeting. Members of the committee were deciding what to make
our focus. I remember so clearly the absolute commitment that this
member of Parliament had when he said: ``Mr. Chairman, there is
only one thing that this committee should deal with and that is the
access to capital by small business. That has to change and that has
to be improved. If we achieve nothing else in this 35th Parliament,
that is what we have to achieve''. He turned to the chairman and
said: ``Mr. Chairman, that is your job as chairman, to make sure
that this committee gets that job done''. He did not ever deviate
from that focus. His enthusiasm infused other members of the
committee. They too said: ``Yes, that is what we want to do''.
(1905)
It has been successful. We have moved the banks maybe a
quarter of an inch. I hope that a year from now we can say that we
have moved them a half-inch or three-quarters of an inch. I would
like to move them a mile. If a good idea, a new innovation, of an
entrepreneur wishing to establish himself is supported by the
financial institutions, that would be a great step forward.
I know there are all kinds of words being used. One of the banks
recently announced a $300 million venture fund which it was going
to establish so that innovative ideas could take root and businesses
could develop. Three hundred million dollars. That bank made
almost $1 billion in profit last year. That is not even one-third of its
profit. That is not a very great concession on the part of one
institution.
We have to go much further than that and I believe we can. If the
financial institutions were as concerned about building small
business and about supporting the high tech industries as they are
about lobbying MPs, Canada would grow. Canadians would begin
to do the kinds of things that we imagined, which the banks often
stopped.
When will we see the kind of co-operation from the financial
institutions which was evident from the various parties that were
represented in committee? Surely the imagination of the members
of the committee is not restricted to them. Surely the financial
institutions can also use some imagination and say: ``If 85 per cent
of new jobs are created by the small business sector, then we had
better get on the ball. Then we will make even more of a profit than
we are making now''. Sometimes the financial institutions think as
far as the end of their noses and no farther. It leaves me
dumbfounded.
On the other hand, we also have to say that the banks agreed to
do something. They actually agreed to provide to the committee on
a quarterly basis numbers which will allow us to compare their
performance from one quarter to the next. That is wonderful. If this
results in them moving the next inch so that the building and
growing process for small business can be achieved, the task and
purpose of the committee will have been rewarded.
This committee has demonstrated that it can be done. The
amendments to the bill indicate that the parties can co-operate.
Reformers support the bill, however, I would like to make it clear
that does not mean we like the idea of subsidizing business,
whether it is through the banks or in any other way. That being said,
we will support the bill because of the things which I have outlined.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Dear colleagues, pursuant to the order
made earlier today, the motion is deemed to have been put and
agreed to.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
[English]
Under the same order made earlier today, the House will now
proceed to Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order
Paper.
_____________________________________________
17613
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from November 30 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-315, an act to complement the present laws of
Canada that protect the privacy of individuals with respect to
personal information about themselves obtained by certain
corporations, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-315, put
forward by the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, proposes to
improve the privacy of individuals with respect to personal
information obtained by corporations. I wonder why he is
interested in that. Is privacy important?
As our society advances, new technologies are available to us.
Let me talk about two of those new technologies. One I favour is a
technology called a smart card. A smart card is designed to have
17614
information encoded on it to prevent abuse of our health care
system. Abuse of our health care system is something that most
Canadians would like to see addressed. A smart card would allow
the individual to present themselves to their physician. The card
would be encoded, recent medical information would be accessible
which would prevent double doctoring, double testing. In fact, it
would prevent some overspending of significant amounts of
money. A smart card sounds like a good idea for that purpose.
(1910)
Let us take that idea one step further. I have seen cards used in
the grocery stores where an account can be debited very quickly. I
heard someone say that those cards could be made smaller and
implanted under the skin. It could have a significant amount of
personal information on it. It would be scanned, some numbers
punched in and bills could be paid that way.
I also heard it said that the little implanted chip would allow a
satellite locating system to know someone's location at any time.
Now you could never get lost. That is the final step in the use of the
smart card for those of us who are too dumb to figure out where we
are.
Are there pitfalls on the issue of privacy with these new
computer technologies which are available to us? Are people aware
and concerned about computer technology? I believe they are. I can
give two recent examples. Ontario is bringing out an omnibus bill
in which one of the concerns is the issue of privacy of information.
The omnibus bill looks as though it will make information more
available to legislators and there is been an outcry about that issue.
Bill C-7, recently passed in the House, had significant
components which related to privacy. There were a number of very
public concerns about the information being made available. I
believe this bill has some component of public concern to it and the
interest is reasonable.
When can we go overboard with information that should not be
made publicly available? That is my question. When do we go
overboard?
I would also like to step back a bit and say that there are times
when I do not think information is made publicly available which
should be made available. I would like to use two examples.
Across from an elementary school in my riding is a house called
the drug house. The teachers say that drugs are sold from that
house. They have watched this going on for eight years.
I went to meeting with the RCMP, the mayor and some
community activists to find out what could be done about this drug
house. Apparently people arrive at the house, quickly go in and out,
having made their drug deal and off they go. It is known to the
police and the principal and it is now known to the MP. Surely this
can be stopped. This is not a great thing to have across the street
from an elementary school. Also the junior high school is not far
away.
The RCMP told me their hands were tied. My reply was that
surely they could go to a justice of the peace and say that there are
reasonable grounds to suspect and search this house. I was told that
the rights of the individual in that house would be trampled on if we
did that. I said that surely the rights of the kids in that elementary
school would take precedence. I was told: ``No, doc, that is not the
way it works. Our legal system has put the rights even. The kids
and the people in that house have even rights''. I was puzzled by
that. I do not agree with that.
(1915)
I have another example. A man raped a young woman, was
caught and sentenced to jail. She in her wisdom wondered whether
he could have infected her with a disease. She went to the court and
asked that the rapist have a blood test because she was living in fear
that she may have AIDS. His reaction was: ``No chance. My rights
of privacy say you cannot touch me''.
I say wait a minute, if the rights of the victim collide with the
rights of the criminal, and in this case they do and she has a
legitimate need to know, whose rights should take precedence? The
victim's rights take precedence over his.
When I tell that to students in high schools, you should see how
upset they get. I challenge members opposite to ask students in
high schools whose rights should take precedence, his privacy or
her need to know. They will say very quickly whose rights should
take precedence.
There is another side to the privacy issue, the charter of rights
and freedoms, which today does not talk about responsibilities and
puts those rights side by side. It needs an adjustment.
In a previous conversation there was talk about banks. Banks
have information that is profoundly private. Banks want to get into
the insurance business. There has been quite a lobby in that regard.
They have a monopoly in the banking interests. They now want to
get into the insurance business. Since Reformers are really
interested in free enterprise, why would I be concerned about banks
stepping into the insurance business?
If they are to step into the insurance business they had better be
willing to open up the monopoly they have in other businesses.
They had better let the insurance companies in there. They had
better let the insurance companies have access to Interac. They had
better let the insurance companies have access to the private
information on an individual's account, where they spend their
money, how they spend their money. It is a very unfair advantage if
they are competing with the private insurance business.
17615
On the issue of privacy where the banks are concerned great
caution needs to be exercised. There is a need for Bill C-315 by the
member for Cariboo-Chilcotin. There is a need for a look at
privacy in relationship to the electronic age we are in. I would like
it considered very carefully.
I suppose the government should bring in its own bill which
would get the stamp of approval of the government. The member
for Cariboo-Chilcotin might well be a little disappointed that his
bill did not get in, but probably he would accept that change is
needed. I will watch with interest for those changes.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous
consent for the following motion. I move:
That, in the event that a recorded division is demanded on Bill C-315 later
this day, that such a division be taken tomorrow, December 13, 1995 at 5.15 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: Hon. members have heard both the terms
of the motion and the request for unanimous consent to introduce
it. Are both acceptable?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in today's debate on Bill C-315. I wish to
acknowledge the initiative put forward by the hon. member for
Cariboo-Chilcotin in his desire to see the privacy of Canadian
citizens protected. However, I feel there are several weaknesses
with the bill. As a result, I will not be lending my support to its
passage.
The issue of privacy is perhaps a very central one in the
technological society of today. However, we must not confuse the
broader issue of privacy protection, an issue which we are pleased
to see debated in the House in the context of this bill, with the
reality of Bill C-315. While it is designed to protect privacy in the
context of the sale of marketing lists, it will scarcely achieve that
because it is so narrowly crafted.
(1920)
Here again are some of the features of the bill. It is designed to
stop the sale of marketing lists without the consent of individuals
whose names are on the list. Before selling a list containing names
and personal information of individuals, a federal corporation must
send a notice to the individual seeking consent for the sale.
The firm must ensure it receives consent and has not received a
request to remove the name from the list. If it has, it must remove
the name or particulars pertaining to the individual within 10 days.
A firm which buys a list must also send a notice to the individual
informing the person of what is on the list, where it came from and
that he or she may request to have their names or data removed
from the list. Requests for removal of names or data must be
processed within 10 days and corporations must send confirmation
to the individual.
Contraventions of the act are punishable by fines of up to $5,000
for the first offence and up to $10,000 for subsequent offences.
[Translation]
I do not support Bill C-315, because I feel that it is flawed in
several ways. The definition of ``personal information'' is not
comprehensive and does not meet the current standards of related
federal and provincial acts. Marketing lists are not sold, they are
rented. In its present form, this bill would not affect customary
business practices.
It would be inconsistent with the Quebec privacy act, which
includes a carefully drafted section on the use of name lists.
Moreover, the bill only applies to a limited number of federally
regulated corporations. It would not prevent the vast majority of
list sales and would affect only a fraction of the problem of
protecting personal information, which would give consumers a
false sense of security.
The cost to businesses would be prohibitive, and consumers
would receive notices seeking their consent as another wave of
intrusive advertising.
The government is considering various aspects of the protection
of personal information. Consumers are becoming increasingly
concerned about what will happen to their personal information in
the interconnected world of the information highway. They want
the government to react and legislate.
Canadian businesses want to enjoy the advantages of an
electronic business environment where bureaucracy and paperwork
can be reduced, where they can create a closer relationship with
their customers and business partners and administrative processes
can be simplified and computerized.
If there are to be rules regulating the use and protection of
personal information, businesses want those rules to be consistent
and predictable.
[English]
The information highway advisory council presented a number
of recommendations in its final report, including a call for the
federal government to table flexible framework legislation based
on the Canadian Standards Association model privacy code. This
model privacy code is the product of a consensus committee of
consumer representatives, key industry players such as the banks,
telecom companies and the direct marketing association and
provincial and federal government representatives. It makes a
sound basis of consensus for us to start from when we are thinking
about the protection of privacy.
We are studying these recommendations now with a view to
action and to presenting a much more comprehensive approach to
the problem. The Minister of Industry will be making an
announce-
17616
ment for the protection of personal information in the context of
the government's response to the report of the information highway
advisory council.
While I agree with the spirit of Bill C-315, I believe the points
which I have outlined clearly explain why the scope of the bill is
too narrow and why it cannot be as effective as the hon. member
would like it to be.
(1925 )
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Caribou-Chilcotin for the
introduction of his private member's Bill C-315.
The bill will protect the privacy of individuals with respect to
personal information about themselves obtained by certain
corporations. There have been many times when my mailbox at
home is literally stuffed with so-called addressed junk mail. We all
get it and I think it is safe to say most of us do not like it. In most
cases it is a request for money for an obscure organization or it is an
ad for a product we know will not be exactly how it appears in the
picture.
We file this mail in the circular file, file 13, in a place where it
rightfully belongs. However, what is it exactly that I am throwing
out in that situation? Is it just a letter or a notice from some
organization that happened to get my name and address out of the
phone book? Chances are it did not come from a phone book but
rather from some corporation that had me on its computer list and
that corporation probably sold my name as a part of a mailing
package to some interest group that has an interest in me as part of
a targeted marketing scheme.
What could it know about my personal information? It can
include a variety of things and could be gathered from several
different sources. It could include a home address, business
address, unlisted telephone numbers, physical characteristics,
health records, education, employment, financial history, social
insurance number, the magazines we read or even what political
party we belong to.
Every Canadian who uses credit has their credit rating and
related information stored in American computers and filed under
their Canadian social insurance number.
Members should recall what was said in the House by the
government of the day when the social insurance number was
introduced. The government of the day misled us. Canadians, as it
is now commonly observed by the commentators, were lied to
about the scope, the use and the implications of our social
insurance number. However, we cannot now turn back the clock of
history. However, we can remember what group broke faith with
Canadians on this subject. It was the Liberals.
It is an old story, the social insurance number debate in the
House with the solemn promises made, especially in stark contrast
to the current state of affairs. Are we any wiser now in this techno
age? Are the Liberals? That is why we need much more protection
in this general area. This private member's bill is a useful part of
that developing awareness.
Opponents might say disseminating such information is not
serious. I point out some examples that caused me to believe the
issue is quite serious. In a recent Globe and Mail article a story was
raised about a computer company that recently sent samples of its
Internet browsing software free to four million people. However,
when it was used the sample software automatically dialled up the
company's home page, gathered information about users without
their permission, gathered Internet addresses, types of software
being used on the computer and who knows what else.
There are people who are geniuses with computers. They are
capable of breaking encrypted codes and getting access to top
government information. If they are able to get this type of
information with ease there is no question what type of information
they can obtain from me all without my knowledge or my
permission yet still completely legal.
This bothers me and I am sure that when more Canadians are
made aware of this it will trouble them as well.
The Internet is something completely new I am sure to most
members of the House. Computer technology seems to be updated
hourly, too fast for me to keep up. Last year I purchased a new
laptop computer and at the time it was the latest technology. A
week after I bought it a newer and better model was available. It is
the same with the Internet. Every day someone has a new way of
tapping into someone else's information.
Control of access on the Internet remains an unanswered
problem. With more and more people accessing it everyday
concerns certainly rise. People have expressed a concern to me and
therefore I believe something must be done. We cannot sit around
and do nothing. If we do, the technological world will overrun us
and could literally prevent any protectionist measures from being
eventually implemented.
The computer is only one of many ways of retrieving
confidential information. I have heard of a hospital employee who
supplied a computer disc of names of terminally ill patients to a
local funeral home. There are no clear rules surrounding our
privacy. The result is a clear lack of individual security.
The largest problem with parallel provincial privacy acts is they
do not cover any federally regulated institutions. Bill C-315 affects
all corporations as outlined in section 2 of the Canada Labour Code
17617
such as air transportation companies, maybe a radio station or
banks or any other work deemed under the Canada Labour Code.
Today I stopped by the Bank of Montreal and picked up an
application for an air miles MasterCard to check the terms of
application. At the bottom of the application is the fine print that
should be read before we sign our life away, so to speak.
(1930 )
I want to read what it says:
By signing below I accept as notice in writing of and consent to you obtaining
or exchanging any information about me at any time from any credit bureau, my
employer or other person in connection with any relationships between us or
those which you or I may wish to establish.
It is incredible. This disclaimer allows the financial institution to
exchange my information, so basically other corporations may
know what I purchased on my last trip. If any transaction has a
name or a number attached to it, it is in the computer. The
disclaimer does not indicate what information they can exchange.
They simply say any information. Since most of us need a credit
card, we sign off on the application and send it in. There is no
getting around it. In other words, the banks have us in a catch 22. A
credit card is needed to operate in the business world but complete
exposure is the price of the card. Obviously all this needs to be
changed.
However, the banks are against any federal changes and for
obvious reason. They have their own privacy code, so they say.
Linda Routledge, director of consumer affairs for the Canadian
Bankers Association, said:
The association's voluntary privacy code is already used as the basis for
rigorous safeguarding of consumer information by the banks.
The banks say why regulate. We have a code that works just fine.
The problem is that with the code it does not allow the consumers
the legal right or opportunity to complain. The power of banks is
enormous and obviously they will do everything in their power to
ward off federal regulators from intervening.
Canadians ought to have a right to control what is done with their
personal information. I know my constituents would be completely
behind me in that regard. Sure there are people out there who could
not care less if anyone in the world knows who they are, what they
earn, who they owe and what they owe. I am confident in saying
that an overwhelming majority of Canadians are not comfortable
with this type of knowledge being freely disclosed. It seems our
whole lives are stored on a chip to validate who and what we are. It
all comes from the computer. There is a movie playing with a
plausible premise, that personal computer information could be put
in the wrong hands and used in a sinister manner against the
person.
The bill proposed by my colleague is an excellent foundation. It
is vitally important that the bill make it through second reading
and on to committee. If members have problems with the bill, they
would have the opportunity to amend it in committee. We
understand bills are not always perfect. That is why we have
committees in this place: to make legislation better and to have
successive review.
My colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin has done his homework
and produced a good bill. Along with my colleagues who have
spoken before me, I too support the legislation and urge my friends
from across the floor to do likewise, if not for themselves, then for
the personal security of the community that has sent us here as their
representatives.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank
the hon. member for bringing the issue before the House. Even
though I cannot support the bill at this time, the protection of
personal information is a matter of concern for all Canadians and
deserves a comprehensive response.
The bill the hon. member has put forward does not do enough to
stop the kinds of privacy invasion Canadians are complaining
about. While I share the concerns expressed by the Reform Party
about the abuse of personal information in the context of direct
marketing, if Parliament is to intervene with new legislation, we
had better be sure that we are doing that which addresses the most
broad problem of fair information practices.
Here are some areas where I feel we need change. The bill would
only apply to corporations. Businesses that engage in the practices
are often individuals or small partnerships and would not be
covered by the legislation. It applies only to a narrow range of
corporations engaging in the federal regulatory activity. It includes
those in the banking, telecommunications and broadcast industries
but not small entrepreneurs. Consumers want similar protection
across a range of provincial and federal jurisdictions. They do not
want to figure out who would be responsible.
The bill does not resemble anything now available in the
provinces. It gives us no basic model to suggest to the provinces
and would be an odd patch on the already spotty quilt of privacy
protection. It does nothing to solve the problem of operators setting
up outside our jurisdiction, such as in the United States.
Technologies are changing and developing quickly these days and
information is being collected and massaged in new and different
ways.
(1935)
The bill addresses only the issue of peoples' names appearing on
lists or nominative lists as the practices are referred to in Quebec
privacy legislation which covers the private sector. With
information management systems changing daily it may soon be
out of date to talk about lists.
17618
Information travels everywhere and can now be vacuumed up
automatically. It is no longer necessary to hand someone a
computer tape to trade information. We can simply configure a
computer system to make the required links.
When we address the protection of personal privacy we want to
talk about the use of personal information in the broadest possible
ways. The rules we come up with should address every sector of the
economy, not just the direct marketing industry. Personal
information is a vital commodity in just about every business from
banking to telecommunications to health care.
We need necessary rules for all sectors tailored to meet the
special needs of each one. Instead of working on the bill we should
support the work that has been going on for several years at the
Canadian Standards Association or the CSA. A consensus
committee passed a model of privacy code in September of this
year, the result of three years of work in the committee with
representation of industry, consumers and federal and provincial
governments.
The concept behind this model code is that each sector of
business industry would take this set of fair information practices
and apply it to its own information holdings. They would be
accountable for what they did with personal information but they
would have some input into the process.
The Standards Council of Canada will soon publish this code of
fair information practices as a national standard for Canada. This is
a first among developed countries that have addressed the issue of
data protection. It is the first time that protection of personal
information has been looked at in the context of standards. In this
information age that is a very useful way of looking at the matter.
The CSA privacy code has the support of a broad range of
private sector organizations, including the Canadian Direct
Marketing Association. On October 3 the president of the Canadian
Direct Marketing Association called on the Minister of Industry to
produce legislation in the House that would use the CSA standards
as the basis for legislation federally. He suggested that the federal
government encourage the provinces of Canada to do the same in
their own jurisdictions.
Much of the information that Canadians are most concerned
about is information over which provinces have direct control. For
instance, medical and educational records are provincial matters.
The privacy commissioner of Ontario released a letter to the
Minister of Health last week wherein he expressed deep concern
regarding the provisions of the omnibus bill 26 now before the
Ontario legislature. That bill would permit the opening of private
medical records and release officials from liability for their
disclosure.
As the commissioner pointed out in his letter, 92 per cent of
Canadians are expressing concern about the misuse of their
personal information. It is great concern to them. Unfortunately it
is not all protected by law. We in the federal government must do
our part to protect consumers' personal information, but we must
also start a much broader discussion with the provinces about the
issue. Only Quebec, as my colleague from the Bloc has pointed out,
has moved to protect personal information held in the private
sector.
Canadians deserve and want more protection for their personal
information than is offered in the bill. I understand the issue is
being studied by the departments of industry and justice with a
view to developing solutions that will work for the protection of
personal information in all sectors of the economy across the
country.
(1940 )
It is a huge and complex issue because the increasing availability
and use of personal information and consumer files to target
service delivery affect virtually every sector of our economy.
Protection of personal privacy is identified as one of the
foundations vital to the network world into which we are moving.
The Minister of Industry established the Information Highway
Advisory Council to advise him on how to make the most of new
possibilities brought to us by the communications network. It
focused on the issue and Industry Canada has produced a number of
studies. The council consulted experts and produced the following
recommendations on privacy.
The federal government should act to ensure privacy protection
on the information highway. This protection shall embody all
principles of fair information practices contained in the Canadian
Standards Association draft ``Model Code for the Protection of
Personal Information''. To this end the federal government should
continue to participate in the development and implementation of
effective national voluntary standards based upon this model code.
The federal government must take leadership in the
implementation of these principles through the following actions.
In co-operation with other levels of government that share
responsibility for various sectors of activity on the information
highway, it should establish a federal-provincial-territorial
working group to implement the privacy principles in all
jurisdictions.
It should create a level playing field for the protection of
personal information on the information highway by developing
and implementing a flexible legislative framework for both public
and private sectors. Legislation would require sectors or organiza-
17619
tions to meet the standard of the CSA model code while allowing
the flexibility to determine how they will refine their codes.
In co-operation with the CSA working group on privacy and
other interested parties, the government should study the
development of effective oversight and enforcement mechanisms.
The government should establish a working group to co-ordinate
the development, demonstration and application of privacy
enhancing technologies for the provision of government services
and information.
The government should update and harmonize appropriate
privacy protection policies, legislation and guidelines applicable to
its operations and to the delivery of government services and
information.
Industry Canada should establish a working group-
The Deputy Speaker: I might indicate to the member for
Lincoln that we only have 10 minutes left. Perhaps he would wish
to divide his time with his colleague so that both of them could
speak.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
have the opportunity to speak on the issue of the protection of
personal privacy. It is an issue with which we are confronted every
time we open a newspaper or turn on a television. It is entirely
appropriate that our laws be revisited on this subject.
When we brought in the current federal Privacy Act in 1982, it
was decided that we should address the issue of personal
information held by government first, so the act only applied to
federal holdings. When the provinces passed their bills they did the
same.
It is now time to revisit the issue. The work is well in progress.
When the Minister of Industry set up the Information Highway
Advisory Council to advise him, he stipulated that privacy be
considered as one of the four operating principles. The council was
set up to advise the minister on how Canada should meet the
challenge and opportunities ahead of us in the global networks of
the future.
Industry Canada released a discussion paper to sound out public
opinion to see what the Canadian public and Canadian business
wanted to see. The response was overwhelming in its recognition
of the problem. Consumers and industry did not necessarily agree
on the solution, with business pushing for voluntary codes, with
most stressing the good work done on the Canadian Standards
Association model code, and with consumers demanding that
government act and legislate.
The Information Highway Advisory Council combined these
two comments and recommended framework legislation based on
the CSA standard. The Canadian Direct Marketing Association has
added its voice to the debate, calling on the Minister of Industry to
table framework legislation based on the CSA standard, and urged
the provinces to do likewise in their jurisdictions.
(1945 )
This is the kind of flexible compromise position that is good for
business and good for consumers. Business wants to be involved in
crafting of marketplace rules and so do consumers. We should
recognize this and work on the basis of the consensus that has been
built around the CSA model privacy code, soon to be published as a
national standard by the Standards Council of Canada.
There is no way that Bill C-315 however worthy in its intentions
could be confused as a piece of framework legislation. I am afraid
that it falls short of what we need. However the debate that we have
had here in the House, thanks to the hon. member of the Reform
Party who tabled this bill and so ably defended it, has been a very
useful introduction to what promises to be an important and
complex issue when it comes before the House.
I recommend that we urge the minister to return to us and report
on the progress that has been made. I look forward to that and to the
opportunity to bring about the kind of broad based protection for
personal information that Canadians are expecting of this
government.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to take the few minutes that
are left in this debate to commend the member for
Cariboo-Chilcotin for bringing Bill C-315 forward.
I regret that I am unable to support this bill. The issue is an
important one but the approach is far too narrow. I believe that if
we send this bill to committee and try to correct it we would lose
valuable time trying to redirect an approach which simply does not
address the concerns Canadians have in regard to the protection of
their privacy.
Every time we open a newspaper we see another story about the
abuse of personal information, about the potential that new
technology has to invade our privacy and provide surveillance of
our every movement.
Even the chairman of Microsoft, Bill Gates, in an article which
appeared in the Ottawa Sun on September 20 of this year pointed
out the need for government action and indeed legislation to protect
privacy in the face of new technologies. He used the example of
software programs which would replace human travel agents and
track customers' tastes and preferences to give the best possible
service.
While I applaud the hon. member for bringing the issue of
privacy protection to the attention of Parliament, I believe that we
could follow Mr. Gates' advice and start the process of unrushed
debate leading to intelligent public policies, not by accepting this
bill and fixing it, but by building on the work that has been done in
Canada. We have among other initiatives the first data protection
legislation in North America to cover the private sector. I am
referring to Bill 68 in the province of Quebec as an example.
17620
We need a far more comprehensive approach to these issues.
This government has been doing the groundwork necessary to
provide greater privacy protection.
I would like to ask the hon. member to consider the work that is
presently being done. It is important that we look at the teeth that
have to be given to any specific bill that is in the House, who will
be responsible to hear and act on complaints and what resources
they will have. I am suggesting that although this bill is laudable in
terms of its focus on the fundamental issue of free and informed
consent of the individual as a key issue in data protection, it is not
clear how this would work out for other types of information and
other types of business.
I commend the member. It is not often that the industry itself
asks for legislation, but at this specific point in time the industry
has been asking the minister responsible to pay some attention to
details in this regard.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member has two or three
minutes to sum up.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I appreciate the opportunity to do that. I would first like to thank
those members who took part in the debate on my private
member's bill on personal information. The debate has been most
instructive for me as I continue to consider this very important
issue. Out of the debate I realize there are some aspects that do
need amendment in the bill, particularly the area regarding sales.
Leases were not mentioned in the bill.
With regard to the narrowness of the crafting of Bill C-315, I do
believe if members did the same research that I did, they would
find there are federal and provincial jurisdictions that limit how
widely this bill can have influence. It has been purposely crafted in
such a narrow manner so that it would not impede provincial
influence. It is my anticipation that if this bill were passed it could
be a model and a forerunner for the provinces in bringing in their
own individual pieces of legislation for the protection of personal
information.
I would like to ask fellow members who are being asked to keep
in mind what is fair to commercial interests also to keep in mind
what is fair to the people whose names and personal information
are being used for commercial gain without their knowledge,
without their consent and frequently to their own personal
disadvantage, if not their jeopardy. While it may seem burdensome
for a commercial enterprise to seek the permission of every person
whose name they record, buy, sell or lease, as the case may be, why
should companies be able to use this information simply because
the rightful owners cannot prevent them from doing so?
In summary, I am asking colleagues to consider first the needs of
the protection of their constituents as well as themselves and to
support Bill C-315 at this second reading stage.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 7.50 p.m., pursuant to our
Standing Orders, the time provided for debate has now expired.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: According to the order made earlier
today, the vote stands stands deferred until tomorrow at 5.15 p.m.
_____________________________________________
17620
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it was on February 16 of last year, four days after the death
of Sue Rodriguez, that the Minister of Justice promised Canadians
that this House of Commons would have an opportunity to vote in a
free vote on the important issue of possible changes to section 241
of the Criminal Code.
The Minister of Justice said that he would be meeting with the
government House leader as soon as possible to find out when he
could arrange a debate and he said that they were not going to sit on
it. He went on to say: ``We will find a way to put the question
before the House so that it is not academic. It will be meaningful
and if that involves a proposal for changing legislation with a free
vote, then that is exactly what we will do''.
He pointed out that the Supreme Court of Canada had
unanimously agreed, although it was divided on the substance of
changes
17621
to section 241, that this was a matter that elected representatives
must deal with. The Minister of Justice said on February 16 that he
would make sure this House had an opportunity at an early date to
deal with this matter. Some months later at the national convention
of the Liberal Party of Canada, delegates voted overwhelmingly in
favour of a resolution urging the government to allow for a free
vote on the issue of euthanasia and physician assisted suicide.
(1955 )
In September of last year the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Justice, who will be responding today on behalf of the
government, said during the course of a debate on my private
member's bill to change the Criminal Code: ``We have been
assured by the Minister of Justice that all parliamentarians will be
given the opportunity to consider these issues in a meaningful way.
I am confident that in due course we will be presented with the
opportunity to do so''.
On February 16 of last year the Minister of Justice said: ``In
emphasizing the urgency of this question, I am sure doctors could
tell us there are a number of people right now facing terminal
illness who want to have clarification''. He was right then and he is
right now.
It is unconscionable that the government, almost two years after
having promised to allow the House to seriously deliberate on this
issue, to vote in a free vote, is still not prepared to allow that
decision.
One of those who is seeking a change in the law is Austin
Bastable. Mr. Bastable has written twice to all members of the
House. He wrote in late September and again at the end of last
month, pointing out that the quality of his life is continuing to
decline. He does not wish to endure the prolonged natural death
that awaits him.
Mr. Bastable points out that palliative care is not a meaningful
option for him. He pleads with the House and he pleads with the
government to honour the commitment made to allow a free vote,
to allow debate on this issue of fundamental conscience.
The member for Vancouver Centre also assured Canadians and
her own constituents there would be a free vote. I call on her to
honour the commitment made by the Prime Minister, by the
Minister of Justice and by the parliamentary secretary to ensure
Canadians have a voice in this fundamental issue of life and death.
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway has not said anything
which I would contest with respect to me or Minister of Justice. It
is still the intention of the Minister of Justice to allow this debate.
The hon. member has requested that the Minister of Justice
advise the House when members will have the opportunity to
review the issue of physician assisted suicide, including the
provisions of section 241 of the Criminal Code.
Both the hon. member and the Minister of Justice have referred
to the important work undertaken by the special committee on
euthanasia and assisted suicide which tabled its report in June of
last year. The terms of reference provided that it examine and
report on the legal, social and ethical issues regarding euthanasia
and assisted suicide.
The report is lengthy and contains recommendations concerning
palliative care, pain control, sedation practices, withholding and
withdrawal of life sustaining treatment, advanced directives,
assisted suicide and euthanasia.
Of the recommendations presented in the report, there are a
number of legal implications unanimously agreed on by committee
members. This was not the case with respect to their
recommendations concerning assisted suicide.
While the senators were unanimous in their view that
counselling suicide, subsection 241(a), should remain an offence,
they were not unanimous in respect of the provision of subsection
241(b). As the Minister of Justice has indicated, there was
difficulty in achieving consensus with respect to some of the most
fundamental questions that arose in the course of the committee's
study.
Specifically, with respect to the issue of assisted suicide, a
majority of the committee recommended that subsection 241(b)
of-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Edmonton East.
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
discussions with people in Edmonton East over the past number of
months, one concern keeps coming up with increasing regularity:
where is medicare headed in Canada?
Canadians value the system of universal health care. Medicare is
one of the fundamental elements of our Canadian identity and of
our shared commitment to fairness, equity and compassion.
(2000 )
However, Canadians recognize that the health care system must
adapt and evolve within the guiding principles of the Canada
Health Act. It is not enough to say that we spend $72 billion on
health care without knowing whether we are spending it in those
areas where it makes the most difference to Canadians.
Residents of Edmonton East want the government at the national
and provincial levels to work together to ensure accessibility and
quality in health care and to sustain a health care system that
respects the five principles of the Canada Health Act: universality,
accessibility, comprehensiveness, portability and public
administration.
17622
How do we renew our health care system to meet the needs of
consumers in a cost effective and efficient manner? What are the
implications of allowing greater private funding in our health care
system?
There is concern in Edmonton East that private funding
competing with a public system will create a two-tier system where
access and quality will be based on ability to pay rather than
medical need.
To the ideologically driven in Alberta, an increased private
presence in the funding and delivery of health care is the answer to
controlling costs and improving accessibility. But is it? In the
industrialized world, the United States is the best example of a
health care system which relies extensively on private funding.
Let us examine the U.S. health care experience in more detail.
More private money in the U.S health care system should result in a
better standard of health care for Americans but clearly that is a
myth. A significant amount of health care spending in the United
States is to support an extensive bureaucracy that has evolved
under a multiple player system. The average American under a
private insurance scheme pays $150 a year in administrative costs
alone, compared to $23 for the average Canadian.
Respected Canadian health care economist, Robert Evans, put it
most succinctly when he stated: ``Canadians provide care.
Americans shuffle paper''. Not only is the U.S. health care system
plagued by skyrocketing administrative costs and a bureaucratic
jungle, it is also plagued by inequities and lack of access.
For older Americans, 65 years and over, out of pocket costs
consume 23 per cent of their household incomes. For older
Americans with family incomes below the poverty line, out of
pocket expenses consume 37 per cent of their incomes. Most
telling, the number of Americans who are uninsured continues to
grow at an alarming rate. Nearly 40 million Americans or 15.3 per
cent of the population had no health insurance coverage at all. The
total number of uninsured American children under the age of 18 is
9.5 million or 24 per cent of all American children under the age of
18. The total number of uninsured Americans earning an average
family income of $15,700 is nearly 15 million.
This leads me to a second element that private funding
components have failed to address adequately: the ability to control
health care costs. Cost containment is a necessity if health care is to
be sustained and preserved in today's fiscal climate but cost
containment in health care is not achieved by shifting the cost
burden on the Canadian consumer through de-insurance, de-listing
or user fees.
The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the hon.
member asked this question. As she said before, medicare is a
defining value of Canadians. Eight-nine per cent of Canadians
support medicare. All the ministers of health in every province
support medicare, with the exception of Alberta.
Medicare is unique to this country because it is based on clinical
need and not on the size of your wallet. It is a Liberal value.
Medicare was brought in by a Liberal prime minister. A Liberal
minister of health, Monique Bégin, brought in the Canada Health
Act which defined the five principles and set a series of limits on
how they are used.
One of the important things about medicare is that the
government, being a Liberal government, is committed to
medicare. We are committed to a predictable funding of medicare
in the new Canada health and social transfer. We are committed to
working with provinces to ensure that we find innovation and
creativity in dealing with some of the pressures that are now facing
medicare.
We will work in a consistent, cohesive and coherent manner to
find all of the answers within the Canada Health Act.
I want the hon. member to know that this government is the first
since the enactment of the Canada Health Act that actually has
taken non-refundable deductions from provinces: British
Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and finally,
Alberta.
We have a concern about the growth of two-tier medicine. User
fees are not on for this government. The program is based on
clinical need. If we are going to continue to make medicare
important, we are going to have to look at issues such as evidence
based medicine such as moving from prevention, from life style
based diseases and-
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is now
deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House is adjourned
until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
(The House adjourned at 8.04 p.m.)