CONTENTS
Thursday, December 8, 1994
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 8789
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 8793
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry) 8800
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 8800
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 8802
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 8812
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 8816
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 8821
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 8823
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry) 8824
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 8824
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8825
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 8825
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8825
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 8825
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8825
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8825
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8826
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8826
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8826
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8826
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8828
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8828
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8828
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8828
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8828
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8829
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 8829
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 8829
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8832
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 8832
Consideration resumed of motion 8833
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 8842
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 8843
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 8844
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 40; Nays, 166. 8851
Motion for concurrence 8852
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 134; Nays, 74 8852
Motion for concurrence 8853
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 208; Nays, 2. 8853
Bill C-63. Motion for first reading deemed adopted 8854
Bill C-63. Motion for second reading 8854
(Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mrs. Maheu in the chair.)
8855
(Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.) 8855
(Schedule A agreed to.) 8855
(Schedule B agreed to.) 8855
(Clause 1 agreed to.) 8855
(Preamble agreed to.) 8855
Motion for concurrence 8855
Motion for third reading 8856
(Bill read the third time and passed.) 8856
Bill C-46. Consideration resumed of motion for third reading 8856
(Bill read the third time and passed.) 8856
Bill C-216. Consideration resumed of motion for third reading and amendment 8856
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 34; Nays, 171 8856
Bill C-237. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 8857
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 85; Nays, 79 8857
Bill C-226. Consideration resumed of motion 8858
(Bill read the second time and referred to committee.) 8858
Division on the motion deferred 8863
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 8863
8787
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, December 8, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
English]
The Speaker: I have a notice of a question of privilege from
the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. I am going to
allow the question of privilege because yesterday, in reviewing
the blues and what was said, I found that perhaps I acted a little
hastily in cutting off the member. I am going to allow some
additional information to be put on the record.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday I was seeking to make the point that a
publication of the House, admittedly in conjunction with the
National Archives of Canada, contained a substantial error in
that it failed to mention in the list of constituencies for Canada's
first Prime Minister the fact that he was the member for
Kingston.
I raise this point in some seriousness. I know it was treated
with a bit of merriment yesterday afternoon. This particular
Prime Minister was identified closely with the Kingston
community. He represented Kingston in either the legislature or
in this House from 1844 until 1891, with the exception of a
nine-year break between 1878 and 1887 when he represented
other constituencies in this House.
He was substantially raised in Kingston. He practised law in
Kingston from the age of 19 in the 1830s until 1873. For over 40
years he practised law in Kingston. As I have indicated, he
represented that community for a very long time and made a
very substantial contribution there. He was buried in Kingston
and there are countless statues and monuments to him in
Kingston.
To have Kingston omitted from the list of his constituencies is
really a shocking omission. With the greatest respect, of all the
Prime Ministers in the book he probably had a closer connection
with his community and is known to have had that connection
with his community of Kingston than all the other prime
ministers had with their communities.
My point is that this book ought to be repaired and replaced. It
is frankly misleading, particularly to students who I am sure are
going to be the principal users of this book. I see that it has a
foreword with Your Honour's name on it, it does not have a
signature, and another by the national archivist.
From the point of view of accuracy, I think it would be very
wise to have the book reprinted. It is an excellent book and a fine
publication. It is wrong in this particular. It is a serious enough
error that it ought to be corrected.
The Speaker: I do take the hon. member's intervention
seriously.
(1005)
My name is associated and therefore the House's name is
associated with this publication. That is the reason I permitted
the extra information to come on to the record. I will review
everything that has been said and, if necessary, I will get back to
the House with a decision on this matter.
Also I would like to take a few minutes of the time of the
House. In reviewing the blues yesterday and in fairness to all
members I want to make a couple of points clear with regard to
unparliamentary language.
Something may be unparliamentary in our language today and
it may be parliamentary tomorrow. All that to say that no one
word in and of itself is always unparliamentary. It is rather the
context in which the word is used, the tone in which the word or
words are delivered and if there is disorder in the House.
If any one of these things occurs, it is incumbent upon the
Chair to interpret what is going on in the House. To say that your
Speaker is going to at all times make decisions that are
acceptable to all members of Parliament would be hoping for the
impossible.
The Chair should have the latitude and will take the latitude to
ensure that if a word is used in its tone, in its meaning, in
perhaps the disorder it causes in the House then the Chair will
intervene at that point. He or she may rule a word
unparliamentary.
I want it clear to all members of the House that even the word
liar is not always unparliamentary. It will depend in the context
in which it is used. However, if one member calls another
8788
member a liar, that is clearly unparliamentary, and I wanted that
to be understood.
To the interveners yesterday, the hon. member from Winnipeg
who rose to make the point, the hon. member for Kingston and
the Islands who made an intervention and the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminister who all contributed to the
discussion on a point of order, I have taken all your suggestions
into account. I want you to have a general feeling of what the
Chair and the person in the chair will be looking for when it
comes to unparliamentary language.
I hope that this is acceptable to the House and that it will give
general directions with regard to the words we are to use in our
debates and also in question period. I thank you for your
indulgence.
_____________________________________________
8788
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
certain petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages,
the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal
Affairs.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, June 21, 1994,
your committee has considered Bill C-37, an act to amend the
Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code. Your committee
has agreed to report it with amendments.
The committee considered the bill for three months, heard 42
witnesses and made 28 amendments. I want to thank members of
the committee and witnesses for their contributions and
co-operation.
The phase two examination of the Young Offenders Act will
take place in the new year.
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of
the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on Bill
C-44, an act to amend the Immigration Act and the Citizenship
Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Customs
Act, with amendments.
(1010)
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to place before the House today, in both official
languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on
Finance entitled ``Confronting Canada's Deficit Crisis:
Building Our Next Budget Through Consultation''.
Briefly the report is the result of an unprecedented seven
weeks of intensive consultations and study involving members
from all three parties. I take this occasion to thank members of
the committee from all three parties who brought such diligence
to this undertaking.
I also thank all those who have worked with us. Far too often
they have not been recognized for what they have done. I talk not
only of the many witnesses who appeared before us, often on
very short notice, but particularly members of the Library of
Parliament who worked with us, especially the clerks to our
committee, Christine Trauttmansdorff and our chief clerk,
Martine Bresson, and all the people of their staff who have been
working 24 hours a day over the last week in order that we could
meet this deadline.
We have been extremely well served as parliamentarians by
these very devoted public servants.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, like my colleague, the chair of the finance committee, I
wish to thank the staff, and especially the office of the clerk, for
the excellent job they did when the committee was preparing its
report and during the committee's public hearings.
Remember that the Official Opposition tabled a dissenting
opinion as an appendix to the report of the Liberal majority.
Why a dissenting opinion? First of all, because the Bloc
Quebecois, the Official Opposition, is convinced that the
measures supported in the Liberal majority's report do not
reflect the vision and the views of Canadians expressed at the
public hearings.
Second, there is the prospect of an increase in taxes across the
board for all Canadian taxpayers. We cannot support this
proposal and we are particularly wary of the statement that the
increase will be only temporary.
Third, the Liberal majority's report announces a series of tax
increases or at least the prospect of tax increases which will
again affect a middle class already taxed to the hilt since 1984.
8789
Fourth, the report, and this is our main grievance, launches
another attack on social programs by proposing cuts in addition
to those already announced in the last budget.
Fifth, the report ignores the fact that more jobs can also mean
more tax revenue and, in the end, an improvement in the state of
Canada's public finances. For all the reasons I just mentioned,
readers will see the Official Opposition's dissenting opinion
appended to the report.
* * *
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the privilege to
present a petition from 649 members of social organizations
called AFEAS-Associations féminines d'éducation et d'action
sociale-and of golden age groups.
Whereas the elderly are usually less familiar with the
technology of voice mail but still have a right to proper service,
especially for their enquiries about income security, the
petitioners pray and call upon Parliament and the government to
give up the plan to implement voice mail for seniors.
[English]
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege today of
presenting, pursuant to Standing Order 36, a petition signed by
many residents of my constituency, specifically from the
communities of Marcelin, Rabbit Lake, Hafford, Blaine Lake,
Krydor and Leask.
The petitioners state that a very vocal minority of citizens are
requesting Parliament to institute a dual marketing system of
wheat and barley for export.
(1015 )
The petitioners therefore request that Parliament continue to
give the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly powers to export
wheat and barley. They also request that Parliament expand
further Canadian Wheat Board marketing powers to include all
grains and oilseeds.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure today to rise to present a petition on
behalf of 458 citizens who ask that the Parliament of Canada
protect and take care of human life and human dignity; that
physicians should not be working to end lives but to save them.
The petitioners do not want the Criminal Code of Canada
changed in any way to suggest that assisted suicide be made
legal or countenanced by the state in any way.
I concur with my petitioners.
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I present a petition containing
100 signatures from residents of Nova Scotia petitioning this
honourable House to keep mining in Canada.
Canada's mining industry is the mainstay of employment in
over 150 communities across Canada, an important contributor
to Canada's gross domestic product and total exports and a
cornerstone of our economic future.
Therefore the petitioners call on Parliament to take action that
will grow employment in this sector, promote exploration,
rebuild Canada's mineral reserves, sustain mining communities
and keep mining in Canada.
I concur with this petition.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
accordance with Standing Order 36, I would like to present a
petition signed by residents of the community of Westlock in my
constituency of Athabasca.
The petitioners request that Parliament amend the Divorce
Act to include a provision similar to article 611 of the Quebec
Civil Code which states: ``In no case may a father or mother
without serious cause place obstacles between the child and
grandparents. Failing agreement between the parties, the
modalities of the relations are settled by the court''.
They further ask for an amendment to the Divorce Act that
would give a grandparent who is granted access to a child the
right to make inquiries and to be given information on the
health, education and welfare of the child.
I present this petition and support the petitioners.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present a petition
to the House on behalf of 199 signatories. It is sponsored by the
Responsible Firearms Coalition of B.C. which prays and
requests that Parliament refuse to accept the anti-firearms
proposals of the Minister of Justice and insists that he bring
forward legislation to convict and punish criminals rather than
persecute the innocent.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present five petitions to
the House. I have petitions with 976 signatures opposing further
gun control.
8790
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there are 906 names opposing amendments to the
Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms that include consideration of same sex
relationships.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there are 163 signatures opposing assisted suicide.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have 128 signatures opposing abortion.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there are 127 names requesting that the port of
Churchill be recognized as a permanent, major port facility.
I respectfully submit these petitions with my support.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition signed by 210
residents of the city of Toronto protesting discrimination against
persons living in same sex relationships.
The petitioners call on Parliament to amend the Canadian
Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation and to adopt all necessary measures to
recognize the full equality of same sex relationships in federal
law.
* * *
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 Speaker: Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(1020)
[Translation]
The Speaker: Honourable members, today being the last
alloted day for the supply period ending December 10, 1994, the
House will now proceed as usual to consider and adopt a supply
bill. Considering recent practice, does the House agree that this
bill be now distributed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
8790
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ) moved:
That this House enjoin the government to recognize the legitimacy of the
democratic process initiated by the Government of Quebec in order to allow
Quebecers to chart their own political and constitutional future.
He said: Mr. Speaker, there will be a referendum on
sovereignty in Quebec. That referendum will be preceded by a
broad democratic consultation throughout Quebec.
Federalists, both in Quebec City and in Ottawa, refuse to take
part in that consultation process. But before we discuss the
reasons why federalists refuse to participate in that debate, we
must put that process into perspective, explain its nature and
verify its legitimacy, since federalists are questioning its
legitimacy.
First of all, let us make it clear that federalists, headed by the
present Prime Minister, are in a very bad position to talk about
legitimacy, respect for democracy and clarity. Remember that
the present Prime Minister was responsible for patriating the
Constitution in 1982. Remember also that there was absolutely
no consultation when the Constitution was patriated. There was
no referendum. The Quebec National Assembly was against that
patriation. The opposition leader in Quebec city and Liberal
Party leader, Daniel Johnson, denounced that patriation.
Just recently, during the election campaign in Quebec, it was
again the present Prime Minister, with the hon. member for
Sherbrooke, who was responsible for the demise of the Meech
Lake Accord, through the Charest report, and with the help of
Clyde Wells, from Newfoundland, and the help of the present
member for Churchill, in Manitoba, who is sitting in this House
today.
Quebecers do not need any advice on democracy from the
current Prime Minister because the process proposed by the
Government of Quebec is entirely legitimate, clear and
democratic.
In fact, that process derives directly from the
Bélanger-Campeau Commission, which we should not forget.
This commission said there were two options: renewed
federalism and sovereignty. However, a referendum was held in
Quebec as well as in all other parts of Canada on renewed
federalism Charlottetown style. The Charlottetown Accord was
rejected by Quebec-
8791
ers because it was not enough for Quebec and by the rest of
Canada because it was too much for Quebec. So only one option
remains: sovereignty.
That is the rationale behind the Bélanger-Campeau report,
which was signed by Robert Bourassa, Daniel Johnson and all
the members on that commission, except the current Minister of
Foreign Affairs.
The Government of Quebec must act upon the
Bélanger-Campeau report. The question is how. With the
proposed consultation process. I have difficulty understanding
why the federal government is opposed to such a consultation
process since that is all we have been doing here for over a year.
The Committee on Human Resources Development is holding
consultations everywhere in Canada, the finance committee just
did the same; the Minister of Justice consults left and right
without proposing anything concrete to this House. All these
consultations are being held without a clear plan, without a bill.
They consult for the sake of consulting. On the contrary, the
Government of Quebec's initiative is based on a bill, a draft bill
which is clear and specific and proposes a plan. To me, this is
democracy, this is consultation.
(1025)
Federalists tell us that there is only one option, a plan for
sovereignty. What an amazing discovery, Mr. Speaker. As a
matter of fact, it is a plan for sovereignty because a
pro-sovereignty government was elected in Quebec in
September. What is surprising about a government proposing a
plan to achieve its option? The opposite would have been
surprising.
As I recall, Meech and Charlottetown were federalist
projects. We were not scandalized, we knew that federalists
would propose a federalist option to us. It seems logical to me,
although the Charlottetown proposal was not all that clear.
When the referendum campaign was launched, we did not have
the text. There is no need to recall the incredible series of events
before we could obtain those texts; in fact sovereignists
themselves had to publish the Charlottetown Accord. This time,
the texts are there and clear.
You will recall that sovereignists took part in the debate, first
on Meech from 1987 to 1990 and then on Charlottetown in 1992.
This was not our option but we played our part as elected
representatives. Every day in the House, we present our views
on bills we are against even though we know from the start that
they will be passed. The government has the majority. We are in
the minority, the Official Opposition, but nevertheless we
express our disagreement, we try to convince people that the
bills do not meet the needs of the population as a whole. This is
the essence of democracy. We do not take part in debates only
when we agree or when we are sure to win. Otherwise
democracy would have no meaning. The democratic way is to
take part in a debate where the majority expresses its views and
so does the minority who also has rights and must express its
opinion.
They also tell us that there is no parity. But, Mr. Speaker, was
there parity in Bélanger-Campeau? There was no parity in that
commission, neither among elected representatives, who were
mainly federalists because at that time there was a federalist
government in Quebec, nor among non-elected people. You
only have to look at the results of the votes that took place at the
Bélanger-Campeau Commission. The federalists won. Of
course, we already knew it would be the case but we used it as an
educational campaign. We were not afraid of expressing our
ideas.
Was there parity in Meech and Charlottetown? And let us not
forget all those committees on Charlottetown: the Spicer
Commission, the Beaudoin-Edwards and Beaudoin-Dobbie
committees, where there was no parity. Members of the Bloc
were not even invited.
An hon. member: You did not even exist back then.
Mr. Duceppe: Yes, we existed. We were here at the time of
Spicer, Beaudoin and company, but we were not invited.
At the Charlottetown conference held after Meech, after
having stated that he would never be one of eleven, Mr. Bourassa
found himself one of seventeen. Is this the idea of federalist
parity, one of eleven, or one of seventeen? How high will it go?
Is this the parity we are being proposed?
Sovereignists nevertheless took part in the debate on the
Meech Lake Accord. In Quebec, from 1987 to 1990, the PQ,
which was the Official Opposition, took part in this debate, in
the Bélanger-Campeau Commission and in the Charlottetown
exercise, always as a minority. Were we, from the Bloc
Quebecois, given parity in this House? We were eight out of 295
to oppose Charlottetown. We were sitting right by the curtain, in
what they called ``the lobotomy corner''. It would seem that
only those without any brains could see the truth. We debated
Charlottetown. We took part in the debate. There was only one
option in this: renewed federalism, which is now called flexible
federalism. Why not federalism in search of itself while we are
at it?
This is the option they give us. But we had another point of
view. Need I recall the results of Charlottetown? We were eight
out of 295, but it was rejected in Quebec and rejected in Canada,
which proves that democracy must prevail over parity. The
majority rules, and commissions follow this pattern. Beyond the
numbers there are the ideas, and they succeed if they are good.
But then, you need to have ideas.
(1030)
The bill is entirely consistent with the law governing
referenda in Quebec. Those who argue the contrary should at
least be honest enough and serious enough to read that law on
referenda
8792
in Quebec before spreading falsehoods. It would improve the
level of the debate. Need we restate that the legislation will not
come into force before it is approved in a referendum?
Finally, Quebecers will be called upon to debate the bill
before it is put to a vote in the National Assembly. Elected
representatives, before they vote, will have to take into
consideration the opinion of the people. Now, I am addressing
the Reform Party which has been talking about direct democracy
for a year in this House. Granted, what the Government of
Quebec is doing is not direct democracy, but it is a very
interesting consultation process. Yes, we are going to consult
Quebecers in all regions before studying the bill in committee,
in Quebec City. The bill cannot come into force before a
referendum, and even then, another year will pass before
sovereignty really takes effect.
It appears to me that this process is very close to democracy. I
must say that I do not understand why anyone would be opposed
to this process, unless they are afraid to present their ideas to the
people.
The process is clear, open and democratic. The decision
belongs to Quebecers and nobody else. This is called the right to
self-determination, in this case the self-determination of the
Quebec nation, a right, need we remind you, recognized by the
Conservative Party at its Toronto convention in August 1991, a
right recognized by the New Democratic Party as early as the
1960s, and a right recognized especially by the present Prime
Minister, who mentioned it in his autobiography. By
participating in the 1980 referendum, he recognized in practice
the right of Quebecers to decide their own future.
In this regard, I commend the hon. members for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine and for Mount Royal for
acknowledging yesterday that the decision would have to be
made in Quebec by Quebecers. It is much to their credit that they
set themselves apart from the rest of the Liberal caucus.
Indeed, the decision must be made by Quebecers, in Quebec,
under the direction of the National Assembly and in accordance
with the law governing referenda in Quebec. On this point, the
PQ and the QLP, Jacques Parizeau and Daniel Johnson, agree
totally. The process is clear.
Why then turn it down? Because federalists have no other
option to offer. They cannot even agree among themselves. The
former Premier of Quebec, now Leader of the Opposition,
Daniel Johnson tells us that status quo is unacceptable. ``I will
never accept the 1982 Constitution''. However, the present
Prime Minister considers this Constitution the high point of his
career. These people will find themselves under the same
umbrella. That is the rub.
As far as the so-called third option presented by the member
for Sherbrooke is concerned, well, he would rather not talk
about it. That is the rub. They refuse to have a debate. They
refuse to crisscross Quebec and have a debate with the citizens
of each region. That is the rub.
What is the government proposing? To understand what the
Government of Quebec is proposing, we must go back to the
Charlottetown Accord. At that time, every party in this House,
the Conservatives, the NDP, the Liberals, the Bloc Quebecois, as
well as the PQ and the Liberals in Quebec agreed on one thing:
the political structures in Canada and Quebec are inadequate in
view of today's economic challenges. Everybody agreed on that
point. That is the reason why Charlottetown came about.
Charlottetown was voted down for the reasons we know: Quebec
thought it was not enough, the rest of Canada believed it was too
much.
(1035)
But the structures have not changed since. Canada is no more
prepared than Quebec to face the challenges of the modern
economy, no more prepared than they both were in 1992.
Nothing has changed, yet Canada has to change and so does
Quebec.
That is what Quebec's proposal is about. We suggest having
two sovereign countries, sharing a common economic space, as
all modern countries do, with full participation in international
organizations. This brings to mind GATT and NAFTA. On this
subject, let me remind you that had it not been for Quebec, there
would have been no free trade agreement, because the rest of
Canada was against free trade with the United States. It is
Quebec that, to a certain extent, imposed free trade on Canada as
a whole in 1988.
This proposal shows respect for Quebec's English-speaking
minorities, much more respect than French-speaking minorities
are shown across Canada. Before coming and telling us about
the dangers of sovereignty, Bob Rae should look after having
washrooms installed in Kingston high schools. That is the
primary duty of any good government. This proposal recognizes
the rights of aboriginal nations. Quebec was the first province to
do so, as early as 1985, and this draft bill goes much further than
any existing Canadian legislation, but we will come back to this
later.
Some say there will be no common economic space. Does this
mean that there is no room for negotiation? That is what Bob Rae
told us, and he is facing an election in the near future. Did he
think about the 100,000 jobs in Ontario that depend on the
Quebec market? Did he think about the $1.8 billion surplus
Ontario businesses make in their commercial transactions with
Quebec? Is he going to tell them: ``Forget about it, my friends. It
is gone, a dead loss''? I doubt it. Did he think about the Auto
Pact? Will Bob Rae go to Oshawa during his election campaign
8793
and tell the auto workers: ``There will be no common economic
space. We will not negotiate with Quebec. We will no longer be
selling them cars. Let them make their own or buy from
Michigan. My friends, we are choosing unemployment out of
patriotism''?
Bob Rae can go ahead and tell them that. We will see what
comes of it. He will probably not be around to discuss the issue.
But we will see where the debate will lead. I am told that he will
not be there. I agree with you for once. At any rate, this is where
we stand. We want a dispassionate debate and we urge the
government to support this process. The hon. members of this
House who are from Quebec in particular are invited to express
their views, put forward objections, demonstrate in what way
our option is dangerous. That is what they have to do: to discuss
the implications.
The Government of Quebec and the sovereignists have never
been afraid to discuss. Never, ever have they been afraid of the
democratic process. And I will close on this. I hope, with respect
to federalism, both in Quebec City and in Ottawa, that this
government will now show us that it can and will take on the
challenge of democracy.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the hon. member and I think he said that one reason
he is for separation is that the Meech Lake and Charlottetown
accords failed. I wonder what the position of the Parti Quebecois
and the PQ government was on these two accords.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I recalled Meech and
Charlottetown because they are actual facts which show that this
system cannot be reformed. The PQ government was against
Meech and against Charlottetown, clearly. It said so and we
attended many committee hearings and took part in these
debates both here and in Quebec City to explain our stand. We
were not afraid of it. Besides, we were right and we won. But we
were against those accords. It shows one thing, that we won
against all the federalists put together. I think that the member of
the Reform Party voted with the eight members of the Bloc
Quebecois then, so maybe we were nine.
(1040)
There were 286 members convinced and captivated by the
Charlottetown Accord. We saw the results. This shows the
impotence, not because people cannot change things but because
these things cannot be changed. There are two realities. Quebec
is not better or worse than the rest of Canada, it is simply
different, just as Canada is different from the United States. If I
asked all hon. members whether Canada should be a sovereign
country separate from the United States, they would say yes.
Does this mean that they have contempt for the United States
because Canada wants to stay sovereign? No, certainly not.
Neither do we have contempt for Canada. We want to become
sovereign for ourselves and have better ties with our Canadian
and American friends and all countries in the world.
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my reply will come as no surprise to
the opposition member. It is no.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Massé: And let me immediately assure the member that
nothing will convince my government to recognize the
legitimacy of the process initiated by the PQ government.
The member will agree that many of us have serious problems
with the process announced by the PQ government. Let me begin
with the leader of the Official Opposition in Quebec City, who
aptly labelled it a ``misuse of democracy''. And for good reason.
The Quebec government is asking its citizens to help draw up a
constitution for a separate Quebec before they have even had
their say on the issue of separation.
I understand why the Premier of Quebec is taking this route. If
he asked his fellow citizens the real question, in fact the only
legitimate question, ``do you want to separate from Canada, yes
or no?''the answer would be no. From where he sits, the best
approach is to use cunning, and if in the process he flouts
democratic principles, so what.
As stated by the member from Sherbrooke, the Premier of
Quebec knows his French well. According to the Petit Robert,
being cunning means acting slyly to deceive someone for the
purpose of doing him harm.
The Quebec media have been no kinder in their assessment of
the PQ strategy. An editorial in Le Soleil was headlined ``The
anesthetization of a people'' and spoke of the ``misuse of our
parliamentary institutions and the misappropriation of public
funds for partisan purposes''.
According to La Presse, ``what is unacceptable is that this bill
will be passed by the National Assembly before being put to the
people via a referendum. Things are being done in the wrong
order''. The journalist concluded that we are witnessing a
``mockery of democracy''.
In today's Le Journal de Montréal, Michel Auger pointed out:
``Although the majority of Quebecers still wonder why they
should become independent, their government says the only
thing left to decide is how it should be done''. He went on to say:
``In fact, it is quite clear that according to their terms of
reference, these commissions would be able to consider one
option only: the one chosen by the government''.
8794
And in concluding: ``Before asking Quebecers to draft the
declaration of sovereignty, the government should consider
those who have yet to be convinced of the need for
sovereignty''.
And again in today's Le Soleil, Gilbert Lavoie commented:
``Although the strategy may seem clever to those who devised it,
its weakness is that it underestimates the political savvy of
Quebecers which has been borne out on several occasions''. He
went on to say: ``The government's initiative will disappoint
Quebecers, because the Pequistes have preferred strategy over
substance''. And in concluding: ``The trap is so obvious that one
would have to be very myopic indeed not to see it''.
(1045)
Even in Le Devoir, under the headline ``The stratagem is too
obvious'', Pierre O'Neill started his article by pointing out that:
``Through academic eyes, the consultation process started by
Premier Parizeau is viewed with some scepticism. Political
scientist Vincent Lemieux feels that the Pequiste initiative lacks
legitimacy. `I think the stratagem is too obvious', commented
the Laval University professor yesterday, the man to whom
Jean-François Lisée, political adviser to the Premier, referred in
1993 as the Galileo of Quebec politics''.
In Wednesday's La Presse, Alain Dubuc comments: ``This
pretence of democracy is disturbing. It excludes, for all
practical purposes, those who are opposed to sovereignty and
turns these commissions into clubs for friends of the PQ, which
may attract the attention of the media for a while, at public
expense, and maintain temporary the illusion of almost
unanimous support for the yes side. This whole strategy, which
the Premier himself referred to as cunning, has its own
limitations. Manipulation can backfire. Referendums, both here
and elsewhere, have shown that if there is anything citizens
cannot abide, it is manipulation by politicians''.
Michel David, also in Wednesday's Le Soleil, pointed out:
``When Mr. Parizeau used the word stratagem two weeks ago,
Daniel Johnson immediately concluded it was a scam to fool
Quebecers''. Mr. David went on to say: ``In fact, they pulled a
fast one: members of the Premier's staff confided yesterday that
the text of the draft bill on sovereignty had been ready since last
March. Within the PQ, members had been polled on each
section. Each individual section was supported by the majority.
In other words, Mr. Parizeau knew well before the election
campaign what question he would ask, once he was elected, but
he said nothing to the voters. Why, if the case is as clear as he
says it is? What about the relationship of trust?''
I could go on for several minutes, quoting people from coast
to coast. No one is being taken in by the Quebec Premier's
chicanery. Not the media, not the other provincial premiers, not
those of us here in Ottawa, not the Quebec Liberal Party and,
unfortunately, to the great dismay of our friends opposite, not
the citizens of Quebec.
Mr. Serré: Quebecers are not crazy.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Massé: But it would be more useful to ask ourselves why
Quebec's separatist government is so intent on using trickery.
The answer is simple. If it played fair and square, if it ``put
everything on the table'', as the Quebec premier has said time
and time again, if it went to the people and asked them to decide
once and for all, I am convinced that the great majority of
Quebecers would opt for Canada.
And this is understandable. Canada is one of the greatest, if
not the greatest, countries in the world. Do not take my word for
it, just ask the United Nations. I know that certain words are
taboo for separatists. Federalism is one. But sooner or later, the
connection will have to be made between this political structure
and the quality of life we enjoy. For is it pure chance that the
four oldest federations in the world-the United States,
Switzerland, Australia and Canada-are also among the world's
richest countries?
Mr. Duceppe: And the USSR?
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais: Are we taking about democracy or
not?
Mr. Massé: I think, rather, that federalism is better suited
than almost any other political structure to the modern
challenges facing societies today.
(1050)
We all know that the dual phenomenon of market
globalization and the economic revolution shaking the world's
industrialized countries requires of each country that it develop
to the maximum its potential and its wealth-the things that
make it distinct-but also that it be able to act effectively on the
international scene, and that is what Canada has done.
We rank seventh among the world's industrialized countries
and we enjoy the highest standard of living. Over the past 30
years, we have had the second highest economic growth rate
among G-7 countries, behind Japan; among OECD countries,
we rank seventh.
Over the past 30 years, we have had the highest rate of job
creation among OECD countries and the highest increase in
employment per capita. Canada's continued exceptional
performance is related to the maintenance and increase of the
federal system's effective operations. Federalism permits a
central government that efficiently manages activities of
international scope-trade, stock markets, environmental
protection, international communications.
Not only does this sound international management benefit
the members of Confederation, but, within the federal system,
economies of scale can also be achieved in implementing
8795
national programs and infrastructure that the constituent
members alone could not offer their citizens. Just think of the
postal service and the armed forces.
I know that my colleagues on the other side of the house do not
share this point of view. For them, Confederation is a dead end,
and they want out. But the people of Canada and Quebec
instinctively know that, in the new world order, influence on the
international scene is important. This influence is directly
linked to whether or not you play a role in international forums.
You have to be where decisions are made and standards are set.
Canada is not a superpower, but it is the world's eighth largest
exporter and importer. We are thus doubly entitled to
membership in the Group of Seven. No province or regional
group could aspire to membership in this forum. I repeat, Mr.
Speaker: None. But together, as part of Confederation, they are
all members.
Nothing will be said about these benefits of federalism in the
consultation that the Government of Quebec wishes to
undertake with its friends. Likewise, nothing will be said about
the fact that, within Canada, Quebec is part of a Pacific Rim
country.
To quote the Prime Minister of Canada, ``membership has its
privileges''. When you consider the dazzling growth of Asian
economies, which are very appropriately called the dragons of
the East, it is understandable that the separatists do not dare to
mention this. The only way they could do so would be to ask
Quebecers if they want to give up another benefit of Canada.
It is true that the separatist ministers have already waived
these benefits in their surrealistic description of Canada. The
Quebec Minister for Restructuring has thus
neglected-intentionally or unintentionally-to include the
equalization payments that Canada makes to Quebec: $3.7
billion in 1993 and about $3.92 billion in 1994-95.
Quebecers' attachment to Canada is not just a matter of
benefits and dollars and cents. The people of Quebec built this
country. They shaped it and continue to do so. This country is
French to the depths of its heart and soul. From sea to sea,
French Canadians know that they can deal with their federal
government in their own language.
(1055)
Bilingualism is enshrined in this country's very Constitution,
which can be amended only with the consent of all legislative
assemblies. This, in effect, gives Quebec's National Assembly a
veto. In the same way, the Canadian Constitution guarantees
Quebec three of the nine judgeships on the Supreme Court. No
other province has such guarantees. When you consider the
increasing impact of this court's decisions, you realize that the
soul of Quebec will continue to influence and define Canada as a
country for a long time to come.
I confess that listening to the current Premier of Quebec
makes me smile sometimes. Not often, but sometimes.
I could not help noting how he went about demonstrating
Quebec's know-how in his speeches to the Chamber of
Commerce of Montreal and the Canadian Club in Toronto, and
even his address this week. No one has ever doubted this
know-how. But when I hear him mention Céline Dion, Denys
Arcand, the Cirque du Soleil, Bombardier, Lavalin and a host of
others, I cannot help telling myself that all of them have
succeeded within Canada, some of them with direct or indirect
assistance from the federal government.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Massé: Mr. Speaker, the ancestors of the people of
Quebec were among the first Europeans to set foot on Canadian
soil. They built this country with their daring, ingenuity and
courage, and not even a premier will hoodwink them into
throwing in the towel and pulling out of Canada. The men and
women of Quebec received this country as their heritage and
want to pass it on to their children.
The motion before the House is contrary to Canada's
historical roots. It would have us, the people of Quebec, forget
our origins and our ancestors, and disregard 127 years of shared
history which have resulted in raising us to the rank of one of the
best countries in the world.
I will thus vote against this motion out of respect for history,
and out of duty to my children and to democracy.
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
some comments to make in response to the speech by the hon.
member opposite.
He harshly criticized the Quebec government's draft bill,
which he has a right to do. However, his very federalist and quite
ordinary speech, except for the first part in which he used the
word ``astuce'' in French, only referred to the status quo,
something which we have been hearing here in this House for
some 20 years and which Quebecers are sick and tired of
listening to.
We looked up the definition of the word ``astuce'', because it
may be the only interesting point that you raised at the beginning
of your speech. Forgive me, Mr. Speaker, I should address my
comments to you.
The word ``astuce''in old French means this:
Ability to deceive others in order to harm them or get something out of them.
I agree. Rather than the old French definition, the hon.
member opposite should use the modern-day definition, which
is ``ingeniousness and inventiveness''.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
8796
Mr. Deshaies: Mr. Speaker, the opposite of astute is crude
and unintelligent.
I would like us to use current terminology to describe
Quebecers as ingenious and inventive.
(1100)
As the hon. member opposite pointed out, Quebecers have
shown inventiveness through companies like Bombardier,
artists like Céline Dion, etc. Yes, Quebec wants to chart its
future, and Quebec's draft bill is a way to do this.
To return to the old definition of ``astuce'', the federal
government may not be in a position to teach Quebec anything.
In 1982, when the Constitution was patriated unilaterally, the
federal government deceived René Lévesque during the night of
the long knives. Was it a federalist scam? We should really talk
about it.
One fact cannot be denied. Quebec citizens sent a 54-member
majority to the House of Commons, and they knew about our
allegiance. My hon. colleague would surely like to tell me that
all those who voted for the Bloc Quebecois may not have been
sovereignists, sovereignists and separatists.
Mr. Serré: Separatists.
Mr. Deshaies: Sovereignists or separatists, whatever. If you
want to use the old terminology, that is your choice.
Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I am getting carried away.
The people who voted for the Bloc Quebecois were also fed up
with the current federal system, because of mismanagement by
the central government. According to a poll, 66 per cent of
Quebecers reject the status quo or the current federal system.
The hon. members opposite might reply that federal Liberals
offer flexible federalism. Allow me to question this flexibility,
when Quebec and several other provinces are still waiting for
this flexibility, promised in every election, after 10 years under
Tory governments and the 10 years before that under the
Trudeau government and others.
What is important to me and to all the people in the riding of
Abitibi, who ask me when they will receive information on the
sovereignty plan, is that the draft bill is a way to receive this
information. People want to know more about the grounds on
which their decision will be based.
I have a question for the hon. member opposite: What about
the need to address Quebecers' needs, to give them information,
and not just federalist rhetoric? Why should they stay in the
federalist system, why?
Mr. Massé: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the hon. member
opposite questions the use of words. I thought that I had read
enough editorials written by contemporary French Canadians
from Quebec. They are experts in using the pen and the
dictionary. They were not caught up in words. They saw the ruse
behind the lack of democracy and called it secretive and a show
of democracy. Public opinion in Quebec is clearly that Mr.
Parizeau's proposal is not democratic; whether it is called
sneaky, a sham or secretive, it is still unacceptable.
Second, speaking of federalism and flexible federalism, our
country has evolved over 127 years with relatively few changes
to the Constitution, but with tremendous changes affecting the
jurisdiction of the provinces and the federal government and
with continuous adjustments to a changing economic, political
and social environment. We can continue to evolve within the
present Constitution and we do continue to evolve, making very
considerable changes that affect jurisdiction, the way the
country is governed and our social programs, provided that we
know how to act as partners.
That is true federalism. History shows us that it has worked
and provided solutions and given Canada the highest standard of
living in the world.
(1105)
This did not happen by accident or despite the federal system,
on the contrary. The reason Canada, including Quebec, is one of
the best countries in the world, maybe the best, is its federal
structure, which year after year has proven to be good for
Canadians, good for Quebecers and adaptable to change. It will
help us adjust to the economic, political and social changes now
going on in the outside world.
Third, although there are 54 Bloc Quebecois members in this
House, let us not forget that we, Liberals, form a government
which is perceived across the country as an efficient and honest
government. This is evidenced by the fact that, for the last three
months, public support in the polls has been maintained at an
all-time high of 63 per cent for any government in the 54 years
that such polls have been conducted.
In Quebec, while our leader enjoyed relatively low support,
somewhere around 20 per cent, during the election campaign,
that support has climbed up to 47 per cent in recent weeks, the
same as for Lucien Bouchard. This means that Quebecers
themselves have a favourable opinion of the way the federal
government is working on their behalf.
As for mandate, it is clear that Mr. Parizeau, and he said so
himself dozens of times during the election campaign, was not
elected with a mandate to achieve sovereignty: He was elected
to provide a new government and, really, to create jobs, just like
us. The fact that Mr. Parizeau's party received 44 per cent of the
popular vote is tantamount to a rejection of sovereignty. It is
totally undemocratic to table a draft bill which takes for granted
that sovereignty has already been accepted as a goal by
Quebecers, since the facts show that the contrary is true.
By introducing its draft bill, the Parizeau government is
trying to fool Quebecers; it is using a ploy which is both a scam
and an undemocratic measure. This is a view shared by us, by
8797
our government and by the majority of Quebecers and Quebec
editorialists. I am convinced that when the time comes for
Quebecers to choose between separation and flexible
federalism, they will opt for the latter.
In conclusion, the motion tabled by the opposition clearly
does not respect the democratic spirit of Canadians, including
Quebecers, and it must be rejected.
The Speaker: There are approximately 60 seconds left in the
debate, or 30 seconds for each side. The hon. member for
Chambly.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, can the
hon. minister explain in what respect the Charlottetown process
was more democratic that the one proposed by the Quebec
government? In the Charlottetown process, I remember that we
were even asked to vote on unwritten agreements, and, in the
third round of the 1992 referendum, when the government
realized that the house was on fire, they had to hurriedly write up
the infamous Charlottetown accord, where they asked
Canadians, and Quebecers in particular, to vote on something
which did not even exist in concrete terms.
We kept hearing: ``Trust us, because we know, we feel, and we
tell you what is right'', but nothing was written up. In what
respect was that process more democratic than the present one? I
would appreciate an answer from the minister.
(1110)
Mr. Massé: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House
attempts to determine, rather it states the Bloc Quebecois's
position on democracry, based on what Mr. Parizeau did. In fact,
what he did is clearly undemocratic because his bill takes for
granted an answer to a question which was never asked, and
because this regional commission procedure is really a joke, as
it recreates fifteen yes committees. That is the unanimous view
of Quebecers and that is clearly why these are undemocratic
proposals.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to address the Bloc motion that the House enjoin
the government to recognize the legitimacy of the democratic
process initiated by the Government of Quebec in order to allow
Quebecers to chart their own political and constitutional future.
The motion raises two essential questions which I would like
to deal with one at a time. The first question is: What is the
so-called democratic process initiated by the Quebec
government? According to the draft bill tabled by Mr. Parizeau
in the Quebec assembly, the process consists of the following.
First, the publication of a draft bill, a bill which is clearly
illegal in terms of the Canadian Constitution, followed by
additional steps designed to legitimate this illegal act;
Second, a period of information and participation for the
purposes of approving this illegal bill and drafting a declaration
of sovereignty which will form part of its preamble;
Third, discussion of this illegal bill respecting the
sovereignty of Quebec and its passage by the National
Assembly; and
Fourth, approval of this illegal act by the population in a
referendum.
In other words, what we have here is a process designed to
attempt to give democratic legitimacy to an illegal act of the
Quebec assembly. So far we note that the federal government
has been extremely reluctant to point out the illegality of what is
proposed. I was hoping the minister might do that today. I am
convinced that if some other province such as the province of
Alberta were today to table an act in its legislature completely
out of its own jurisdiction such as, say, alternative gun control
legislation and attempted to legitimize it by a process such as
this, it would not take the federal government 30 seconds to
make clear the illegality and unacceptability of what was being
proposed.
I suggest that even within Quebec if a portion of that
community, say the Mohawk Nation through its elected council,
were to table such a bill and attempt to legitimize it by such a
process, the Quebec government would be the first to declare
such an act and such a process illegal and illegitimate.
The second question is the bigger question: What are the
generally accepted tests of democratic legitimacy and how does
the so-called democratic process initiated by the Quebec
government stand up to those tests? The first test is the rule of
law.
In free countries democratic legitimacy refers to the general
acceptability of a process in the political community. A process
is considered legitimate if it is supported by the constitution of a
political community, in other words whether or not it conforms
to the rule of law. In Canada this means that all proceedings
relating to constitutional change, even an attempted secession,
must take place within the rules established by the Constitution
of Canada. That means that constitutional change of any kind
should take place by the means of a formal amendment to the
Canadian Constitution. Acts which are clearly unconstitutional
are also clearly illegitimate.
In this case, virtually every clause of the act respecting the
sovereignty of Quebec is clearly unconstitutional, notably the
declaration of sovereignty in section 1, the undefined rules of
constitution making in section 3, the territorial provisions in
section 4, the citizenship rules in section 5, the treaty rights
assumed in section 7, the alliance rights assumed in section 8,
the assumption of the ability to overrule federal laws by the
8798
provincial assembly claimed in section 10, the removal of the
authority of the Supreme Court of Canada in section 12, and the
assumption of the right to make appointments to federal bodies
in section 13.
Each of these sections is therefore illegitimate, as is the act as
a whole.
(1115 )
If the Government of Quebec wishes to proceed with
constitutional changes, including one as drastic as secession,
there is a way to do so. That is through a formal amendment to
the Canadian Constitution. The Government of Quebec has not
chosen that route. Both the route it has chosen and the process it
employs do not meet the test of the rule of law.
The second test is direct questions on real options. To be
legitimate direct democracy must ask direct questions. The
question posed in the act respecting the sovereignty of Quebec is
indirect and misleading. It does not ask the straight simple
question: Should Quebec secede from Canada, yes or no?
Instead it asks: Are you in favour of the act passed by the
National Assembly declaring the sovereignty of Quebec? The
key provisions of the act however do not go into force until after
the referendum is approved.
Section 16 of the act states that section 2, to negotiate an
economic association with Canada, section 3, to write a
constitution for Quebec, and section 15, to negotiate a division
of the assets and debts of Canada, do not go into effect until after
it is too late for the voters to change their minds. This is clearly
illegitimate from the standpoint of direct democracy. It is even
illegitimate compared to Levesque's 1980 question which
promised to provide a completed package which would then be
submitted to voters for their further approval at a second
referendum.
The draft act itself which is at the heart of the process is also
filled with misconceptions and misrepresentations. There is the
misconception that an economic association with Canada will
automatically be attained and agreed to by Canada. There is the
assumption that Quebec will retain the boundaries it has within
the Canadian Confederation at the time the act comes into force.
There is the assumption of dual citizenship which is entirely
beyond the capacity of even a sovereign Quebec to grant and the
assumption that Quebec shall assume the obligations and enjoy
the rights arising out of treaties to which Canada is a part. All of
these are misconceptions and misrepresentations which cannot
be legitimately promised by any Quebec government, sovereign
or not.
The draft bill is a hollow shell with the content to be provided
only after the shell has been approved by the public. To use a
more down to earth metaphor, the draft bill is a blank cheque
which the Government of Quebec seeks to induce the Quebec
electorate to sign.
For a process that claims to be democratic, to be legitimate it
must also provide opportunity for all the options which might
potentially gain majority support, including those that are
repugnant to the proponents and managers of the process to be
considered. Yet clearly all options for reform within federalism
are precluded under the act respecting the sovereignty of
Quebec. Only within the constitution of a sovereign Quebec will
reforms be considered so everybody, including those who
oppose secession, are forced to participate in the process of
writing a declaration of independence even if they are not in
favour of independence.
The referendum process itself, including the Quebec
referendum law, does not provide for adequate consideration of
all the options. In particular Quebecers will only be presented
with a choice between status quo federalism and sovereignty.
The principal alternative option, namely a complete rebuilding
of the federal system from the bottom up, is not assured even a
fair hearing let alone consideration.
The third test is of democratic legitimacy, inclusiveness and
non-coercion. Democracy must be inclusive allowing all who
are affected to vote, but the interests of the people in the rest of
Canada in whether or not their country will be torn asunder are
not even acknowledged. What is legitimate about declaring
arbitrarily that democratic self-determination is the exclusive
right of the people of Quebec constituted as a single arbitrarily
defined collectivity?
The process defined in the draft bill in no way shape or form
acknowledges that the people of Canada also have a right to
choose their national future. Nor does it deal adequately with the
democratic rights of the people of any region of Quebec, many
of whom might choose to secede from Quebec and remain a part
of Canada.
In addition to all this, the process proposed by the draft bill is
essentially coercive. As I said, all options for reform within
federalism are precluded under the act respecting the
sovereignty of Quebec. Only within the constitution of a
sovereign Quebec will reforms be considered.
(1120 )
Even groups that have no interest in broader constitutional
questions will be forced to participate in the process of
developing an act of secession for fear that if they do not their
interests will be left out of the Quebec constitution. As each new
group joins in, all those who are left out will feel increasing
pressure to join in, thus driving the process toward the
inevitable conclusion of separation. This is not democratic
consent at all but forced consent which is a charade of
democracy.
8799
All the polls to date indicate that a majority of Quebecers
do not want to secede from Canada if given a clear choice on
that question. The separatist Government of Quebec obviously
does not accept that opinion. It has put together a process
designed not to give fair and legitimate recognition to majority
opinion but to create majority support for a minority opinion.
In conclusion, the bottom line is that the process as proposed
by the Quebec government and supported by the Bloc does not
meet the great tests of democratic legitimacy. It is not in
accordance with the rule of law. It does not ask direct questions
on real options. It is not inclusive and it is coercive.
Obviously therefore the process should be rejected by all
democrats in Canada whether in Quebec or outside it and
regardless of their constitutional opinions and preferences.
Obviously the House should defeat the motion.
The proposed bill and processes are also extremely revealing
with respect to the character of the current Government of
Quebec. All democratic governments, including the
Government of Quebec, should be held accountable to respect
the rule of law and the basic criteria of free democratic
processes. If a government does not respect those processes and
uses illegitimate processes to induce its own population to
support illegal acts, how can any member of that society be
assured that such a government will not do the same thing again
at some future date, disregarding both the rule of law again and
using illegitimate processes again, this time to manipulate its
own people against their will?
The federal government as the government with
responsibility for the peace, order, good government and
economic well-being of all Canadians has a responsibility to
make clear the illegality and illegitimacy of what the
Government of Quebec proposes. The federal government has a
responsibility as a bare minimum to refute the misconceptions
concerning economic association, sovereignty association and
dual citizenship which are at the heart of the Quebec
government's bill and process. We assume that the federal
government will be discharging these responsibilities in the
course of this debate and in the days ahead.
The federal cabinet ministers make frequent reference to
wanting to avoid playing Parizeau's game, but Parizeau's game
is to take initiatives, including illegal initiatives, and assume
that the federal government will do nothing but fume and
sputter. It is time for the federal government to stop playing
Parizeau's game and begin discharging its responsibilities for
preserving the peace, order, good government and economic
well-being of Canada and all Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Madam Speaker,
first of all, I want to emphasize the following point: federalists
seem to have been caught unawares and to be panic-stricken.
They use everything, every false statement they can think of, to
try to show that the process initiated by Quebecers does not meet
their standards.
The leader of the Reform Party started by saying that he thinks
that the Quebec government's draft bill is illegal. I am sure that
the Premier of Quebec had everything checked out before
initiating this process. In fact, we are confident that the bill is in
accordance with Quebec's Referendum Act.
Second, federalists have been talking all morning about
democracy. This has me very puzzled. Federalists are now
trying everything to convince Quebecers, especially federalists,
not to take part in this process. If democracy is being abused, it
is by the federalists who are trying very hard to ensure that
Quebec federalists do not take part in this democratic
experience.
(1125)
If we were dealing with an extremely complex draft bill,
comprised of hundreds of clauses that the average citizen would
have a hard time understanding, they might have good reasons to
be concerned. But the draft bill is made up of just 16 very
straightforward clauses that only set out the definition of
sovereignty that is generally accepted in Quebec. So, this
definition does not take anyone by surprise, except the
federalists who still think that they can convince Quebecers by
making empty speeches on the beauty and the sheer size of
Canada.
For the last 50 years, Quebecers have been trying slowly but
surely to show that they do not feel at ease within the Canadian
federation. They have been expressing their feelings in a very
special and original way, by creating brand new political parties
that can be found nowhere else but in Quebec. Here are a few of
those parties: the Action libérale nationale, the Union nationale,
the Bloc populaire, the Rassemblement pour l'indépendance
nationale, the Rassemblement national, the Parti Quebecois and
the Bloc Quebecois. Why have Quebecers felt, for the last 50
years, the need to have their own tools to promote Quebec's
interests? Obviously because the big parties, the Liberals and
the Conservatives, federalists by definition, have never been
able to get in touch with the soul of Quebec. So do not talk to us
about democracy!
Federalists also seem to have forgotten some important
historical events. I would like to remind them that 14 countries
were present at the Madrid Conference in 1880. In 1920, 47
countries were represented at the very first general assembly of
the League of Nations. In 1945, representatives of 50 countries
witnessed the signing of the Charter of the United Nations, in
San Francisco. In 1990, there were 175 countries and it is
estimated that in 5 or 10 years, the number of countries will
reach 200. This goes to show that nations have understood that
sovereignty helps to correct inequities. By becoming sovereign,
8800
smaller nations reach the same level as bigger countries. This is
essentially what Quebec wants.
In conclusion, I would like to put a question to the leader of
the Reform Party: Does he think that the people of Quebec are a
nation?
[English]
Mr. Manning: Madam Speaker, the short answer to the latter
question is that I believe Quebecers are a distinct people. I do
not believe that automatically conveys a right to establish an
independent state by illegal means. I will answer some of the
other points the member raised in the order he raised them.
We do not shy away from the legitimate use of the democratic
process to settle the most profound questions, including the
question of secession. We believe those processes should be in
accordance with the rule of law, they should ask real questions
about the real issue and they should present all the options.
The option we are most concerned about in Quebec that is not
being considered, and maybe we are having difficulty
communicating it to our Bloc friends, is that there is a legitimate
third option. It is not the hon. member for Sherbrooke's third
option.
All across the country there are people who want to rebuild
federalism from the bottom up in a much more profound way.
Meech Lake and Charlottetown were top down. That is what was
wrong with them and that is why we rejected them.
All across the country there are people who want to rebuild
the federal system from the bottom up. We believe that the
process which has been suggested here and the process which
has been followed in Quebec for the last 30 years have not given
that option a legitimate opportunity for expression, nor does the
process outlined in this act.
(1130 )
There are two more points arising from the member's
comments. He suggested that sovereignty is a legitimate and
principal means of dealing with inequality. I question him. Does
the member actually believe that the way to deal, for example,
with inequalities within Quebec is that if someone feels unequal
the way to cope with that is to declare themselves sovereign and
independent from the framework in which they feel the
inequality?
That principle can be preached here in defence of Quebec's
attempts to secede. I doubt very much whether any of the
members would agree to it if it was put forward by someone in
Quebec as an argument for addressing their inequality and
seceding from Quebec.
My last point is on the question of legality. I would challenge
the Bloc members to table in the House a legal opinion from any
respected constitutional authority saying that the bill that has
been tabled in the Quebec legislature is within the legislative
competence of the province of Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry, BQ):
Madam Speaker, my comments are not necessarily for the
Reform Party or the Liberal Party. My comments are aimed
specifically at all Canadian federalists.
We are being accused of proposing an undemocratic process
to Quebecers. Contrary to what we are used to on the Canadian
political scene, this is an exciting project in democracy, since
not only will Quebecers not have something forced on them by
elected representatives in their ivory tower but they are all
invited by Mr. Parizeau to take part in the process. And this is
what democracy is all about.
So it is totally wrong to pretend that the process initiated by
the Parti Quebecois is undemocratic. On the contrary, the
proposed process could not be more democratic, since all
Quebecers, federalists, liberals or conservatives or whatever
will be able to get involved. This project is 100 per cent
democratic, since all Quebecers will have their say.
I see that my time is running out. I will come back to this later
today because I absolutely want to give further insights into the
federal government's sharp dealings with Quebec in the last 40
years or so.
In response to my question, I would like the leader of the
Reform Party to tell us what democracy is to him. Is it a decision
made by a prime minister or is it a decision coming from the
grass roots?
[English]
Mr. Manning: Madam Speaker, I thought I made myself clear
as to what I consider democracy to be. The heart of it is the
consent of the governed and democratic processes have to meet
certain basic fundamental tests no matter where we talk about
democracy in the world.
Those tests are as follows. They must conform to the rule of
law. Second, they must ask real questions about the real issue,
not indirect questions. Third, they must present all options and
allow equal opportunity for all options. Fourth, the processes
must result in getting the consent of the governed.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ):
Madam Speaker, before beginning my speech, I would like to
advise you that from now on, members of the Official
Opposition will make 10-minute speeches.
When I hear the big guns of federalism call undemocratic the
process to consult the people announced by the Premier of
Quebec, Jacques Parizeau, on December 6, when he presented
the draft bill on Quebec sovereignty, I seriously worry about the
8801
political maturity of the federal Liberals and the Official
Opposition in the Quebec National Assembly.
(1135)
I have the rather startling impression of being in front of a
class of teenagers who refuse to grow up. Let me explain. Any
psychologist can tell you that magical thinking is one
characteristic of adolescence. A classical example is a teen-age
girl who knows the facts of life but is convinced that she cannot
become pregnant because that happens only to others. I am sure
that all hon. members could put a face or a name to the young
girl in my example. Everybody knows perfectly well that
magical thinking cannot prevent the oldest reproductive
technique in the world from working efficiently. The number of
unwanted pregnancies among teenagers proves it beyond
question.
No, Madam Speaker, magical thinking does not make it so, no
matter what the Deputy Prime Minister and the premiers of
Ontario and New Brunswick, all long-time allies of Quebec,
may think. The announced process is highly democratic.
It is unreasonable to claim that the draft bill presented by Mr.
Parizeau is unfounded, undemocratic or a fraud or that the
Quebec government is trying to win the referendum by
deceiving people, because those incisive comments and others
like them will never be powerful enough filters to make
something democratic, undemocratic.
The hon. member for Sherbrooke used Le Petit Robert to give
us a definition of the word ``astuce''. Everybody was impressed
by his ``cleverness''. Since he is an experienced and I might
even say a clever politician, I thought I could do the same thing
and look up the word ``democracy'' in the dictionary. Here is
what I found:
Political doctrine according to which sovereignty must belong to the people.
My world goes beyond the dictionary. Patrick Watson, a
renowned journalist who was even chairman of the CBC, wrote:
``Democracy consists of verbal exchanges. It favours discussion
over force, deliberations over mood swings, good reasons over
powerful weapons, consensus over conflict, peace over war,
co-operation over competition''.
It seems that supporters of the status quo or, if you prefer,
supporters of ``flexible'' federalism, have chosen force, mood
swings, powerful weapons, conflict, war and competition. What
is sad for democracy is to see that democratically elected men
and women have rejected discussion, deliberations, good
reasons, consensus, peace and co-operation.
The draft bill on Quebec's sovereignty contains 17 clauses.
Clause 10 stipulates that existing federal laws that apply in
Quebec shall remain in force until amended or repealed by the
National Assembly. Is it undemocratic to ask the approval of
Quebecers to have, in a sovereign Quebec, laws that meet their
needs?
Is it undemocratic to ask them if they are sick and tired of all
these endless jurisdictional quarrels over health, education,
income security programs, manpower training and social
security? The process that the Government of Quebec has
launched is very democratic. In the end, the people's sanction
will replace the royal sanction. This process is certainly as
democratic as the federal government's consultation process on
social reform.
The objective pursued by this government of cutting social
programs at the expense of the unemployed, welfare recipients,
women and students in order to contain a huge deficit, is simply
not acceptable to the people of Quebec. The debate proposed by
the Quebec government will give them an opportunity to say so
once again.
(1140)
Instead of creating jobs, the federal government chooses to
cut left and right. The federal government is unable to make the
proper diagnosis; it does not deserve the confidence of the
people of Quebec since it is unable to administer the appropriate
medicine.
In the area of education, the federal government is innovating
by proposing to reduce the federal contribution to
post-secondary educational institutions, and by way of
compensation it is encouraging our young people to go into debt.
There is no question of giving Quebec full jurisdiction for
occupational training despite the clearly established
labour-management consensus on that. Since the federal
government runs the unemployment insurance program, it
makes the decisions on manpower training programs. Never
mind the inefficiency, the red tape and the waste of taxpayers'
money!
The proposed social security reform, especially as regards
the Canada assistance plan and child tax benefits, is equally
unacceptable for Quebec because it maintains, indeed even
increases, federal encroachment on Quebec's areas of
jurisdiction. Quebec will never accept being subject to national
standards-not today, no more than yesterday and certainly not
tomorrow.
Is it unreasonable to ask the people of Quebec whether they
believe that the Quebec government is able to take on all the
responsibilities in these areas of jurisdiction and to make its
own laws in these areas?
It would be unreasonable and undemocratic not to listen to
what the people of Quebec have to say on that subject. Clause 10
of the draft bill on Quebec sovereignty will give them an
opportunity to express themselves democratically.
8802
Clause 11 clarifies a particularly sensitive point. Many of us
remember the horror stories told to our senior citizens by the
federalist werewolves in 1980, that if they voted yes they would
lose their pensions.
Today, nobody would buy these statements made in bad faith.
Since bad faith is hard to eradicate, the government wisely saw
fit to specify as follows: ``Pensions and supplements payable to
the elderly shall continue to be paid by the Government
according to the same terms and conditions''.
I am almost tempted to say that I would not be surprised if
Quebecers considered that clause useless, because in 1994 fear
is completely out of the picture. Democracy also means being
free from fear.
Quebec is a distinct society, and for a long time democracy in
Quebec has been just as healthy as it is in any other jurisdiction.
Quebecers know it, and they are rightly proud of it.
I will conclude by quoting Patrick Watson: ``Through
referendums, citizens do much more than choose their
representatives; they govern themselves. But, if the referendum
process does not include a civic education program or public
education meetings, rich and influential people will use it to
manipulate voters''.
The process outlined in the draft bill on Quebec sovereignty
puts the issues on the table and lets all citizens discuss them. I
regret that federalists in Quebec will not participate, but I am
sure Quebecers will get a better understanding of what
democracy means, because their sensible, thoughtful and
enthusiastic participation will prevent ``rich and influential
people'' from manipulating voters, because the process set out
by the Quebec government will let them govern directly.
(1145)
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speeches
made up to now. As far as I can see, there is not much
consistency in the speeches made by members of the Bloc today.
Earlier this morning, we heard a member of the Bloc
Quebecois inform us that it is because of Quebec that NAFTA
was signed. However, we all know very well, and it is quite clear
for me as a member from New Brunswick, that the government
of Quebec has been reluctant in recent decades to liberalize
trade between the Canadian provinces.
How can they say, on the one hand, that they support free trade
with the United States and Mexico and, on the other hand, that
they are extremely reluctant to liberalize interprovincial trade?
The member said earlier that Quebecers will have a clear and
definite choice. In the process which has started, where is this
clear and definite choice? There is none because the working
paper presents only one option to Quebecers. Where is the
overall plan Mr. Parizeau promised the people of Quebec?
Where is this overall plan? Maybe we will keep the Canadian
dollar. Maybe we will have Canadian passports. This plan is full
of maybes. It is not with such proposals that Quebecers can
make an enlightened choice. We cannot make an enlightened
choice on the basis on uncertainties.
This is duplicity. I remember reading, and I read a lot, all the
history books about Quebec when Quebecers stood up and
opposed the dark age of Duplessis. I am also convinced that they
will say no to the undemocratic dark age of Parizeau.
My question is as follows: Since the suggested process
accepts only the separatist position, how will it inform the
supporters of independence of the risks which will threaten them
for generations? I am not asking this question and making these
comments in a partisan way. I am making them because of the
strong roots I have in Quebec and because I am concerned about
the present and future well-being of Quebecers.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the
government member for her comments. I must admit I did not
understand when she said right out that Bloc members'
statements were inconsistent.
I failed to understand because in fact there were two speeches
and some comments. Obviously no one will support the
undemocratic philosophy advocated by our political opponents.
Why not admit that NAFTA came about largely because of all
the efforts made by Quebecers? I am thinking here particularly
about the present Quebec Minister of International Affairs,
Bernard Landry, who insisted so much on the necessity of free
trade for Canada and of course for Quebec.
(1150)
In response to the question raised by my hon. colleague who is
wondering how in God's name we will make Quebecers aware of
all the incredible risks that lie ahead for them, I say this: The
best way to inform Quebecers about these so-called risks-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Order, please. I would
ask the hon. member to be brief.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: May I go on? Thank you, Madam
Speaker.
How can Quebecers be informed about these so-called risks if
people will not sit at a table and take part in the consultations
which will be held by the provincial government? The debate is
open.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Madam Speaker,
today, as a member of the Bloc Quebecois and as a member of
Parliament representing Quebec, I am proud to answer the call
of the Premier of Quebec.
The Premier of Quebec has asked us to mobilize our
resources, organize consultation meetings and prepare for the
Quebec of the future. Today, I would like to focus on two
specific points in order to deal with the questions that people are
8803
asking, including the questions asked by the hon. member of the
Liberal Party who spoke just now.
What does the draft bill have to say about currency and the
apportionment of debt or, as it says in the bill, apportionment of
property and debts? I will start with the first item: currency.
What criteria will be applied to determine the currency to be
used in a sovereign Quebec?
Sovereignists were part of the Bélanger-Campeau
Commission, although it was organized by a party in power that,
as we have seen throughout, was clearly of the federalist
persuasion. The commission did a number of studies, and the
two points I want to discuss with you, currency and
apportionment of property and debts, were examined in-depth
by the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, a commission that
enjoyed considerable recognition and credibility in Quebec and
was accepted by the entire population.
This commission listed the criteria to be considered, and I
will mention the five principal criteria: economic
interdependence, minimizing uncertainty, maintaining the same
economic space, the stability of a dollar that is broader based,
and trade with other countries that do not use the same currency.
All these criteria lead us to conclude that it would be better for
Quebec and Canada if we used Canadian currency in Quebec.
The hon. member who pointed out that the bill was not clear
may wish to listen to section 6, which refers to currency. The
draft bill says: ``The legal currency of Quebec shall continue to
be the Canadian dollar''.
A large number of Quebec's exports go to Canada. Many
businesses in Quebec and Ontario or elsewhere in Canada, in
New Brunswick and the west, that export their products would
be better off if we had the same dollar, which would simplify
transactions and avoid the additional cost of using a different
currency. This would prevent much of the uncertainty that
would otherwise be caused by Canada's currency being more
narrowly based and the use of a new currency in Quebec.
Therefore both parties would benefit from having the same
currency. It would greatly facilitate negotiations on the sharing
of assets and the debt if the debt were calculated in the same
currency. Therefore a monetary union is clearly desirable.
However, the Quebec Premier said that he wishes to hear the
opinion of Quebecers on that matter. Being from a border area I
hope and I am convinced that people in my riding and region
will express their views on the currency they wish to use in a
sovereign Quebec. Many of them will certainly prefer to keep
the Canadian currency.
I can see my federalist friends jotting things down and
preparing to say: ``What guarantee do you have that you will be
able to keep the Canadian currency?'' Nothing prevents Quebec
from doing so. I can hardly imagine the Prime Minister asking
the Bank of Canada to print on bank notes: ``This note is legal
tender everywhere in the world except in Quebec''. How would
that look? How would it be interpreted? How would he explain
to businesses that from now on it will cost more to do business?
Because for many people doing business in Quebec is profitable.
They do not do it for charitable reasons but because it is
profitable. How will he explain to Canadian businesses who
export to Quebec that he is adding to their costs on a mere
political whim?
Madam Speaker, it cannot go that way, good sense will
prevail.
That would considerably alleviate uncertainty while
facilitating agreements between Quebec and Canada in areas
where they share common interests. Instead of looking for
differences, we would be looking for common points.
If there is uncertainty, it is not about the decision that
Quebecers will make. If there is any uncertainty, it is in the way
Canadians will react to the answer Quebecers will give through a
democratic process. The uncertainty lies in the response
Canadians would give if Quebecers chose to become masters of
their own destiny.
(1155)
I also want to say a few words about how the assets and
liabilities would be shared. I will not mention the legal aspects
of the issue, which would clearly favour Quebec; things are very
clear concerning assets, much less so concerning financial
commitments to creditors. In any case, out of respect and
concern for commitments made in the past, the draft bill states:
``The Government may conclude, with the Government of
Canada, any agreement relating to the apportionment of the
property and debts of Canada, and to any matter susceptible of
facilitating the application of this Act''.
Out of respect for commitments made in the past, Quebec can
and must agree with Canada on the apportionment of assets and
liabilities. Many people mention the apportionment of the debt,
but there are also properties on Quebec territory. These will
become the property of the Quebec government. Quebec's share
of the assets and debts will have to be established. Again in this
case, the findings of Bélanger-Campeau will be used as a basis
for negotiations, even as a very firm negotiating position since
this is a serious study.
I remind you that we already pay for the national debt. Some
people ask how we are going to pay for that debt, as if Quebecers
did not already pay their share of that debt! Each year, we pay
$30 billion in taxes to help finance programs and pay interest on
the debt and the government continues to borrow on our behalf.
Now, Quebec would only be responsible for a share of the debt
and the interest that is still to be defined, which is normal. I will
come back to this. But we already pay for that. People realize
8804
this will not be an additional burden. On the contrary, Quebecers
might have to pay less, as we will explain to them.
Using a method based on an evaluation of the assets found in
Quebec-and there are various methods to calculate our
share-the Bélanger-Campeau Commission came to the
conclusion that our share of the debt was 18.5 per cent of the
total.
Since our share of the Canadian economy, of the gross
domestic product, is a little over 23 per cent, this means that our
share of the debt would be even lower than before in relation to
the GDP. This is an interesting factor for Quebecers. Moreover,
Quebec would have total control over its fiscal policy. We would
be able to invest in the more productive sectors, stop receiving
welfare and focus on the more productive sectors. This is a very
interesting aspect for Quebec's future.
In closing, Madam Speaker, I would like to remind you briefly
of the events that led us to the decision the Premier of Quebec
made today.
Let us look only at the last four years. On June 22, 1990, the
Meech Lake Accord failed. On June 20, 1991, the
Bélanger-Campeau Commission was established to examine the
possibility and consequences of Quebec's sovereignty. On
October 26, 1992, the Charlottetown Accord was rejected. On
October 25, 1993, 54 sovereignists were elected to the
Parliament of Canada. On September 12, 1994, 77 members of a
sovereignist party were elected to form the government of
Quebec. On December 7, the Premier of Quebec tabled a draft
bill asking the people to define what would be in the preamble to
Quebec's Constitution, to define their commitment to Quebec,
to define the values they cherish right now and the values they
want for the future. This draft bill asks the people to help in
shaping the Quebec of tomorrow.
As a young Quebecer, I must tell you that participating in
shaping of the Quebec of the future is the finest challenge that
my generation has been issued, and it is with pride and
dedication that the members of the Bloc Quebecois will accept
this challenge. Our answer to the Premier of Quebec is: Bravo!
At last we see the light at the end of the tunnel. We support your
process and we will build the Quebec of tomorrow.
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
very pleased with what the Bloc member who just spoke said
about economic integration in particular, because of what it
means for the people of Quebec and Ontario.
(1200)
I represent an Ontario riding. We Ontarians realize that our
future and our economy are closely tied to Quebec. Quebec is
our best market, our number one economic partner. So, it is only
normal that the party opposite talk about the connection between
Ontario and Quebec, about the close economic ties that will
always exist between us.
The question is: how will we plan our future together? We see
it as part of a federal system. You are considering keeping the
Canadian dollar as legal currency. I ask you: what is the point of
continuing to use the Canadian currency in an independent
Quebec? If that is what you want, so be it. At present, in this
House, you have a Prime Minister from Quebec and the Minister
of Finance, also from Quebec, ensuring that you have some
control over this currency. If tomorrow, from an Ontario point of
view, you will have an independent Quebec, why are you
planning to keep the Canadian currency? It may be a good idea,
but then, it must made quite clear to the people of Quebec that
the rest of Canada will insist on controlling its own currency,
while Quebec, if an arrangement is negotiated, will hold only 25
per cent of the voting power under a possible arrangement on a
common currency.
Today, you have some control over this currency. Tomorrow,
you will only have an interest, with the rest of Canada, with the
others, and yours will be a minority interest. So, when you say
that what you do in Quebec will be determined democratically,
bear in mind that whatever you do affects the rights and interests
of other Canadians who, like me as an Ontarian, have respect for
Quebecers and have this to say to them: ``Yes to democracy. Yes,
Quebecers have the right to decide their future democratically,
as long as this is done with full knowledge of what is at stake''.
Let us not lose sight of the facts amid this pile of hypotheses,
hypotheses that are not at all correct and that you have selected.
If you are really democratic, include us in the process, so that
the people of Quebec can see, so that they have a chance to see
whether these hypotheses are realistic or not. That is the
problem with your process. That is why your process is not
democratic.
I will conclude with a word on an entirely different matter,
which nontheless is related to the democratic process. In
Ontario, we have a strong French-speaking minority which has
been campaigning for many years for its survival. Bear in mind
also, in your democracy, when you make your choices, what will
become of the French language in Ontario.
Mr. Brien: Madam Speaker, I will respond to some of the
points raised by the hon. member, whom I wish to thank because
he seems to be interested in participating in the consultations
and to have a constructive point of view. I urge him to
participate in the consultations. He should put pressure on the
members of his party and express his fears about the currency so
that we can arrive at an even wiser decision.
It would be interesting if he got involved in a great democratic
process instead of boycotting it. Just a short word on the
French-speaking minority in Ontario. I hope that, as an Ontario
8805
resident, he will continue to press his provincial government to
treat its francophone minority the same way we will treat the
anglophone minority in Quebec.
However, he said something that was inaccurate. Although
the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are from
Quebec, they do not control monetary policy, as we have seen in
the past. Remember when Toronto faced inflation and an
overheated economy? What happened? They implemented an
inflation-fighting policy that hurt all of Canada.
Very briefly, if he believes that we will have no more
influence on monetary policy, let me tell him that whether we
print our own currency or use another one, selling off all our
Canadian dollars on the market would cause a major decline in
the value of the Canadian dollar.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Sorry, but the hon.
member's time is up.
[English]
Mr. John English (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise
today to speak in the debate on the opposition motion and
indicate why I cannot support the motion.
I cannot do so because I believe that together we are a great
nation, a strong, vibrant and wealthy nation that is inclusive, a
nation and a society that knows how to accommodate French and
English, native peoples and cultures from the four corners of the
world.
(1205 )
Quebec within Canada has accomplished an extraordinary
amount. To quote Mr. Parizeau:
[Translation]
``-what our people has accomplished in 30 years is
remarkable.''
[English]
To go further into the speech he gave on December 6, he
talked as the minister did earlier about the accomplishments of
Quebec, a society which lacked a ministry of education that now
has a technology so advanced that it exports the majority of it, a
society which did not have a business culture, which:
[Translation]
``-has produced internationally renowned industrial and
financial giants. A society which was said to be without a history
and without a literature now has its own films, singers, dancers,
writers who travel the world.''
[English]
It is an extraordinary accomplishment. In his speech of
December 6 Mr. Parizeau said that the preamble to the
declaration would be a declaration:
[Translation]
``-like the American Declaration of Independence of which we
still hear echoes more than 200 years after it was written.''
[English]
Exactly. I had a chance to look at the Declaration of
Independence of the United States following Mr. Parizeau's
comments. I read from that declaration:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the
political bonds which have connected them one with another, and to assume among the
Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of
Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they
should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
What are the causes? The Declaration of Independence goes
on:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not
be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath
shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than
to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
The Declaration of Independence has the advantage of listing
the causes for separation and for breaking the bonds, indicating
why there was respect for the opinions of mankind. The causes
are listed:
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated
injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of
absolute Tyranny over these States.
Canada has not been tyrannous and with due respect to the
official opposition it has not said it is. The Declaration of
Independence declared that the facts should be submitted to a
candid world and we ask for these facts. What were their facts?
The King of Britain, and I quote:
-has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and
necessary for the public good.
In Canada despite the power of the federal government to
have disallowance of legislation of the provincial legislatures, it
has not been used in the case of Quebec in recent times. Indeed it
has not been used over the last half century.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing
importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be
obtained-He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with
manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
No legislature in Canada has been dissolved.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable,
and distant from the depository of their Public Records for the sole purpose of
fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
There may be a point there. I think you will agree, Madam
Speaker, that whatever the complications and burdens that
8806
members suffer, it is not so unusual and uncomfortable that it
represents a great burden. It goes on:
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies with the Consent of our legislature.
We have heard recently from the official opposition that
rather than complaining about standing armies within the
province of Quebec, we hear the request that existing
institutions which represent the Canadian military be sustained
in that province. It goes on:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
We heard earlier today the official opposition speak about the
importance of the free trade agreement with the United States,
indeed taking some credit as a province, not as a party
obviously, for having that particular agreement sustained in the
Parliament of Canada. Far from cutting off trade, we have
increased the possibility for Quebec, not only through the free
trade agreement, but also through the WTO, recently approved.
It goes on:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
That has not been done.
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
Or:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and
altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
Canada is not tyranny. Separation would be weakness. If we
would be weak and not just as a country, the weakened soul as a
society, separation would enfeeble all of us.
(1210)
Out of alliances come strength. Out of separation comes
disintegration. Out of inclusiveness comes tolerance. The
success of our history to date is proof that it is not necessary to
break up a country to satisfy our mutual aspirations.
Since this is our national Parliament, I assume that all of us
here have the best interests of the country at heart. I sometimes
forget that the agenda of the official opposition is not in the best
interests of the whole country but rather the separation, the
dissolution of the country.
Where else in the world would a country and a political
system be sufficiently flexible to tolerate an official opposition
whose only goal is the breakup of the country? That is not
tyranny.
Only in Canada, you say? Absolutely, and that is true. The
presence of the official opposition of the Bloc Quebecois in
Parliament speaks louder than any words. It is a living
expression of Canada's deeply rooted and unshakeable
commitment to democracy. Our political system respects the
wishes of Quebecers and demonstrates that our system can
accommodate the expression of the views represented by the
official opposition which we hear daily in this assembly. If the
opposition truly had the interest of the constituents at heart it
would use its presence in Parliament to take every opportunity
to strengthen not to diminish the gains acquired over the
generations.
Approached constructively this Parliament could be used to
further the interests of Quebec. Instead of taking this
opportunity to secure Quebec's place in Canada, the official
opposition too often undermines Quebec's strong place in
Canada as a full partner in the country.
As the official opposition the Bloc has a responsibility to
assist in the governance of the country. Its obligation not just to
Quebec but to the rest of the country is to work constructively to
build a greater and even stronger nation.
As the opposition the Bloc has a legitimate role to play in
ensuring that the government does not overlook the interests of
anyone. It could keep a watchful eye on the interests of Quebec
and at the same time help build something larger. It could ensure
that as the country goes from strength to strength, Quebec is
along enjoying the benefits too.
We heard earlier today comments about the status quo but
surely in Canada, in Quebec, everywhere in the world there can
be no status quo today, as the member for Rosedale indicated a
few moments ago.
Status quo is to stop growing. To stop growing is to stagnate.
There can be no status quo in the modern world. Since its
inception Canada has been a nation that has changed. We are
changing today. We are changing in the life of this Parliament.
For example an historic breakthrough occurred when the first
ministers of this country agreed on a process to begin the
elimination of internal trade barriers, an agreement that was of
great importance and will be built upon and is supported I
believe by members opposite.
We did not need, it must be said, a constitutional amendment
to do this. When common sense and our own self interest told us
that it no longer made any sense whatever to be part of the
largest free trade bloc in the world and still maintain internal
barriers which are an obstacle to prosperity, we found a way out.
In the same spirit we will find a solution to other problems. For
example the two territories and eight of the provinces have
signed action plans with the federal government to reduce
overlap and duplication in a host of areas.
Yesterday the minister of Indian affairs signed a milestone
agreement with the native peoples of Manitoba opening the way
to full self-government. This is the product of negotiations and
a willingness to come to an agreement. It was not necessary to
8807
rewrite the Constitution and this is not preservation of the status
quo.
What we are offering Quebecers and Canadians is not the
status quo. We are offering a country in evolution that is gearing
itself to prosper in the next century. In that next century we
expect and we hope that Canada with Quebec will play an even
more prominent role. It is obvious to everyone that current
political, economic and technological developments around the
world are leading to an era of globalism where individual nation
states play a lesser role. The previous speaker for the Bloc paid
attention to that very concern.
Countries which are not integrally tied into a larger alliance
are going to be bypassed. This is not the time to set up borders. It
is the time to bring down borders.
(1215)
The Europeans, for example, have come to realize that the
nationalist balkanization of the continent will not be sustainable
in the future. They are moving inexorably toward the creation of
a European federation. They have a long way to go but the
development of the federation is now in sight. Last evening I
heard a Frenchman and a German speaking to each other, talking
about the common cause co-operation which they have built. I
thought to myself, what an extraordinary accomplishment this
is, for two nations that have literally killed millions of each
other's citizens in the twentieth century, within living memory
of many French and Germans. But they have accomplished a lot
and that is what they emphasized to each other.
They still have a long way to go but the development of the
federation will take place and is taking place. Canada, we must
remind ourselves, is light years ahead of the Europeans on this
count; it is one of the oldest and most successful federations in
the world.
In conclusion, the adventure we have had together in building
the country is the best guarantee we have that once again,
together, we can continue to build a country for ourselves and
for our children that is envied in all the world.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
listened with great interest to the hon. member's speech. I must
tell him that, contrary to what he said, the Official Opposition is
playing its role of watchdog regarding the government's
activities and the legislation tabled in this House.
So far, that is for a year now, the Bloc Quebecois has done all
that was necessary to provide the government with the necessary
tools to stimulate employment, but the government did nothing.
I think that we do play our role very effectively.
Also, after 35 years of constitutional failures, do you not
believe that the time has come for Quebec to get the powers it
needs to control its destiny? This is what Mr. Parizeau is inviting
us to do with his bill. He is inviting all Quebecers, including
people in my riding of Chicoutimi and in my region of
Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, young and old, regardless of their
political affiliation, to participate in this debate, which is as
important for the rest of Canada as it is for Quebec.
I must recognize that the hon. member was the only one this
morning, from the government side, who did not question the
legality of the proposed draft bill, and he deserves credit for
that.
The member referred to the federation of European countries.
I should point out that these countries are also sovereign
nations. Quebec simply wants to have the powers it needs to
become the country Quebecers want.
I have a question for the hon. member. Some Liberal MPs
from Quebec said that the federal government should abstain
from holding its own referendum in Quebec.
The hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine
told us that, in his opinion, this was a Quebec referendum and
that it was up to Quebecers to decide their constitutional future
within the federation.
Does the hon. member agree with these two views?
(1220)
[English]
Mr. English: Madam Speaker, several points and several
questions have been raised. I will try to respond briefly to them.
In talking about the role of the official opposition, I did not
comment precisely on what was being done in this Parliament. I
was encouraging the members to work together with all parties
to strengthen the Canadian nation. There are many opportunities
to do so; in committees, in Parliament and in the legislation that
is brought forward. By working together we could face the many
challenges we all admit this country is facing. The role the hon.
member suggested of monitoring or supervising the process that
occurs here I think is a limitation on the possibility of what a
parliamentarian can do.
The hon. member and his colleagues would do well to
consider the greater possibilities that reside in this Chamber,
possibilities that can lead to a strengthening of the interests of
all Canadians and Quebecers as well.
The constitutional failures of the last 30 years were discussed
by the hon. member and he asked were these not sufficient proof
of the need to consider separation. In Mr. Parizeau's declaration
of December 6 he opened with comments about what had been
achieved apart from the Constitution.
8808
I would like to talk about what Quebec and Canada have
achieved apart from the Constitution but in terms of what
Quebec has achieved according to Mr. Parizeau. He said:
[Translation]
``Together, we have made the past 30 years a unique period in
our history.''
[English]
This is extremely important in the view of the premier of
Quebec. In the 1960s a vigorous cultural life was built in the
province and a modern state was built. In the 1970s the
democratization of education of the society occurred. In the
1980s:
[Translation]
``-in spite of a severe recession, we attained economic
power-''
[English]
He goes on to talk about the widening of Quebec's presence
within the world.
Rather than focus on the limitations and the failures,
following on the words of the prime minister of Quebec, one
could look at the accomplishments of our country which are
truly magnificent. They look to the future. They look to the
importance of co-operation and they also point to the necessity
of keeping the country together.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I recognize the hon.
member for Terrebonne. You have about two minutes left to
make some comments and ask a question.
Mr. Sauvageau: Madam Speaker, how much time do I have
left?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Two minutes.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Madam Speaker,
I am very pleased to have a few moments to elaborate on the
comments made by my colleague from the government party.
I also want to thank my party for letting me speak on what I
see as a fundamental issue and I want to remind my colleagues
that this issue is the one and only reason all of us, in the Bloc
Quebecois, have entered public life.
So, today's debate is extremely significant, even though the
time at our disposal is limited. In the little time I have, I want to
invite the people in my riding of Terrebonne, the people in the
Lanaudière region, to take part in the consultation process.
Contrary to what we were told earlier, the people in favour of our
project are invited to participate in order to examine in depth our
position and to show their support. Those who are against are
also invited.
Finally, I want to ask my colleague a question related to what
his leader said in 1990, during a brunch where 800 Liberals were
gathered. His leader said that the Liberal Party of Canada would
propose a new social contract and a major constitutional reform.
He made that statement on October 28, 1990. Where do things
stand now?
(1225)
[English]
Mr. English: Madam Speaker, the situation that exists in
Canada is not one where we are satisfied with the status quo. We
are changing the country. We have social security reform. We
have a major budget coming forward. We have programs in the
area of foreign affairs. We have programs in many areas that will
affect very much the way the country is organized and the way it
functions.
We are not committed to a federalism that is static. We have a
flexible federalism. That is the kind of country we intend to
work with.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Madam Speaker, it
is with great pleasure and pride that I rise today to speak on the
motion presented by my colleague for Laurier-Sainte-Marie:
That this House enjoin the government to recognize the
legitimacy of the democratic process initiated by the
Government of Quebec in order to allow Quebecers to chart
their own political and constitutional future.
On September 12, 1994, in Quebec we finally did elect a
separatist government which clearly puts its option on the table
and asks all Quebecers to take part in a huge democratic
operation. This is totally new! It is a clear, simple and open
process where nothing is hidden. Liberals from the provincial
and the federal levels have claimed that they will not take part in
this process, which they consider illegitimate.
The Prime Minister and his friends protest and try to
minimize this process initiated by the Quebec government and
its impact. Federalists try to ridicule and trivialize the process.
This is too bad, since they thus demonstrate a lack of respect for
the duly elected Quebec government.
Their reaction appears normal to us and was rather
predictable. For once, they are not the ones to set the agenda and
the final result of this vast democratic operation will not be a
new kind of federalism but rather sovereignty for Quebec, the
creation of a new country.
I really wonder what federalists expected of a sovereignist
government. Did they think that the Parti Quebecois would ask
Quebecers if they would like to have renewed federalism or, as
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs recently put it,
flexible federalism? Come on! Be serious and show some
respect for the Quebec government! I am sure that once you will
be over the shock, you will want to sit down with us and express
your point
8809
of view. Mr. Parizeau has extended an invitation to you and it
would be in your interest to accept it. Besides, I see today that,
thanks to our motion, you have already entered the debate and
this is a good sign.
I would like now to touch on a sector that Quebec's
sovereignty will help simplify and make more efficient and
effective, that is, job training. For years there has been a
consensus in Quebec that job training has to be under exclusive
provincial jurisdiction. Employers, unions, workers as well as
social and economic groups all agree: Quebec must have all
powers for manpower training. Everybody agrees that federal
programs and budgets must be repatriated in order to develop a
consistent and intelligent manpower training policy.
For years the federal government has turned a deaf ear to
Quebec's request in this respect. It systematically refuses to
give Quebec what it is asking for. It hides behind national
objectives and its responsibility for unemployment insurance to
intervene in an area under provincial jurisdiction.
This intrusion by the federal government has created two
manpower networks in Quebec. A vast number of federal
programs overlap and duplicate provincial programs. According
to André Bourbeau, a former Quebec minister, this situation
wastes some $275 million a year of taxpayers' money in Quebec
alone.
In 1991, in a policy statement on manpower development, this
former Quebec Minister of Manpower, a Liberal and a
federalist, said: ``For many years Quebec has claimed control
over policy instruments that influence the job market. This
means that the Government of Quebec and its economic partners
are demanding that laws, budgets, institutions, programs and
services related to manpower and to the job market be under one
authority. Quebecers with an interest in the job market
recognize almost unanimously that manpower policies must be
developed by those who are closest to the various areas of the
job market.'' What has the federal government done to respond
to these rational demands from Quebec? Nothing! It has rejected
them out of hand.
(1230)
Meanwhile, Quebec's workers and employers are suffering as
a result of this situation. Indeed, the double system is
cumbersome, slow and complex. Workers and employers do not
need that. They need the exact opposite. They need training that
is effective, fast and convenient.
An employer or a new company looking for workers cannot
afford to wait around for years until these people are trained. As
soon as companies announce their requirements, the training
system must be able to provide a quick response. This kind of
efficient and quick response is particularly important,
considering the new technologies being used. And the same
applies to workers. They must be given the means to acquire
training without being penalized.
Recently, I was given an example of this lack of flexibility in
the training system by one of my constituents. This person
wanted to take an 18-month course in office automation. The
Canada Employment Centre told her she could not do that
because the federal government had only approved 12-month
courses. Many workers who want to get off unemployment or
welfare are faced with this kind of situation which makes no
sense at all.
In Quebec, we want to make the system more flexible, and we
want to make it smarter. Today, we cannot do that. The federal
presence prevents us from making these crucial improvements
in the system. Today, the federal presence is paralysing the
entire system. In 1993, Canada ranked twenty-second and last,
and I repeat, twenty-second and last among developed countries
because of its very poor level of in-house training. This figure is
not often mentioned by these people across the way. It is a little
embarrassing, I suppose.
Let us consider briefly why people no longer know where to
turn. The federal government is interfering in this area with 27
programs in addition to Quebec's 25. The federal government
interferes by maintaining 100 Canada Employment Centres,
although Quebec has put in place la Société québécoise de
développement de la main-d'oeuvre. The mandate of the SQDM
was originally to establish genuine one-stop counters in all
regions in Quebec.
I am referring to genuine one-stop counters for Quebec, not a
façade like we saw in the Canada-Saskatchewan agreement
which, in fact, subordinates the province's jurisdiction to the
federal authority. In other words, the kind of one-stop counter
that even Daniel Johnson, Quebec's Liberal leader, criticized
and rejected.
Today, the SQDM acts more like a manager of federal
funding, without any real say over how it is spent. The lack of
co-ordination between the two networks means that the
unemployed are not getting the kind of service they need. In an
internal memo, the federal government revealed that, in the
spring of 1993, close to 25,000 unemployed workers, although
they had been referred to a training program, could not be
accommodated.
Quebec sovereignty will make it possible to clean up the sorry
mess the federal government put us in. The federal lack of
willingness to give Quebec what we have been demanding for
years in this respect, worse yet, its increasing encroachment on
8810
our turf is the last straw which will make people vote yes, very
soon.
Then, we will be able to put in place the system we have been
yearning for for so long, an intelligent system which will
efficiently meet the needs of the labour market. Bye bye, dirty
old federal machine which has not had an oil change in years.
(1235)
To conclude, I invite all the people in Laurentides, in my area,
my riding, to participate in the regional committees which will
hold hearings in February. For the first time, Quebecers will
have the chance to say clearly and freely what kind of society
they want and whether or not they want a sovereign Quebec.
Individuals and groups of all allegiance, join us to have a
democratic look at the sovereignist option. Express your point
of view, voice your fears, suggest improvements; the
committees which will crisscross Quebec will welcome you and
want to hear from you.
At the end of the day, Quebecers will decide if they want their
own country, a country which will reflect their aspirations, a
country in which they will be fulfilled.
The process the Government of Quebec is offering us is
unique. It is democratic, it will make it possible for each and
everyone to be heard.
I will never stop fighting to establish the country of Quebec. I
will do so with strength and vigour, because my most fervent
wish is to hand down to my children a country called Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to make a couple of comments on the member's
dissertation.
I am very concerned about my fellow Canadians in Quebec. I
am concerned when I look at their financial situation in Canada
today. The government of that province does not seem to want to
address the real problems facing the people of Quebec. I look at
a province that has the highest per capita deficit on a provincial
basis of all the provinces in Canada: $9,400 for every man,
woman and child in the province of Quebec, a debt which is 40
per cent financed not only outside the borders of Quebec but
outside the borders of Canada.
These people in the international trading environment are
looking very closely at Quebec, at the debate that is going on
here today. As the province of Quebec goes out to refinance its
debt on the international marketplace it is going to find fewer
and fewer people interested in investing in that province. I am
very concerned that the average person in the province of
Quebec is going to start watching their lifestyle and their
standard of living decline.
I note also that the last election in the province of Quebec was
basically on the matter of bring us good government. I am
concerned with the premier of that province who was a finance
minister during a period in time of Quebec's history that drove
up the deficit higher than any other administration: 285 per cent
during his administration of that system.
I simply want to ask: What is going on here, what is
happening? The day after separation no new day, there will be no
change. The reality is that we are talking about transferring
powers from Ottawa to Quebec City. I do not know how that
helps people in Chicoutimi.
The reality is that people want control of their own destinies.
Our government has been spending a lot of time discussing
social policy review and other areas that affect federal
legislation and it is going to the people, it is talking to the people
in the streets on how they want to control those aspects of their
lives. Creating new embassies all around the world is a
duplication of expenditure and a cost to the people of Quebec.
My colleague often talks about Canada as a hypothetical
country. To me the state of Quebec is an illusion. People will not
be any better off; they will be worse off.
We have some common things, the people of Quebec and the
people of the rest of Canada, common things that unite us. One
of the major ones is our proximity to the United States and the
economic power that country wields on this side of North
America.
(1240 )
I think it has always been in our best interest, as a united
country and as a united people, to be part of a culture which is
both French and English.
I would like to ask my colleague how she thinks things are
going to be so magically different.
[Translation]
Mrs. Guay: Madam Speaker, the scare campaigns do not
scare Quebecers any more. We have been subjected to them for
over 30 years, but they do not work anymore. Quebec has all the
tools necessary to take charge of its affairs. For years it has
asked for the powers needed to assume responsibility and
develop.
At the present time, business is expanding as never before and
faster than in any other province. Quebec is very active on the
various markets. When it takes on all the powers of an
independent country, I am sure it will develop very fast on all
markets: the Quebec market, the Canadian market, the
international market, as well as the American market. I am not
worried about that.
Once we take back our powers, the $275 million wasted
annually on manpower training, as I mentioned, will be invested
in training for us, training for our people, for the development of
8811
Quebec. I do not fear any kind of collapse the day after the
referendum is won, nothing like that will happen. On the
contrary, a new country will be born and we will move ahead
economically.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ):
Madam Speaker, as you may have guessed, I proudly welcome
this opportunity to take part in today's debate and to join my
colleagues in deploring the fact that federal members who
represent Quebec here in Ottawa have refused to take part in
what is probably the most legitimate democratic process ever
initiated by the National Assembly.
Quebec is a democracy. Quebec has one of the oldest
parliament in the world, and the entire history of Quebec's
nationalism is entwined with the history of democracy. Earlier, I
was appalled to hear the hon. member for Hull, who is
responsible for the federal government's referendum strategy,
trying to discredit the initiative tabled by Mr. Parizeau's
government a few days ago.
One thing is clear. History tells us that very few nations have
had a chance to write their own constitution. Consider George
Washington, Jefferson, Madison and all the great thinkers who
helped to draft constitutional texts, and who did so because they
were members of the elite. They did it because they were
members of the educated class.
What we are saying is that in our quest for sovereignty, we
want to have the broadest possible democratic base. This is an
opportunity for all Quebecers, regardless of their social class,
political allegiance or personal wealth, to come forward and say
what kind of constitution they want and what kind of society
they want to live in. Because that is what a constitution is all
about. A constitution says what we are and what we want to be.
By giving all Quebecers a chance to take part in this
democratic process, the Premier is saying to the National
Assembly, to Ottawa and to the world: We see sovereignty as
part of a quest for democracy. We cannot plan our future, we
cannot make this wonderful plan for sovereignty a fact without
the participation of all Quebecers.
As many journalists and opinion-makers have pointed out,
the situation we have today is different from the situation in
1980. There is no federalist leader with any credibility, and we
can hardly expect the present Prime Minister to be able to
inspire the federal troops.
(1245)
In a democracy, the best way to fight against something is to
propose something better. There is no other way. Therefore, the
best way to oppose sovereignty in 1994 is to show that
federalism can be attractive. If the Quebec federalists, whether
the hon. member for Saint-Léonard, the hon. member for
Saint-Henri-Westmount or any other member from Quebec,
believe in their option, they will come forward and address the
16 regional commissions in order to tell us why, in 1994,
Quebecers should stick to federalism. They will be welcome to
defend their option. But the truth is that federalism does not get
anyone carried away.
When the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, with his big
ego, suggests that we talk about flexible federalism, we all know
that flexible federalism depends on the deficit. But right now,
that deficit is so high that the Minister of Finance cannot even
watch himself spend. That is the situation. That is why
federalists cannot come and sit at a table in good faith and
propose a plan for renewed federalism.
We spoke earlier about the economic accomplishments of
Quebec, but what makes it special also stems from its deep
respect for every component of democracy. I want to draw your
attention to the fact that the draft bill tabled before us says
something crucial, something all members representing English
Canada should keep in mind. Section 3 of this draft bill says that
we will draft a constitution which will include a charter of
human rights and that-and I will quote section 3-``The
constitution shall include a charter of human rights and
freedoms. It shall guarantee the English-speaking community
that its identity and institutions will be preserved. It shall also
recognize the right of Aboriginal nations to self-government on
lands over which they have full ownership.''
The scope of a section such as this is not well understood. We
are saying to the English-speaking people, at the beginning of
this debate: Your community is essential to our future. It is with
the 900,000 anglophones in Quebec today that we want to think
about the future, and we are telling them: In our sovereignist
project, we will give you all the place that is rightfully yours.
This is not new because you will recall that, as early as 1967,
René Lévesque distanced himself from a segment of the
nationalist movement that did not want to recognize the right of
the English-speaking community to public schools funded by
the government.
We are saying, at the beginning of this debate, to the
English-speaking community as well as the aboriginal people,
who are our two most important minorities: Not only will you
have a place in a sovereign Quebec, not only will we recognize
all the rights that are yours today, but we also want you to take
part in this democratic process that is taking place.
In this regard, I think that Quebec is probably a better
example of democracy than Ottawa. As for the eleven
Aboriginal nations who live on the territory of Quebec and form
a community of almost 55,000 people, let us not forget that René
Lévesque, that great democrat-and I must say that very few
members opposite have the courage to quote from the
Referendum Act, a tool he left us to consult people-and his
government, back in 1985, allowed the eleven Aboriginal
nations to be
8812
recognized all together for what they were. We want these rights
to be entrenched in the next constitution of Quebec.
Remember that Quebec has experienced that constitution.
There is a misunderstanding about the revolutionary nature of
what is happening. We are about to recognize the right of our
two major minorities to participate in the development of the
constitution, while throughout our history, we were forced, as
Quebecers, to accept a constitution about which we had never
been consulted. It is absolutely outrageous to hear Quebecers
and Canadians being told that the process is rather undemocratic
because the people will be consulted.
(1250)
From the Treaty of Paris to the Union Act and up until 1867,
Quebecers were never consulted. We want to make up for that,
we want as much people as possible to participate in the
movement towards democracy that is getting under way. We
repeat today, as Premier Parizeau said, that in the next
constitution, we are going to recognize the right to
self-government of Aboriginal nations, who were in fact the
first people to occupy this territory. Such recognition shall be
exercised in a manner consistent with the territorial integrity of
Quebec. We say to aboriginal peoples that they will have the
right-and this right will be entrenched if they so wish-to their
traditions, their cultures, their lands and their language. We say
to the English-speaking community that we want them to have a
public school system, from preschool to university, which is
giving them full participation in Quebec life.
In conclusion, I want to say that if federalists still have
beliefs, if federalists still believe in intellectual integrity, their
place is before the 16 regional commissions which will travel
throughout Quebec, because if their option is good enough to
convince Quebecers, as they argue, they have to put themselves
through this consultation test. It is not by refusing to take part in
a democratic process that these people will be able to revitalize
an option that is stalling but still has the right to exist.
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska-Victoria,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to make a few comments
and then ask the hon. member some questions.
First, I would like to make a correction. When my hon.
colleague refers to English Canada, he refers at the same time to
the protection of minorities in Quebec. I am a francophone
member of Parliament and a Canadian and I come from New
Brunswick which is not part of English Canada or French
Canada, but of Canada.
The hon. members across the floor emphasize the importance
of being honest and open and say it is all a matter of choice, but I
could show you here that the first page of the draft bill is
entitled: An Act respecting the sovereignty of Quebec. They do
not even have the courage of their convictions. Once again, they
talk about sovereignty when in fact, the objective is the
separation of Quebec. We are asked to get involved in what is
proposed on the first page of the draft bill.
Allow me to turn to the second page. This draft bill sets out
the political objective. As a member from the Bloc pointed out a
moment ago: Come on, we have elected a PQ government in
Quebec. I hope you were not expecting us to offer a clear choice
between federalism or separation to the people of Quebec. This
is what she said and it is obviously what they have in mind here.
They say that this bill suggests that Quebec will become a
sovereign country democratically. How can they talk about
democracy when they have already made up their minds about
all the issues to be debated, how they are going to proceed, how
to use the currency, share the assets and divide the debt? This is
not a clear choice. They are not showing the people of Quebec
what the real situation is now and what it could be tomorrow. We
are invited, in my case as a so-called member for English
Canada, a federalist-
Mr. Lebel: Not you.
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais: Are you not inviting me?
Mr. Guimond: No.
Mr. Lebel: No, you are not invited.
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais: You are not inviting me.
Therefore, you do not want Quebecers to know exactly what
they are getting into. Thank you very much for not inviting me to
participate.
Mr. Guimond: You have nothing to do with that!
(1255)
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais: You are going to have to decide at
some point. You will have to!
I wish to stress that the document I read, the document before
me, calls for the participation of the people, presumably only
those of the same political stripe, since I was just told that I do
not have the right to take part because I am a federalist. Yet, Mr.
Parizeau says I do have the right.
An hon. member: You do not know how to read!
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais: Madam Speaker, it is obvious-
An hon. member: She does not know how to read!
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais: -that this document is
undemocratic and does not lead to a debate on the options. It is
indeed a dictatorship in disguise.
As I mentioned earlier, when Quebecers stood up, they
rejected the Duplessis regime, they said no to dictatorship. I am
convinced that Quebecers will make a sound decision when
asked a clear-cut question, not one like this, which is only
propaganda.
8813
I wish to tell the members of the Bloc that, even if they do
not want me in Quebec, Madam Speaker, my roots are in
Quebec, Quebec is part of Canada, and I will go there whenever
I please. Therefore, I think we should stop here because the
members of the Bloc are just showing their fellow citizens that
they no longer want anyone else. They want to remain isolated.
Something I regret.
An hon. member: I have a question, Madam Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry, but time is
up and I really cannot extend it.
Mr. Ménard: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It was up
to you to monitor the member's speaking time. You know very
well that the process we are in-
An hon. member: Enough of that!
Mr. Ménard: I am not talking to you, I am talking to the
Chair. It was up to you to monitor the speaking time-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Order, please! I am
giving the hon. member 30 seconds.
Mr. Gagliano: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The
10-minute period is for questions and comments. The hon.
member chose to comment, therefore there was no question. You
cannot change the rules every time a member complains.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The hon. government
member is absolutely right. The time has expired.
Mr. Duceppe: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You
recognized the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. You
do not have to take orders from a government member. I think
that the-
Mr. Ménard: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I respect
your decision not to continue debate. As you are independent, I
hope you are not going to let your decision be influenced by the
hon. member for Saint-Léonard, who would have been better
advised-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Resuming debate. The
hon. Secretary of State has the floor.
Mr. Gagliano: Madam Speaker, I rise in this debate to speak
against the motion introduced by the hon. member for
Laurier-Sainte-Marie.
Mr. Ménard: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to
be heard.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I was under the
impression that you had understood that there was no time left.
Following comments from both sides of the House I came to a
decision. My decision is clear. The Secretary of State has the
floor. The issue is closed. The Secretary of State has the floor.
Mr. Ménard: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
(1300)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): One moment, please.
Order! I will not accept threats from anyone.
Resuming debate, the Secretary of State.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, as I was saying, I rise to
speak against the motion of the member for
Laurier-Sainte-Marie. The Bloc Quebecois members are
trying to use the same tactics as their colleagues from the Parti
Quebecois; it is quite normal, both parties are separatist.
Both are trying to make Quebecers believe that the process
they are putting forward is clever. Being clever and sly has
nothing to do with democracy. Democracy does not resort to
clever tricks. When I read the motion by the Bloc Quebecois, I
was reminded of Mr. Parizeau's own comments boasting that he
had found a clever way to convince Quebecers of the validity of
the separatist ideology.
In turn, the Bloc members are resorting to Mr. Parizeau's
clever trick. They are trying to make us believe that the process
he started is democratic. When I read the motion, I came to the
conclusion that this House cannot, in a million years, endorse
such a trick. This House must not support a process which does
not lead to the real question. This House must not support a
motion which is trying to hijack Quebec's established and
legitimate consultation process. This House, this bastion of
democracy, must defeat the motion by the Bloc Quebecois.
It is also obvious that the process advocated by the Parti
Quebecois and its mirror image, the Bloc Quebecois, was
conceived to deliberately disguise the real debate, to lead
Quebecers away from the real question, from the debate on the
question the Parti Quebecois itself put forward on many
occasions. This question, the real one, the one the Parti
Quebecois had committed itself to put to a vote, was to clearly
ask Quebecers whether or not they wanted to separate from
Canada.
However, the Parti Quebecois, and by default, the Bloc
Quebecois, preferred to skip this step. According to Mr.
Parizeau, the people of Quebec should not be asked if they want
to separate from Canada. They must not be asked to vote on a
clear and simple question as part of the process set in motion
under the referendum act. No, that would be too democratic and
not shrewd enough.
Mr. Parizeau decided instead to force the people of Quebec to
take part in a process, the outcome of which is already known,
one that offers only one option and they are required to make a
profession of faith for separation in order to take part in this
process. Let us not delude ourselves. Parizeau has no intention
of letting Quebecers who do not think like him influence his
8814
process and its outcome. He has clearly stated that it would be
difficult to change his mind about certain aspects of his draft
bill. How are we to believe that the process will be democratic
then?
(1305)
How could a federalist who does not share the separatist ideal
feel free to express her concerns to a commission mandated to
consider the basis of a sovereign Quebec, separated from
Canada? She will not even be given the opportunity to question
separation or discuss the issue. She is invited to share with Mr.
Parizeau her views on the choice of a currency, her citizenship,
and the future of Quebec apart from Canada.
Where will federalist Quebecers find a forum where they can
exercise their right to speak and put across their fundamental
opposition to separation? They will quite simply have no forum,
because the Parti Quebecois just does not want to hear what they
have to say.
As we say in French, the PQ has no use for anyone who does
not share its opinion. The Parti Quebecois has already decided
the future of Quebecers. The PQ and Bloc members are the only
ones who know what is good for the people of Quebec. They
have charted their future without even consulting them.
In the interest of the people of Quebec, the Parti Quebecois
will take Quebec out of Canada. Too bad for Quebecers who
believe in federalism and object to separation. Too bad for you,
if you wanted to express your concerns and fears about, or
rejection of the separatist option. Just do not be afraid.
The Parti Quebecois is telling these people that there is
nothing to be afraid of, since it has all been decided: economic
association, currency, legislation and so on. All they have to do
is vote on a bill that has already been passed by the Pequiste
majority. They do not even have to worry about the desirability
of separation because, as far as they are concerned, it is a done
deal.
The Parti Quebecois says that it is the only option, that there is
nothing else. Such is the democratic process PQ style.
Everything has already been decided in advance. It is as though
your neighbour Gilles woke you up on Saturday morning to tell
you: ``You are moving. The decision has already been made. You
have no choice. If you want, however, we can discuss the size of
the moving van you will need''.
No one could describe this as an open approach allowing all
viewpoints to be heard. You could not even object to your
moving; it would be a done deal.
Like your neighbour Gilles, the opposition member is asking
us to say: ``No problem. Even though I have always been against
moving, it does not matter. I will move. Let us now discuss the
size of the van''.
Such is the democratic logic of the motion they are asking us
to adopt. Not only is the process rigged but there is an additional
obstacle. Federalists are not allowed equal representation on the
commissions advocated by PQ members. They are not given
access to the same resources and do not have as much time to
speak as the separatists. The process advocated by the PQ goes
against the very spirit of the Referendum Act.
René Lévesque, who was a proud believer in fairness and
parity, would be ashamed. Those who define themselves as his
heirs are now subverting the basic principles underlying
Quebec's tradition of consulting its people. How can they ask us
today to ratify a process that flies in the face of democratic
principles?
The PQ process is forcing people to conclude that separation
is inevitable, that Quebecers no longer have a choice. I am
denouncing this bluff by the Quebec government, just as I reject
the motion tabled by the Bloc Quebecois.
Nowhere is it said or written that Quebecers must separate
from Canada, and that to fully realize their future, they must
create a new country. Quebecers already have a country, a
country that they built, that belongs to them, that reflects their
culture, their language, their achievements, a country where
they are free to grow without constraints. This country is
Canada.
(1310)
Quebecers were directly involved in building and developing
this country. They did more than preside over its birth. They are
responsible for it and contribute to its growth. They are essential
members of this country.
The opposition's motion asks us to presume that Quebecers
want to break their ties with their country, to reject a country
that they built and which belongs to them, without asking them
whether or not they want to take that road.
In all conscience, I cannot support this motion. I cannot vote
for a motion which is contrary to the spirit of a citizen's most
basic right in this country, namely the right to free expression of
his opinion.
I call on all members of this House to vote against this motion,
to vote no to the trickery which subverts the democratic process,
to vote no to the ruse which hides the real debate. That is why we
must defeat this motion, out of respect for democracy.
The proof of all that I just said is in the press release from the
Premier of Quebec when he tabled his draft bill. I would like to
quote the third paragraph of this press release from the Premier
who tabled a draft bill on Quebec sovereignty this week. Here is
what it says, in the third paragraph: ``A vast process of
information and participation will get under way to give all
Quebecers an opportunity to take part directly in the discussion
which is beginning. The people can comment on the plan,
discuss it and propose improvements-'' Madam Speaker, it
says ``propose improvements'', not propose changes, only
improve it.
8815
Again I quote from the same press release from the Premier of
Quebec, this time the fourth paragraph: ``Through this process,
Quebecers will also be asked to draft a Declaration of
Sovereignty''.
Nothing is said about asking people whether they agree that
Quebec should separate from Canada. We are presented with a
plan. The Government of Quebec and the Bloc Quebecois think
that Quebecers agree on separation. However, according to
opinion polls, the majority, at least 60 per cent, are against
separation. Although the government was elected on the
promise of being a good government and holding a referendum
on separation later, it is proposing a bill as if it had received a
mandate to trigger this mechanism leading to separation. It is
quite clear.
When we say that not only Liberal members in Quebec City
and Ottawa do not want to participate, even important groups in
Quebec that took part in the Bélanger-Campeau Commission,
which my colleagues opposite in the Bloc Quebecois have
mentioned repeatedly this morning, like the farmers' union, the
president of the Quebec City Chamber of Commerce, the
president of the employers' council and the president of the
Quebec manufacturers' association said that they would not
participate in this process because it is undemocratic. They
would have taken part if it had been something like the
Bélanger-Campeau Commission, but not in a process like this.
We are not the only ones. We do not want to participate. We
participate fully in Quebec life. We want to take part in a debate
where people can express themselves and make points for
Canadian federalism and for separation. Once Quebecers have
made their decision, then their government can table draft
legislation like this and tell them: You have voted for separation.
Here is how we will proceed.
(1315)
What is Mr. Parizeau doing right now? He is skipping the
basic step, because he has already initiated the process, without
even securing a mandate to separate. The answer is no, a
categorical no, and we will fight the process all the way to prove
it. That answer is certainly the one Quebecers will give Mr.
Parizeau, and here in the House, we say no to the Bloc members.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
appreciate this opportunity to thank the hon. member for
Saint-Léonard for participating in the current debate taking
place in Quebec, this in spite of his views. He is acting like a true
politician, as well as a solid and honest man, and I commend him
for that.
However, I find that the hon. member is too easily outraged. I
guess customs change with the times. Government members
have been using the word democracy all day.
But remember the unilateral patriation of the Constitution.
That was not the work of angels. It was done in 1982, by the
Liberals opposite. Back then, they were proud of their
democracy. The current Prime Minister, who is from Quebec,
was the one behind that dirty job on Quebecers. What happened?
It is very simple. They did not try to shaft Quebec. With his
typical smile, which has become his trademark, he said: But we
still got them, did we not? Just like a kid who did something bad.
The Liberals were not scandalized back in 1981. I remember
Mr. Lévesque saying to these people, the day after the night of
the long knives, that their rejoicing at Quebec's expense would
end some day. Indeed, that rejoicing just might end very soon.
We mentioned the patriation of the Constitution. It goes
without saying that this was not Canadian federalism's finest
hour. René Lévesque was not impressed; he was no more
impressed than the hon. member for Saint-Léonard is now when
he talks about being forced to move.
At the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, the Bloquistes and
the separatists did not have the upper hand. Yet, you were not
upset by the undemocratic structure of that commission. You
remained very quiet. Who took part in the 1982 coup, the
unilateral patriation? At the time, you had relegated democracy
to some dark place where the sun does not shine.
Madam Speaker, such a figure of speech is not
unparliamentary.
Quebecers, including the hon. member for Saint-Léonard, are
invited to a sort of summit. They are asked to give their views on
the issue. Anything can be amended in this draft bill, which
contains 17 clauses.
The preamble will be decided by Quebecers. I do not
remember being consulted on the preamble of the Constitution
and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in 1982.
Democracy works only if you agree with the Liberal Party. Then
it is democracy at play and the Liberals can have anything done
to Quebec, usually by a Quebecer, because it does not look quite
as bad. In fact, we know who their hatchet man is; he is not here
today, but we know who he is.
It is now up to Quebecers to speak up and even draft the
preamble of this historic draft bill.
(1320)
Maybe he did not realize it, but the hon. member for
Saint-Léonard just scored a point for the federalists. I
congratulate him on it, but I wish he would not say that the
process is undemocratic. I think the members on the other side
of the House should be the last ones to talk about democracy.
Look what they did to democracy in the famous Bill C-22 on
Pearson Airport; look what they do to democracy in Bill C-62
which was introduced so innocuously and which the government
will use to give away huge chunks of federal operations to its
friends, probably the same people who were involved in the
8816
Pearson Airport deal. Since the government can no longer
subsidize its friends, it gives away chunks of government
operations. Democracy? I say to the hon. member for
Saint-Léonard that this has nothing to do with democracy.
I want to know something. You know that democracy also
includes the right not to get involved. Some communities may
decide not to take my advice, not to get involved, and not to
contribute to the process. If they choose not to take part, it will
not make me cry. I will respect their right, because it is their
most basic right not to get involved.
But I still want to stress that they are welcome to participate in
this debate, if they live in Quebec, of course. I hope that
members opposite will have the magnanimity to respect their
cultural communities, especially French-speaking communities
outside Quebec, which will not be included in the debate either.
To conclude, I just want to say that I am deeply offended to
hear our process being called undemocratic, especially by some
of the big names in the Liberal Party who were here in 1982.
Mr. Gagliano: Madam Speaker, this morning, the hon.
member mentioned all the amendments proposed to the
Constitution in the last 30 years. He spoke of the patriation of
the Constitution, the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, etc., but
not even once did I hear the hon. members of the Bloc speak of
the 1980 referendum. There was a referendum in 1980 on the
issue of sovereignty and people-
Sorry. It seems someone did talk about it. Well done!
Unfortunately, I was out of the House at the time.
In 1980, Quebec's sovereignty-association with Canada was
proposed and the people said no. Now, we are in favour of this
type of consultation. We say to the Quebec government: Ask the
question! If the answer is yes, go on with the process you have
started this week! What is undemocratic and what you refuse to
acknowledge is that you have skipped the most important step.
There was an election in Quebec and this issue was raised
during the election campaign. As you will remember, your
leader corrected Mr. Parizeau on this, during the big meeting
held in Joliette. He was speaking of the Parti Quebecois's
strategy because nothing was being done. He would not
introduce a bill in the National Assembly without holding a
referendum first. And now he tables a draft bill in the National
Assembly and once this bill has been voted on, there will be a
referendum.
No, that cannot be. First, they must get a mandate from the
people. They must ask Quebecers if they want to secede or not.
Can you honestly answer this question today? Do Quebecers
really want to secede or not? Do you have the mandate? That is
the question. We do not think you have that mandate.
Ask the question and if the answer is yes in the referendum,
you may then initiate-and I use the word on advisedly-the
process announced this week by the Quebec government.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The hon. member for
Terrebonne has 30 seconds for questions or comments.
(1325)
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Madam Speaker,
I would have a question to ask the hon. member on the subject of
democracy. I would like to know if he can comment on this quote
from page 181 of the book Straight from the Heart: ``The voice
of Chief Justice Bora Laskin wasn't the only thing that wasn't
clear; the majority judgment itself seemed rather ambiguous. It
stated that the unilateral action of the federal government was
legal but offensive to the traditional convention of getting
provincial consent for constitutional amendments.'' Did my
hon. colleague participate in that action?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The hon. member has
just 15 seconds.
Mr. Gagliano: Madam Speaker, I think that the hon. member
is confusing apples and oranges.
Some hon. members: No, no.
Mr. Gagliano: It is simple. Why do you not have the courage
to ask the question? Ask the question!
Ms. Catterall: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
want to inform the House that members of the government will
divide their speaking time.
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I am rising today to speak to the following Bloc motion:
That this House enjoin the government to recognize the legitimacy of the
democratic process initiated by the Government of Quebec in order to allow
Quebecers to chart their own political and constitutional future.
In so doing, let me be clear that I will be opposing the motion
as I believe will be every member of the Reform Party. The
motion is truly a test of our commitment to federalism in the
most fundamental sense.
The motion talks about a democratic process. Is this a
democratic process? The hon. member for Calgary Southwest,
the leader of the Reform Party, has spoken on this point earlier. I
will repeat some of his points but let me be emphatic in saying it
is essential to say those things.
We are talking about a referendum. That is democratic.
Before a referendum the bill proclaiming sovereignty or laying
out sovereignty will be passed. It will be passed by a
government elected by a separatist minority. It will be
developed in stages which predefine a separatist outcome in a
process completely dominated by separatists and restricted by
separatist
8817
options. The question to be asked will be lengthy. It concerns a
whole bill. It will contain ambiguities and outright falsehoods.
The PQ government running this process has a very clear
interpretation of the results. A yes counts; it is binding. As the
leader of the Reform Party said, it is binding on those large
unresolved items in the question. A no does not count. A no
means we will just try again-some democracy.
The key of legitimacy is whether something is legal. This
assumes that only the Quebec assembly, for this particular bill
we are discussing, has sole jurisdictions in areas where it clearly
does not. Articles 1, 10 and 13 reserve all powers now part of the
Canadian state that require the consent of this Parliament to
change and in many cases provincial legislatures strictly to the
Government of Quebec.
Article 4 would allow the province to alter boundaries. It says
it is not altering boundaries but it is a significant alteration to
declare interprovincial boundaries to be international
boundaries. Under our constitutional law that is a significant
alteration.
Article 5 would authorize the Government of Quebec to pass
laws regarding the use of Canadian citizenship.
Articles 7, 8 and 9 authorize the ascension of Quebec to
Canadian interests and Canadian treaties, which are not just the
business of this Parliament but also of our treaty partners, our
internationally recognized fellow nations.
Article 11 authorizes the Government of Quebec to pay
pension plans which are clearly under the jurisdiction of this
Parliament and the Constitution, in some cases constitutional
amendments that have been arrived at unanimously.
Article 12 would strip the Supreme Court of Canada and all
other Canadian courts of their judicial authority to hear cases
related to law. Article 16 would bypass all the legal amending
procedures of the Constitution of Canada.
(1330)
[Translation]
When I talk about legitimacy, I must say that, in my life,
legitimacy has two parts: a political project and a political
relationship. The first element is the democratic process, which
is mentioned in today's motion. It is not a true democratic
process, but there will be a vote, and the result of a vote cannot
be ignored. I think this is important.
It will be a historic vote, and I hope it will be the beginning of
an irreversible process if the result is yes or, more likely, no.
Legitimacy is made up of two other elements which are not
mentioned in this motion. First, the interests of others in the
political project or relationship. Their economic, fiscal,
political, constitutional, social and international interests, as
well as their preferences. This does not only apply outside
Quebec. There are also the interests of foreign countries, of the
Parliament of Canada, of other provinces and even those of hard
core federalists in Quebec, in short, anyone who has the right to
stay in Canada.
Second, and perhaps more important, there are the rights
established by existing political and legal relationships, such as
the treaties, laws, constitutions and powers of other
governments here in Canada and in other countries. Our words
should not be misinterpreted. It is not merely a wish, it is more
than that. It is the duty of the Parliament of Canada, of the
members of this House, whether they represent the Reform
Party or another federalist party, to protect the interests and the
legal rights of Canadians. Rights that are recognized by the
international community, legal and necessary rights that all
Canadians enjoy, in Quebec as in all other provinces.
The legitimacy of a unilateral process like the one proposed
by the Parti Quebecois in Quebec cannot be recognized. I am not
a Quebecer nor do I pretend to be one, but if I were, I would be
proud to be a Quebecer, proud of my history, of my language and
of my society, just as I am proud to be an Albertan. It is a choice I
have made, not only as my province of residence, but also as a
way of life, a vision.
I can understand Quebec's nationalistic policy which, like all
nationalistic policies, has to lead to independence. I can
understand this feeling, but I cannot share it.
We have to recognize that, in today's world, nationalism has
its obligations just as it has its dreams. No group, no continent,
no country, nobody can ignore the legitimate interests of others,
but that is what the Parti Quebecois and its allies from the Bloc
want to do.
This is nothing to be proud of. I think it is a shame and I
sincerely hope for the benefit of Canada that the vast majority of
Quebecers will recognize the irresponsible and dangerous
nature of the unilateral process proposed by the government of
Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
listened very intently to the member's dissertation. I am
surprised in some real ways that the Reform Party has in a sense
fallen into the trap of discussing a hypothetical case of the
separation of the province of Quebec. What I do believe we
should be doing is not being part of that program. What I would
like to ask the member concerns some real issues that do occur
and exist today in the province of Quebec.
8818
(1335)
Quebec has a massive per capita debt, a provincially
formulated debt of over $9,400 for every man, woman and child
in that province. Quebec's deficit is financed 40 per cent outside
not only its borders but also the borders of Canada. Could the
member reflect on what this debate is going to do and what it is
going to cost the people of Quebec?
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Madam Speaker, I would like to
say a couple of things relative to that.
First, obviously this debate and the economic uncertainty that
all this will cause will probably lead to no change whatsoever
and is already costing us a great deal. It will cost Quebecers in
terms of their bonds which already have a tremendous risk
premium on the international market as well as the bonds of
Canada which are affected indirectly. All of this uncertainty has
cost us.
We know the cost it has caused Quebec over the past
generation. When I was a boy, and it was not that long ago,
Montreal was the major city in Canada. Today that is not true; it
is Toronto. A lot of that is thanks to these developments that
have occurred in the province of Quebec and this particular
separatist debate.
I should be clear that in no way excuses the lack of action on
the fiscal situation at the federal level. That is just as serious for
Quebecers and for other Canadians and has also impacted
negatively on the Government of Quebec.
Second, the member says that we are raising hypothetical
scenarios. My speech and the speech of the leader of the Reform
Party today were not on the hypothetical issues of separation,
but on the real issue of the separatist process that is now under
way in Quebec and which is the subject of this motion.
One cannot ignore the sentiments that exist in Quebec or
ignore the process that is actually under way. That process is
extremely dangerous and misleading. It affects the vital
interests of this Parliament that is the responsibility of not only
all members here but our responsibility to Canadians. We should
be defending those interests much more than we are doing and
defending the legal rights of the people we represent to not see
this kind of a process go ahead without our participation.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Madam Speaker,
first of all, I would like to know, even though we cannot put a
question to the previous speaker rather than to the hon. member
for Calgary West, first, what is the national debt per capita, and
second, what percentage of that debt is in foreign hands? He will
surely have an opportunity to answer those questions when he
speaks next.
Instead, I will direct my question to the hon. member for
Calgary West, whom I congratulate for his French and for his
relatively good understanding of the position of Quebec up till
now. For my part, I do understand his position. He speaks
clearly.
However, when the Liberal members or the Reform members
talk about the legitimacy of the process initiated, I would tell
you that in a democratic system, everyone can legitimately
consult everyone else and have his say. Our draft bill will only
be accepted once a referendum, where everybody in Quebec will
have the opportunity to vote for or against it, has been held.
As far as legitimacy is concerned, I would like to remind my
hon. colleague of a few processes that we have witnessed in this
House and that were not exactly models of legitimacy. When the
current Prime Minister of Canada was Minister of Justice and
was taking an active part in the unilateral patriation of the
Constitution, he said, and I quote from Le Droit of November 2,
1981: ``The intent of my government is to move ahead with the
patriation of the Constitution; and even if there is no agreement
with the provinces, we will do it''. Even without an agreement
with the provinces: talk about a model of democracy!
Moreover, I recall that the Supreme Court had ruled that, all in
all, this was legal but unconstitutional. So, I would like to ask
the hon. member for Calgary West what he really thinks about it.
Does he really believe it is undemocratic, in a so-called
democratic system, to consult people about a social vision? I
remind him that the majority of the members from Quebec in the
House of Commons are sovereignists and the majority of
members in the Quebec National Assembly are sovereignists,
and people know it.
(1340)
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Madam Speaker, my answer is
that we have to consult the people of Quebec, federalists as well
as sovereignists, and people from outside Quebec too, I think.
But we must have a real consultation process where the result is
not predetermined and where all the available options are
discussed. That is not the case in this process.
I would also like to talk about the repatriation of the
Constitution in 1981. Someone said today that that process was
undemocratic. Clearly, we do not have enough democracy in
Canada today. Every day, Reformers call for direct democracy
mechanisms. It is a necessity. However, under the law, the
Supreme Court decided that patriation was legitimate. This
question was put to the Supreme Court. Obviously, it would not
have been legal or constitutional to decide to ignore all the
provinces. But, in effect, a strong majority of provinces and
their legislatures supported that constitutional amendment.
8819
A government here, dominated by Quebec and the Prime
Minister from Quebec decided to adopt that Constitution.
Indeed, Quebec did not have a veto then, and still does not have
one. And why not? We know why. It is because Mr. Lévesque,
before the decision, had renounced his veto in an accord signed
with the other provinces. This explains the process by which
the Constitution was adopted in 1981.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Madam Speaker, I would
like to make a comment. The reason we have a consultation
process is that we want to avoid being blamed for not consulting.
Had we asked Quebecers whether they want sovereignty without
telling them what it means, we would have been blamed because
we had presented an option without spelling out its meaning. In
order to avoid being blamed, and rightly so, for such action, the
Quebec government decided to explain its proposal, and to give
the people an opportunity to amend it. Once people know what
they are voting for, they will decide through a democratic
referendum whether they are ready to take one last step and say
yes to Quebec sovereignty, with full knowledge of the facts.
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Madam Speaker, on this issue, I
am in full agreement with the Prime Minister and my leader. The
question that should be asked of Quebecers is this: ``Do you
want Quebec to separate from Canada?'' There are two aspects
to that question. The first one is the desire to separate. But a
desire is just that, a desire. All details would have to be
negotiated afterwards. You cannot table a bill setting forth these
details in the National Assembly, because it is outside its
constitutional jurisdiction. The second aspect is separation. We
know why the P.Q. government prefers the word sovereignty.
We have seen the polls. To Quebecers, sovereignty appears less
dangerous, less clearly defined. That is why that word is used
instead of the real one.
(1345 )
[English]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I begin by saying how extremely disappointed
I am with my friends in the Parti Quebecois government in
Quebec and their Bloc Quebec allies here in Ottawa. I say
friends because while I disagree with their main political option,
I have always respected them as reasonable and honest men and
women.
I expected the Parti Quebecois government would proceed
with the referendum on independence but certainly not in this
undemocratic manner. Both the proposal that was announced in
the Quebec National Assembly the other day and the process are
contrary to the democratic principles usually followed not only
in Quebec and in Canada but throughout the western world.
The process and the proposition are undemocratic on four
grounds. First, the law is being tabled and passed first and then
the consultation comes afterward. In other words they are
putting the cart before the horse. That is certainly not what is
usually done. It is not what we did in this Parliament when
amending the law on the goods and services tax. We
commissioned a committee which held wide ranging hearings,
travelled the country and collected views. Now the government
is preparing a law.
We are doing the same thing with the reform of our social
security laws. We did the same thing with respect to defence and
external affairs. Very important changes are being made to our
policies and our laws but first we consult and bring in the law
afterward.
Second, the Parti Quebecois government did not get a
mandate from the electorate of Quebec in the last election to put
forward such a law. It only got approximately 44 per cent of the
vote and many of those who voted for the Parti Quebecois voted
for them in order to have a change of government.
There are two principal parties in Quebec: the provincial
Liberal Party and the Parti Quebecois. Many people were
dissatisfied with the Liberal Party and voted for the Parti
Quebecois for a better way of governing. That was the slogan
that was on the signs: ``For a better way of governing'', to deal
with economic and social problems.
Even among the 44 per cent that did vote for the Parti
Quebecois many voted for a better way of government and not
for the law that was tabled in the National Assembly the other
day. It is true that during the election campaign Mr. Parizeau
spoke about a referendum but he certainly did not speak of a
referendum that would be preceded by a unilateral declaration of
independence.
Third, in discussing the non-democratic nature of these
proposals, the regional commissions that the Quebec
government intends to set up are loaded in favour of the law and
the principles behind the law. The premier of Quebec has invited
MNAs from the Quebec National Assembly and members of
Parliament to participate in the commissions. Added to those
commissions will be other members who will be appointed by
the Government of Quebec and favourable to its position. The
chairs of those regional commissions will be persons who will
not be elected members of Parliament or MNAs but, and I am
referring to the words of Mr. Parizeau: ``will be people who will
be able to build consensus'' toward the proposal that he tabled in
the assembly.
In other words the goal of the chair or those regional
commissions will be to build consensus toward the principle of a
unilaterally independent state of Quebec.
The dice are loaded with respect to those regional
commissions. They are undemocratic. That is why many groups,
not just political parties, will not participate in the regional
commissions. Their goal is simply to improve on, to build on,
what has already been tabled in the Quebec National Assembly
as a draft bill.
8820
(1350 )
Fourth, the process is dishonest and misleading because it
pretends to keep the best of both Canada and Quebec. It is a bit
like the sovereignty association question in the last referendum
in the early 1980s. For example, the draft bill provides for
economic union with Canada, for keeping Canadian citizenship,
for keeping the Canadian dollar, for maintaining Quebec's
position in NAFTA and in NATO, for maintaining Canadian
pensions and for maintaining the same territory which Quebec
now has, but which it did not have at the time of Confederation.
It is a sort of having one's cake and eating it too, getting out of
Canada but remaining in Canada. On those grounds as well the
process is undemocratic, confusing and misleading for the
ordinary voter and the ordinary citizen of Quebec.
The opening clause of the draft constitution states that
Quebec is a sovereign country. That is a universal declaration of
independence in the sense that it refers to an entire country. It is
misleading for the people of Quebec because all provinces are
now sovereign in provincial areas of jurisdiction. It was decided
by the Privy Council many years ago that all provinces were
sovereign in their areas of jurisdiction just as the federal
government is sovereign in its area of jurisdiction.
I want to say a few words about the legality of this process.
There is no provision in either the Constitution of 1867 or the
Constitution of 1982 for any province to secede unilaterally. No
province has that right legally. They no more have that right than
would the federal government have the right to expel
unilaterally a province from Canada.
Can one imagine if we passed a law in this Parliament and
confirmed by the Senate to throw Quebec out or Prince Edward
Island or British Columbia out, without going through the
process of our amending formula. It would be considered
outrageous if we even attempted to do that. Even if the federal
government should try to do it with the support of a few other
provinces it is unacceptable.
It is unacceptable that any province should leave unilaterally
without the agreement of the other provinces because we have
come to share so much together. If it requires an amendment of
the Constitution to transfer a number of powers from the federal
government to a provincial government-let us say to transfer
manpower training or pensions or unemployment insurance or
other things-then certainly it requires amendments to transfer
all of the powers.
There are various views on this, but I would say at the very
most for a province to secede it would require the amending
formula which states that you need seven out of ten provinces,
representing 50 per cent of the population in order to make such
an extreme amendment to the Constitution. But at the very least,
it would require the consent of the province in question and of
the federal Parliament.
Some people would say that we should not talk about the
legalities of secession, we should talk about the politics of it.
Even politically and morally, the present government of Quebec
has no political or moral mandate to introduce and pass the type
of law which they tabled in the National Assembly the other day.
They got only a little over 44 per cent of the vote and even then
all those who voted for them did not support that option.
I understand my time is up. I had much more to say on this
subject. However, we should reject this motion before the House
today. We should certainly reject the bill that is in the Quebec
National Assembly at the present time.
(1355)
I would recommend again to my friends, whom I respect, that
they go back to the drawing boards and come up with something
that is more suitable, in accordance with our democratic process
and then we can all decide it in a proper way.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Madam
Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak in
this debate. In fact, I would urge all my constituents in
Québec-Est, the riding I represent, to take part in the
consultation process initiated by the Government of Quebec
which, I would like to point out to the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, is an entirely democratic process.
I think we can say that never in Quebec's history has there
been a more democratic and more open process to consult
Quebecers to find out what they really want. I must say I do not
appreciate the use of the word ``immoral'' by the hon. member
for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce in referring to the process initiated
by the Government of Quebec.
Mr. Duceppe: He should talk about the War Measures Act.
Mr. Marchand: To imply that this is immoral is an insult to
the intelligence of the members of this House.
What is immoral about wanting to consult and wanting to
know what Quebecers want, what is wanted by people who have
been deceived and whose rights have been violated for over a
century? How can the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce
say that this process has no legitimacy or is unlawful, when this
Parliament has for years violated its own Constitution? It has
shown no respect for its own Constitution or for the rights of the
provinces.
The trouble with Canada was that the federal government
failed to respect the rights of the provinces. If at the federal level
in Ottawa, we had at least respected our own Constitution,
perhaps we would not have the problems we have today, and I
am referring to this failure to respect the rights of the provinces
and the rights of francophones outside Quebec. Did anyone
mention this? Can anyone in this House say that their rights have
8821
not been violated by this Constitution? What about the lack of
political will on the part of the federal Liberals, which has been
going on for some time, to make Canada's provinces abide by
the Constitution?
What I find particularly galling is that the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, who is a member from Quebec, did not
say a single word in French in his speech. Is it too much to
expect of a member of Parliament for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce to
speak French when dealing with a matter of such importance,
and I am referring to the sovereignty of Quebec?
I also want to say it is unrealistic to consider a third option, as
the Reform Party did earlier, it is unrealistic to consider a third
option when we realize that since 1980, every possible avenue
has been explored to find an alternative to sovereignty and all
attempts in this respect have been unsuccessful.
The Speaker: Dear colleague, I believe that you have about a
minute left. You may continue after Question Period, if you
wish.
[English]
Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I will have an opportunity to
respond to that question?
The Speaker: Yes, you will have an opportunity to respond to
the question after question period. As it is now two o'clock,
pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to
statements by members pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
8821
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
(1400)
[English]
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last week I had the pleasure of joining the hon. Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration at a special citizenship and
reaffirmation ceremony presided over by Dr. John Brooks, a
member of the Order of Canada.
I congratulate the Department of Citizenship and
Immigration, the Queen Victoria Public School Children's
Choir and all the volunteers for putting on such a splendid,
well-organized event.
As I was congratulating the new citizens, one individual
thanked me for coming and whispered to me: ``God bless
Canada and please do whatever you can to keep it together''.
I was deeply moved by his words. As the son of an immigrant I
would like today to echo his words in this honourable House.
God bless Canada. I would also like to assure this new Canadian
and all Canadians that this government, this party, will work
relentlessly to make our country proud, prosperous and above
all, united.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Quebec sovereignty issue is again at the centre of debate.
In the 1980 referendum campaign, Prime Minister Trudeau
said that a ``no'' to the referendum meant a ``yes'' to renewed
federalism. We know the rest: exclusion of Quebec from the
Canadian Constitution, failure of Meech Lake, failure of
Charlottetown.
This time, federalist leaders promise a ``flexible federalism'',
at the same time we learn that the federal government refuses to
pay $282 million in transfer payments owed to the Quebec
Treasury.
The rest of Canada no longer wants to hear about the
legitimate demands of Quebec. As for Quebecers, they have had
enough of the status quo. The positions are clear. Why the false
pretences? Quebecers will soon have to choose between
sovereignty and fossilized federalism. We are confident of the
outcome.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute an industry which has risen
from the ashes to become a world leader. I refer to the
Okanagan's flourishing wine industry. Today any respectable
wine cellar is incomplete without a selection of the very fine
vintages coming from the Okanagan Valley.
Among our world class estate wines we include Le Compte
Wines, Sumac Ridge, Lang Vinyards, Wild Goose Vinyards and
Gehringer Brothers. All have won an impressive collection of
international medals for their wines. Many of these wines have
been judged the best in the world at competitions such as the
Intervin International in New York and the International Wine
and Spirit Competition held in London, England.
In the south Okanagan estate wineries floundered with
government subsidies but have flourished without government
subsidies and government interference. Free enterprise and
competition nurtures excellence. There is an important lesson in
8822
the Okanagan wine industry. I salute the entrepreneurs of the
Okanagan wine industry and the people of the Okanagan. Indeed
all Canadians are justly proud of you.
* * *
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Ind. Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today
to pay tribute to my dedicated executive assistant, Joanne Dave,
who passed away last week. She died after suffering severe head
injuries in a car accident.
Joanne was a devoted assistant who never accepted an adverse
response to a constituent query. She was so dedicated to her job
that she would not stop until she got the best possible result for
any constituent. She was much more than a highly competent
employee; she was also a friend for many years and was always
there to assist me in every matter.
Many members in this House who have met Joanne through
her work will concur with me about everything I have stated. To
her husband Pankaj, her three children Shilpa, Neha and little
Chiku, I offer my deepest sympathy. She will be remembered
fondly by all who have known her.
* * *
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
know that members on both sides of this House welcome the
news that the Bosnian Serb army has now released 55 Canadian
peacekeepers detained in the Bosnian town of Ilijas.
If these brave men and women are listening today, I want them
to know that Canadians are very proud of the important work
being done in this shattered region. We know very well this war
could have claimed thousands of lives more if it were not for the
Canadian peacekeepers.
We also know the war lords in this conflict would love the UN
to pull out of the former Yugoslavia. Canadians are not quitters.
We will not carelessly abandon innocent civilians at their
moment of greatest need. I ask that all members join me in this
salute to the brave Canadians serving in the UN peacekeeping
operations.
(1405)
Mr. Speaker, I thank you and Radio Canada International for
your assistance in getting this message to our peacekeepers
serving around the globe.
* * *
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as Canada moves into the 21st century no field of endeavour is
more vital to our continued success as a nation than education.
I would like to recognize the efforts of Canada's teachers
throughout our nation at all levels of education. Their vital role
in preparing young Canadians to become full active citizens
should never be underestimated.
There is an appreciation from most Canadian students and
their families of this reality. Today I am pleased to welcome to
Ottawa from my riding of London-Middlesex staff and
students of Regina Mundi College where I taught at one time.
They are a good example of the very important interest that our
educators and our youth have in the future of this our great
Canada.
* * *
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to express my deepest sympathy to the
family and friends of the late Jack Ellis, member of Parliament
for Prince Edward-Hastings from 1972 to 1988.
On Thursday, December 1, Jack Ellis died of a sudden heart
attack at his home in Prince Edward County in Ontario. Those of
us who knew him as a friend and colleague will know that Jack's
public career was one of selfless commitment and fierce pride in
his work. His sudden death will leave our community with a
profound sense of loss as to the tremendous potential for further
service which has been left unfulfilled.
In the Quinte area Jack was a longstanding public figure with
a tremendous record of success. Following his retirement as
member of Parliament for Prince Edward-Hastings he
continued to work tirelessly on some of his favourite community
oriented projects and was always a strong voice representing the
interests of a region.
Only his commitment to family and his loyalty to his friends
had the potential to surpass his devotion to public service. In this
sense he was a complete professional with the values that are
treasured the most in political life.
There will be a memorial service for Jack tomorrow in
Belleville. I know that all members of this House will join with
me in extending our most sincere sympathies to Jack's wife
Wally, his children, family and friends on their sudden and
unfortunate loss.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Quebec university presidents announced that they will not
participate in federal hearings on social program reform.
Denouncing the federal project, they said that they agreed with
the Government of Quebec, that education was strictly a
provincial matter.
8823
Unanimously, Quebec university students opposed the
federal reform. They condemned it saying, and I quote: ``When
they choose a country, students will remember that the federal
government increased their tuition fees and their debt load
against the will of Quebec''.
Yesterday, the National Council of Welfare denounced the
federal proposal to create two classes of unemployed, and urged
the government not to widen any further the gap between rich
and poor.
The Bloc Quebecois demands that the minister go back to the
drawing board. He said the reform was prompted by public
opinion. Yes, Quebecers and Canadian want a reform, but not the
one he proposes.
* * *
[English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the justice minister plans to force legal gun owners to
register their firearms with the federal government. The
majority of constituents in my riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin are
strongly opposed to this plan.
Canadians have told this justice minister many times that a
gun registry will not work. Legal gun owners have been very
responsible in the care, use and storage of their firearms. One
constituent of mine, John Ross of 100 Mile House, said: ``Past
governments have made much ado about the gun control
legislation they have passed. In reality, they have only placed
additional responsibilities and restrictions on the honest,
responsible gun owners''.
All a gun registry will do is frustrate legal gun owners and
swell the government bureaucracy while leaving criminals
untouched.
I call on all Canadians who are against registration and the
other unnecessary proposals to write to the justice minister at
the House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario, KlA 0A6, no stamp
required.
* * *
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to urge the government to give serious
consideration to increasing support to our national highway
system.
Currently of the $5 billion collected as federal fuel tax only
about 10 per cent of the revenue is invested in the Canadian
highway system. This is simply not enough. More than a third of
the 24,000 kilometre national highway system in Canada does
not meet minimum standards. Ensuring that the national
highway system meets the standards established by the Minister
of Transport would result in the creation of 200,000 direct
construction jobs as well as a number of secondary benefits for
those industries which rely on the road system like tourism and
transportation.
(1410)
Not only will there be economic advantages, I believe the
revitalization of our transportation infrastructure will also
result in reduced highway fatalities, loss and damage to
property, as well as reducing congestion and lowering vehicle
operating costs not only in my riding but in ridings across the
country.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge this House to support the renewal
of the national highway system in Canada.
* * *
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Saturday,
December 10 is World Human Rights Day.
[Translation]
As Canadians, we can be proud of our contribution to the
international community on the issue of human rights and on the
development of international standards to which we adhere.
[English]
This said, we must also be ever vigilant that our human rights
respect international standards and ensure the right of all
Canadians to live free from discrimination in this country.
A recent decision of the United Nations human rights
committee ruled that sexual orientation is protected by the
equality guarantees of the international covenant on civil and
political rights, a document which Canada helped prepare and
which binds us.
Let us in remembering World Human Rights Day recognize
that it is our duty to ensure that our laws in this country are
amended to eliminate all forms of discrimination, including any
based on sexual orientation.
* * *
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, earlier today
the Standing Committee on Finance tabled its report on the first
ever pre-budget consultations. As a member of that committee I
could comment on several aspects of the report. But as the sole
female member I feel compelled to highlight the necessity of
understanding the gender impact of budgetary measures.
We recommended a 12 per cent cut in government operations,
but will we ensure that the positive impact of employment
equity initiatives will not be lost as we pare down our public
service? We suggested a 10 per cent reduction in international
aid, but will we be sure that our women in development
programs are not disproportionately cut?
8824
There are those who say this strategy is too expensive, but
I say the government must take the initiative and ensure that
systemic discrimination is not perpetuated nor created. We
insist on this in the private sector through employment equity
legislation. We can expect no less from our government.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is with great relief that we learned this morning that
the 55 Canadian peacekeepers taken hostage by Bosnian Serb
forces two weeks ago had been released. However, we are still
extremely concerned about the eventual pull-out of all
peacekeepers from Bosnia, at a time when NATO is speeding up
preparations for such a move.
If the humiliation the Bosnian Serb forces are inflicting on the
international community were to lead to the withdrawal of
peacekeepers from Bosnia, it is quite certain that we will face a
significant upsurge in fighting. Consequently, we have every
reason to fear the impact of such a decision on the Bosnian
civilian population which would be completely left to its fate. It
is high time for Canada to show leadership and push for the
United Nations to be reformed as quickly as possible in order to
recover the credibility the UN lost in this horrible conflict.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
House will be asked to vote later today on $1,143,285,750 worth
of spending. Five hundred and twenty-seven million dollars of
this spending is to help reduce the debts of heavily indebted
countries because of multilateral agreements Canada undertook
in the past.
Some of these heavily indebted countries are much less
indebted than Canada yet Canadian taxpayers are asked to
relieve their debts. This is absolutely insane.
I call upon the Minister of Finance to commit to this House
that such ludicrous agreements will not be undertaken in the
future. Furthermore, will the Minister of Finance abide by the
motion passed by the Standing Committee on Finance on
December 1 which states that any agreement to relieve the debt
burden of other countries is studied by the finance committee
prior to the government making any such commitment?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, consultations undertaken by the Standing Committee
on Human Resources Development, following the minister's
tabling of his discussion paper entitled ``Improving Social
Security in Canada'', are being held in Quebec this week.
(1415)
We learned recently that the Conseil du patronat du Québec
had polled its members on the best way to finance
post-secondary education. The results of this consultation are
published in the December issue of the CPQ newsletter.
We learn that almost three respondents out of four, 74 per cent
to be more exact, believe that the federal government should
fund students directly through loans and bursaries. This is yet
another proof that the social program reform launched by our
government truly meets the expectations and aspirations of the
population.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to the late
Reverend Ronald Edward Armstrong of Windermere in my
riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka.
Reverend Armstrong was killed in a tragic plane crash
recently, bringing to an end a life dedicated to the service of
others. Besides his work at several parishes in Ontario during
the past 30 years, Reverend Armstrong will be remembered for
his outstanding contribution to the people on the Island of
Bequia, St. Vincent and other Grenadine Islands.
Reverend Armstrong, who founded and directed the Bequia
Mission, was instrumental in establishing a school for
handicapped children and adults, a workshop for the
handicapped and he arranged for the sponsorship of
underprivileged children so they could attend school.
Reverend Armstrong was a great humanitarian and a great
Canadian. We all share the loss with his wife June, four children
and grandchildren.
_____________________________________________
8824
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, in the same disarray as the speakers for the federalist
cause,
8825
the Prime Minister tried to minimize the consultation process
announced by the Government of Quebec and at the same time
confirmed that he did not intend to participate in it. He also
mentioned the possibility of the federal government holding a
Canada-wide referendum on Quebec's constitutional future.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Does he admit that
holding a Canada-wide referendum on Quebec's constitutional
future means denying Quebecers the right to decide their own
future for themselves?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we want only one thing: a referendum as soon as
possible in Quebec, under Quebec's Referendum Act, where
they will not play tricks but be honest with the people and ask
Quebecers whether or not they want to separate from Canada.
If they do that, we will solve the problem quickly and no
longer hear about it. I hope that instead of the unnecessary
complications which the Bloc members are now raising, we will
take the question seriously and stop talking about the
Constitution and separation and all work together on creating
jobs and economic growth, which is what Quebecers want above
all.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how
does the Prime Minister reconcile what his Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs said about the possibility of flexible
federalism with his own statement refusing any constitutional
reform?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is not very complicated. Right now, the Minister of
Human Resources Development is making a fundamental
reform in Canada without changing the Constitution. That is
what we want: fundamental reforms.
Enough time has been wasted consulting people for years. We
wasted seven years discussing constitutional changes and ended
up with exactly the same situation and the federal system we
have today. It was wonderful to see Mr. Parizeau say in his
statement how we have advanced in Canada. He was talking
about the progress Quebec made within the Canadian federation.
Why change that? If we could do so well, we will continue to do
even better by remaining in the best country in the world,
Canada.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
everyone will have understood what the Prime Minister means
by flexible federalism: the provinces bend and the federal
government invades their jurisdiction.
(1420)
How can the Prime Minister be indignant and get all hot under
the collar about the $2 million which Quebec will spend on
consulting its citizens when his own government is getting ready
to spend $35 million on tourism advertising to promote his
beautiful Canada, $7 million more for promoting Canadian
unity and $6 million more for the Privy Council and its federal
strategy on the referendum?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what is absolutely outrageous in the Parti Quebecois's
proposal now is that they want to create 15 ``yes'' committees
financed by the state. They proposed having 15 committee
members, of whom 13 would be appointed by the party in power
and two by the opposition parties. Since they are not confident in
their cause, they want the PQ campaign to promote their cause in
their ridings to be paid for by the taxpayers of Quebec.
We will go to Quebec and make speeches and it will not be
paid for by the taxpayers of Canada. We will tell Quebecers that
we do not want trickery; we want the truth, a clear, short,
unambiguous question: Do you, in Quebec, want to separate
from Canada, yes or no? It is as simple as that.
* * *
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, after wasting one year in the fight against the deficit,
the Liberals now propose, in a report to the Minister of Finance,
to increase the tax burden of all taxpayers by imposing a
temporary surtax which could bring in over one billion dollars,
to be used to reduce the deficit. By the way, the last temporary
tax was the income tax of 1914, which has now been in effect for
80 years.
Will the Prime Minister pledge to reject the proposal made by
his members to impose a surtax which would be in direct
contradiction with his own election promise not to increase the
tax burden of Canadians during the first two years of his
mandate?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the committee travelled across the country. It then
made recommendations to the Minister of Finance who will
review them. When the minister tables his budget in February,
we will see which of these recommendations he intends to
follow. The remarkable thing about the Bloc members who sat
on that committee is that they could not make a single specific
recommendation. They shied away from their responsibility to
make decisions and recommendations. They speak eloquently,
but they do not have the courage to take a clear stand.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, not only does the Minister of Finance not read his
letters before signing them, but the Prime Minister does not read
the documents tabled by the Official Opposition. If he did, he
would know that we made ten specific proposals to implement
real streamlining and saving measures to improve the
government's finances. I am not talking about measures which
would
8826
hurt the unemployed and the poor, but about real saving and
streamlining initiatives.
How can the Prime Minister, or his government, consider
imposing such a surtax on Canadians who honestly pay their
taxes, when this government has yet to act, or even show the
political will to recover over $6 billion dollars in unpaid taxes
from the wealthiest Canadians? Is this his definition of justice?
Is this his definition of fairness?
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we said that we will reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of
GDP by the end of the third year of our mandate and we will do
it.
He can make all the speeches he wants. We have a clear
program. It is well documented, it will be met and it will be
realized. He will see that we can do it.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the federal government's reaction to Premier
Parizeau's draft bill on Quebec sovereignty has been unfocused
and even confusing.
The Prime Minister is quoted as saying his strategy is to win
the referendum battle but he does not say which referendum,
having dismissed Mr. Parizeau's referendum plan. The
government seems very reluctant to comment on the illegality or
legality of what is proposed or to point out specific flaws in the
Parizeau plan.
(1425 )
Section 5 of the draft sovereignty bill states Quebec
citizenship may be held concurrently with citizenship of Canada
or any other country.
Does the Prime Minister accept this position, yes or no? If he
does not, why does he not say so?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has not listened to me a lot
over the years. I have always said that they cannot impose a
situation unilaterally. Citizenship of Canada will be determined
by the Parliament of Canada not by the Parliament of Quebec.
Mr. Parizeau's proposition is funny. He wants to keep all the
good things that Canada has provided for Quebec. Quebec
should stay in Canada. That is my answer. I am from Quebec and
whenever I travel around Canada I am comfortable in every part
of the country.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the Prime Minister's answer. We had
trouble getting that type of answer yesterday and the day before.
The Quebec government has also stated that in the event of a
vote for sovereignty in the upcoming referendum, an economic
association with Canada would be maintained. Again, the
statement is completely presumptuous, without regard for the
position which the government and the people of Canada might
take on such an association.
Does the Prime Minister concur with the position that an
automatic economic association between Canada and a separate
Quebec should be assumed? If he does not, why does he not say
so?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is not a big problem. It is evident that the people and
the Government of Canada will decide. For example, the PQ
wants to keep the Canadian currency. Monetary policies will be
decided by this Parliament and it will have absolutely no voice.
Nobody will be able to get up here and ask the Minister of
Finance what is right or wrong with the monetary policies of
Canada.
Of course certain countries have used the currency of other
countries. Not long ago I discussed that with some French
African countries that depend on the franc. When Paris decided
to lower the value of the franc used in Africa, it had nothing to
say, it just paid the price.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, for the first time in a year I actually think we are
making progress in Question Period.
Section 7 of the proposed sovereignty bill states Quebec shall
assume the obligations and enjoy the rights arising out of
treaties to which Canada is party. This statement is not only
presumptuous but also clearly unconstitutional.
The federal government has the sole role to negotiate and sign
international treaties and many have their own provisions for
who joins those treaties.
Is not section 7 of the proposed sovereignty act beyond the
power of the Quebec government? If it is, should not the federal
government say so now?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not want to debate what is in this project of law. We
can have a long debate on that. The question is a very simple
one.
They should have the honesty to ask the Quebec people first:
``Do you want to separate, yes or no?''. To play games like that
will lead nowhere. It is just a sign that they are afraid to be
honest with the people and ask a very simple question: ``Do you
want to separate from Canada, yes or no?''.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. Despite a healthier economy
and rising tax revenues, the federal government, like the pre-
8827
vious Conservative government, is preparing to add to the tax
burden of all Canadians, because it has shown itself totally
unable to reduce federal spending, to eliminate unjustified tax
privileges like the ones for family trusts and to take whatever
measures are needed to collect more than $6 billion in unpaid
taxes.
(1430)
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that, instead of
introducing a surtax that could jeopardize the economic
recovery, he should have the courage to end duplication, waste
and inequities in the tax system?
[English]
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of
Finance, I would like to thank the committee and its chairman,
the member for Willowdale, for the excellent work done this fall
on reviewing the budget.
All members of the committee worked very hard hearing the
representations from Canadians. All three parties made an effort
to put forward their own ideas. On behalf of the minister, I
would like to also thank the other two parties for putting forward
their ideas.
The Minister of Finance has made it quite clear that during
this process we will not be commenting on any specific
proposals from any sources. We will just simply continue our
consultation process until the budget is announced in February.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that, by recommending
cuts of $3.4 billion in social programs, government members on
the finance committee are confirming the government's
shameful objective of reducing the deficit at the expense of the
unemployed, welfare recipients and students?
[English]
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the opposition knows full well that
under the leadership of the Minister of Human Resources
Development that the process of consulting with Canadians
continues. The government will make a decision in the coming
year as to how to deal with each of the items in the budget.
* * *
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the finance committee report recommends increased
taxes on gasoline, lottery winnings and corporations. Most
incredibly, it suggests increasing taxes on income.
Canadians told the committee clearly that they do not want
higher taxes. They are taxed to the max. They want smaller
government. Reform's proposals show that the deficit can be
eliminated by spending cuts alone.
Is the government going to accept the recommendations of its
finance committee and increase taxes, yes or no?
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows as he
participated in many of these meetings that we heard a variety of
opinions from Canadians concerned about the government,
taxes and about the integrity of our programs. The Minister of
Finance will take these into account as he makes up his mind.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today Stats Canada noted that during the last 23 years
Canadians' taxes increased nearly 50 per cent while their
income remained constant. Now there is the prospect of even
higher taxes on gasoline and lottery winnings. The Liberal credo
seems to be: If Canadians like it, tax it.
Is the minister seriously planning to raise taxes on the use of
cars and the dreams Canadians buy with their lottery tickets?
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the member is a great fan of
Stats Canada he should be quoting the tremendous rate of
economic growth in this country under the leadership of this
government.
The member will know full well that everyone is concerned
about the high level of taxation for Canadian families, just as we
are with the integrity of all of our programs.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. According to the
Globe and
Mail, in 1990, while he was practising law, the Prime Minister
advised the Matthews Group, a partner in the Pearson
Development Corporation, on the privatization of Pearson
Airport. This consortium is now demanding $440 million in
compensation for the cancellation of the airport privatization
contract.
Considering his previous professional relations with the
Matthews Group, a partner in the Pearson Development
Corporation, can the Prime Minister confirm that he has not
taken part, since he was elected, in any Cabinet decision
concerning the Pearson Airport nor been involved in any way in
this issue, so as to avoid any apparent conflict of interest?
8828
(1435)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no issue on that group.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
what is the assurance of the Prime Minister worth, since Bill
C-22 proposes a discretionary process to provide compensation
for the cancellation of the Pearson Airport contract, which could
benefit the Matthews Group he advised as a lawyer?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, never as a lawyer, did I have any discussions about
Toronto Airport with any of these people. Besides, I am the one
who proposed cancelling this project. Not only is there no
conflict of interest, but I am the one who axed the whole thing.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party caucus and indeed all Canadians
welcome the good news of the release of the 55 Canadian
hostages held by the Bosnian Serbs. Yesterday the French
foreign minister called for a withdrawal of its peacekeepers in
Bosnia. This only makes public the growing realization that this
is a political, not a military problem and that peacekeepers
cannot do their job in the current environment.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Now that Canadians
have been released, will the government align with France's
position and use this opportunity to withdraw our troops?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first I would like to pay tribute to the soldiers who
acted with calm and courage. They know they are involved in an
extremely important mission which is to help the poor civilians
who are trapped in this terrible situation by providing them with
food, medication and so on.
I was at a discussion in Budapest. The situation is very bad.
The President of Bosnia was pleading with me to try to keep our
troops there because they are considered the best. Canada has no
political interest in the area. I said to him that our interest was
not political, that our interest was in peace and to help the
civilian population.
We have a mandate until the month of February. In January
cabinet will review that. I would like to point out that we had
debates in this House of Commons. Members of the House were
consulted and the great majority were in agreement that we
should be there to help the civilian population. We will review
the situation in January. Of course not only Canada has troops
there. There are others and we have to consult them too.
I have to say again that we are all very proud of the way the
Canadian soldiers behaved. I was delighted to hear the President
of Bosnia tell me that the Canadians are the best there.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, in reaction to the French government's call for a
withdrawal of peacekeepers from Bosnia the Prime Minister
said: ``Probably they want to reassure their own people''. Those
are the Prime Minister's words.
I ask the Prime Minister: Does this government wish to
reassure Canadians now that the hostages are free by moving to
withdraw our troops?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said that it is very important for everyone to plan to
make sure that if there is a situation, for example the lifting of
the embargo, we said we were to go. If there were to be some
other disastrous situation we have to have a plan ready to make
sure our troops can be evacuated. We have been working on that
for many months.
We have been in contact too with NATO and the UN to make
sure the plans are ready if evacuation is needed. I hope it will not
be needed, but it is very good to do the planning now in case we
have the need later.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
The MIL Davie shipyard, the only other bidder for an
important Hibernia contract, has clearly been wronged by the
Hibernia consortium's decision to award the contract to Saint
John Shipbuilding without a call for tenders. The
Canada-Newfoundland Board, the Minister of Natural
Resources and the Prime Minister have all admitted that. The
Hibernia consortium has itself ignored the Prime Minister's
directive by flatly refusing to review its decision.
(1440)
How can the Prime Minister explain that, despite the clear
directive issued by him to the president of the consortium, Mr.
Ken Hall, Hibernia has refused to redress the injustice to which
he has himself so strongly objected?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I made a complaint last week. I was in Newfoundland
yesterday. The people who had been awarded the first contract
lost it for productivity reasons.
I think the company should not have acted in this way. I have
said it clearly, but since we own only 8.5 per cent of the
company's shares, we cannot force it to change its decision. I
8829
still think it is a bad decision for both the Newfoundland
shipyard and the Quebec shipyard.
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how
can the Prime Minister admit to his inability to force Hibernia to
respect his decision when the federal government is investing
over $3 billion of taxpayers' money in this risky venture?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said earlier, the Canadian government has funded
8.5 per cent of the total project.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry. Will the minister ensure
that federal contracts for new ships and the major repair of ships
are done in an open, transparent manner? Will all interested
parties such as private companies and those owned by
subsidized provinces be required to compete by rules as set
forward in the proper business supplier-customer manner?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that first, it is the
government's policy where it does have shipbuilding
requirements to meet them from Canadian yards. Second, as the
Prime Minister himself has stated very clearly in this House and
elsewhere, that should be done through a clear, transparent, open
bidding process.
* * *
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the minister responsible for ACOA.
The country is on its knees financially and the minister stands
on a soapbox in Atlantic Canada making noises about ending
ACOA's role in handing out grants. Yet at the same time he says
ACOA will be involved in providing venture capital to
businesses, a function already performed by the Federal
Business Development Bank.
Can the minister explain how this move will serve to level the
playing field for businesses in Atlantic Canada when it is clear
to everyone that taxpayers' dollars will be spent foolishly
through a political body?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was anticipating
an apology from the hon. member today. Yesterday in a press
release he made the ridiculous suggestion that a linkage may
exist between a third party contribution to Liberal election
campaigns and the receipt of ACOA assistance. I want to say to
the hon. member that is patently false. I hope he will do the
honourable thing and apologize to the minister of fisheries and
myself when he joins his feet in a moment.
With regard to the question he has asked, the Atlantic venture
capital fund we are proposing is to be done in co-operation with
provincial governments as well as the private sector.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
am I supposed to join my feet now?
I do not think this government gets it. In 1992-93 alone
ACOA wrote off over $50 million in bad debts. When will these
Liberals learn that governments know very little if nothing
about running business? Does the minister know the difference
between a grant and a loan that is not repaid at taxpayers'
expense? If these loans are all going to be repaid, why not let
FBDB or the banks fill the role? Why do we need two
government agencies to provide the exercise?
(1445 )
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thought if the hon.
member would join his feet perhaps now he can keep his mouth
shut.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I would encourage all hon. members to address
others with a little more respect on both sides. I call on the hon.
minister of public works.
Mr. Dingwall Mr. Speaker, as I said in my first answer, I was
anticipating an apology because of the assertions that the hon.
member made.
The House should be aware that the reference to the minister
of fisheries and myself is patently false. The House should know
that when the chief of staff of the office of the leader of the
Reform Party ran in the last federal election, he received from a
contributor not one, not two, but $8,000 from Clearwater Fine
Foods. That particular company received financial assistance
from ACOA both before and after the election.
I think the hon. member owes the House an apology.
The Speaker: Both the questions and the answers are ranging
far afield today.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Revenue. The
Department of National Revenue is about to implement, in
January 1995, new regulations which will penalize the small
customs brokerage
8830
firms. They will require surety bonds of up to $10 million for the
goods they clear through customs.
Given the very negative impact of that decision on the
existence of small customs brokers, does the Minister of
National Revenue intend to answer their demands in the near
future?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the problem relating to the failure of these
customs agents to which the hon. member referred is a serious
one because the moneys they take in which are due to the
Government of Canada is lost in many cases when the
companies go bankrupt.
In addition, there are some major problems with respect to the
amount of capitalization that some of these companies have.
This means that assets are very few and slight even though the
individual who may own the company may have other assets of
considerable worth.
We have therefore instituted, in co-operation with the
Association of Customs Brokers, a new scheme to provide
adequate insurance for those who might be faced with financial
difficulties. This scheme has been accepted by the association
and accepted by the department. I believe it is a beneficial
scheme to make sure that the problems that arise, in particular
for the customers of customs brokers, will not reoccur in the
future.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister knows very well that members of that association,
including the large American companies, have the right to one
vote for each office they operate in different districts.
Therefore, the process is totally undemocratic.
Does the Minister of National Revenue recognize that if the
proposed regulations were to be implemented in their present
form, it could force several small independent customs brokers
out of business and that would mean several thousand jobs lost
for Canadians?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when new measures are introduced with
respect to insurance provisions it is always possible that some
people will be in such financial position that they will be unable
to obtain insurance, whether through their association or outside
it. That is a possibility.
However, I would assure the hon. member that the system put
in place was developed by the customs brokers. We are
attempting to assist so that there will be some self-regulation
and self-policing in the customs brokerage industry. Therefore
the risks to the public of Canada and in particular the risks to the
individual customers of customs brokers will be dramatically
reduced.
(1450 )
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, section 8
of the public accounts details an endless list of payments made
to interest groups, everything from $73,000 for fashion design
to $54,000 for World Food Day Association.
The government has been in power for over a year but it has
made no cuts to interest group funding. Thirteen months later,
$50 billion deeper in debt, and the government still has not made
any announcement.
Will the President of the Treasury Board please tell the House
and all Canadians why we still have not had any cuts to interest
group funding, and when will he act?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the answer I give is similar to the answer that the
finance minister and the parliamentary secretary have given.
This is all part of the process leading up to the budget. In fact,
it is part of the program review process. Special interest group
funding, I can assure the hon. member, is under examination, as
is every program and service, as we attempt to get our spending
in line, to get our deficit down to 3 per cent of GDP.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadian taxpayers are upset, the Reform Party is upset, even
Liberal backbenchers are upset about the gross waste of
taxpayers' money.
Why is the President of the Treasury Board not upset about
this waste of money? Why is he not acting now rather than
waiting for the budget which is several more months and several
hundred million dollars later?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, while my hon. friend and the third party is talking
about the matter, we are acting. The matter is fully under review.
Consultations are going on with various departments on all
aspects of spending, including interest group funding.
* * *
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. He will no
doubt recall that a recent decision by the CRTC to allow for a
rate increase in local telephone rates by provincial companies
may result in a $72 a year increase for local subscribers.
That decision is being appealed by marketplace competitors.
But it is important to understand that such a decision by a
non-elected body constitutes a de facto tax imposition,
especially on those who are little able to meet such costs and
who
8831
rely on these telephones for safety, for social security and social
contact.
Is the minister going to do something about this, and how
soon?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the member indicates, a number of groups have
appealed the decision of the CRTC-9419. They petitioned the
governor in council to review that decision.
It is under consideration by me. I will be making
recommendations to cabinet in due course with full
consciousness of the implications involved and the time that the
decision will take effect.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
The minister has still not seen fit to speak to the Director of
the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs following the interventions of
his official with some members of Parliament. Acting as a
lobbyist for some pharmaceutical companies, Mr. Ritter still has
access to the Health Canada office and the minister has not yet
responded to that.
Will the minister finally admit that Mr. Ritter is indeed in
conflict of interest under sections 6(a), 6(b), 26, 42(b), 42(c),
and so on, of the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment
Code for Public Office Holders, and will she immediately take
the disciplinary action necessary to correct this unacceptable
situation?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I said in the House yesterday, my officials continue
to look into this question. When their investigation is complete,
they will be reporting to me. I will be pleased to share the
findings with the hon. member.
(1455 )
I want to clarify a few points. The person in question is not on
leave as the director of the Bureau of Veterinary Medicine. He
will not be returning to that position if and when he returns to
Health Canada.
As concerns the review process for BST, scientific
considerations are absolutely the only thing that will have any
bearing on the approval process.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister.
Is the Prime Minister willing to do what the Minister of
Health should have done a long time ago, that is to immediately
apply section 33 of the Code which provides for disciplinary
action, including dismissal of officials in conflict of interest, if
appropriate?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have said and I will repeat again that the officials in
my department are reviewing the situation. When they have
finished their review they will report to me and I will be pleased
to share the findings.
* * *
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
1990 in Fredericton, New Brunswick, gasoline from a leaking
Petro-Canada underground tank migrated under the
neighbouring house of the Curtis family.
The gasoline fumes in and around the house during the past
four years have caused the Curtis family to lose their home, lose
their family business and most tragically of all, it has caused
permanent mental and physical damage to the Curtis' seven year
old daughter.
What is the environment minister prepared to do about this
environmental and human disaster?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind the
sensitivity of the issue and the fact that obviously the brain
damaged child is in very serious condition, what I would like to
do is take a look at all the circumstances and report back to the
House.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the minister's answer.
My supplemental is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
During this four-year nightmare for the Curtis' Petro-Canada
has treated the family like criminals. When the spill occurred in
1990, Petro-Canada was a crown corporation and is now a
company in which the government owns over 70 per cent of the
shares.
Does the minister condone the bullying manner of
Petro-Canada and will she intervene on the Curtis' behalf to
ensure Petro-Canada is financially responsible for the
additional medical treatment and care required for the Curtis'
daughter?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not condone bullying, if that is what
happened in this case. I do not know whether that is the case, but
I assure the hon. member that I will take this matter under
advisement. I will investigate it and report back to him and this
House.
8832
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister who tomorrow
will be attending the Latin American summit in Miami.
I want to ask the Prime Minister if he will assure the House
that at the summit he will raise two specific issues. First, will he
raise the issue of the exclusion of Cuba from the summit and the
continued illegal and immoral blockade by the United States of
that country.
Second, given the very critical situation is Chiapas, Mexico
will the Prime Minister urge at the summit an open dialogue and
a peaceful, negotiated, non-military settlement in Chiapas?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on the question of Mexico we have already mentioned
many times to the authorities there that we want them to
negotiate a settlement with the people of that province. I am
informed that the dialogue is going better than it was some
months ago. But I will press the issue with the newly elected
president if I have the occasion.
As far as Mr. Castro and Cuba not being present are
concerned, we would have had no problem seeing him there. It
was decided that he was not to be invited and I was not the one
inviting people to that summit.
* * *
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of
immigration.
The minister of immigration recently announced that it was
the intention of the minister to increase the number of business
class immigrants coming from India.
(1500 )
My concern is that according to a story in the Globe and Mail,
this increase will come from around Bombay and will not
include areas such as Punjab. This situation is of grave concern
to the many constituents in my riding of Indian descent. What is
the basis for the new business immigration strategy?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the
immigration plan that this government tabled on November 1,
two key operative measures describe our business immigration:
first, to promote it aggressively in a balanced way across the
globe; second, to diversify. Seventy-five per cent of all business
immigration comes from Asia and we think that is good,
evidenced by the recent trip by the Prime Minister and a
Canadian delegation.
However, we would also like to diversify in other areas of the
world that would like to take advantage of the business
immigration program. We identified such examples as western
Europe, eastern Europe and the Middle East.
With respect to India, we all know that the majority of
immigrants are coming from the Punjab through the New Delhi
office. Other countries of the world are also in southern India.
It is not a question of simply excluding individuals, it is also
being present in southern Indian where I think the recent trip of
the minister of trade showed that Canada could reap some
tremendous economic benefits and also continue to have the
programs through New Delhi servicing Indians who wish to
make Canada their home.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise
with the customary question for Thursday. Would the
government House leader tell us what the order of business will
be until the end of this session?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, today we are going to continue with the Bloc
opposition day and there will be votes on supply at 5.30 this
afternoon.
Tomorrow we are going to call third reading of Bill C-51, the
grain bill, and Bill C-56, the Environmental Assessment Act
amendments, followed if possible by report stage of Bill C-52,
the Department of Public Works and Government Services
reorganization.
On Monday we will take up where we left off on Friday and
follow this business with report stage of Bill C-44 with respect
to immigration. On Monday as well we expect to introduce
legislation regarding employment equity. We intend to propose
that this bill be referred to committee before second reading
pursuant to Standing Order 73(1).
This will both meet the legislative requirement for a
parliamentary review of existing legislation and provide the
House with the most broad possible opportunities for updating
the law on this matter. Subject to progress on other legislation,
we would like to add this matter to the business for Tuesday.
On Wednesday we intend to deal with report stage of Bill
C-53, the Canadian Heritage reorganization bill. On Thursday
we will deal with third reading of that bill.
That completes my weekly business statement.
8833
8833
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I want to reply to the member for Québec-Est
who questioned my remarks just before Question Period.
The hon. member said that he and the Quebecois people were
insulted by my remarks which attacked the Parizeau proposals
as undemocratic.
I want to make it very clear that I made no attack on the people
of Quebec, whom I respect. My remarks were directed at the
Government of Quebec and the Bloc Quebecois. Neither the
Parti Quebecois nor the Bloc Quebecois is one and the same as
the people of Quebec, although sometimes those members
believe they are.
I said that the Parizeau proposals were not democratic
because first, they were putting the law on independence before
the National Assembly first and they were going to consult and
have the referendum afterward. Second, they had no mandate
from the electorate because they only received 44 per cent of the
vote.
(1505 )
Third, their regional commissions were structured to favour
the independence option and were not neutral. Fourth, the
proposals were fuzzed, unclear and misleading.
As to my use of French in this House, when I speak in
Parliament I usually use my mother tongue which is English,
which is my right.
[Translation]
When I talk with my constituents, I use their language,
whether French or English, and that is my right also.
Mr. Laurin: Madam Speaker, on a point of order! We were of
the opinion that the hon. member had a minute left when he was
interrupted for question period. At that time, the Bloc Quebecois
member had the floor and the Chair said he would let him finish
and allow an answer from the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. But you went directly to the answer,
without giving the minute to our party.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The clerk will correct
me if I am wrong, but I had understood that there was one minute
left for the answer of the government member. I will give the
minute left to the hon. member for Québec-Est.
Mr. Marchand: Madam Speaker, I want to go back to what I
said earlier about the statement made by the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce because I find it insulting for all
members of this House when he says the Quebec referendum
was unethical.
How can he, who was a member of the Trudeau cabinet, say
that a process such as this one was unethical? In 1980, Mr.
Trudeau came to the Paul Sauvé Arena and promised Quebecers
he would amend the Constitution. Then he deceived Quebec by
limiting its powers and creating the problems we have now.
Not only that, and I will conclude with this, the hon. member
was also part of the Trudeau cabinet in 1970 when-
[English]
Mr. Allmand: Madam Speaker, not only was I not in the
Trudeau cabinet at that time, but I voted against the Constitution
of 1982.
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am sure that many Canadians watching the events of the past two
days must be experiencing a deep and visceral reaction as the
new Government of Quebec and its separatist allies in this
Chamber finally launched their desperate push to realize their
dreams and tear Quebec out of Canada.
Some Canadians must be feeling a sense of concern and
anxiety about the future of a country we cherish. Some
Canadians must be feeling a sense of dismay, of déjà vu. Are we
ever going to put these issues behind us or are we condemned to
regular flare-ups of a national unity crisis like a bad toothache?
Some must be feeling deep frustration, a sense of wanting to
get involved, to have a say, to make a difference. The frustration
comes from seeing the separatist politicians trying to hijack a
great and successful country. The frustration comes from having
to hear the kind of nonsense spouted by the separatists, nonsense
about how simple and easy separation would be, nonsense about
how Canada does not work and especially nonsense about how
Canadians in other provinces feel about Quebec.
The separatists are already presenting us with a wide array of
distortions. Their rhetoric will get louder and louder and more
and more extreme as they draw closer to their day of reckoning.
They will be trying to tell Quebecers there is no place for them in
Canada, no recognition, no accommodation. They will be telling
Quebecers other Canadians want them to leave or no longer care
one way or the other.
They will ignore the nearly 1 million francophone Canadians
who live outside the boundaries of Quebec, whom they intend to
cast overboard, to sink or swim.
8834
(1510 )
They will be telling Quebecers our partnership has reached a
stage of irreconcilable differences, that it is time to divvy up the
assets and to get on with our separate lives. They will be telling
Quebecers it would be a painless breakup, while telling the rest
of Canada that we cannot get along anymore, but by the way, we
will still need the use of your dollar and open access to your
markets.
It is hard to know how to react, to laugh at the absurdity and
the contradictions of the separatist project, to cry at the tragedy
of so much talent, time and energy being wasted chasing a
totally unnecessary leap into the unknown, or to get angry at the
dishonesty and the contempt that permeate the separatist
arguments.
There is so much that is absurd, the prospect of soldiers in the
new Quebec army lining up to be paid in Canadian dollars, the
idea that Quebec needs independence to choose its own
immigrants side by side with promises by the PQ of unrestricted
mobility of labour with the rest of Canada.
It is strange to hear the lamenting about how there is no room
for Quebec in Canada when we can look around this city and see
Quebecers occupying the highest offices this country has to
offer. It is strange to hear Mr. Parizeau vaunt the
accomplishments of Quebec at every opportunity, waxing
eloquent and quite rightly so about the social, economic and
cultural progress Quebec has made these past 30 years.
He does not even blush and acknowledge that all of that
progress took place inside Canada. It came through hard work
and partnership between Quebecers and other Canadians and
through partnership between two levels of government. It is
strange to hear the separatists denounce the rigidities of a
system that gave Quebec so many tools and the French language
and culture a secure home.
There is much that would be saddening if the separatists ever
had their way, the dismembering and discarding of a model of
governance that points the way to the world of the future. The
future does not belong to microstates, it belongs to partnerships
of communities sharing their sovereignty to pursue a better life
for their citizens.
It is sad to see the separatists' headlong race back into the
past. There is much to provoke anger. The separatists will
denigrate and belittle accomplishments of Canada. They will
play fast and loose with the truth. They will show contempt for
anyone who does not share their vision or their zeal.
To laugh, to cry, to get angry, I urge my fellow Canadians not
to give in to an emotional reaction, to realize what is going on
here. This is the beginning of an increasingly desperate and
panicky assault by the separatist movement. They have one shot
at making the case to break up Canada. They know deep down
they carry an enormous burden of proof and it is starting to
rattle their nerves. As they get more and more rattled, they are
desperately trying to put their opponents on the defensive and it
is not going to work.
There is an overwhelming consensus that it is time for
Quebecers to make a decision. In 1995 we will come to a fork in
the road and we will take one path or the other. It is that simple.
The stark clarity makes some people uncomfortable. That is
understandable, but there is no longer any use denying that the
fork in the road is here in front of us.
I share in the consensus that the time has come for a decision,
but I want that decision to last and to be accepted gracefully by
the separatists. For the decision to stick it must be seen by
Quebecers and by Canadians in every other province as a clear
result on a clear question after a fair and full debate. It should
come at the end of the process used twice before, the Quebec
referendum law. That is what the Parti Quebecois promised in
order to get elected, albeit by the narrowest of margins. That is
what it is morally and politically obliged to deliver now.
The resolution is misleading because it ignores the reality that
Quebec's future is Canada's future, that after two centuries of
partnership, of building a political, social and economic union
together, Canadians in other parts of the federation would be
indifferent or unaffected by a decision by one-quarter of its
members to leave.
Other Canadians have a right to talk with Quebecers about
that decision, about the options they have. We want Quebec to
stay. We want to get back to what all of us Canadians do best,
working out practical solutions to real problems, innovating and
adapting, bending and compromising, adjusting and changing.
We have always found the ways to live together, to work
together, to build together. We have found ways to acknowledge
and indeed to cherish our differences and at the same time
realize how much we share. We have had a successful federation
in this country for 127 years. We have woven together an
economic union, a sharing social community and a democratic
political union so well that too many of us have forgotten what
we have to lose.
(1515)
Why federalism? It is disarmingly simple. Federations allow
communities to come together under peaceful and democratic
political structures to share the benefit of social and economic
co-operation while retaining the very high degree of local
control over issues that matter most to local communities. It is a
simple idea like most great ideas. It is an idea that has worked in
societies that are on the surface relatively uniform, societies
like Germany, Australia, and the United States.
It is a particularly important idea in societies where
communities based on language, religion or ethnicity live side
by side, societies like Switzerland, India and, yes, Canada. It is a
great idea but it is constantly under attack. All over the world
there are politicians who promote difference, who offer people
false hope
8835
that their lives would suddenly improve if walls went up with
other communities.
Some of them sit in this Chamber. Federalism gives local
communities the scope to exercise control over many aspects of
their lives, especially in matters close to the cultural vitality and
the social development of the community.
Federalism enables communities to co-operate with their
neighbours and to work together in pursuit of common goals.
Federalism is a way to pool resources, talent and energy in
pursuit of these goals. Federalism provides a framework of
peace, order and security and allows communities and
individuals to live side by side.
Federalism creates a common identity and a purpose that can
transcend differences without replacing local identities and
local communities. Federalism provides the structures of an
economic union but places them under the control of a
democratic legislature. Federalism provides the basis for a
sharing community, for a redistribution of wealth from richer to
poorer regions and from richer to poorer citizens.
Federalism allows minority groups to exercise democratic
control over their communities and to tailor laws and
government services to meet their own needs and preferences
while at the same time exercising a powerful voice in the
legislature and executive that serves the community as a whole.
It is true that some of these benefits can be realized by
partnership between small and independent nation states.
Around the world there are military alliances, trade agreements,
various forms of co-operation and mutual assistance but a
closer look shows there is a common striving in many parts of
the world to move beyond security pacts and free trade.
The extra element to the sharing community and democratic
control over matters of common interest are the bonds that are
the most difficult to forge and the most vulnerable to being cut.
A successful federation is a whole that is much stronger than the
sum of its parts.
It involves at least two or maybe three strong levels of
government and a natural tension between them. It involves
disagreements and compromises. Running a federal system of
government is a noisy, sometimes messy, affair. Sometimes it is
frustrating, especially to those who seek quick fixes and bold
dramatic gestures.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry. The hon.
member's time is up.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ):
Madam Speaker, the debate that is taking place here today is
historic and I expected a higher level of debate from the other
side. I see that our colleagues opposite consistently select for
their statements examples and quotes that support their position,
while omitting examples and quotes that are unfavourable to it.
For example, this morning, the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs went through newspapers from coast to coast, he said to
show how editorial writers were all against the sovereignist
solution that we are advocating. Except that one article in Le
Devoir, which is also somewhere between those two coasts, as
far as I know, and on the front page, which is hard to forget-
(1520)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Order. The hon. member
must respond to the comments of the member for Edmonton
East.
Mr. Mercier: I am getting there, Madam Speaker, but since
we are discussing generalities, it all takes time.
The hon. member gave a general defence of the federal option,
and my answer was that the general arguments we have heard
lack consistency. May I proceed, Madam Speaker?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All right.
Mr. Mercier: So I think that should interest the hon. member.
In Ottawa, according to Jean Dion's article, the first salvos that
were fired stressed the undemocratic nature of the Parizeau
plan. It is all very convenient, now that the government is
headed by Jean Chrétien, a man who does not want to talk about
the Constitution, so that the federal government can no longer
argue, at it did in 1980, the case for renewed federalism to
accommodate that unruly province. This deals with the
objections we just heard.
Next, in a reference to prosperous federations, they say:
Switzerland is prosperous, but the USSR was not. Brazil is not.
Russia is not. These are federations, which proves that a federal
system is no guarantee of prosperity.
Third, who or what determines the quality of our lives,
Madam Speaker? People, Canadians and Quebecers, not the
federal system, determine our standard of living. I am told this
country has the highest standard of living in the world, Madam
Speaker. When you cut a cake in two, are the two halves smaller
than they were before? Not as far as I know.
For instance, Norway and Sweden were one country until
1904-05, when Sweden accepted Norway's separation. Did
Norway and Sweden become impoverished after they were
separated? They are among the most prosperous countries
mentioned.
What about the G-7? They say we will not be part of the G-7.
Well, we could not care less, because you do not have to be big to
be prosperous. The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, with a
popula-
8836
tion of 300,000, has an unemployment rate of 2 per cent. We
would not mind that.
That being said, I remain convinced that sovereignty is the
best choice for Quebec's future, and I invite the people of
Blainville-Deux-Montagnes to take an active part in the
debate that starts today.
[English]
Ms. Bethel: Madam Speaker, there are several aspects that I
would like to respond to. I want to make it absolutely clear that
we are not defending federalism. The record of federalism in
this country is clear to all Canadians.
The hon. member talked about the quality of people. I think
that is where federalism's greatest gift lies. It does not matter in
this country which province we live in, which city, which
community, which neighbourhood. This country cares for all of
its people.
We have provided education, social programs and economic
prosperity through good times and bad times. We do not
determine that on where we live. It is available to all citizens.
Those who live in the inner city of Montreal are feeling the same
pain as those who live in Edmonton East inner city
neighbourhood. Federalism can deal with that in a fair and
equitable manner.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I am particularly pleased to debate this motion on the
legitimacy of the consultation process on Quebec sovereignty,
released this week by the Right Hon. Premier of Quebec, Mr.
Jacques Parizeau.
Mr. Parizeau is known for his honesty, his candour and his
humanity. He has a reputation for saying what he is doing, and
exactly what he says. He is proving it this week, intelligently,
skilfully and competently.
(1525)
We are proud of Mr. Parizeau. We can only be proud of our
Premier and glad to be associated with such an exciting process,
a highly democratic process.
I have been an avid observer of the political scene from a very
early age, but especially so since 1987. I followed with interest
what led us to the Meech Lake Accord. This accord was the last
attempt of our fellow Quebecers who still believed, then, that
Quebec had a place within the Canadian Confederation.
It was also the last attempt to make up for the affront
perpetrated by the present Prime Minister of Canada and his
team, in 1981, during the night of the long knives, which led to
the unilateral patriation of the Constitution. That was, to use
some now famous words, the last attempt to make Canada
whole, to have federalist Quebecers sign the Canadian
Constitution with honour and enthusiasm.
I lived through the second phase, the one which led to the
failure of Meech. I observed it closely, but with much sadness,
especially when the report of the special committee studying the
proposed companion resolution to the Meech Lake Accord,
better know as the Charest Report, was published.
The Charest report, named after the member for Sherbrooke,
reduced to next to nothing what was already considered as the
bare minimum, the entrance door allowing Quebec to try, one
last time, to take its place within the Canadian federation, a
springboard for Quebec to get all the powers, all the tools it
needed in the areas of social programs, the economy and also
culture.
The tabling of this report burying the Meech Lake Accord
sadly put an end, an emotional one for most of my fellow
citizens who still believed in that country, to a saga which had
started with the ``beau risque'' as a hopeful initiative.
Quebecers remember this report tabled by the present member
for Sherbrooke who was then minister responsible for the
committee which really killed the Meech Lake Accord.
Those were days of sadness, emotion, and grief for me, but I
was proud of what happened after. I was very proud to see MPs
from Quebec, seven of them at the time, who were eventually
joined by an eighth one, the member for Saint-Hubert, resign
because they disagreed with the government foiling the final
attempt, putting an end to the ``beau risque''. They took a stand
and I take this opportunity to salute them.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Loubier: They took a stand and all Quebecers were proud
of them. They stood up against this attempt by Canadian
federalists to enslave a whole people, my people. I repeat, the
member for Sherbrooke was there among them, and the present
Prime Minister was in the hallways with his walkman, and often
with a walkie talkie, to give instructions, in order to block the
approval of any distinctive status, or to put an end to any attempt
to give a distinctive status to Quebec.
Among the eight who stood firm, who fought to the end for the
interests of Quebecers and also to preserve their dignity and
pride, there was the present Leader of the Opposition, our leader
and friend-my best friend. I want to extend my affectionate
greetings to him and his wife, Audrey, and his two children,
Alexandre and Simon. He is the reason why, at the time, I was
moved very positively by what was happening, because the
Quebec people had just acquired a great leader. Quebec had just
acquired a new leader, who was standing firm with six of his
colleagues, and later on with a seventh one. We are proud of that.
8837
(1530)
After that, Madam Speaker, as you will recall, there was a lot
of constitutional turbulence and commotion. Remember the
Beaudoin-Dobbie report, the Beaudoin-Edwards report, the
Spicer commission and Charlottetown. These documents were
supposed to fulfill the aspirations of Quebecers, after they were
betrayed by the rejection of the Meech Lake Accord.
We took part in all these debates. We are sovereignists, but we
took part in all these debates. Why are Quebec federalists, the
Leader of the Opposition in the Quebec legislature, including
federal members from Quebec, Liberals and others, refusing to
discuss ideas, to discuss federalism, while we took part in all
federalist debates which led to the adoption of those reports
aimed at one thing only. They were a smoke screen used to make
Quebecers believe that a reform, even the slightest reform, was
possible so they could have their place, a real place which they
would be proud and honoured and willing to occupy.
Why do federalists refuse a process which is eminently
democratic, open, allowing for the exchange of ideas, like the
one announced by the Premier of Quebec? Why? Because they
are afraid. They are afraid of their ideas because it is impossible
to defend a rigid status quo that prevents the normal economic,
social and cultural progress of the people of Quebec. During
Question Period, I heard the Prime Minister say that it is within
Canada that Quebecers have developed. Acutally, we have done
so despite Canada.
Remember all the efforts and energy we have had to spend
since 1964, the days of Jean Lesage, in order to patriate powers
that we considered essential to our development. Madam
Speaker, look at what we have been doing in the last seven years
in particular. We have done nothing but that, try to develop, try
to develop employment, to stimulate our economic growth with
powers which are presently in federal hands and which Quebec
is being denied. Is that what you call harmonious development
within the federal system?
No. If Quebecers have become what they are today, if their
businesses are so dynamic and their workers so skilled, it is
because at one point in time we decided to take charge of our
own affairs despite all opposition and despite the federal system
that tried to paralyse us, to keep us down and even to use force to
prevent us from developing our collective wealth.
Remember Bill S-31. There was the Bélanger-Campeau
Commission. We also participated in the Bélanger-Campeau
Commission. And if I have one reason, as an economist, to be
proud of the work accomplished there, it is for one particular
aspect of it: it put an end to all the economic bugbears and
showed us that Canada's threat, not to allow Quebec goods and
services into Canada, was empty.
With Ontario alone, the net balance of trade between Ontario
and Quebec is over $3 billion; that is, Ontario sells Quebec $3
billion more of goods and services than Quebec sells Ontario.
Would Ontario close its border? Bélanger-Campeau stifled this
kind of nonsense. It also put an end to scare tactics like saying
Quebec would lose its milk production.
When even the president of the UPA contradicts the current
Leader of the Opposition in Quebec, who said ``You will lose
your quotas, and your share of milk production'', that is
something. So, I would urge you and every citizen, regardless of
ethnic origin, language and political affiliation, to take part in
this democratic process. I am sending out a special invitation to
the English-speaking community. I would have a short
paragraph to read them, if I may Madam Speaker, in their
language.
[English]
``Anglophones and francophones of Quebec are still
democrats and it is as democrats that I invite you today, most
sincerely, to take this friendly hand we are extending to you, to
help solve the question of importance to you and to join with us
in building together the kind of country that we want to live in.
Do not forget the future of Quebec is yours. The future and
prosperity of Quebec is also in your hands. I am asking you not
to remain on the sideline of your evolution and participate in the
process proposed by the prime minister of Quebec''.
[Translation]
I also send out a special invitation to the people of my riding
of Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot to participate in this eminently
democratic process, as well as all interested organizations and
individuals throughout Montérégie.
(1535)
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I have been listening with interest to this play
that the Bloc Quebecois has been performing for us since this
morning. The problem is that I still do not know whether it is a
tragedy or a comedy. It may be a tragicomedy.
The draft bill proposed by the separatists is a monumental
deception. The Bloc Quebecois should be ashamed of
associating with this undemocratic process.
I always felt that the leader of the Bloc Quebecois was a great
democrat and I am convinced that, from his hospital bed, he
must be upset by the PQ flouting the democratic process in
Quebec. He must also realize that the PQ has just made a
strategic mistake that will cost the separatists dearly. This bill
8838
insults Quebecers' intelligence. It is a bomb that will explode in
the separatists' faces.
I have more confidence in Quebecers' integrity and
intelligence. I am convinced that they will detect Mr. Parizeau's
deception through the smoke screen he has put up. This process
reminds me a little of a somewhat unscrupulous insurance agent
who showed up at our house. He told me that I certainly needed
insurance and that he would sell me term or permanent
insurance. I asked him who had told him that I needed his
insurance and I threw him out the door.
The leader of the PQ shows the same attitude by telling
Quebecers in his patronizing manner: ``I know what is good for
you. You want independence, you want separation. Now, do you
want separation with or without the Canadian dollar? With or
without Canadian citizenship?''
I think that Quebecers will say no, not only to the PQ's and the
BQ's separatist option, but also to the separatists' deception and
manipulation.
Mr. Loubier: Madam Speaker, I have three comments to
make following the hon. member's intervention. First, I want to
ask him to show a little more respect for my leader and to
remember that he has been involved in the referendum strategy
for the last three months. Consequently, my leader certainly
supports and endorses the process unveiled by Mr. Parizeau.
I also want to tell the hon. member-who was almost
slanderous when he alluded to the honesty and integrity of
sovereignists-that we were not afraid, as I said earlier, to
participate in the debate proposed to us by the federalists. Is it
because, unlike maybe 1980 or shortly before, the federalists are
running out of arguments to convince us to stay in Canada are
thus unable to publicly debate this issue?
We are offering you a forum: Why not use it to discuss the
issue, instead of hiding behind your desk and making comments
which are almost disrespectful, if not downright slanderous? I
also ask the hon. member to be careful when denigrating Quebec
as well as the wishes of a whole nation. My colleague, the hon.
member for Témiscamingue, told me that you both represent
neighbouring ridings and that yours benefits immensely from
that proximity. Indeed, many people living on the Quebec side
cross the border into Ontario, to shop in the member's riding.
Again, the hon. member should be careful when making
comments.
We have common interests, as evidenced by this activity
between the two ridings. So, let us be careful. We must respect
the will of people, and we must also respect an eminently
democratic process. All Quebec federalists should participate in
the consultation process.
(1540)
If they do not want to move, then they should tell us, because
the house is falling down. However, these federalists should
come up with arguments to support their views. But do come to
sit and talk. We are open, and we are very cool, calm and
collected.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
very honoured and proud to take part in today's debate on the
motion put forward by the Official Opposition. As you know,
this motion deals with the draft bill on Quebec's sovereignty
which was introduced by the Quebec Premier on Tuesday.
How exciting it is to discuss the draft bill that was introduced
by the Quebec government and that sets forth a clear and
responsible process which will let Quebecers from every walk of
life take part in the debate on this plan for Quebec's
constitutional future. To my knowledge, this is a unique process.
I do not know that many countries in the world where the people
are asked to express their opinion on a draft bill. This openness
may be another distinct characteristic of Quebec.
The Quebec government wants the people of Quebec to
express their views on the significant issues related to
sovereignty. Discussions on significant issues related to the
sovereignty proposal will be held in every Quebec region.
During these consultations, Quebecers will have the opportunity
to say what they expect from a sovereign Quebec.
Another issue will be raised in the debate on the draft bill. I
am talking about Quebec citizenship. I would like to say a few
words on this. The draft bill sets conditions for becoming a
citizen of sovereign Quebec. If you examine clause 5 which
deals specifically with this issue, you will see how generously
all Quebec citizens will be treated.
It is refreshing to see that a sovereign Quebec would not use
the same approach as the Canadian government with regard to
citizenship. Quebec is showing openness and generosity by
saying that it will give Quebec citizenship to all Canadian
citizens domiciled in Quebec, without any restrictions. That is
much different from the position of the present government
which refuses to do the same thing, as indicated in the report
published last spring by the Standing Committee on Citizenship
and Immigration. The committee recommended that the new
Citizenship Act stipulate that a Canadian citizen who
voluntarily or officially acquires citizenship of another country,
other than by marriage or in other circumstances such as
adoption, shall cease to be a Canadian citizen.
In contrast, the draft bill on sovereignty stipulates that, and I
quote: ``Quebec citizenship may be held concurrently with
citizenship of Canada or of any other country.'' Quebec would
not be the first country to adopt such a policy. France, Great
Britain, the United States, Italy and Switzerland, just to name a
8839
few, are among the countries whose residents can have dual
citizenship.
Canada and Quebec have always been known as generous and
welcoming states. As a matter of fact, Canada has recognized
and accepted the principle of dual citizenship for a long time.
Why this change by the federal government? Why should a
Canadian citizen lose his or her citizenship if he or she acquires
citizenship in another country? This restrictive policy has to be
denounced. By any chance would that policy be meant to deny
Quebecers the right to keep their Canadian citizenship if they so
wish? Madam Speaker, this is a federalist ploy.
(1545)
The draft bill also proposes that once Quebecers have voted in
favour of sovereignty, any citizen residing in Quebec will
automatically be considered a Quebec citizen. It is nice to see
there will be no distinction between Quebecers of many
generations and those recently arrived. For instance, the new
citizen coming from Africa or Asia will have the same rights as
all old-stock Quebecers. Quebec has always been free from
prejudice against new citizens from foreign countries.
I would like to quote a Quebec poet, novelist and essayist, a
resident of Laval East, Fernand Ouellet. I would also like to take
this opportunity to congratulate him on the Ludger Duvernay
award he received in November. Mr. Ouellet said: ``My
ancestors came from Paris, Champagne, Normandy, Poitou,
Brittany and the Basque country. Very early, they were exposed
to people of various ethnic groups and showed their willingness
to live with others. A Norman from Bayeux would naturally
marry a Basque girl from Bayonne or a Breton from Quimper.
That is how our nation was born.''
Quebec is a land of immigrants. Our roots are French,
Anglo-Saxon, Irish, Italian, Greek, Latin American and
American. Our traditions, our customs and our art were always
influenced by the input of immigrants who enhanced the cultural
heritage of Quebec.
In future, this openness will remain and even increase.
Quebecers are people who reside in Quebec and who like to live
there. Quebec citizenship will include all those who live within
Quebec's borders and who wish to take part in its development.
Madam Speaker, please, I would like to continue without all
the silliness and insulting remarks.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Order, please. I would
ask the hon. member to continue.
Mrs. Debien: Madam Speaker, the draft bill adds that when
the Quebec people have voted for Quebec sovereignty, every
person who was born in Quebec or who was born outside Quebec
and whose father or mother held Quebec citizenship will
automatically be a Quebec citizen. These provisions are totally
in keeping with what is done in many countries, including
Canada.
Finally, the section of the draft bill also proposes, and I quote:
``Quebec citizenship may also be acquired in the manner
determined by the National Assembly.'' As in all sovereign and
normal countries, newcomers will acquire Quebec citizenship
under a legal framework, with regulations, and Quebec
citizenship law will be applied according to clearly defined
administrative procedures.
The federal government recently decided to close up, to
become more suspicious and to see plots everywhere and
systematic attempts at abuse coming from other countries.
Quebec is opting for a much more positive approach to
newcomers who want to live in Quebec. Quebec wants to join
other nations at a time when challenges in trade, openness and
globalization await us.
In closing, I would like to say that this draft bill proposes a
thoughtful and analytical approach in which all Quebecers are
invited to participate. I hope that the people of Laval East,
whatever their political affiliation and their ethnic origin, and
all groups and organizations from our area will come and
participate in a highly democratic process to define the future of
Quebec. The sharing of ideas and the opportunity to express
them is what democracy is all about.
(1550)
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
listened with great interest to what my colleague from Laval
East had to say. I cannot help thinking that ever since I was
elected to this House, the members opposite have been
criticizing us and telling us that the status quo is unacceptable.
With the draft bill that is proposed, I wonder what choices Mr.
Parizeau, the members of the Bloc Quebecois and the members
of the Parti Quebecois really have to offer Quebecers. We are
being offered the same Canadian passport. We are being offered
the same Canadian dollar. We are being offered the same
international treaties. As well, they say in the draft bill that they
want to be a member of the most important organizations in the
world such as the UN, GATT and NAFTA. Quebec and
Quebecers already have those privileges. What more do they
want?
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil): To become masters of our own
destiny!
Mr. Discepola: To become masters of their own destiny?
They already have control over their own tax system and their
own legislative system. They have full control over education,
language, culture and immigration. They have all that within
Canada.
To meet the requirements of the Referendum Act, which is the
authority on which all referendums and plebiscites are held in
Quebec, it is clear that there have to be two parties: a yes and a
no side. Is that democracy? The so-called democracy that we are
being offered in that draft bill? Where are the two parties?
8840
Clause 1 provides that Quebec is already a sovereign country.
What other choice is there for those who do not want Quebec to
be sovereign? Where is the consultation process? Do they really
want to know what other people think? I wonder where
democracy stands when 13 members of the 15 commissions
proposed are separatists and only two of them are federalists. Is
that democracy?
Mr. Boudria: That is Parizeau-style democracy.
Mr. Discepola: Quebecers are offered an alternative. They
should have the courage to ask the question correctly instead of
writing 18 sections and after that asking the real question that is
required by the Referendum Act, yes or no. They should find it
in themselves to ask the relevant question: Do you want to
separate from the most wonderful country of the world, yes or
no? But do they have that kind of courage?
Mrs. Debien: Madam Speaker, at times I have the sneaky
suspicion that Liberal members have not read the bill.
An hon. member: They cannot read.
Mr. Boudria: It takes only five minutes.
Mrs. Debien: They must have skipped some parts. This draft
bill says that there will be a period of information and
participation during which the bill can be improved. What does
that mean? It means that we can listen to opinions, we can
entertain proposals for amendment, and that is precisely what
we expect from the Liberals. But they do not want to. They are
stuck on the status quo.
How can they come and talk to us when they are mired in the
status quo. They skip stages too. Improvements will be made,
maybe even changes. Everyone is invited to take part. There will
be a debate in the National Assembly and then this bill will be
approved by the people in a referendum.
(1555)
They forget that. They forget to acknowledge that there will
be a referendum on this draft bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry, but the hon.
member's time has run out. I recognize the hon. whip of the
government.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I am happy to take part in the debate this
afternoon. Since this morning, I have been listening to the
comments of the members opposite. What are they asking us?
They want the House to enjoin the government to recognize the
legitimacy of the so-called democratic process initiated by the
Government of Quebec to allow Quebecers to choose the
political and constitutional future of Quebec.
We should ask ourselves, if this is the wish of the Bloc
Quebecois, why was that motion not introduced in the Quebec
National Assembly in order to ask the National Assembly to do
precisely what that motion proposes, because what has been
introduced in the National Assembly is certainly not, in my
opinion, democratic and most of all it will not allow Quebecers
to choose their political and constitutional future.
The proposal introduced in the National Assembly is a sham
and the members opposite know it. Why is it a sham? Because
everything has been structured and organized in such a way that
almost all participants are supporters of separation, excuse me,
sovereignty as the members opposite would say, because they
are afraid to use the real word and they do not have the courage
and the conviction to say what we all know.
But we intend to tell the truth to Canadians, those who live in
Quebec and the others, about what Quebecers are being told by
the Parti Quebecois or by the minor league of the Parti
Quebecois in Ottawa, the farm team, the Bloc Quebecois here in
town. The members of the farm team and those of the Parti
Quebecois want us to believe that they are the real defenders of
Quebec.
An hon. member: It is certainly not you!
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, someone just said: ``It is
certainly not you''. I was born in Quebec, I am Franco-Ontarian
by adoption and I am proud to say that as a Quebecer, which I
am, I can represent a riding in Ontario, in the Parliament of this
country, because it is my right as it is the right of every Quebecer
to be a candidate from coast to coast and to represent Canadians.
Members opposite want to deprive me of that right, they want
to deprive Quebecers of that right and we should not forget that.
Members opposite claim to defend not only the rights of
Quebecers but those of francophones outside Quebec.
Madam Speaker, let me read an excerpt from the November
1993 issue of The Hill Times. In this article, the member for
Quebec was interviewed, and she said:
[English]
``Bilingualism is only an issue in Quebec'', said Ms. Gagnon.
``People in Manitoba and Ontario don't really worry about
speaking French, they just speak English. I don't expect to
convince them to understand our position but I think we have to
develop a sense of mutual respect.''
[Translation]
My colleagues, the members for Nickel Belt,
Cochrane-Superior, Timiskaming-French River and
elsewhere, are well aware that Bloc members converted
recently, perhaps after the member for Québec-Est, a
Franco-Ontarian living in Quebec, spoke to his colleague, as I
am a Quebecer living in French Ontario.
8841
(1600)
The sort of thing we see today, where a French-speaking
Ontarian can represent a riding in Quebec City and a Quebecer
like me represents a riding in Ontario, really reflects what
Canada is all about. And I am proud to belong to this great
country.
Members opposite are telling us: ``We want a separate
country''-sorry-``a sovereign country''.
Some hon. members: Separate.
Mr. Boudria: All right, separate. It is true, after all. But with
all this, they want a Canadian passport. A big cheer for the
Canadian passport. They want the Canadian currency. A big
cheer for the Canadian currency. They want all the other
benefits. They want to be part of the trade agreements negotiated
by Canada on behalf of us all. A big cheer for our trade
agreements that we managed to negotiate so well. Do you know
the best way to keep all these benefits? It is to stay within
Canada. It is as simple as that.
Of course, life could be better in this country, but compared to
what? Residents of other countries of the world would do
anything to be able to come here to Canada. Why? Because they
know it is the best country in the world.
[English]
Everyone knows that, including the members across the way.
They know the truth. They know what it is like.
[Translation]
Today, they do not have the courage to put the real question to
the people in their province. They know that, in the last
provincial election, separatists only got about 0.5 per cent more
votes than the opposition, although quite a few federalists voted
for them. What does it mean? It means that close to two thirds of
Quebecers are against separation; at least 60 per cent of them are
against what is called sovereignty because the people across the
way do not have the courage to call a spade a spade. We know all
this, so do Quebecers.
Why is it that all the Quebec organizations which voiced their
opinion in the last few days condemned the initiative taken by
the head of the Quebec government? Why did so many of them
condemn it? One of my colleagues is going to list many of these
groups. They condemn it because they know that these
consultations are a sham. They know that the consultation
process is pure make-believe and that the results are
predetermined.
Let us look at the draft bill. It states that Quebec is a sovereign
country.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Boudria: The members opposite can beat their own
drum. By doing so and by gazing at their own navel, as they are
doing today, they might end up believing that Quebecers agree
with their statements. This is not the case. No matter how hard
they beat their own drum, it will not make their wish come true.
[English]
Members across the way say that the monetary policy of
Quebec should be dictated in another country and they say this
in the name of sovereignty. How does one become sovereign by
having another country dictate one's monetary policy? That is
what they are advocating.
[Translation]
They are advocating the use of the Canadian currency in a
foreign country. What the members opposite want is to deprive
Quebecers of the opportunity to have, in this House of
Commons, a finance minister coming from their own province
and who could influence the monetary policy; they want to make
sure that the Prime Minister of Canada does not come from
Quebec to head this country's policy, a policy they will have to
adhere to under their phony draft bill.
(1605)
What the members opposite are doing is shooting themselves
in the foot, as the member for Nickel Belt so elegantly put it.
That is the real truth. Quebecers will not be fooled. I am the
thirteenth generation of Boudrias born in Quebec. Thirteenth!
Out of all my ancestors and descendants, my son is the first
Boudria to be born in Ontario, the fourteenth generation in
Canada.
However, Quebec and the rest of Canada are his country just
as Quebec and the rest of Canada are my country. This is our
country and it will remain just that!
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
read the motion today asking this House to recognize the
legitimacy of the democratic process initiated by the
government of Quebec. I have listened to speeches by the Bloc
Quebecois members trying to tell us what they intend to do and
ignoring whether or not it is legitimate. I have listened to the
members of the government who are telling us how good
federalism is while avoiding the issue of whether or not what the
Bloc intends to do is legal and legitimate.
The way I see the process is that they intend to introduce a bill
in the legislature of the province of Quebec that is going to
trample all over federal responsibilities. They are going to
debate a bill in the legislature of the province of Quebec that is
outside their jurisdiction. They are going to vote on a bill that
they have no mandate to vote on. Then they want to dress it all up
with some false legitimacy measures by holding a referendum.
It is presumptuous in the extreme for them to think that this
bill would be endorsed by the rest of the people in Canada. For
them to think that by declaring that these are the conditions the
8842
rest of Canada would in any way support, and I think the process
is a fraud, I think is illegal, illegitimate and immoral.
I would ask the previous speaker, as a member of this
government, why he does not stand up and acknowledge and tell
the people of Quebec that this entire process that is being
proposed by the government of Quebec is as I said, illegal,
illegitimate and immoral. The process is deceitful and a sham.
Tell the people of Quebec that is the way it is.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I did not think there would be
any doubt after my speech that I did not like the process very
much. But if it needs to be repeated for the member across the
way, I am certainly willing to do so in the time that is left.
We are not just debating legality here. Constitutional experts
can argue until all the cows in Glengarry come home as to
whether or not there is a constitutional provision, implicit or
otherwise, for a province to secede from the rest of the country.
Mr. Discepola: Are those cows from Vaudreuil too?
Mr. Boudria: That is not the point. The point is to keep this
country together and it is the duty of all of us, in all our
speeches, in all our comments and everything that we do. We
should all speak in favour of Canada the way the Prime Minister
does, lauding the virtues of living in the greatest country in the
world, Canada, not whether or not there are six constitutional
experts who say there is such an implicit power. Five would say
otherwise or the reverse. What difference does that make? That
does not make any difference if a country is trying to split itself
apart. What we need is the intestinal fortitude to state that this is
a great country and to work together to keep the country
together, this great country of Canada. That is what is important,
not the rest of that nonsense.
(1610)
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Madam Speaker, I wish to make a few comments in
response to the speech by the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. I am told I have one minute left.
I would simply like to say to the hon. member that once
Quebec achieves sovereignty, he will be allowed to keep his
Quebec citizenship if he so desires and if his country, Canada,
allows him to. I want to add-I will come back to this later-that
we have no lesson on democracy to learn from representatives of
the Liberal government and certainly not from representatives
of the Reform Party.
Let me refresh your memory with three examples. Quebecers
were never consulted on the Constitution of 1867. And what
about conscription which the federal government imposed in
Quebec after promising-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Order! Sorry to
interrupt the hon. member but his time is up. The hon. member
for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has 30 seconds to reply.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I will try to be quick. In fact,
the hon. members opposite have much to learn. The separatists
have much to learn, if they think that they can deceive the
Quebec people with phony consultations on such a contrived
bill. It will not work, Madam Speaker. You will see, we will keep
this great country together!
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, this is for me, as a Canadian and a Quebecer by choice,
a very sad day. It was 35 years ago that we chose Quebec and
Canada. For 20 years now, I have been following Quebec's
politics. About 15 years ago, I took part in the first Quebec
referendum, where Quebecers indicated they did not want
anything to do with sovereignty-association as it was called
then, with separation as we would say today. They reasserted
their sense of belonging to Canada and to our federation.
Over a year ago, I was elected to this House through a
democratic process, but we now see for the first time ever a
government that will decide unilaterally not to respect our
democratic process. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition in
Quebec who said that this is not a consultation process, but
rather a propaganda campaign, a subterfuge, an illusion. He
added that the issue will be how, and not if, sovereignty will be
achieved.
After promising to represent everyone, the leader of the Parti
Quebecois has initiated a process which excludes Quebec's
federalists, that is the majority of Quebecers. If the government
really wanted to find out what everybody thought about its
proposal, it would not have launched a consultation process that
takes into account only one side of the issue.
The president of the Quebec Chamber of Commerce himself
has stated that he disagrees with these consultations. He said
that the government will have to rethink the whole process. He
added that, given the current situation, with only representatives
of the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois sitting at the
table, there would not be a balance in the views expressed and
that it would make him very ill at ease.
The president of the Quebec manufacturers' association also
decided not to take part in these consultations, because he thinks
the draft bill is a sovereignty proposal and does not examine
every possible option for Quebec.
8843
(1615)
Moreover, the presidents of the Quebec farmers' union and
the Conseil du patronat also refused to take part in these
consultations. These four examples clearly demonstrate that the
PQ leader is not everybody's premier and that he only seeks the
participation of separatists in this debate.
If he really was everybody's premier, he would have asked the
clear and simple question that everyone can understand and
answer: ``Do you want to remain inside Canada, yes or no?''
Unfortunately, this is not the case because he knows that the
answer to this question would be no.
Finally, two of Quebec's most distinguished political
scientists, Léon Dion and Vincent Lemieux, also severely
criticized the PQ's breach of democracy. As reported on
December 7, 1994, in La Presse, Mr. Dion said: ``The process
makes me very ill at ease. In such consultations, the public is
often won over to a cause even before the process starts. In this
case, it is Mr. Parizeau's cause.''
The PQ leader continues to call himself everybody's premier
and encourages everyone to take part in these consultations on
the future of Quebec. At the same time, though, this draft bill
does not include Quebec's cultural communities.
Last week, following many statements by members of the PQ
government and their representatives, I rose here to ask the
government to reaffirm unequivocally that members of cultural
communities are, in fact, full citizens of our country. This draft
bill confirms that the Parti Quebecois does not consider
members of cultural communities as first-class citizens of
Quebec.
Can the leader of the PQ government invite the cultural
communities to build a new Quebec and then ignore them
completely in his plan? Nothing is forcing the Parti Quebecois
to subject Quebecers to an agonizing process. As my colleagues
pointed out, Quebec is sovereign in all the areas under its
jurisdiction. Quebecers live in one of the best countries in the
world, a country they have built, a country they have chosen,
just like my parents did. That country has evolved and
Quebecers are part of this evolution.
Personally, I believe, as the Leader of the Opposition in
Quebec said, and he will lead the campaign against separation
before the next referendum in that province, that the process
announced yesterday by the PQ government can only be
democratic if it meets the following three conditions.
First, the process should be based on consultation, not on
propaganda. The proposed process in unacceptable since it leads
to a foregone conclusion. The solicited advice and discussions
have one single purpose: to draft a declaration of sovereignty
based on the proposals and suggestions that only supporters of
separation will be interested in formulating.
Second, the approach used should focus the public debate on
the real issue. The PQ is asking the people to discuss the content
of the declaration of sovereignty instead of the advisability of
separation in order to avoid the real question: is it in the best
interests of Quebecers to separate from the rest of Canada? Not
only is the desire of the Parti Quebecois to avoid this question
dishonest, but it also shows that the PQ is afraid to hear what the
answer of the majority of Quebecers to such a clear question
would be.
Third, the process must be fair. In keeping with the spirit of
Quebec's legislation on public consultations, both sides should
have equal opportunities to put forward and explain their
viewpoints. In practice, this means that both sides should have
the same number of seats, the same resources and equal time.
(1620)
Will Quebecers have an opportunity to make a decision on a
clear question in the coming referendum? I doubt it.
The question proposed by the Parti Quebecois would ask the
people of Quebec whether they are in favour of the Act passed by
the National Assembly, which would define the features of
Quebec sovereignty. It is a blank cheque the PQ government is
asking for, because it knows very well that whole sections of the
sovereignist plan would have to be negotiated with its partners
in the years following the referendum.
Given these factors, and since I chose Quebec and Canada as
my country, this is a very sad moment in the history of Quebec
and since the democratic process is not being respected, I will
vote against the Official Opposition's motion.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to tell the hon.
member for Saint-Denis that her remarks about cultural
communities, which she said are disregarded by the PQ
government, are not only false, but also disrespectful to the PQ
government and to the people of Quebec, a community that is
not self-centred, but, on the contrary, quite open to immigration
and newcomers. Let me give her just one example. One of her
co-nationals, Nadia Assimopoulos, chaired the executive of the
Parti Quebecois in the 1980s. That is a telling example of the
openness of Quebecers to cultural communities.
I would also like to comment on the so-called undemocratic
character of the PQ process. I would like to remind the hon.
member for Saint-Denis, as I set out to do a few minutes ago, of
four events in the history of Quebecers that were instigated by
the federal government, and ask her to consider whether they
were democratic or not.
The first one is the Constitution of 1867. Quebecers never got
a chance to have their say on that Constitution. Then, there was
8844
the conscription crisis. In 1940, the Mackenzie King
government, which had made an electoral commitment not to
impose conscription, reversed its position by holding a
referendum in which 70 per cent of Quebecers voted against and
70 or 71 per cent of Canadians outside Quebec voted for
conscription. Despite his previous commitment, Liberal Prime
Minister Mackenzie King imposed conscription on all
Quebecers.
More recently, the Trudeau government decided to proclaim
the War Measures Act in Quebec and proceeded to arrest
hundreds of people, and search the home of thousands of honest
citizens. As a result, 20 people waited for months for charges to
be laid against them.
(1625)
Is that the Liberals' idea of democracy? Those people have
the nerve to teach us lessons in democracy. The last event is the
patriation of the Constitution in 1982. The current Prime
Minister was one of the main players in what was a tragedy for
democracy, when they shoved down Quebecers' throats a
Constitution they did not want. If that is what they call
democracy, my Liberal colleagues and the hon. member for
Saint-Denis do not know what they are talking about.
Ms. Bakopanos: Madam Speaker, every time a member of the
opposition rises, it is to give us a history lecture-that is not
interesting. Thank you very much, we have all read the history
of Quebec and Canada. This is why Canada was chosen twice as
the best country in the world to live in-including Quebec and
Quebecers.
I would also like to say, just in passing, since he brought it up,
that a compatriot of mine told me that she quit the Parti
Quebecois because she was not a separatist, she never supported
separatism and she does not share that vision of society.
[English]
An hon. member: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. We
would all like to hear what the hon. member is saying.
Mrs. Bakopanos: Would you like me to repeat it in English?
[Translation]
If we have interpretation again, I would only like to repeat, as
I said earlier, that I do not need a history lecture. I know the
history of Canada.
[English]
I know what the history of this country is, the greatest country
in the world. I want to repeat it.
[Translation]
I want to repeat that my parents chose to come to Quebec and
Canada, and I am proud of it. I want to stay in a united Canada
and I will fight for it. The Bloc Quebecois also has many history
lessons to learn because history shows us that Quebec and
Quebecers have really been quite well served by Canadian
federalism.
We enjoy one of the best standards of living, we live in one of
the best countries in the world. We really have a quality of life
which is the envy of the world, and this is due to the unity of our
country, to federalism which benefits Quebec. I wish to repeat
that Nadia Assimopoulos, of whom you spoke, resigned from
the Parti Quebecois because she was not in favour of the
separation of Quebec. She is not a separatist, and never was.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It is my duty, pursuant
to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: The hon.
member for Yorkton-Melville-Gun control.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased today to speak to this motion which reads as follows:
That this House enjoin the government to recognize the legitimacy of the
democratic process initiated by the Government of Quebec in order to allow
Quebecers to chart their own political and constitutional future.
This motion was initiated by the Government of Quebec. Of
course, what we are witnessing here today is an attempt to
discredit the Government of Quebec, to claim that it is
undemocratic, that it does not know what democracy is and that
it does not respect democracy in Quebec.
At the outset, I have to say that I, as well as other Quebecers,
are clearly shocked to hear the Quebec Liberal Party, the federal
Liberal Party and the Reform Party declare that Quebec's
proposal is illegitimate. Need I remind you, Madam Speaker,
that the Parti Quebecois is one of the most democratic parties of
all time. The Parti Quebecois was democratically elected and
forms the government.
(1630)
The Parti Quebecois has a tradition of parliamentary
democracy. It is one of only a handful of parties in which
members elect their leader by universal suffrage. It has passed
laws governing the way in which political parties are financed.
It is the only party in Canada to have done so to ensure that each
and every Quebecer can make a contribution to a political party
and that the government that is elected is free to act. It is not a
party controlled by the big interests or by the big unions. When
the government makes a decision, it is made freely No other
government in Canada can make such a claim.
8845
The Parti Quebecois is responsible for passing of the
Referendum Act. It participated in the work of the
Bélanger-Campeau Commission which, of course, was set up by
the Liberal Party of the day. It participated extensively,
intelligently and regularly in the commission's work. Moreover,
the outcome of the commission's activities was very positive for
Quebec. The Parti Quebecois also took part in the Charlottetown
debate. It never refused to participate in this process. This,
despite the fact that the federal government was proposing
renewed federalism, a kind of draft project. We participated
even though we were opposed. We were also involved in the
1992 referendum, as I just mentioned.
The Parti Quebecois has also taken an innovative step by
introducing legislation to establish a permanent voters' list.
Why then is the federal government refusing to co-operate with
the party in power? It is all rather incredible. In my opinion, the
main reason why the federalists do not want to take part in this
democratic debate is that they have nothing more to say. It is that
simple. They have nothing to offer.
Over 35 years ago, Mr. Duplessis used to say we should get
what belongs to us from Ottawa because we were cheated out of
our areas of jurisdiction. That was back in 1936. I have a cassette
tape in my car. I often listen to it, and I can say the speeches of
today are exactly the same.
Mr. Lesage said: Masters in our own house. Mr. Johnson, Sr.
said: Equality or independence. Mr. Lévesque said:
Sovereignty-association. Mr. Bourassa tried twice to improve
things. He passed Bill 150 and gave it up later on. What a
disgrace.
We have been talking about this for a long time. The subject is
definitely not new, at least not for me. In 1984, when I was
elected with the Progressive Conservative Party, we talked
about decentralization and accountability.
The then Prime Minister, Mr. Mulroney, did all he could to
give some dignity back to Quebecers. You will admit he paid a
steep price for that. He tried to give Quebecers fairness, not
privileges, but legitimate rights that they had been asking for,
for decades. Mr. Mulroney's Progressive Conservative Party
was completely thrown out of Canadian politics by English
Canada. There are only two members left. Why? Because Mr.
Mulroney tried to give Quebec some form of legitimacy. That
man ruined his political career to fight for the little legitimacy
Quebecers need to develop further. This is the main reason why
his party disappeared, and it is a well-known fact.
In 1984, while I was campaigning in my riding, Mr. Lévesque,
who was my MPP at the time, sent his people to support me. It
really happened. Mr. Lévesque talked about the ``beau risque''
in those days. He said: The Tories seem well-intentioned, we
will give them the opportunity to grant Quebecers the
legitimacy they have been requesting for so many years. He
said: Let us give Mr. Mulroney a chance. I just explained to you
what happened to Mr. Mulroney for trying. In 1990, when the
Meech Lake Accord failed, when the present Prime Minister of
Canada made sure that it failed, it was just because he wanted to
get into power and to win the election here in Ottawa. He won his
election, but winning that way, on the backs of Quebecers, is not
an honour. That is exactly what is going on.
(1635)
Today, they are trying to tell us that the Parti Quebecois is not
credible, that its bill is not legitimate. We know very well that
what they are trying to do is strictly an excuse, because they do
not know how to justify why Quebecers should stay in this
federation. This federation is costing Quebecers an enormous
amount of money. I will give you an example. It is an easy one
that everyone knows, but they just need to be reminded.
Quebecers are not naive. They are not drawers of water any
more. They have been out of there for a long time. Quebecers are
intelligent people. They are educated, they understand things.
They understand very well that the Canadian federation has put a
huge debt burden on their shoulders. Quebecers make up 25 per
cent of the Canadian population. That means that the federal
government is creating a debt of $10 billion a year for
Quebecers, without their permission, because they are still a
minority in this country.
Canada has an accumulated debt of $550 billion and they are
trying to convince us that this Canadian federation is good, that
the country is rich. When we look at whether a country is rich or
poor, we must also look at its debts. When they say that Canada
has the highest standard of living in the world, we must
remember that it is a standard of living that was bought on
credit. Each year, we borrow money to buy food. If a family
borrows every day to buy its groceries, it will maintain its
standard of living but one day, it will go bankrupt. Canada is on
the verge of going bankrupt.
Just on the subject of money and the economy, we Quebecers
do not want to be on this sinking ship. We must take hold of our
destiny to be more efficient, to be more successful and to
preserve our standard of living. To say that Canada still has the
highest standard of living in the world is pure hypocrisy. It is
crazy to think that.
That standard of living has been bought on credit and they still
keep doing it. The government does not have the courage to cut
spending, because of the coming referendum. They continue to
borrow on the backs of Quebecers to maintain an artificial
8846
standard of living. We built an artificial economy and we make
people believe that the Canadian economy is doing well. It is
pure hypocrisy. What we are going through is terrible. It is a
disgrace. It is worse than the Second World War. If we continue
on this road, Canada will be totally bankrupt in a few years. We
are starting to feel it a little more every day.
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
must admit there is hope, since the hon. member of the Bloc
Quebecois has said publicly that he was a member of the
Conservative Party. Anyone who has the courage to admit that
will certainly have the courage some day to admit his mistake
and realize that his separatist strategy will not work. By that
time, there will probably be no reason for his party to exist, and
to do penance, he may have to join the two members of the
Conservative Party and stay in purgatory for a while before he
crosses the floor and joins the Liberal Party.
It bothers me to put my question to the hon. member of the
Bloc, because I realize the Bloc Quebecois does not represent
the majority of Quebecers.
(1640)
It bothers me, because it is like asking the driver of a
limousine to sell me his boss's car. However, since they speak
for Mr. Parizeau, I will ask them the question.
Last year, when we were elected as members of the Parliament
of Canada, it was a big surprise for members of the Bloc
Quebecois when they heard I spoke French, although I come
from northern Ontario. An even bigger surprise for most Bloc
members was the fact that, in northern Ontario, we have
institutions for francophones: we have our own schools,
universities, colleges and hospitals.
So I will put the following question to Mr. Parizeau, through
his messengers: Since you claim to defend the interests of
francophones outside Quebec, will francophones outside
Quebec have a role to play? Do you intend to set up another
committee consisting of thirteen members of the Parti
Quebecois and two others, perhaps a Franco-Ontarian and a
Franco-Manitoban, to convince us that this is the way to go?
How are you going to defend the rights of francophones outside
Quebec? Are you going to say the same thing Mr. Lévesque said
when he came to Sudbury, in my riding? He told
Franco-Ontarians at Laurentian University: It is too bad for you,
franncophones living outside Quebec, but we have too many
problems in Quebec to have time to deal with yours. That is what
Mr. Lévesque told us in Sudbury.
So do not tell us you defend the interests of francophones
outside Quebec but tell us what role you think we will play in
this debate?
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil): First of all, Madam Speaker, I
must say that I am proud to have been with the Conservatives for
six years. It is not because I am against private enterprise. I am
in favour of a suitable environment for the private sector, in
order to create jobs. I think that party did a good job in this
regard, even though it did not have the guts, no more than the
Liberals today, to cut spending. I would have wished that they
cut more spending.
Nevertheless, in 1990 I had the courage to resign, because I
realized that there was nothing more to expect-
An hon. member: After Meech.
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil): Yes, after Meech, of course. It was
no longer possible to defend the interests of Quebec in Ottawa
from within a federal party. It is not possible. To do so, you have
to be free to speak. And the only way to speak freely on behalf of
Quebec is to belong to the Bloc Quebecois, of which I am one of
the founding members. This is why we can now speak freely on
behalf of Quebec.
We are the legitimate representatives of Quebec, since we
won 54 seats out of 75. I consider that a strong legitimacy.
Quebecers trust us and that is why they voted massively for us,
especially French Canadians, I mean French-speaking
Quebecers. Unfortunately we have not succeeded yet in rallying
allophones and anglophones to our cause. I understand and
respect their position.
Regarding French Canadians outside Quebec, I must say that
we made more statements and asked more questions regarding
the interests of francophones outside Quebec than the Liberals
ever did when I was sitting as a Conservative. What we want to
do is help French-speaking communities all over North
America.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Madam Speaker, to
begin, I would like to go back to what my colleague for
Longueuil was saying. Along the same line, this morning, I read
an article on the cost of sovereignty. The problem is that it did
not mention the cost of federalism.
In fact, we are forced to recognize that, for the past 25 years,
we have seen the centralizing policies of the federal government
turn a thriving country into one which is deeply in debt.
(1645)
No matter how loudly the Prime Minister claims in this House
that we live in the most comfortable country in the world, our
credit card bill is up to $550 billion. The end of the month is
going to be something else!
I would have liked to have had the time to mention all the
disgraceful, useless expenses, all the waste originating on
Parliament Hill and in various departments. Unfortunately I
have only ten minutes. Therefore, I will focus on overlapping,
duplication and the cost of federalism in general.
Let us look at the various programs the federal government
implements in Quebec and which compete, in one way or
8847
another, with those Quebec is already offering because they are
more in tune with our specific needs. Believe it or not, out of 221
federal programs and 244 Quebec programs, 197 either overlap
or duplicate another. That means that we could get rid of 197
federal programs and Quebec would be better served for it.
First, we are faced with redundant administrative activities.
As part of their mandate, well-meaning federal civil servants
are doing exactly the same thing as their provincial counterparts
acting in accordance with their mandate specific to Quebec. We
pay twice for people who do a good job, but who do it twice.
Once would have been enough since the job was well done.
There is worse. There is competition between various
programs. Because, of course, the federal government wants to
outdo the provincial government, it favours quantity over
quality; the quantity of dollars it borrows, spends and,
unfortunately too often, wastes. Occasionally, it resorts to
conflict. We do not agree on targets. The federal program goes
one way, while Quebec-and Quebec knows its constituency
well and structures its objectives accordingly-goes another.
Therefore, efforts and funds, instead of being pooled, are once
again wasted.
At times, the programs are in direct conflict with each other.
Instead of one going one way and the other one, the other way,
they run counter to one another. How often-and the public is
aware of this-do lawyers go to court to make representations
on behalf of the federal government and object to
representations on behalf of the Government of Quebec, whose
lawyers are paid by Quebec taxpayers? It is our money that is
financing this legal squabble. Duplication, overlap, waste.
That is not all. Think of the poor citizens. I mentioned the 221
federal programs and the 244 provincial ones. Ordinary people
are completely lost. When you make an application to the
federal government, you are asked whether you have already
applied to the provincial government. If so, you have to wait for
an answer from both the federal and the provincial governments.
But the provincial government is waiting for the federal
government to deal with the issue, with the result that the people
are kept waiting and waiting and waiting, while the meter is
ticking away on both sides. Such a waste!
Finally, I must say that, on top of all that, is an unquantifiable
factor-unquantifiable because this is money that we never
see-and that is opportunity cost. While these programs shoot
each other down or wander one way or the other, the public
waits. And while the public is waiting, we let opportunities go
by, right under our very nose. All this to say that there are
lengthy delays and some people get so totally discouraged that
they give up projects they could have completed otherwise.
(1650)
A case in point is manpower training. Two years ago, there
were 25,000 people on a waiting list for training, but the federal
government did not agree with the provincial government on
required courses. Even the Quebec Liberals said that Quebec
knew what the needs were.
We are still waiting. Do you think that these 25,000 people
who were looking for training are still waiting in line? No, they
are no longer eligible, because they do not qualify for UI
benefits any more. They are now on welfare and programs are
shutting them out. It is a disgrace.
The costs of federalism? Let us say quickly that federal
institutions definitely lack the flexibility required to compete
internationally. In fact, the federal system is inflexible by
definition, despite what a certain minister may say, as
demonstrated by the many failed attempts to reform it.
Everything has been tried. We are not blaming the federalists.
They tried everything. Mr. Lévesque, with the ``beau risque'',
deeply believed in it. Mr. Bourassa tried until the last second to
find some accommodation. It did not work. The system is
inflexible, cast in concrete. Yet, international competitiveness
requires great adaptability.
I will close by addressing remarks made by some of my
colleagues opposite, which I found almost insulting. We are
talking about democracy, about the democratic process. We are
talking about the question. You will agree with me, Madam
Speaker, that if the finance minister's next tax increase was the
subject of a referendum, you know very well that the people
would vote against it and that this tax increase would never ever
see the light of day.
That would be democracy. But it will not happen that way. It
will happen through phony consultations, through passage of
this tax measure here in this House. Canadians will see tax
increases of up to $120 billion, $125 billion, $130 billion, who
knows?
The Government of Quebec is now following a process whose
conclusion will be decided by the people. The people will be
able to say yes or no. That is democracy. That is how it should be
done and I would urge my colleagues opposite to do the same
when dealing with important issues. Our Prime Minister says
that the question that should be asked is: Do you want to separate
from Canada?
I submit that Mr. Parizeau is asking an identical question and
here is why. The Prime Minister's question essentially is this:
Do you want to separate from the problem? What Mr. Parizeau
says is this: Do you want to adopt the sovereignty solution?
Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Mr. Chrétien is
8848
entitled to his; he can keep his problem. Yes, Madam Speaker,
everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. However-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I would just like to ask
the hon. member not to refer to the Prime Minister by name.
Mr. de Savoye: Thank you, Madam Speaker. You are quite
right and I conclude by saying that I am convinced that after a
clear, vigorous debate, Quebecers will make a historic decision
with clear minds.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the
member for Portneuf made a speech on the costs of federalism,
but he forgot that all the costs always entail benefits as well. His
colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe, who sits on the finance
committee, himself estimated the costs of overlap and
duplication at $3 billion. Even Mr. Le Hir, the PQ minister,
estimated the costs of overlap at $3 billion.
But in the magic formula, they always tend to forget one
thing: Quebec receives $4 billion in equalization payments and
Quebecers collect $1.2 billion in unemployment insurance.
(1655)
In their bill, will they say that Quebecers must cover 25 per
cent of the national debt, as the member just said, which
amounts to $550 billion and the costs that it will entail? Will
they tell them that milk producers will lose their protection and
that it will cost all milk producers millions, if not billions, of
dollars?
By chance, the member's calculations overlooked that Mr.
Parizeau himself had said that all federal civil servants would
keep their job and would be protected. Add that to the
calculations and we get into the real debate on the costs of
federalism versus the costs of separatism.
Mr. de Savoye: Madam Speaker, I am glad that the member
opposite is giving me a chance to set the record straight. First of
all, Quebec has 18 per cent of federal civil servants and we pay
25 per cent, so we save 7 per cent there. We must look the figures
in the face.
Looking at the balance between what Quebec pays and what it
gets, we see that Quebec pays roughly $28 billion to this federal
government here in Ottawa and gets about $28 billion back. That
seems fair and equitable, but there is a very big difference.
While Ontarians get their money back in federal contracts,
research and development and other ways, we Quebecers get our
money back partly as unemployment insurance and that is
unacceptable.
The cost of duplication and overlap may be $3 billion but that
is only a small part of it. The real cost is the opportunity cost;
while things are happening under our noses, nothing is being
done. Opportunities are slipping away from us and they could
amount to tens of billions of dollars. With an ability to act
responsibly, debt problems would disappear.
I have been told many times that the Government of Quebec
will not be a better manager than the federal government.
Totally false! For example, it costs the federal government $170
a year to process an employee's pay while it costs the provincial
government $70. Here alone, it costs us about 40 per cent of
what it costs the federal government. I am not the one saying
that; it is the Auditor General. Yes, we are more efficient and I
am really eager to be able to prove it to the whole world.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to the
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have two quick questions. The hon. member spoke of overlap
and duplication. After one year, 60 or so programs no longer
seem to overlap or duplicates one another. Was he aware of that?
Is that not the direction in which we should be heading? I think
that could be a solution.
I wish to mention something else. For the sake of honesty,
would it not have been much easier to simply ask Quebecers
what they wanted: to stay in Canada or to separate? Honestly, it
would have been much better to do this than to use such a vague,
fuzzy, imprecise word as «sovereignty».
Mr. de Savoye: Madam Speaker, a glass is either half empty
or half full. We prefer to say that the glass is half full. And we
will start by filling it. As for instances of overlap, you know as
well as I do that sovereignty is the best way to eliminate them
all.
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, the Official Opposition and the government of Mr.
Parizeau are trying to convince Quebecers and Canadians that
Quebec's separation is unavoidable, that federalism adversely
affects development in that province, and that the consultation
process recently announced is eminently democratic. At a time
when countries want to unite together, including European
nations, Quebec wants to separate.
I wish to take this opportunity to correct certain facts and
denounce some exaggerations and overstatement by those in
favour of separation.
Is Canadian federalism really an obstacle to Quebec's
development? I usually do not agree with Mr. Parizeau's views.
(1700)
However, I must say that I think he is absolutely right when he
says that Quebec has achieved a lot over the last 30 years.
In his speech, Mr. Parizeau mentioned, among others things,
that in the 1960s Quebec was a modern state with a dynamic
cultural life, that in the 1970s it had become a leader in
democratization and education, and that in the 1980s Quebecers
8849
had taken the reins of economic power and greatly increased
their international presence.
Mr. Parizeau is absolutely right when he says that Quebecers
should be proud of these exceptional achievements.
But where I do not agree with him and those who support
separation in general is when they say that Canadian federalism
is hampering Quebec's development. How can they make such a
claim when the facts show unequivocally that Quebec made
tremendous progress over the last 30 years, while being a part of
Canada?
Indeed, it is within the Canadian federation that Quebec's
quiet revolution got started and that companies such as
Bombardier and Cascades were able to penetrate world markets.
It is also within the Canadian federation that the work and talent
of Céline Dion and the Cirque du soleil gained international
recognition.
Make no mistake. I am not trying to tell you that Quebecers
became so successful strictly because of Canadian federalism.
What I am saying is that it is wrong to claim that federalism has
impeded Quebec's development.
Is Canada really unable to recognize Quebec's specificity?
In his speech, Mr. Parizeau said that the failure of the Meech
Lake Accord indicated English Canada's refusal to recognize,
even symbolically, that specificity. This statement does not
seem fair to me.
The Canadian federation recognized even before Meech and
continues to recognize Quebec's specificity and to preserve the
French fact, and not just symbolically. Let me give you some
examples.
Even in 1867, the Constitution Act guaranteed the use of
French in Parliament and in courts. The Constitution Act of
1982 reinforced this guarantee and made French one of the two
official languages of Canada by recognizing its use in all
institutions of Parliament and the government of Canada. Also,
the Canadian Constitution allowed Quebec to pass language
laws to promote French in Quebec.
Under the Canadian Constitution, Quebec has jurisdiction
over education and has a justice system based on the Civil Code,
the only one of its kind in North America. Control over these two
areas is crucial to preserve and enhance Quebec's specificity.
Three out of the nine judges appointed to the Supreme Court
must come from Quebec. None of the other provinces has such a
guarantee.
For any issue relating to education and culture, Quebec can
opt out of any Constitutional amendment to transfer provincial
powers to the federal government and get full financial
compensation.
Four consecutive immigration agreements have progressively
increased the role Quebec plays in this area and let the province
choose its immigrants and facilitate their integration into
Quebec society. The Leader of the Official Opposition himself
publicly recognized the merits of these federal-provincial
agreements on immigration. Let me remind members that the
other provinces do not have the same rights as Quebec does in
the immigration area.
According to the economic development agreement reached
by Prime Minister Pearson and Mr. Lesage, then Premier of
Quebec, during the 1960s, Quebec was able to create its own
pension plan and set up its own deposit and investment fund.
At the international level, Ottawa-Quebec framework
agreements allow Quebec to sign agreements directly with
France and Belgium and, pursuant to yet another agreement,
Quebec has its own seat at the Francophone Summit, something
other provinces do not have.
All these examples show how biased and full of half-truths
the separatists' rhetoric is.
Canadian federalism is not so centralized or centralizing that
it negates or irons out regional and provincial differences. In
fact, Canada is one of the least centralized countries in the whole
world. Canadian federalism is not against promoting the French
fact. On the contrary, it contributes to the French influence in
North America.
(1705)
To conclude, I want to say that the PQ option troubles me a lot
as it does most Canadians, especially francophones outside
Quebec.
In British Columbia, most francophones are not only troubled
but sad. Like me, they feel betrayed. In 1980, I fought with
petitions and letters, etc, from Vancouver, to keep Quebec inside
Canada. On the night of the referendum, I was extremely happy
and, the next day, I gave the wives of eight Quebec police
officers visiting Vancouver a rose and a note of thanks.
I hope to be able to do the same next year, on the night of the
referendum. This time, if Quebecers say no, I will give roses to
my colleagues, the women of the Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
have been listening to the federalist members of the House and it
is as if they were trying to win the championship for
overstatement. They call the process proposed by the
government of Quebec a fraud, immoral, illegitimate and
illegal. They call it a farce. We are criticized for not asking a
clear question. Yet, as my colleague from Portneuf said, the
question seems perfectly clear to me: ``Are you in favour of the
Act passed by the
8850
National Assembly declaring the sovereignty of Quebec?'' I
think that is crystal clear: ``the sovereignty of Quebec''.
In fact, they are criticizing us for referring to a bill in which
Quebec's sovereignty is defined. If you recall, Madam Speaker,
in 1980, we were criticized for not defining our project. Now
that we define it, we are criticized for it. We even go further by
asking Quebec's population to participate in defining the
sovereignty project. We asked Quebecers to help define the
project. But still, we are told: How can you ask federalists to
participate in writing a declaration of independence?
I would say that our federalist colleagues are afflicted by two
diseases: schizophrenia and amnesia. Schizophrenia because
they have not yet realized that there is no federalist government
in Quebec City any more, but a sovereignist government, and
that the majority of members representing Quebec ridings in this
House are also sovereignists. They are hit by amnesia because
they refuse to acknowledge that when the Parti Quebecois
formed the Official Opposition in the National Assembly, in
spite of its political option, it recognized that a federalist party
was in power and took part in the various initiatives introduced
by that government.
Members will remember that the Parti Quebecois spent
hundreds of hours studying the Meech Lake Accord in the
National Assembly and in committee, that it took part in the
parliamentary committee which studied the federal
government's offers that led to the Charlottetown Accord.
Members will also remember that sovereignists participated in
the Bélanger-Campeau Commission which proposed two
alternatives, not ten but two: sovereignty and a last chance for
renewed federalism. That last chance failed; it was the
Charlottetown Accord. It failed miserably.
So, in keeping with the conclusions contained in the
Bélanger-Campeau Commission report, which was signed by
the Liberal Party in Quebec and the present Minister of Foreign
Affairs, we are now moving toward the second alternative,
which is sovereignty, since the first one failed.
It is now our turn to ask our federalist colleagues to take part
in the process. Why are we doing this? For two simple reasons:
first, because the question will be submitted to Quebecers for
approval very shortly and, if the answer is yes, federalists
should help define what a sovereign Quebec should be.
Second, the draft bill refers to an economic association with
Canada; our federalist colleagues claim it is not possible. We
want to keep the same currency; our colleagues claim it is not
possible. We want to keep our citizenship; our colleagues claim
it is not possible. We want to conclude international agreements;
our colleagues claim it is not possible. We want them to explain
to us why it is not possible, and that is exactly why we are asking
them to take part in the work of these commissions.
(1710)
In conclusion, I would invite the people of my riding of
Verchères to attend the hearings of these commissions and also
the people of the beautiful region where I live when I come to
work here, the Outaouais region, who are particularly concerned
about the consequences of the debate that will take place.
Mrs. Terrana: Madam Speaker, I do not think there is a
question. Still, I would like to say something about the
Charlottetown Accord. This agreement was rejected not only
because of Quebec but also for a lot of other reasons, because the
agreement proposed to Canadians was too vast, too complicated,
and even people conversant with the issue could not understand
the whole package in the Charlottetown Accord.
I think that is why it was rejected, because Native people say
the same thing, everybody says the same thing, namely that the
Charlottetown Accord was rejected because of its complexity. I
am talking about separation, not sovereignty. In British
Columbia, everybody talks about separation. I am sorry, but I
found Quebec in Canada on my arrival here; I think it is a great
country and that we should stay together, especially since
Quebecers have contributed much to Canada and because
Quebec provides a dimension that Canada needs.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
neither the Act of Union of 1842 nor the British North America
Act of 1867 nor the Constitution Act of 1982 defines an orderly
breakup of our great country. In the face of this fact, the reality
is that all the many viewpoints put forth by the separatist forces
in the absence of precedent are in many cases inaccurate
projections about the way things will be in a sovereign and
separate Quebec.
I believe Canada will accept separatism if it is the result of a
clearly worded referendum on the issue and reflects the will of
the majority of Quebecers. But whoever said outside of Quebec
that sovereignty association was a negotiable option? A new and
better Canada requires four strong foundations. It needs four
principles to stick to.
First is responsible spending. Irresponsible government
spending by this Liberal government, the massive debt it
continues to add to and excessive taxation it proposes to put
forward have weakened the financial foundation of the old
Canada. We need to rebuild the new national home on the
principle of financial responsibility. The federal government
must balance its budget and keep taxes in check.
Second is the equality of provinces and citizens. Our old
Canadian home is built on the fault line which separates French
and English rather than on the solid ground of what all
Canadians have in common. It is undermined by the linguistic,
8851
cultural and constitutional policies that do more to divide us
than to unite us. We need to rebuild our national home on the
principles that all Canadians will be treated equally regardless
of race, gender, language, culture, creed and that all provinces
have the same powers and responsibilities over their own
destinies.
Third is democracy. Our old Canadian home is built on a
system that serves the political elite and only allows your input
at election time. We need to rebuild our new national home on
the principle that you will have more say in how the national
household is run. Elected officials will be accountable all of the
time, not just at election time.
Finally, a criminal justice system is the fourth principle, that
is more effective, leaving less interpreted for judges, that
recognizes victim rights over criminal rights.
The reality of the consequences of Quebec separation will in
many ways be very costly for all Canadians. Bloc Quebecois
members claim that federalism has not, cannot and will not
work. They point to the failures of the Constitution Act, and the
Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords as sufficient proof.
While I agree that these constitutional efforts represent failure,
they failed everyone, not just Quebecers because the wrong
people were negotiating the right things the wrong way, top
down.
What the premier of the province of Quebec is presently doing
by first introducing a draft bill, passing it in the legislature of
Quebec first and then going to the Quebec people is making the
very same mistake. It is a top down approach. It is something
that may not be accepted by the rest of Canadians in Canada.
Therefore, it is imperative that when Quebecers and the
provincial Government of Quebec look at this issue that they
address it on the basis that the simpler the question the better.
If Bloc Quebecois members are questioning why the federal
government is refusing to participate in the discussions that will
go across the province, it is because it has no solution. It is
waiting for other people to step forward and the Reform Party is
trying to fill that gap.
I believe that in the province of Quebec the voters should be
asked first, then a bill drafted and negotiated. Then the people of
Quebec will have the legitimacy to begin negotiations with the
rest of Canada.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 5.15 p.m., it is
my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every
question necessary to dispose of the Business of Supply,
pursuant to Standing Order 81(17).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 132)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Landry
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Mercier
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Rosemont)-40
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Benoit
Berger
Bethel
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chan
Chatters
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
8852
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Harvard
Hayes
Hickey
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Johnston
Jordan
Karygiannis
Kerpan
Keyes
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McWhinney
Meredith
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Schmidt
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Skoke
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Torsney
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (North Vancouver)
Wood
Young
Zed-166
PAIRED «MEMBERS»
Members
Bernier (Beauce)
Bouchard
Charest
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dubé
Fewchuk
Gagnon (Québec)
Gerrard
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Kirkby
Lalonde
Langlois
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lefebvre
Lincoln
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Minna
Ouellet
Rocheleau
Rock
St-Laurent
Steckle
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
(1740)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the motion
negatived.
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Madam Speaker, we have just
had a very important vote, historically and for the unity of
Canada and Quebec. Where is Jean Charest?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That supplementary estimates (b) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1995,
laid upon the table Wednesday, November 2, 1994, be concurred in.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I think you would find
unanimous consent that all members who have voted on the
previous vote, plus I understand some who will indicate so in a
moment, be deemed to have voted on the question now before
the House in the following manner: Liberal members voting yea.
Mr. Duceppe: Madam Speaker, Bloc members will vote nay.
Mr. Silye: Madam Speaker, members of the Reform Party
present this evening will vote nay, unless there are those who
wish to vote otherwise.
(1745 )
Mr. Taylor: Madam Speaker, I want to indicate on behalf of
the New Democratic Party members present, the member for
Burnaby-Kingsway and myself, that we would vote nay on this
motion.
Mr. Bhaduria: Madam Speaker, I will be voting yes.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 133)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Berger
Bethel
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
8853
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McWhinney
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-134
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chatters
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Epp
Fillion
Frazer
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hayes
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Johnston
Kerpan
Landry
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mercier
Meredith
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Robinson
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Silye
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rosemont)
White (North Vancouver)-74
PAIRED MEMBERS
Members
nil/aucun
The Acting Speaker (Mrs.
Maheu): I declare the motion carried.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That supplementary estimates (c) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1995,
laid upon the table Thursday, November 17, 1994, be concurred in.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I think you will find consent
that the members who have voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted in the following way: Liberal members
and the hon. member for Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville
voting yea.
Mr. Duceppe: Madam Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois support the motion.
Mr. Silye: Madam Speaker, members of the Reform Party
present this evening will vote yea, unless there are those
members who wish to vote otherwise.
Mr. Hart: Madam Speaker, I wish to advise the Chair that I
was absent for the first two votes but I will be voting with my
party.
Mr. Scott (Skeena): Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the
Chair that I too was absent for the first two votes and I will be
voting with my party.
Mr. Taylor: Madam Speaker, New Democrats present vote
nay.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 134)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bachand
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Benoit
Berger
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélisle
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Chan
Chatters
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
8854
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fillion
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hickey
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Jacob
Johnston
Jordan
Karygiannis
Kerpan
Keyes
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McWhinney
Mercier
Meredith
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Silye
Skoke
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Torsney
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (North Vancouver)
Wood
Young
Zed-208
NAYS
Members
Robinson
Taylor-2
PAIRED «MEMBERS»
Members
nil/aucun
(1750 )
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the motion
carried.
Mr. Eggleton moved that Bill C-63, an act for granting to Her
Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada
for the financial year ending March 31, 1995, be read the first
time.
(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time.)
Mr. Eggleton moved that the bill be read the second time and
referred to committee of the whole.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I think you would find
consent that we apply the vote taken on supplementary estimates
(b) to the motion now before the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 135)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Berger
Bethel
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Knutson
8855
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McWhinney
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-134
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chatters
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Epp
Fillion
Frazer
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Johnston
Kerpan
Landry
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mercier
Meredith
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Robinson
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rosemont)
White (North Vancouver)-76
PAIRED «MEMBERS»
Members
Bernier (Beauce)
Bouchard
Charest
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dubé
Fewchuk
Gagnon (Québec)
Gerrard
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Kirkby
Lalonde
Langlois
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lefebvre
Lincoln
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Minna
Ouellet
Rocheleau
Rock
St-Laurent
Steckle
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
(Bill read the second time and the House went into committee
thereon, Mrs. Maheu in the chair.)
The Deputy Chairman: House in committee of the whole on
Bill C-63, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of
money for the public service of Canada for the financial year
ending March 31, 1995.
(Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.)
(Schedule A agreed to.)
(Schedule B agreed to.)
(Clause 1 agreed to.)
(Preamble agreed to.)
(Title agreed to.)
Mr. Gauthier: Madam Chairman, we are working very
diligently. I have a question with respect to rules for the
President of the Treasury Board.
Could he give an assurance the bill is in its usual form and that
there is no change of votes in the bill?
Mr. Eggleton: Madam Chairman, I can give the assurance
that the form of the bill is the same as passed in previous years.
(Bill reported.)
(1755 )
Mr. Eggleton moved that the bill be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I think you would find
unanimous consent to apply the vote just taken on the main
motion for second reading to the motion now before the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 135]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the motion
carried.
8856
When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Eggleton moved that the bill be read the third time and
passed.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I think you would find
unanimous consent to apply the vote just taken at report stage of
the supply bill to the motion now before the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 135]
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I think you would find
consent for the House to proceed now with the motion on Bill
C-46, the Department of Industry motion for third reading.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Do we have unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
The House resumed from December 7 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-46, an act to establish the Department of
Industry and to amend and repeal certain other acts, be read the
third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45(5)(a), the House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill
C-46, an act to establish the Department of Industry and to
amend and repeal certain other acts.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I think you would find
unanimous consent to apply the vote just taken on the main
motion for third reading of the supply bill to the motion now
before the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 135]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the motion
carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed.)
8856
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from December 6 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-216, an act to amend the Unemployment
Insurance Act (jury service), be read the third time and passed;
and of the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to order made
Tuesday, December 6, 1994, the House will now proceed to the
taking of the deferred division on Mr. Hanrahan's amendment at
third reading stage of Bill C-216, an act to amend the
Unemployment Insurance Act (jury service).
The question is on the amendment.
As is the practice, the division will be taken row by row
starting with the mover and then proceeding with those in favour
of the amendment sitting on the same side of the House as the
mover to my left and then those sitting on the other side will be
called.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived
on the following division:)
(Division No. 136)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Chatters
Cummins
Epp
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grubel
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Johnston
Kerpan
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Penson
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
White (North Vancouver)-34
NAYS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bachand
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Berger
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélisle
8857
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dumas
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fillion
Finestone
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Jacob
Jordan
Karygiannis
Keyes
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McWhinney
Mercier
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robinson
Sauvageau
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-171
PAIRED «MEMBERS»
Members
Bernier (Beauce)
Bouchard
Charest
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dubé
Fewchuk
Gagnon (Québec)
Gerrard
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Kirkby
Lalonde
Langlois
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lefebvre
Lincoln
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Minna
Ouellet
Rocheleau
Rock
St-Laurent
Steckle
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
D (1805 )
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the
amendment lost.
* * *
The House resumed from December 7 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-237, an act to amend the Bankruptcy Act
(priority of claims), be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to order made
Wednesday, December 7, the House will now proceed to the
taking of the deferred division on second reading stage of Bill
C-237, an act to amend the Bankruptcy Act (priority of claims).
The question is on the motion.
(1810)
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 137)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Assad
Asselin
Augustine
Bachand
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bethel
Bodnar
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Bélair
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Clancy
Cohen
Cowling
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
Discepola
Dromisky
Dumas
Easter
Fillion
Fontana
Gallaway
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Harvard
Hickey
Ianno
Jacob
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
MacDonald
Malhi
Maloney
Marchand
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McWhinney
Mercier
Murphy
Murray
8858
Ménard
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Robinson
Sauvageau
Speller
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Wood-85
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Anderson
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bellemare
Benoit
Berger
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brushett
Bryden
Campbell
Cannis
Chan
Chatters
Collenette
Collins
Crawford
Duhamel
Eggleton
Epp
Finestone
Frazer
Gaffney
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Grose
Grubel
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hayes
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Johnston
Jordan
Kerpan
Loney
MacLellan (Cape/Cap Breton-The Sydneys)
Manley
Marleau
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Patry
Penson
Peters
Phinney
Pillitteri
Reed
Ringuette-Maltais
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Silye
Speaker
St. Denis
Stinson
Strahl
Thalheimer
Thompson
Vanclief
Walker
Wappel
White (North Vancouver)
Young -79
PAIRED «MEMBERS»
Members
Bernier (Beauce)
Bouchard
Charest
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dubé
Fewchuk
Gagnon (Québec)
Gerrard
Harper (Churchill)
Irwin
Kirkby
Lalonde
Langlois
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lefebvre
Lincoln
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Minna
Ouellet
Rocheleau
Rock
St-Laurent
Steckle
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the motion
carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)
* * *
(1820)
[Translation]
The House resumed from October 26 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-226, an act to amend the Criminal Code, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I think you will find that there
is unanimous consent for the following: if a recorded division is
to be taken on the motion before this House this evening, that it
be deferred until next Tuesday, at 5.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise tonight to speak to the bill tabled by the hon.
member for York South-Weston, which would delete section
745 of the Criminal Code. This section gives an opening to those
sentenced to life imprisonment in Canada because they were
found guilty of murder.
The purpose of the bill is simply to delete this section of the
Criminal Code. When I read a bill like this one, I always feel
embarrassed, because there are two aspects to be considered in
such situations.
First of all, we should put ourselves in the shoes of the victims
and their families, who went through the horrible tragedy of
seeing loved ones murdered. We say to ourselves: It is quite
normal for people found guilty of such crimes to go to prison for
the rest of their lives, since it was the sentence handed down by
the court, the jury, the judge.
Yet, other considerations must be taken into account. First,
Parliament put this provision into the Code following the great
debate held in the mid-1970s on the abolition of capital
punishment in Canada.
As you know, Canada abolished the death penalty in 1976
following a great debate in Canadian society. Those opposed to
doing away with the death penalty demanded that lawmakers see
to it that the people convicted of first- or second-degree murder
in some circumstances be incarcerated for life.
However, Parliament introduced into the Criminal Code a
provision allowing those who have served 15 years of a life
sentence to apply for parole to the Chief Justice in their
province.
8859
A whole process is then initiated to review their applications.
A jury is empanelled to represent citizens and hear the
application.
(1825)
This is not an automatic process, therefore, in that the
application is reviewed. When making its determination, the
jury must take into account the character of the applicant, his
conduct while serving his sentence and the nature of the offence
for which he was convicted.
The members of the jury represent Canadian citizens and they
must make a decision based on the information provided by
prison authorities. They must decide whether to reject the
application, accept it at a later time, or let the applicant be
paroled. In other words, this provision in our Criminal Code
does not mean that those who serve life sentences can be set free
after 15 years.
Why did Parliament introduce this provision in the Criminal
Code? I believe it was felt, rightly so-as this was the prevailing
philosophy back in the seventies and still is-that after a person
has spent 15 years in jail, it might not be a bad idea to see if he
should be paroled.
This has nothing to do with erasing a past mistake or offence:
It is simply a matter of providing the possibility of serving one's
sentence outside, instead of being kept in jail. The whereabouts
of a person released on parole are still monitored and the parolee
must still meet a number of conditions in order to continue to
qualify for parole.
I think that the lawmakers were right to include this provision
in the Criminal Code. They believed that after 15 years, a person
who had committed a horrific crime could change, after thinking
about we he had done and after receiving counselling from
professionals while in prison. Of course, there are many people
who believe-and this is somewhat the reasoning behind the
motion of the hon. member for York South-Weston-that if a
person has committed a crime and been sentenced to a certain
number of years in prison, he must serve out his full sentence.
He did what he did, the person must be locked up and a rigid
approach must be taken.
However, this mind-set seems to be characterized by
vengefulness and the belief in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a
tooth. It is an approach that denies the possibility that human
beings can change and improve, that under certain
circumstances, they can adopt a different attitude, and once
released, they will no longer necessarily pose a threat to society.
(1830)
In closing, I would like to say that since this provision was
first introduced into the Criminal Code, of all the applications
received, 128 have been deemed admissible. Of the 128 inmates
concerned, 71 have actually applied for parole. Of course, many
realized that because of their conduct and the nature of the crime
they had committed, there was no chance at all of their being
granted parole. Of all the applications received, only 43 have
actually been reviewed. Some were turned down, some saw
their sentences reduced, and some were given a conditional
release.
I think it is fortunate that under our Criminal Code,
individuals can take advantage of an opportunity like this one. It
is not very permissive. Canadian citizens who are on the jury
still have the right to consider the case and to pass judgment on
behalf of society. We then have an opportunity to consider the
individual's potential for rehabilitation and ability to make a
valid contribution to society.
I think Canadian society should be proud of having such
provisions in its statutes. It shows we are not a closed society,
not an intrinsically punitive society, and that we still provide
certain opportunities for offenders who have served part of their
sentence and who have rehabilitated themselves.
I think everyone will agree it is normal for people who have
committed a crime to be punished, and no one in my party wants
to make it easy for these people, but I think it is important to
have a provision on the books that shows we do not give up
entirely on people who have the potential to be rehabilitated.
Consequently, I will vote against the bill, because I believe
that in Canada, this is a valid and useful provision to have in the
Criminal Code.
[English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Fundy-Royal, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise
today in this House to call for the repeal of section 745 of the
Criminal Code. I speak today from my own beliefs and most
important, the beliefs of the many constituents of the riding of
Fundy-Royal.
My riding has been concerned about the implications of
section 745 for many months. Fundy-Royal residents have
firm beliefs about justice. That sentiment can best be summed
up in a few words: A life sentence should mean jail for life, or at
least for 25 years. Under the present law that potentially has
been in jeopardy.
A petition campaign spearheaded by Constable Evan Scott of
the Rothesay Regional Police in Rothesay, New Brunswick
calling for the repeal of section 745 has been both welcomed and
endorsed throughout New Brunswick. I gave the petition my
support in a May 17, 1994 letter to the Minister of Justice.
In the letter I expressed my view that to allow a judicial
review for persons who may receive parole after 15 years for
first degree murder, the worst possible crime in the Criminal
Code, is unacceptable. I feel it is imperative to our judicial
system that once an individual has been found guilty by his peers
for a heinous crime that the sentence provided by the judge
should be carried out in its entirety.
8860
I have chosen to speak on this bill today because I have
examined the issues surrounding the section introduced in 1976.
I have balanced the merits of those arguments with the values of
my constituents and I find that the present legislation is
unacceptable.
The facts are staggering indeed. A criminal serving a 25 year
sentence can be given a 40 per cent reduction in his sentence.
Seventy-two per cent of the applicants under this section were
allowed to walk out under early parole. Over the next 15 years
there are approximately 600 killers who are eligible to seek
early parole.
Anyone can submit an application irrespective of the brutality
of the crime and at public expense these applications are
permitted to be made. Therein lies part of my problem with
section 745. Can we imagine the financial cost to the public
purse if each of the more than 600 convicted murderers in our
prisons today filed for a reduction in their parole eligibility?
(1835 )
Imagine with that large number of cases the series of
precedents which could be created. Section 745 could become
an impressive mechanism that further restricts the rights of
victims.
For example, in the Queen v. Swietlinski, Judge O'Driscoll
declared the victim impact statements inadmissible in a section
745 procedure because they were intended to assist in the earlier
sentencing process. Therefore they were not relevant to the issue
before the jury considering the criminal's application.
Public attitudes have changed since 1975. Today society
overwhelmingly affirms that victims, and in the case of a
murderer, the victim's family, should have a greater influence in
the parole system. This belief is representative of the notion that
crime affects society and the victim's family. It is no longer
sufficient that the criminal's sentencing and parole be treated
independently from the suffering of the victim's family.
When section 745 was drafted its primary concern was how to
integrate the convict back into society as quickly as possible.
The procedure to determine whether a convict deserves an early
parole eligibility is much easier for the convict than a regular
trial.
Let me share some examples I find troubling. The jury only
needs two-thirds majority instead of 100 per cent agreement.
Most of the evidence presented in the hearing comes from those
who seek the convicts early release, not the victim's family.
It appears to me that the process is structured in such a manner
that the welfare of the victim's family is completely ignored. If I
had to choose between this system and one that gives
consideration to the victim's needs to believe that justice has
been done I would choose the victim's rights every time.
A thorough examination of section 745 warrants that hard
questions be answered. Who is the Criminal Code supposed to
protect? What is in the best interests of society? I think public
confidence in the legal system is of the utmost importance in any
democratic society. Is the Criminal Code to be weighted in
favour of rehabilitation or the principle that a sentence for
serious crimes must be implemented in full? Will criminals now
realizing their opportunity to shorten their sentences by 40 per
cent subvert the rehabilitation process? Will the public begin to
regard 15 years as a life sentence? If this occurs the public wrath
should be furious. Let us forgo that process and repeal section
745.
In closing I share the concerns of my constituents in
Fundy-Royal, New Brunswick. The current method of
determining a convict's eligibility must correspond with what is
reasonable. Other members of this House have called for the
repeal of section 745. They have often cited the high profile
cases of Clifford Olsen who savagely raped and murdered 11
young children.
There is a case which occurred within my own riding. Less
than two weeks ago a man who admitted he shot an innocent
victim in the back 16 years ago was before a jury explaining why
he deserved a reduction in his parole eligibility. When I heard
about this case I hardened my resolve. I thought about the family
of that victim.
For his family and for the thousands of family members who
will be in a similar situation as over 600 convicted murderers
apply for early parole eligibility over the next 15 years, I ask and
urge that section 745 of the Criminal Code be repealed so that
justice can be done and a life sentence will mean at least 25
years.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to thank my colleague for his speech and also for
producing the numbers. That will save me some time. I am here
to support the private member's bill of the hon. member for York
South-Weston to abolish section 745 of the Criminal Code.
Something rather strange happened to me a while ago. I had to
cross the floor and was in the government lobby. One Liberal
friend saw me there and said: ``Oh goody, you have seen the
light''. Well, I have some bad news for him.
(1840)
I am really happy that some people from that side of the House
have seen the light. They have seen the light to such poor
legislation and are bringing forward a bill of this type and
finding support for it even though it was a piece of legislation
that was brought in a few years ago by the very same party.
This section of course allows convicted murderers to apply
for a review to lessen their period of parole eligibility. It gives
them a process to return to society before serving their entire
sentence.
8861
Some of those speaking to this bill have their own opinions on
why a convicted murderer should serve a life sentence for
killing an innocent victim. Many would admit life should be
life, or we in this House should bring back the death penalty. I
would challenge the government of the day to seriously consider
having a referendum to let the people of this nation decide
whether we should have the death penalty.
We are not here to argue that stand. We are here to argue why
25 years in prison should be the minimum penalty for taking
another life and how 25 years is just retribution for inflicting
untold grief upon the family and friends of a victim of such a
heinous crime.
People have free choice. That free choice may include
kidnapping, robbery or murder, taking another life. Notice the
emphasis is placed on their choice to kill an innocent victim.
When a murderer is convicted in court, the presiding judge
decides from the evidence heard what the sentence should be.
The judge listens to all the evidence. In a case that clearly
demonstrates that the murderer had no concern for human life
and no remorse for executing an innocent victim the judge
knows a life sentence is just. In those circumstances, the judge
knows 25 years without parole is the right sentence for the
crime.
I hear from the friends and families of murder victims how
they become members of an exclusive club, a club whose only
requirement for membership is having one of their own
murdered. These club members cannot apply for a reduction of
the life sentence given to them for their loved ones. The
sentence which entitles them to be members of this exclusive
club is indeed for life. Every day for the rest of their lives these
club members will suffer. They will be filled with sorrow and
will wonder what they could have done to prevent the loss.
Those who murder do not have to serve a similar sentence.
They are still alive. They still enjoy the company of others, the
benefits of good food, excellent health care and recreation
facilities. All this is paid for by the average hardworking
taxpayers like those they killed. The only hardship murderers
must endure is their restricted access to society. Yet section 745
gives murderers a chance to reduce their separation from
law-abiding citizens. That is not justice.
That exclusive club has an annual fee. The fee is paid on every
birthday, every Christmas, every occasion that family and
friends gather. The memory of the murder victim continues to
haunt their thoughts. They simply cannot apply to have their
memories reduced. These club members will shed tears where
there should be warm embraces and pleasant thoughts of times
gone by and times to come. They receive no sentence reduction
whatsoever.
These club members are reminded every day of their loss, but
that is not the only punishment this current justice system
inflicts upon the survivors. This current justice system punishes
the survivors further. The friends and family of a murder victim
must endure further heartache when murderers apply for early
parole. When murderers apply for early parole after 15 years
they bring back all the terror and heartache that entered the souls
of the family members at the time they were first told of the
death.
Why do we continue to punish those who are victims of crime
and those who are innocent? I have listened to what a section 745
hearing inflicts upon the survivors. They say they are once again
forced to revisit the abyss, to relive the nightmare and all the
pain and horror that goes with it. When a murderer applies for a
section review of this nature, that is exactly what happens. What
more needs to be said? What more evidence needs to be stated
that section 745 must be repealed?
(1845)
If Canadians look at the record of the Parole Board rulings,
Canadians see patronage appointees who have little concern for
murdered victims or their survivors. These appointees are
notorious for listening to bleeding hearts who say the murderer
has changed, he has remorse or he has found God and is
intending to care for orphans and the elderly now.
These appointees hear reports from psychologists or
psychiatrists who have spent a minimum amount of time with
the murderer and have decided the murderer has changed. If
there is one thing for sure I have learned since becoming a
justice critic it is that the worst psychopaths know how to work
the system. They know how to con political appointees who only
want to follow the mandate of a bleeding heart government.
These bleeding hearts believe anyone can be rehabilitated or can
feel true remorse for the most heinous of crimes.
All that is needed to believe any political appointees can be
conned is to remember that one out of three is given early release
by past appointed employees of the Parole Board and one out of
three returns to prison.
Section 745 must be repealed so the members of this House
can say to the survivors of murdered loved ones they have been
given a life sentence, the least we can do is give the murderer 25
years without parole. The most we can do is offer Canadians
some minor peace in the knowledge that those who have
committed the vilest of crimes will not have early parole.
Let this House recognize the eternal sacrifice of those
murdered and eternal pain suffered by their family and friends.
Let this House support this bill to end section 745.
In conclusion, I would like to point out one thing that was sent
around by one of the members from the Liberal caucus as to
reasons why we should not repeal this. It states: ``The Liberal
Party has never advocated a system of justice based on revenge.
8862
We do not adhere to an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth,
principles espoused by the Reform Party''.
I resent that kind of a statement. What we are calling for is not
revenge, it is called justice, something this government has not a
clue about and it has demonstrated it year after year in all the
legislation it has brought forward.
I do believe that if this government wakes up and realizes
there is such a word as revenge, and if we do not start providing
justice to our society, revenge is exactly what we can look
forward to. It had better wake up to the fact that Canadians are
not happy with this justice system. If it does not believe me turn
around and ask, it will find out or stand on any street corner in
any city in this country and just ask them how they feel. I do not
believe that is the Liberal way so I do not think we will look
forward to seeing that happen.
Please, I ask everyone here to seriously consider the victims.
Remember the victims. Do not vote to keep 745.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to support the
private member's bill put forward by the member for York
South-Weston.
Bill C-226 would repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code of
Canada. Section 745 allows prisoners given a life sentence for
such crimes as first and second degree murder the opportunity to
apply for early parole after serving only 15 years of their life
sentence.
I want to give a little background. Section 745 was introduced
in 1976 by the Solicitor General of the day who currently sits as
the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. Section 745 was part of
Bill C-84 and this bill also abolished capital punishment and
established two categories of murder, first and second degree.
Both categories of this horrendous crime carry minimum
sentences of life imprisonment.
Let me be clear. When Reformers and millions of Canadians
speak of life imprisonment for despicable crimes such as
murder, it must mean life imprisonment.
A number of states in the U.S. have taken the right steps. They
have abolished parole boards to ensure that criminals serve their
entire sentence no matter how small or how large their crime.
(1850 )
Here in Canada we maintain parole boards which increasingly
come under fire for releasing dangerous criminals into our
society. We maintain section 745, giving murders, people who
commit horrendous crimes in our society, the opportunity to
apply for early parole.
As well, as I understand it their chances of being successful
under section 745, under that appeal, are pretty good. As of May
1994, 60 applications have been heard under this section and 43
of these 60 have received some form of early parole. That is
about a 72 per cent success rate. That is absolutely unacceptable
in Canadian society.
It is my opinion that if the member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, who introduced Bill C-84, had his way
ruthless killers would be out walking the streets after serving
only 15 years.
The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce argues that keeping
someone in prison for 25 years serves little purpose. For a crime
as heinous as murder, I and millions of Canadians say that 25
years are not nearly enough.
In addition to the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce there
are many other bleeding heart Liberals in this government who
contend that 25 years-
Ms. Clancy: I am proud to be one.
Mr. Harris: There are many other bleeding heart Liberals in
this government who contend that 25 years in prison is a form of
cruel and unusual punishment and that section 745 gives the
prisoner some hope or something to look forward to after he has
completed 15 years of his sentence.
To them I say what about the cruel and unusual punishment of
the victim? To them I say what of the cruel and unusual
punishment inflicted on the victim's family or the victim's
community? What of the cruel and unusual punishment that is
inflicted on society as a result of the fear that is created from the
knowledge that ruthless killers are out early and walking the
streets? What about that cruel and unusual punishment? They do
not speak of that when they talk about letting prisoners out early,
about letter murders out on to the streets.
The second chance that section 745 awards to criminals is
denied to the victims and the victim's families. They do not have
a second chance to undo a vicious crime such as murder.
In a statement to the House on October 4, I brought to the
attention of all members the fact that the Supreme Court of
Canada had recently allowed a first degree murderer another
chance at early parole under section 745 because during his first
hearing the crown consistently and improperly appealed to the
jury's passions. Does that mean the crown was describing the
vicious crime this person had committed? This is improperly
appealing to the jury's passions.
It would do well for the bleeding heart Liberals opposite to
listen to this. This man was convicted in 1986 for stabbing his
victim 132 times-are you listening over there-and using five
different knives in the process. Because of section 745 it is
possible that this vicious killer will be out walking the streets
after serving less than 25 years.
In this specific case I would not hesitate to go beyond simple
repeal of section 745. I would reinstate capital punishment for
this kind of crime. At very worst this government, this House,
8863
should recommend that such a vicious criminal spend the rest of
his life behind bars.
(1855)
On July 5, 1994 the government created a national crime
prevention council, no doubt at great expense to Canadian
taxpayers. This council reports to the Minister of Justice on
various crime prevention strategies. I would hope that this
council would take note of the proceedings here this evening and
consider advising the minister to abolish section 745 in the
interests and safety of Canadians and our communities, and to
bolster the sagging confidence level that Canadians have in the
criminal justice system in this country.
I would hope also that the bleeding heart Liberals present here
tonight are listening to the speeches from their own colleagues
and from members of the Reform Party. I would hope that this
council would listen to the pleas of millions of Canadians who
are crying for a reinstatement of the death penalty for crimes
such as murder.
There are some major problems with the procedure in the way
applications are heard under section 745. For instance, under
this section hearing the criminal cannot be subject to
questioning regarding his offence. Give us a break in this
country. However, he can give oral evidence as to his successes
and what a good person he has been while in prison.
There have also been cases in the past in which Correctional
Services Canada has used the Privacy Act, if you can imagine, to
deny the crown information relating to the criminal's behaviour
in jail. This amounts to suppression of information which could
have a profound effect on whether that person should be out.
Last but not least, it is the taxpayers who are paying for these
appeal hearings. In the light of these costs, it is absolutely
incomprehensible that the bleeding hearts in this government
would continue to support section 745.
The continuation of section 745 is simply not acceptable to
the victims of ruthless killers in this country. It is not acceptable
to the Canadian people. I hope that the bleeding hearts in this
government, in this Parliament, will for once listen to the voice
of the Canadian people.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for
the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Accordingly, pursuant
to the order made earlier this day, the division stands deferred to
Tuesday, December 13, at 5.30 p.m.
Mrs. Stewart: Madam Speaker, I would like to suggest to the
House that we view the clock as reading 7.07 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
8863
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
(1900)
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, yesterday I addressed a very simple question to the
Minister of Justice. I do not think the seven million gun owners
out there will be very pleased with his response.
The minister dismissed opposition from the provinces of
Saskatchewan and Alberta justices ministers, saying:
I have a decent respect for the opinion of my provincial and territorial
counterparts but in the final analysis this is a matter for this federal government
to deal with.
As I said in my question yesterday, the legislative assembly of
the province of Saskatchewan has voted unanimously, all three
parties, to oppose any further gun controls. The chief law
enforcement officer for the province of Saskatchewan has
written to the minister expressing his government's opposition.
He is concerned about how he will be able to enforce gun control
laws which the majority of voters in the province know are
unfair and unnecessary to control violent crime.
In September the minister told over 10,000 law-abiding,
responsible gun owners that he is not interested in making laws
by taking a head count and yet he continually refers to bogus
polls, which is a head count, to support his biased view that the
majority of Canadians actually support his useless, ineffective
gun control proposals.
A Ph.D. with 30 years of experience who teaches an honours
research design and analysis course at Concordia University
described an Angus Reid poll on gun control as fraudulent,
8864
saying his students found a dozen fatal flaws in the five
questions asked in the minister's favourite poll and stated: ``Any
student who submitted such biased questions would fail the
course''. This is what the minister is appealing to.
When a Gallup poll asked a well worded question, 69 per cent
of the respondents felt passing more severe laws over legitimate
gun owners would have very little influence on criminals. This
is the exact opposite view expressed in the minister's oft quoted
poll.
If the minister is going to govern by polls then he must ensure
that the polls ask fair and unbiased questions. Further, if he
really believes in implementing laws which reflect the will of
the majority, he should at least allow the members of this House
to have a free vote on the gun control proposals.
Frankly, I do not think the minister is a big believer in true
democracy or direct democracy. I think his answer to my
question yesterday proves that specifically.
I specifically asked the minister if he had taken a head count
of all the justice ministers in this country to find out which of
them support his proposals and which do not. The Minister of
Justice answered ``we govern by what is right'', referring to the
Liberal gun control proposals tabled last week in the House of
Commons. He dictated that this is the government's assessment
of what is right.
What have Canadians learned from the minister's reply? We
learned that he has indeed consulted ``with officials of every
provincial and territorial attorneys general ministry'' but that he
does not care what they think. He is going to do whatever he
thinks is right, not what the majority of Canadians think is right,
not what the provincial justice ministers think is right even
though they are the ones who have to enforce these ineffective
gun control laws, not what the police on the street think is right,
not even what the provincial legislators think is right, and
certainly not what the majority of our municipal governments
think is right.
His only justification for this intrusive and costly
bureaucratic, make work project is that he and the Liberal
cabinet think it is right. If Canadians thought for a moment that
registering their rifles and shotguns and confiscating guns from
law-abiding firearms owners might actually reduce violent
crime and stop criminals from acquiring guns, they might
actually support him. But they do not.
They know criminals do not obey any laws, especially gun
control laws, and criminals will always be able to get their guns.
In conclusion, unfortunately democracy and majority rule
take a back seat to what the Liberals think is right. Frankly, I fear
a government that will not listen to the people a lot more than I
fear a law-abiding citizen with a gun.
I ask my question again: Has the minister taken a head count
of all the justice ministers in this country to find out which of
them support his proposals and which do not and could he share
the results of this head count with all Canadians?
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
delighted to have the opportunity to respond on behalf of the
Minister of Justice. While there were a number of comments in
the hon. member's intervention that I could answer I shall
somehow find the fortitude to resist.
I am certain that all Canadians support the initiatives of the
government that enhance the safety of our communities,
whether those communities are urban or rural. The criminal and
accidental misuse of guns is just as prevalent in the rural areas of
Canada as it is in the urban areas.
Studies show the homicide rate in rural areas is 50 per cent
higher than in the urban environment. In Saskatchewan, for
example, between 1989 and 1992 there was an average of 5.1
suicides by firearms for every 100,000 residents compared to
the national average of 3.8.
The legislation that will be introduced in the new year will not
prevent farmers and ranchers, hunters or target shooters from
using their firearms for recreational pursuits, in the case of
ranchers for predatory control purposes. The minister has made
this very clear during his extensive discussions and
consultations with firearms' owners and users in all areas of the
country.
The government's first objective, supported by all firearms
interest groups, is to increase criminal sanctions for the use of
firearms in the commission of crime. Second, and receiving
broad support, are moves that will be made to control and
penalize the illegal trafficking and smuggling of firearms. The
last major objective is to address the ownership and use of all
firearms in Canada.
I believe, this side believes, the government believes that our
gun control law is accepted by a great number of Canadians. I
am so glad to see the new politics from these gentlemen.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38(5) the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to
have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned
until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.07 p.m.)