CONTENTS
Thursday, November 30, 1995
Bill C-363. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed
adopted 16999
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 16999
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 16999
Bill C-110. Motion for second reading 17000
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 17005
(Motion agreed to.) 17008
Bill C-110. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 17008
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 17011
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry) 17018
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 17021
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 17024
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 17026
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 17028
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 17029
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 17031
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 17031
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 17032
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 17033
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 17033
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 17034
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17034
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17034
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17035
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17035
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17035
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 17036
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 17036
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 17036
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 17036
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17036
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 17037
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17037
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17037
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17038
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 17038
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 17038
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 17039
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 17039
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 17039
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 17039
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 17040
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 17040
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 17040
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17040
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 17040
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 17040
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 17041
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 17042
Bill C-110. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 17043
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 17051
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 17055
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 17059
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 17061
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 17062
Bill C-315. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 17063
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 17063
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 17066
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 17070
16999
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, November 30, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
seven petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-363, an act to amend the
Criminal Code (juvenile prostitution).
He said: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to
introduce this private member's bill for first reading. It provides
that a Canadian citizen be tried in Canada where that citizen has
sexually exploited children overseas.
We all know there is a multibillion dollar sex trade, particularly
in Asia. Other countries, in particular the United Kingdom and
Sweden, have taken measures to ensure that their citizens who
commit crimes against children, which is surely one of the most
heinous crimes we can imagine, are tried in their home country.
Article 35 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child,
which Canada was instrumental in implementing, states that
governments have the obligation to ensure that children are
protected from all forms of sexual exploitation.
I recommend the bill to the House. I congratulate an organization
called End Child Prostitution in Asian Tourism, which has worked
very hard to ensure that this trade be stopped.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I present a petition to the House.
The petition is signed by people from all across the national capital
region: Ottawa, Nepean, Gloucester, Orleans and so on. It has to do
with same sex benefits.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the petition I am presenting today comes from the
constituents of Yorkton-Melville. It states: ``We, the undersigned
citizens of Canada, wish to draw to the attention of the House of
Commons and the Senate of Canada that a very vocal minority of
citizens are requesting Parliament to institute a dual marketing
system for wheat and barley.
Therefore, your petitioners request that Parliament continue to
give the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly powers in marketing
wheat and barley and also request that Parliament expand further
the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly powers to include all grains
and oilseeds''.
(1005 )
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a
petition on behalf of my constituents in Regina-Lumsden who are
concerned and opposed to the approval of the synthetic bovine
growth hormone known as BGH or BST, the drug injected into
cows to increase milk production.
The petitioners call on Parliament to take steps to keep BGH out
of Canada through legislating a moratorium or stoppage on BGH
use and sale until the year 2000, and examining the outstanding
health and economic questions through independent and
transparent review.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
17000
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
17000
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved that Bill C-110, an act respecting
constitutional amendments, be read the second time and referred to
a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, Bill C-110 represents the fulfilment of
one of the three undertakings made by the Prime Minister during
the referendum campaign. At that time, the Prime Minister made a
commitment not to amend the Canadian Constitution without the
consent of the people of Quebec. But the bill goes much further. It
also ensures that no constitutional change will take place without a
regional consensus.
Let us be very clear: this initiative, the resolution respecting
Quebec's distinctiveness, and the initiative that will follow
tomorrow, are in no way the sum total of our response to the
Quebec referendum or to the issue of national unity. Rather, these
three commitments should be seen as important first steps.
[English]
It was in front of a rally of over 100,000 proud Canadians in
Montreal that the Prime Minister promised change. He made a
commitment and now he has delivered.
On that day he made it clear that to implement change he would
need the support of those same proud Canadians and their friends
who came from coast to coast to coast to Montreal. The time for
this renewal starts now.
We need the support of those Canadians and Canadians from all
across the country to confirm the faith of the majority of Quebecers
who voted no to separation on October 30.
The steps we are taking this week in combination signal a new
beginning and a reaffirmation of our desire to remain united.
[Translation]
Bill C-110 should be seen in the context of this renewal.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister spoke eloquently before the House to
the resolution recognizing Quebec's distinct society.
That resolution represents a solemn commitment, the fulfilment
of a pledge, and this Chamber's genuine expression of respect for
the people of Quebec. True, this resolution will satisfy neither the
Parti Quebecois nor the Bloc Quebecois.
(1010)
As we know, sadly, nothing short of breaking up this country
would satisfy them. But, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, it is
easier to destroy than to build. This government is interested only
in building a stronger, more united Canada.
[English]
As the Prime Minister asserted yesterday, the resolution through
which the House is being called on to confirm the reality that
Quebec is a distinct society is not intended in any way and does not
infringe on or derogate from aboriginal or treaty rights. This
position includes the inherent right to self-government. We
recognize the unique legal position of aboriginal peoples, including
the protection of aboriginal and treaty rights as found in the
Constitution.
Tomorrow my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources
Development, will table a bill transforming the unemployment
insurance program into an employment insurance program. This
will represent the latest step in the practice established by the
government in the two years since we have taken office; a practice
of co-operating to end duplication with other levels of government
as we work toward our common goals of creating jobs and
achieving economic growth.
We reaffirmed that commitment during the referendum
campaign. Tomorrow will mark an important step in that
continuing process.
[Translation]
During the referendum campaign, we assured the people of
Quebec that the Canadian Constitution would not be amended
again without their consent. That was a solemn commitment. Yet,
the Government of Quebec stands in the way of our modernizing
the federation and stays on the sidelines by itself. It refuses to
participate.
As Canada begins its renewal, we need a practical way of
assuring Quebecers that we will not proceed without them. What
we have done is to provide a strong political commitment, backed
by the force of law, that we will use our veto to oppose any change
that, in the opinion of Quebecers or people from any other region,
goes against their best interests. This simply acknowledges the
reality. There is no point in adopting changes that do not have
substantial support in all the regions of the country.
[English]
Allow me to deal briefly with the contents of Bill C-110. May I
emphasize at the outset that this legislation does not initiate or
represent constitutional change. It is essential to emphasize that the
adoption of this bill by Parliament will not result in any change in
the amending formula provided for in the Constitution of our
country.
All of the features of Part V of the Constitution calling for
provincial agreement in various forms, depending on the nature of
17001
the proposed amendment, will remain entirely as they are at
present. In particular, the general formula for amendment requiring
the approval of two-thirds of the provinces representing 50 per cent
of the Canadian population will remain exactly as it is at present.
What this bill does achieve is to make the federal veto over
constitutional change available in such a way as to ensure that no
such change will take place without regional consensus. Simply
stated, the federal government is providing by law that such
support will not be forthcoming unless certain conditions are met.
Those conditions involve the support of every region of Canada.
Let me spend a few moments setting out in a summary way that
which is already well known to members of Parliament; that is, the
features of the present amending formula contained in Part V of the
Constitution Act, 1982 and that will continue unchanged after this
bill is adopted.
(1015 )
Each and every one of the provinces already has a veto on many
categories of proposed constitutional amendments. For example,
each and every one of the provinces has a veto on all changes that
require unanimity; that is, those matters that are touched on by
section 41 of the Constitution Act. These involve changes to the
office of the Queen, the governor general, the lieutenant governor
of a province. They involve changes in provincial representation in
the House of Commons and the Senate, the use of the English and
French languages, and the composition of the Supreme Court of
Canada.
Under section 41, every province, from Newfoundland on the
east to British Columbia on the west, has an absolute and
unconditional veto over any amendment referred to in section 41.
The second type of change contemplated by the Constitution and
the second kind of veto provided in part V is dealt with in section
43. Whenever there are proposed changes that affect one or more
but not all of the provinces, those provinces affected by the
proposed changes have an absolute and unconditional veto over
any such amendment. Think, for example, about the resolution of
boundary questions between provinces that neighbour each other,
or instances such as the amendment permitting the construction of
the fixed link between the mainland and Prince Edward Island.
Without the concurrence of the province or provinces affected by
changes under section 43, those amendments will not occur.
The third kind of change in respect of which there is a virtual
veto is under the general amending formula in subsection 38(1). It
is provided in subsection 38(3) that where there is any amendment
approved by seven provinces with 50 per cent of the population, if
it involves the reduction of any provincial power, right, or
privilege, any province can opt out. In that section, the veto is
exercised in a negative sense by the objecting province opting out
of the proposed change. Under section 40, where such an opting out
takes place in relation to matters involving culture or education the
federal government is obligated to compensate the dissenting
province financially.
It is therefore clear that each and every province, from Prince
Edward Island to Alberta, from British Columbia to
Newfoundland, has a veto either directly or indirectly over almost
all categories of constitutional change.
The only area that exists at present where there is no veto is
where the general amending formula applies and where the opting
out provisions of subsection 38(3) do not arise; in other words,
those amendments that do not involve taking powers away from the
provinces. We are therefore dealing with those categories of
amendment that would, for example, add powers to the provinces,
enlarge the territories of existing provinces, or deal with all the
other matters listed in section 42 of the Constitution.
The effect of Bill C-110 is to provide a regional veto for any of
the changes in respect of which the individual provinces do not
already have direct or indirect vetos. The additional regional veto
that is contemplated by this legislation will be provided not by
constitutional change but rather through a commitment by the
Canadian government to introduce such changes only when
regional consensus is demonstrated.
In effect, the federal government is putting in place a set of
criteria that will guide the future use of its own veto power. The
seven and fifty amending formula is still in place. Bill C-110 is
merely a discipline the federal government imposes on itself.
[Translation]
Canadian history shows that the idea of a regional veto has often
been supported by many responsible proponents. Indeed, at the
Victoria constitutional conference of 1971, the federal government
and all 10 provinces agreed to a constitutional amending formula
that was, in general terms, very similar to that proposed in Bill
C-110.
This approach was ultimately rejected, for other reasons, by a
subsequent decision.
(1020)
Let us keep in mind, however, that the Victoria formula as it was
then called had the original support of all eleven governments.
Similarly, the 1991 report of the Beaudoin-Edwards Committee
contained a proposal almost identical to that in Bill C-110. Finally,
at its 1992 policy convention in Hull, the Liberal Party of Canada
17002
endorsed certain specific amending formulas, including the very
formula set out in this bill.
As members will see, this bill provides expressly that no
minister of the crown can introduce a resolution proposing an
amendment to the Constitution unless such an amendment has the
consent of a majority of the provinces. Which begs the question:
What is meant exactly by ``the consent of the provinces''?
First, let me point out that it will be up to the federal government
to determine what this phrase means every time a new situation
arises. Depending on the circumstances, the federal government
might interpret as consent, for example, an expression of consent
by the provincial government of the day, a resolution of the
legislative assembly, or a direct expression of the population's
agreement through a referendum.
[English]
There are those who may argue that Bill C-110 is
unconstitutional because it represents a unilateral attempt by the
Canadian government to amend the Constitution. I can tell the
House that I gave careful consideration to this question before
certifying the bill as constitutional, as it was tabled in the House
yesterday.
Let me express my sincere conviction that Bill C-110 is valid
federal legislation. It does not amend the Constitution in any way.
Indeed, it is complementary to the constitutional amending
provisions.
It must be observed that the House of Commons is the only
legislative assembly in Canada with a complete veto over almost
every conceivable type of constitutional change. That is so because
as a practical matter no such change will occur if it is opposed by
the House of Commons.
Bill C-110 simply represents a reflection in legislative form of
the policy of the Canadian government with respect to the
circumstances under which it will lend its support to constitutional
change where the provinces do not already have a veto.
In my respectful view, this legislation is much in the same
category as those provincial statutes by which certain provinces
have bound themselves to support constitutional amending
proposals only after a referendum has been held in which the
people of a province express their support. I refer specifically to the
legislation in both Alberta and British Columbia, which imposes on
those provincial governments exactly that constraint or discipline.
Accordingly, I say that this bill is neither intended to nor does it
amend the Constitution directly or indirectly. It simply sets out the
circumstances under which the Canadian government may support
constitutional change.
Another question that arises is whether there are four regions for
these purposes or five. As the Prime Minister asserted in his
remarks yesterday, some are already suggesting that the bill does
not do justice to British Columbia. Let me emphasize that this is
simply not the case.
The changes in this legislation are a significant step forward for
British Columbia in the constitutional process. These steps are the
clearest recognition we have had to date of British Columbia's
growing importance within Canada. The voices of British
Columbians are being heard in Ottawa and throughout Canada. Let
there be no mistake about that.
(1025 )
As the largest western province, British Columbia will obviously
have a major voice in determining whether regional consensus
exists in the circumstances contemplated by Bill C-110. Indeed, the
arithmetical reality is that British Columbia, with the support of
only one other western province, could block any constitutional
change affected by Bill C-110. This represents a significant
increase in British Columbia's role in the amending process. The
situation at present in respect of amendments to which Bill C-110
would apply is that change would be possible without the consent
of three western provinces, even if the three dissenting provinces
together represented a majority of the population in the western
region.
The population of British Columbia is expected to surpass 50 per
cent of the total of the western region early in the next century. This
will mean that under the provisions of Bill C-110 British Columbia
on its own would ultimately be able to block any amendment. This
will represent a major improvement and significant recognition of
British Columbia's place in Confederation.
This issue should surely be kept in perspective. We speak in this
bill of a veto. A veto does not initiate constitutional change, it
blocks it. What we are talking about is the ability of a region to stop
an amendment to the Constitution.
I remind members as well that the Constitution requires that a
conference convened by the Prime Minister and including all first
ministers must be held before April 1997, expressly for the purpose
of discussing the amending formula in part V. The issue of British
Columbia's involvement in the veto process could very well be put
on the agenda of that conference for full discussion.
[Translation]
There are those who suggest that Bill C-110 will make it
impossible for any government to amend the Canadian
Constitution. I fundamentally disagree.
First of all, the amending formula remains exactly as it is today.
Part 5 remains unchanged. The general amending formula will still
require the consent of seven provinces representing over 50 per
17003
cent of the Canadian population. Bill C-110 simply provides that a
regional consensus must be achieved before the Canadian
government can effect any changes.
It is difficult to imagine that the federal government would
endorse constitutional change without the support of all regions.
Bill C-110 requires that a majority of provinces, namely six,
express their support for or consent to the proposed changes before
Ottawa can participate.
That is, of course, a smaller number than required in Part 5 of the
Constitution, and I emphasize as well that there is no national
population threshold.
[English]
I suggest that Bill C-110 will strengthen the constitutional fabric
of this country, not by changing the Constitution but rather by
making plain the circumstances under which constitutional change
can be carried out.
This bill is a measure that reflects the importance of the regions
of Canada and ensures their participation in constitutional renewal.
In a sense the bill is a bridge, because we can expect that the
amending formula will evolve in the years to come. There is no
doubt that at some future point the amending formula will be
reviewed and no doubt improved upon. In the meantime, by this
legislation the federal government is ensuring that amendments
will occur only when they have the support of all regions of the
country.
As I said at the outset, this bill and the other initiatives
introduced this week are not in any sense the only response by this
government to questions of national unity. Rather these initiatives
are the first steps. They represent new beginnings. We undertake
them with renewed hope and optimism for our future as a country.
Let us proceed in that spirit and put Canada above all else. Let us
put Canada first.
(1030)
I commend the legislation to the House and I urge all members to
support it.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Madam Speaker, we are engaged here in a continuation of the
discussion of the recent attempts by the Prime Minister to amend
the Cconstitution. I feel that the contribution made to the history of
Canada and Quebec constitutional law by Bill C-110 will be fairly
negligible. It will add a page to the federal statutes, but that is as far
as it will go.
Before entering directly into an examination of the content of
Bill C-110, I would like to try to destroy a myth, if I
may-although myths are virtually indestructible-the myth that
René Lévesque lost Quebec its right to a veto. Yesterday again we
heard the Prime Minister tell the House that Quebec had to be given
back its veto because René Lévesque had given it up. That is
something we hear all the time on the Hill as a self-evident truth,
but something that is totally contrary to the facts.
I note that the Minister of Justice, with his familiarity with law
and jurisprudence, has taken great pains to avoid repeating such an
enormity. We are well aware that the reason why Quebec is in the
vulnerable situation it is with respect to constitutional change is
that the Supreme Court, in a 1982 decision, its second judgment on
constitutional challenges raised because of the 1982 patriation,
found that the veto Quebec believed it possessed, the veto everyone
believed Quebec possessed, which had always been respected
because the general perception was that the Canadian Constitution
could not be altered without Quebec's consent, had never existed.
The Supreme Court analyzed the Constitution and found, after
examining all elements which might make it possible to confirm
the existence of a veto, that Quebec had no veto and never had had
one. Now, that is a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada. As a
result, people ought perhaps in future to refrain from stating that if
the necessity for Quebec to obtain a veto is central to the whole
constitutional debate, is not as a result of René Lévesque's being so
careless that it was lost, but has never existed in the opinion of the
Supreme Court. The proof lies in the second challenge in 1982,
when Quebec, which now stood alone, attempted to block
unilateral patriation by invoking its right to a veto.
You will recall that in the first attempt, in the first case, in 1981,
Quebec had seven other provinces on its side and was successful in
blocking patriation, this time by convincing the Supreme Court that
a reasonable measure of provincial consent was necessary for
proper patriation and major change to be possible. The Supreme
Court had concluded that, with eight provinces dissenting and only
two supporting the federal government, the reasonable measure of
consent needed to authorize the patriation of the Constitution and
the amendments it contained had not been reached.
It was in the second attempt, when Quebec found itself alone,
that it tried to block patriation and exercised its right to veto. At the
heart of the 1982 constitutional challenge, which the Supreme
Court decided on, just before the act of patriation was signed, but
still in 1982, the court concluded that the argument did not hold in
this case, because Quebec had no veto.
I would just like to say this so it appears somewhere in Hansard,
here, in this wash of gratuitous remarks to the effect that René
Lévesque lost the right of veto, that someone rose, namely the
Leader of the Opposition, who was on one of the teams of lawyers
at the time, to point out that the Supreme Court never said René
Lévesque had lost the right of veto. On the contrary, it said we
never had it. Hence the present debate, which is part of a long series
17004
of abortive attempts to introduce the right of veto into the Canadian
Constitution.
(1035)
Earlier, the Minister of Justice provided a quick overview of the
various attempts that have been made, from Victoria, more
specifically the Pepin-Robarts Commission, to the various task
forces that were set up during the constitutional debates that
preceded the Charlottetown accord, to show there had been a
number of formulae. The formula used in Bill C-110 is somewhat
like the Victoria formula in which Quebec is considered a region
and could therefore, if the government is rightly talking veto, have
its own veto too.
But what is the reality of the situation. I contend, and the
Minister of Justice was careful to avoid saying it, that there is no
way this bill can be said to give a veto to Quebec in particular or to
other provinces and regions. There is no way anybody can claim
this bill provides for a veto, for two basic reasons.
First, veto power is given only if everyone wants it to be. As
soon as someone objects to its being given, the right vanishes.
Consensus is at the very heart of the according of veto power.
Unanimity is essential. All the provincial legislatures and the
federal government must be in agreement. What we have before us
is nothing more than the federal government's wish. Where is the
support of Canada's provincial legislatures? There is none.
What we do have are statements making it very clear that at least
two, and maybe more, provinces have refused to support this veto
bill. Only one need refuse for it to never exist.
This means there is a basic flaw in the plan for establishing a
right of veto. The reality of the situation is that we do not have here
the conditions necessary for a veto to be given.
The second reason has to do with the definition of a veto. The
right of veto is an absolute guarantee. It is written into the
Constitution and cannot be withdrawn without everyone's
approval. It serves to permit one of the interested parties to block
constitutional change.
It should be binding on everyone under the constraining effect of
the Constitution, the country's supreme legislation. Where will this
bill end up after being passed by a majority of the members in this
House? It will end up gathering dust in the federal statute books,
where it will remain. It will never be enshrined in the Constitution
or invoked to bind anyone outside this House because it is not, in
fact, a right of veto.
They will tell me: ``Yes, but Parliament will be bound, the
federal government will be bound, since a bill was passed''. Not
really. It will be bound only so long as the act remains in the federal
statute books. It will no longer be binding, even on this
government, as soon as one minister or another rises to propose
that this bill be withdrawn and replaced with another one. One
piece of legislation replacing another. The legislative process
hinges on having the same forum, the same vehicle, namely the
House of Commons, pass a bill to amend another piece of
legislation.
In any case, we know full well that, fortunately, governments do
not last forever, that there are elections in a democracy, that there
will be a federal election in two or three years, that another
government will be formed, perhaps by the same party, but
possibly by a different party, why not? As for the Bloc Quebecois,
it will certainly not be in the running, so that the only other party in
this House likely to come to power is the Reform Party. What will
be the first bill tabled by Reform should it come to power? The bill
to withdraw Bill C-110. Which means that Bill C-110 is nothing. It
amounts to smoke and mirrors.
(1040)
So, Madam Speaker, I trust you will allow me to spare you and
not spend too much time repeating that this bill contributes
absolutely nothing to the debate, that it is, at best, a diversion, a
show put on by the Liberal government to silence criticism about
failing to act on the constitutional issue, making empty promises
and misleading the people. This way, for the next two or three
years, the Prime Minister will be able to keep telling us, until we
are sick and tired of hearing about it: ``We granted Quebec the right
of veto through Bill C-110. We granted Quebec the right of veto
through Bill C-110. We granted Quebec the right of veto through
Bill-''It will become quite annoying to hear him say that over and
over. That is not true, but he just will keep on repeating it all the
time. Over, and over again.
Those in the know, all those who examine the constitutional
issue, who are courageous enough to keep looking into it from time
to time, who overcome their mental fatigue to ponder these matters
again, know that Bill C-110 is just one of those political ploys that
do not really change anything in the problem Quebec and Canada
have in this regard. And I suspect that the Minister of Justice would
be the first one to recognize that, he who, a moment ago, gave a
very neutral, factual and, I would say, professional description of
his approach by setting out very clear limits, reassuring English
Canada in the process.
I noticed, in the remarks he made in English in particular, that he
made a point to remind everyone that the Constitution will remain
unchanged. ``Do not assume that this is a constitutional change.
This will have no effect on the Constitution. The federal
government is just exercising self-discipline''. I heard a speaker
use the word ``discipline'' earlier, in English. The federal
government will
17005
exercise self-discipline, restraint, before granting too much to
Quebec, of course. To anglophone listeners, the government is
describing this initiative as a way to refrain from giving too much
to Quebec, to resist the urge to do anything like that.
This leads me to believe and shows us that Bill C-110, in fact,
has a pernicious effect in that, since the Canadian Constitution is so
complex and twisted in certain respects, this bill, and that is a
paradox, will in no way solve the current problems, but will make it
even more difficult to transfer the powers that the federal
government might be willing to give to Quebec.
I can see the day when members from this side of the House will
rise to ask the Prime Minister: ``Are you going to transfer
manpower to Quebec, along with the real powers provided for in
the Constitution? Are you going to enshrine the transfer of
manpower in the Constitution? Are you going to do that? Are you
going to also transfer the related funds?'' The Prime Minister will
reply: ``I cannot do that. Bill C-110 prevents me from doing that. I
have imposed self-discipline on myself. I have forbidden myself to
transfer anything to Quebec''. Since he is a law abiding person, the
Prime Minister will no longer be able to do anything for Quebec,
when he wanted to do so much.
I end with the conclusion of the Minister of Justice, who said:
``Listen, this may not be much''-and he is right-``but it is only
the first step. It will be improved. We will continue to work. The
committee has an important task. That committee, which is chaired
by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and which will
explore avenues for change, will come up with other proposals just
as inventive as Bill C-110''. The minister adds: ``Do not lose heart
just yet. True, there is not much in this, but we will improve
things''. The fact is that, never in the history of constitutional
negotiations and talks involving Quebec, the federal government
and the rest of Canada, was an initial proposal improved on. On the
contrary, every initial proposal made was later scaled down,
watered down, split, doctored or dolled up, and in the end became
almost meaningless. Now we are told: ``No, this time we start
small, but end up with something big''. We will talk then.
(1045)
For the time being, let us simply say that this sham fails to
convince, and that we will not give it any credibility by voting in
favour of the bill. On the contrary, we will oppose this legislation
and, in Quebec, we will move on to a more immediate, pressing,
serious and imperative agenda, given the need to put our fiscal
house in order, to create jobs and to do something about education
and culture.
We will see what happens after that.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
am rising today to address Bill C-110, an act respecting
constitutional amendments, and to state clearly our opposition to
the bill as it is now drafted. I also hope to propose some things that
the government will think about in terms of altering this legislation
which may make it more acceptable.
[Translation]
I want to say that we, the members of the Reform Party, certainly
oppose that bill, which gives a veto power over constitutional
amendments to certain provinces, but not to others. More
importantly, it denies Canadians the possibility of playing a role,
by way of a referendum, in amending the Constitution.
[English]
I must admit that in the last two or three months I have been
wondering what exactly it is we are doing in this place and why we
are really here when it comes to the question of national unity.
I had prepared a fairly long speech to discuss the constitutional
amending formula and some of the considerations in that
historically. I probably will not give it today. Instead I want to
concentrate on a few other comments, things that I feel about this
situation which I think need to be said.
When I say I wonder why we are here, as intergovernmental
affairs critic for my party I want to share some of the frustrations
we have had. Monday morning the government did not even know
it was making an announcement on national unity. We contacted
the government and were told that by the office of the
intergovernmental affairs minister. Certainly nobody in the press
gallery was aware of it.
The announcement was made Monday afternoon. Even
yesterday morning no copy of the bill was available. We were told
it was in the extremely complex process of being drafted, after
notice had been given. Then we got the bill and it is all of one page.
There is no doubt that the drafting required a lot of time and a lot of
complex decisions which prevented it from being shown to
anybody until a few minutes before it was tabled.
We saw what happened when we tried to get a constitutional
amendment at Charlottetown. We ended up with 60 clauses. It took
months and they could not even produce a legal text. This is the
kind of the role we see here.
What is more important is this is a bill about the amending
formula. The amending formula is an important question. Frankly I
do not really think this bill has much to do with an amending
formula in the Constitution. I do not think much thought went into
this position.
17006
Judging from the comments of both the Prime Minister and the
Deputy Prime Minister when we have questioned them in question
period it is very clear there are concerns other than the amending
formula. We seldom get any responses that try to justify or explain
why this particular formula would be a good one.
Instead, what is obviously a preoccupation in the government
and in the country is the very deep denial about the nature of the
events in the province of Quebec and where it is really going. The
deep denial this country has been in for a long time is that there is a
very simple solution to this problem, that somehow there will be
some constitutional or non-constitutional concession and all we do
is present it. It will address Quebec's historic demands; it will
embarrass the bejeesus out of the separatists; the whole movement
will collapse and then everything will be solved.
(1050)
We have heard this story over and over again for 30 years.
Attempts have been made to go along with that approach and
frankly, they seem to have made the situation worse. The most
notable was in 1982 when nine provincial governments and many
people were persuaded to pass a major constitutional package
against the wishes of the separatist Government of Quebec. This
was done as a method of dealing with our unity crisis to fulfil the
commitments of the then Prime Minister to the people of Quebec
during the referendum. We know that has led to a much more
profound crisis than we had to begin with.
As this crisis gets worse and worse, governments and the Liberal
Party particularly seek to find enemies of Canada everywhere. Now
the enemies of Canada are no longer just in Quebec among the
separatist movement; we are now told there are enemies of Canada
in great numbers in Alberta and in no less than the premier's office
in Newfoundland. There are enemies in British Columbia.
Everywhere there are enemies who will not put aside their narrow
views in order to save the country.
Let me go to our position on the amending formula and make it
very clear. The Reform Party will not agree to any change to the
amending formula for federal ratification unless it is done by
national referendum. It does not matter whether there are four
regions, five regions, 10 regions, or if we make every constituency
of this House a region.
It is not good enough to have 10 votes of 10 provincial premiers.
We want there to be 30 million votes, the population of Canada in a
national referendum to discuss federal constitutional amendments.
If we get that, we can be more flexible about the nature of the
federal geographic approval process. We have a constitutional
amending formula for provincial approval today and that amending
formula is satisfactory to us as a formula for provincial approval.
The position that the Minister of Justice has presented, I would
state with respect, does not make any sense. The government says
it is not a new formula for constitutional amendment. It is not a
constitutional formula because it will not be in the Constitution.
That is clear enough, except that it is the stated intention of the
government that these proposals will be brought into the
Constitution at some point.
The government is proposing a new formula for constitutional
amendments involving provincial ratification. We already have a
formula in the Constitution for provincial ratification, the seven
and fifty formula. There are difficulties with the seven and fifty
formula. The minister accurately outlined some of those
difficulties.
The reason for that formula is that when dealing with provincial
governments the provinces decided that they did not want any one
government to have a veto because that was a very risky situation
with the concentration of executive power there is in this country. I
will get on to that more later.
The new formula obviously violates what the provinces
themselves wanted in selecting the current provincial amending
formula. The Minister of Justice has tried to make an argument that
it is not unconstitutional for the federal government to unilaterally
amend the provincial ratification formula even in a
non-constitutional way. He has an argument there because the
federal government can clearly delegate its powers.
Why it would want to delegate powers to the provincial
governments in an area where the provincial governments already
have a formula is unclear to me. We will have two rounds of
provincial ratification and no real federal ratification. This is
completely unclear to me. In any case, this is what they are
proposing to do.
The delegation which is proposed here delegates that authority in
a way that gives some provincial legislatures more authority than
others.
(1055 )
It is on that ground that some provincial legislatures, in
particular the legislature in my province of Alberta, may well
attempt to take this to court and have it declared unconstitutional.
Alberta may challenge that and I would encourage it if it sought to
do so because in the area of governmental powers all of the
provinces should be treated equally.
As well the Minister of Justice has argued, and I am a bit
mystified at why he is even making this argument, that there are
already plenty of vetoes in the Constitution which is true enough.
There are already plenty of vetoes in the Constitution. That does
not change the fact that for the areas he is proposing vetoes, he is
proposing to give some provincial governments and not other
provincial governments vetoes. This will be rejected by the
population in large parts of the country, but particularly in western
Canada. Western Canada will reject it because it reflects a vision of
17007
the country that does not at all reflect the way westerners see the
country.
I was born and raised in Toronto, so I can understand the central
Canadian perspective. Unfortunately it is simply not a complete
perspective of the country. It is interesting, when looking at the
four regions there is Ontario and Quebec, the two original
provinces before Confederation. Then there is Atlantic Canada and
of course, it is a group with a small population. In the original
Constitution we had recognized three regions, but then there is out
there: western Canada and all of the Rockies, all of the prairies, all
of the north. That is just one area.
If we were to ask a westerner what the regions were, I am sure he
would say they are the prairies, the Pacific, the north and the east.
That would be the formula that would be proposed.
This particular view is obviously going to be rejected even more
in British Columbia than it is anywhere else. Why? Because British
Columbia is obviously a distinctive and strong region with a
vibrant economy, a great future regardless of what happens
politically in this country. It is growing. It is larger both in terms of
geography and population than all of the Atlantic provinces
combined. It certainly is not going to view itself as part of some
western region. Why then has it been defined this way? It is
important to say something about this because it does reflect the
nature and the inadequacy of the thinking behind the bill.
The Minister of Justice talked about renewal. What does this
particular formula have to do with renewal? When we asked why
this formula came about, we did not get an instruction about
renewal; we got an instruction from the minister and from the
government about history.
In 1971 the Government of British Columbia as part of a wider
constitutional package that was eventually rejected, agreed to a
formula that involved four regions. In 1971 Ken Dryden was a
rookie playing goal for the Montreal Canadiens. The United States
was still at war in Vietnam.
The premier who signed that deal- and I do not mean to
besmirch his memory, the premier has long since passed
away-not only is he and his government out of power, the party he
represented does not even exist in the province of British
Columbia. The premier is dead and we are using him now as the
reason we are bringing forward a a proposal for a constitutional
amending formula in 1995.
Then we got a second set of reactions. This morning the Minister
of Justice seemed to concede that B.C. should have a veto or should
be moving that way because of its population. I ask the House to
think a little bit about this. The argument is that sooner rather than
later, British Columbia will have a majority of the population in
western Canada so it will have a veto.
What does this mean? This means that under the formula
proposed by the government, the provinces of Alberta,
Saskatchewan and Manitoba would have no say whatsoever in
constitutional amendments, none whatsoever. They can be isolated
in the seven and fifty formula and their consent would not even
have to be requested to fulfil the requirements of Bill C-110. We
would not even need to know what their position was.
(1100)
This is an absolutely incredible position and explains why in
Alberta there is a reaction. Some circles have called for an Alberta
veto.
Across the country there is a particular concern that this gives a
veto to the government of Quebec at the very time when it will be
led not just by the separatists, but by the Leader of the Opposition,
the leader of the Bloc Quebecois who will become the future
premier of Quebec. He is not only committed to taking Canada out
of confederation, but unlike Rene Levesque, is not willing to
entertain any constitutional amendments whatsoever.
During and since the referendum when the Prime Minister has
been asked him about his speech in Verdun, he talked about trusting
the people. He told us we had to trust the people in the referendum.
The people defeated the proposal by Mr. Parizeau. Now the Prime
Minister does not trust them. Now he is prepared to trust the Leader
of the Opposition. This position contradicts his previous statements
on constitutional reform. It contradicts resolutions the Liberal
Party passed in 1992. It contradicts his statement about trusting the
people and giving the Constitution to the people. It even
contradicts statements he made recently in the House.
We have to ask why would the Prime Minister do this? I want to
try and be fair to him. The Prime Minister has been in politics for
30 years. He has had a very successful political career. None of us
would debate that. He has shown from time to time some very
clever political judgment, regardless of what anyone says.
He said he would trust the people. He said he would give the
people a say. He said he would give the people of Quebec a veto.
Now he is doing the opposite. He is giving the legislature of
Quebec a say and not the people. In fact, a couple of days ago when
I asked about this, he said this was even more democratic. This was
really democracy. The people of Quebec chose this legislature and
that is who we are trusting.
I have pointed out on more than one occasion in the past that if
we had left the decision on the separation of Quebec to the
legislature of Quebec, it would already be a separate country if that
is where the decision is to be taken. It is the people of Quebec who
have decided repeatedly not to separate.
17008
Why is the Prime Minister doing this? I suggest he is doing this
for the very reason that it is being criticized. He is doing this
precisely because it gives a veto to the leader of the official
opposition, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois. The Prime Minister
can stand and say: ``I gave you a veto. I gave the people of Quebec
something through you and you turned it down. You are the bad
guy''. That is what he wants to say.
Why does that matter? It matters because for 30 years the Prime
Minister has been a fighter for Canada in Quebec against the
Quebec nationalist movement. It is a fight that looks more and
more in jeopardy as there has been a long term rise in support of
this movement through the decades.
As with all nationalism, this movement says that anybody who
has a sense of wider loyalties is a traitor. The Prime Minister,
because he sees himself as a Canadian, believes it is some kind of a
sell-out.
It reached a pinnacle in the last couple of years when the Prime
Minister became the first Quebecer in our history to be elected
Prime Minister without substantial support from the French
speaking areas of Quebec. He also was aggravated, when in the
referendum campaign, his interventions did not seem to have a
particular affect on the population.
(1105 )
The Prime Minister has decided to strike back. It is a perfectly
understandable response for somebody who has been in the
position he has been in, for somebody who must feel the way he
feels, given the way events have gone and given the way he has
been treated from time to time, particularly in his own province.
From his perspective it may also be a response that is necessary
politically as a federalist Quebecer.
I suggest it will not work. The Leader of the Opposition, as we
all know, is a smart enough fellow, which he demonstrated again
today. He is not going to have any problem playing around with this
argument. That is what he will do. Whether his arguments are right
or wrong he will be able to deliver an effective argument against
this motion.
The Prime Minister should also know from his own history that
success in politics is about being able to see that one's own feelings
or one's own reactions should not interfere with one's own
judgment or with the broader interests that are at stake.
Canada needs an approach in looking for a new constitutional
formula. That is what we should be looking at here. Canada needs
an approach that is good for the country and good for Canadians. I
suggest there are many things wrong with this bill. In particular a
veto for the premier of Quebec is not in the interests of all
Canadians. It is not in the interests of this country.
What is in the interests of this country at the federal level is what
we have: a provincial ratification formula which I believe is as
good as it is going to get. At the federal level we need a national
referendum for the people of Canada. We should be trusting the
people of Quebec who have voted against separation. We should be
trusting the people who went to the Montreal rally who were not
there to endorse some bills and resolutions which they had not
seen. We should be trusting their judgment. We should also be
trusting the people who did not go to the Montreal rally. They were
millions of Canadians, many of whom I suspect considered they
would go but had second thoughts because they said: ``If I go there
am I going to find that my name is being used to back some agenda
by some group of politicians that I had never endorsed?''
Those people in Quebec and outside of Quebec need a say in
constitutional amendments. It is only by trusting the people that we
are going to get anywhere. We will certainly vote against this bill
the way it is. I ask the government to seriously consider looking at
this proposal again to give the people a say over constitutional
change at the federal level.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been
consultations among all parties in the House. I believe you would
find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding any standing order if, on Friday, December 8, any
division is demanded with regard to any business pursuant to Standing Order
81, the said division shall be deferred until 15 minutes before the expiry of the
time allotted for Government Orders on Monday, December 11, and
immediately after the disposal of the said division, the House shall dispose of all
other business relating to the business of supply in the manner set out in
Standing Order 81(17).
Madam Speaker, a copy of this motion has been given to both
opposition parties present in the House and I believe you will find
unanimous consent for this motion.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I wish to indicate that pursuant
to Standing Order 43(2), Liberal MPs speaking on this bill from
hereon in will be sharing their time with 10 minutes for every
speaker.
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-110,
an act respecting constitutional amendments, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Madam Speaker, there are defining
moments in the history of a nation. I had the privilege of being a
part of one of those defining moments. It was not a political
17009
agenda. It was not a politician's agenda. It was an expression by the
people of Canada, on the eve of a very important referendum about
their futures, to come to the heart of Canada, the city that probably
best embodies the distinctiveness of Canada and the distinctiveness
of Quebec, to come to Montreal.
(1110)
I spoke yesterday about a woman I met on an elevator in a hotel
who had come in a wheelchair with her husband from Peace River,
Alberta. She said to me:
[Translation]
``Mrs. Copps, I cannot speak French like you do, but would you
please tell Quebecers that Quebec is an important part of our
country, Canada, and that they are a distinct society''.
I know it makes the separatists sick to see that Canada has a heart
that is generous enough and I can see why.
[English]
I was in Montreal with 150,000 Canadians who came from every
part of this country because they believed that we have a nation
worth saving. They believe that Quebec is a distinct society. There
is a reason we are different from our neighbours to the south, there
is a reason that we have-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Ms. Copps:-there is a reason we are different and generous-
[Translation]
There is a reason why, last week, we were able to pass a bill on
firearms and there is a reason why we have a universal health care
system; it is because, at the dawn of our history, when we made the
decision to become a country, we held as a fundamental principle
that there are two peoples.
The hon. member can laugh, but my ancestor was a member of
the Louisbourg government before anglophones ever came into
Canada. My maternal grandmother was born in England. We can
find solutions. That is why, last year, on Canada Day, the Leader of
the Opposition said Canada was the most democratic country in the
world.
[English]
Canadians know that nothing we do will ever satisfy the Bloc
Quebecois. Unfortunately the Reform Party has shown that it is
incapable of understanding the meaning of building a nation and
the setting aside of regional differences for the good of a nation.
The fact is that if Bloc members were offered the world they
would want the moon. If they got the moon they would demand the
sun. If they got the sun they would demand the galaxy. If they got
the galaxy they would want the universe. If they got the universe
they would demand heaven. If they got heaven they would claim
that the angels were in a federalist conspiracy to centralize power.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Ms. Copps: We have listened to the opposition parties. It is
really very sad. I have a lot more faith and confidence in the people
of Canada and the good judgment of those 150,000 people.
[Translation]
The Bloc wanted to know if campaign managers had paid for
this, who had taken the school bus? Steelworkers from my riding,
who had never been involved in politics in any way, rode in a
school bus for ten hours to go to Montreal to express their
solidarity and recognize what you know and what we know. It is a
fact, Quebec is a distinct society, and that is why since the
beginning of our history we have been different. Why did I say
during the referendum campaign that Quebec is the heart of
Canada?
(1115)
If our nation is respectful of individuals and communities, it is
thanks to French speaking Canadians, who were able to survive
throughout the history of North America. You were all by
yourselves. Some could not keep their language, but you were all
by yourselves and you managed to survive because you knew how
to build a community. You have embraced the principles of sharing
through institutions such as the caisse de dépôt and the co-op
movement. Your contribution to the fabric of Canada is what makes
up the soul of our country.
Some people tell us: ``Mind your own business.'' If I am a
Canadian, I am not an Ontarian, I am not an English speaking
Canadian, I am simply a Canadian who believes her country,
without Quebec, would be an empty shell. My country, without
Quebec, will lose all we have achieved together. Admittedly, we
have problems. There are always problems. But are we generous
enough and open minded enough to accept wholeheartedly the
changes that need to be made?
[English]
Canada is not about cutting the best deal for oneself. Canada is
not about carving up power among politicians. Canada is about
building a hope and a dream for people around the world who look
to Canada for inspiration from a country that can make its
differences work.
Let us look at the globe today. People with far greater differences
than ours are making enormous accommodations and throwing off
centuries of bitterness, centuries of historic hate. We see peace in
the Middle East. We see peace in Northern Ireland. We see the
peace process in Bosnia. Bitter rivals are laying down decades and
centuries of hatred and destruction and they are finding accom-
17010
modation. We thank God that in this country we do not have such
hatred to overcome.
[Translation]
The city of Shawinigan is twinned with mine. It was my father, a
guy from Northern Ontario who spoke French slang, who twinned
those to cities in the sixties. What do working people in
Shawinigan and Hamilton want? They want us to be able to give
the best to our children.
My grandmother was a widow who raised six lads in Northern
Ontario. She was penniless, and could not afford university for her
children. Neither my father nor my mother went to university. But
all their children did because, in the sixties, we tried to improve the
situation in Canada to give more opportunities to more people.
Our current fiscal circumstances are difficult, and we live in a
period where we tend to withdraw into ourselves. But is that the
way to have a strong country in the next century? The country we
have can be a leader in the world and meet the challenges of the
21st century. I sure of that.
[English]
This summer in my riding of Hamilton East we will be twinning
with families from Shawinigan. One hundred and fifty Shawinigan
families are coming to Hamilton for the 150th birthday of my city.
I am not afraid of public reaction to distinct society and veto
rights. I am not afraid of people's reaction. The people said very
clearly and in great numbers in Montreal that they were prepared to
embrace real change. They were prepared to understand that the
distinctiveness of Quebec forms an important part of the heart and
soul of Canada.
We are not hearing here today the voices of the people. They are
the voices of the power brokers and the politicians who want to
carve Canada into little pieces. The Bloc has an agenda. It wants
Quebec without Canada. The Reform clearly wants a Canada
without Quebec. Will regional expressions of difference, of making
us smaller, of cutting us into little pieces, giving a little power to a
politician here and taking a little power away there solve our
problem? I know what will solve our problem.
(1120)
[Translation]
What will solve our problem is the linguistic heritage we got
from French speaking Canadians, if we prove able to meet new
challenges thanks to the generosity and historical background of
our country.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry to interrupt but
the minister's time has expired.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ):
Madam Speaker, today, I can understand the emotion the minister
is feeling as she comes to realize how little she can do to change the
situation for which her government is responsible.
She also realizes that what she is offering on behalf of her
government, because she is part of that government, means almost
nothing to the people of Quebec. What I want to tell the tearful
minister we saw today is that she should have shed her tears when
her leader, the current Prime Minister of Canada, killed the Meech
Lake agreement. That is when she should have shed tears.
She should also have cried when the Prime Minister of
Canada-who was only the leader of her party at the time-lurked
around and tried to influence the Charlottetown accord
negotiations. She should have shed tears then to try to convince
him to listen more closely to what Quebec was saying.
She should also have shed tears these last two years every time
her government held a caucus meeting to say no to Quebec and to
the historical demands of our province. That is what she should
have done.
Today, her tears come a little too late, and she has only herself
and her own government to blame. I think the Leader of the
Opposition made it clear yesterday and again today that we can
expect nothing new from English Canada. We can expect nothing
new from the other side because, besides some lip service and
telling us: ``We love you, Quebec'', they have come up
empty-handed.
So, please, let us have a little less fuss and a little less show of
emotion here. Let us try to remain clear-headed in our remarks and
our approach in this House and have a very civilized debate, which
is what we, in the Bloc Quebecois, intend to do.
Ms. Copps: Madam Speaker, I was there for Meech Lake. I
voted for Meech Lake. I worked hard for Meech Lake to pass, but
someone jumped ship before it did.
I am clearly not a dear friend nor a real chum of Brian
Mulroney's. But the one who stabbed him in the back by jumping
ship one month before the end of Meech was the Leader of the
Opposition.
When he was needed and the pressure came on, Mr. Bouchard
left. I was there till the end to support Meech Lake. The one who
was not there, the one who resigned and did not have the guts to
speak directly to his real chum, his dear friend Brian Mulroney,
that one was Lucien Bouchard. An if you are looking for one who
did that, I am not the one-
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The time has now expired.
We should refer to members by their official titles.
17011
[Translation]
Ms. Copps: Madam Speaker, I was there till the end. I know
how hard it was. But one thing is sure with the Leader of the
Opposition and that is that every time life becomes harsh, he takes
off. He left the federal cabinet one month before Meech failed,
without even having the decency to speak directly to prime
minister Brian Mulroney because the pressure had become too
much for him.
Mr. Bellehumeur: That is not true. He resigned after Meech
Lake.
Ms. Copps: It is true. Pardon me but he resigned one month
before the Meech Lake failure. To refer to history, you have to at
least know it. I know it, I lived through it, I was here and the one
who jumped ship before the end was Lucien Bouchard.
(1125)
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the veto seems to be falling back on the old premise that
Quebec supports the concept of two founding nations.
Would the hon. member who just gave such a heart rending
emotional speech care to comment on the La Presse Gallup poll
released this morning? It stated that 42 per cent of Quebecers
polled support the 10 equal provinces scenario while only 37 per
cent polled actually believe in two founding nations. The
government clings to an outdated way of thinking.
Ms. Copps: Madam Speaker, I tried to point out that if we are to
build a future as a country we have to understand our past. We have
a country that is generous. It is known around the world as being
unique. We have a country where one-third of Canadians claim
neither English nor French as the mother tongue. I am very proud
in the riding of Hamilton East to represent them in Parliament.
Why do we have this generosity of spirit?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Order. The time has
expired.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am happy to rise in support of Bill C-110. If there is one
overriding purpose here it is to put an end to the 30-years war.
For the last 30-35 years since the quiet revolution in Quebec the
best minds in Quebec and in Ottawa have been preoccupied with a
constitutional debate. It is good fun. It has brought forth an army of
special constitutional carpetbaggers and others, highly paid
professional lawyers, professors who are available to give opinions
on either side, open line talk show hosts and journalists who have
grown up in one profession. They will all be sorry to see it go but it
must end.
There are more important problems today. Those are the
economic problems that face us all of creating jobs,
unemployment, and promoting economic growth.
Even within the narrow area of government and public
administration the excessive preoccupation with a Quebec problem
too narrowly defined has been at the expense of examining
rationalization and modernization of the constitutional
governmental system. It is time to move on. What we can call the
Chrétien package is an attempt to do that on a basis which the
country will accept.
It does have the two elements, the distinct society and what
perhaps incorrectly has been called the constitutional veto. I was
not part of the committee that drafted it, but in an open caucus
where all ideas were put forward I brought together ideas that
reflect those of my own constituents and the people in British
Columbia who want one Canada and want Quebec to be part of it.
If distinct society is defined it should restate what historically is
a matter of faith but also law, has been accepted by Canadians and
is reflected in those great constitutional international acts of 1759,
1763, 1774 and onward. In so far as changes are made, they should
not be formal constitutional amendments and thus be a roadblock
to constitutional change in the future. That has been done. These
matters are recorded in acts of Parliament and in accordance with
the sovereignty of Parliament. Within the constitutional limits
established by the Constitution they are capable of being
re-examined and changed by ordinary legislation.
(1130 )
In a certain sense these are yesterday's problems. The attempt is
honourably to dispose of them and to move on to the new problems,
to get away from this excessive preoccupation of the last 35 years
that at some times seems to occupy 85 per cent or 90 per cent of the
time in Ottawa and Quebec City. That is much too much.
Since Bill C-110 is directed to the issue of constitutional change
and its process, the issue of how do constitutions change has been
raised. We have to recognize honestly that the constitutional
amendment of 1982, chapter V, is a réforme manquée. It was an
attempt to make a change, but it was not made.
Under the old conventional system that ultimately turned on an
act of the British Parliament passed at the request of Canada, the
Constitution had a large degree of flexibility. Today it is rigid,
virtually impossible to change. In fact the only two measures put
forward in the last 13 years, Meech and Charlottetown, have both
failed.
So we do face the paradox that we have a rigid constitutional
system and indeed any attention to this in a certain sense borders on
being frustrated in the future.
17012
Constitutions are living documents. If they are not, they fail.
Constitutions do change. Large masses of our constitutional law
change by constitutional convention and custom.
I would have said that the role of the Senate as a non-elected
body conventionally follows that of the House of Lords. If you do
not have the legitimacy of election, you do not interfere with
legislation that is passed by a democratically elected lower house. I
notice the Senate has been avoiding this in recent days. We may
perhaps have to remind it of this.
I simply point out that constitutional conventions through
executive glosses is one way of changing a constitution.
Constitutions change by judicial legislation. In 1982 I and others
suggested to Prime Minister Trudeau that we consider a
constitutional court, as they now have virtually throughout Europe
in this post-communist reform and in Germany and other countries.
Even so, the constitution changes through judicial interpretation.
Lastly, a constitution changes through the exercise of constituent
power. Ultimately, all constitutional power comes from the people.
It is quite clear that the country has the capacity to renew itself
through an act of total revision at some time. It is not defined in the
Constitution, but it is the ultimate source of power.
For those who worry too much, and I think unnecessarily, on
reading this law and ask if we have put ourselves into a second
constitutional strait-jacket after the 1982 amendments, the answer
is no. I believe this generation of Canadians and British
Columbians, many of whom I have taught, the many hundreds of
thousands who have communicated their desire for one Canada, all
have a rendezvous with the Constitution Act, if not this year then
certainly by the end of the century. I think the new plural society
we are getting in Canada today makes us a very unique country, a
very distinct country in relation to the rest of the world.
Multiculturalism is a living example of co-operation. I think we
will find people will sit down and ask for a new constitutional
charter, but not now. These people still have to be integrated in the
political process. But it is occurring, and it is occurring before our
eyes.
In the meantime, the government is committed to pressing for
constitutional change in other areas, using the fact that by
executive example and discussion and negotiation-friendly
relations and co-operative federalism-the system can be changed.
Transfer of power, not in an abstract sense, with those battles of the
1960s and 1970s before the courts, but identifying common
problems all three levels of government need to work on together,
is what the government is focusing on.
We have seen this in the third element in the Chrétien package
that has been brought forward. It is going to occur in many more
areas, such as in the electoral system and actions on the Senate,
which may require going to the Supreme Court. We cannot do it
through the 1982 amending procedure. There is the role of the
cities. We are responding to the new transnational societies of
which Canada is a part. This is key to the 21st century. All these
things are going on.
(1135)
The Prime Minister has responded to the Quebec referendum
vote in a way that can rally enough support throughout Canada. It
has to be an all-Canadian response. However, constitutional change
will go on. We will see more and more emphasis on co-operative
federalism, change through give and take and discussion at all
levels of government. Federalism, if it involves power sharing and
common decision making, also recognizes that federalism is more,
as Prime Minister Trudeau once reminded us, than a collection of
shopping centres. There is a national role, national norms.
That is the challenge. The message is let us move on and bring
peace to the Thirty Years War. Let us move on to the real economic
and social problems. If we get that message, frankly, we have done
honour to those who voted in the Quebec referendum on both sides
and we have done something the people of Canada will understand
and support.
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I congratulate my
colleague on a very eloquent speech.
I had a chance to travel abroad on a trade mission and I met with
many government officials in different countries. The first thing
they asked me about was what is happening in Canada.
Canadians, including those in the province of Quebec, have to
look at Canada from the outside. We have to leave the country for a
while in order to appreciate what we have in Canada.
On an annual basis, in excess of ten million residents of other
countries want to come to Canada. They believe, as do I, that this is
the finest country on earth.
It is beyond me why my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois will
not consider what the government is proposing and try to make it
work. Give us a chance to make it work. That is the hope of many
of the people in my constituency who have written to me or called
my office. They have asked me to stand in the House to call on my
colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois to make an attempt to make this
work.
I want to ask my fellow caucus member if he has heard from his
constituents who have come from different parts of the world. Have
some of those people shared their feelings about their love for
Canada? If they have, I would like him to share that with the
House.
Mr. McWhinney: Madam Speaker, I am happy to respond to my
colleague, who is one of the most thoughtful members of our party
and very much dedicated to the building of a new pluralistic
Canada. We are a community of communities, in the sense Martin
Buber offered. The interesting thing is that this society works.
17013
People are co-operating. People are working together. We are
integrating the new communities into the political processes.
I told the Prime Minister the other day that British Columbia is
the most distinct society of all because we have more national
communities integrated into the political processes and working
together. The message British Columbians are sending is that this
country can function as a plural society. It is doing it already.
One understands the distinctiveness of the French language and
French culture in Quebec. We are prepared to respect that.
However, we ask for similar respect for our distinctiveness, our
culture, and the recognition that the larger Canada brings together
all these elements into a new national outlook.
I believe the reason the Prime Minister is receiving these
messages from all around the world is because we have succeeded.
This is not Bosnia-Herzegovina. I could name many countries
around the world where nationalism exists in an intransigent sense.
We have found the formula, and that is the message we are trying to
carry in our approach to constitutional governmental change,
change in the federal system in the balance of our term.
(1140)
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Madam Speaker, I would
like to ask something of the member for Vancouver Quadra. In law,
as you know, we often say that the greater includes the lesser.
However, in the bill tabled this morning, it seems that they are
saying that the lesser includes the greater.
I am totally confused. We rejected a lot more in the Meech Lake
accord, but they are now saying that, in this proposal, they are
responding to the wishes of Quebecers who voted no. Yesterday,
they talked about the notion of distinct society in an insipid, dull,
savourless declaration, just like we do with motions dealing with
the national scouts week. Yesterday's motion had a similar effect.
Today, a bill was tabled and I would like to ask the member how he
can expect that we will accept something that we have already
rejected in 1992 et which was a lot more than this?
Mr. McWhinney: Madam Speaker, I would to say to the hon.
member that I worked as constitutional advisor to many Quebec
premiers. I was a member of the commission on French language
and language rights in Quebec. For my part, I always believed in
the tremendous possibility and flexibility of the federal system,
which can decide that bills such as premier Bourassa's Bill 22 and
even Bill 101 can still be essential parts of the Government of
Quebec as well as of our Canadian federal system.
The message in all of this is that the existing flexibility of our
constitutional system will stay. We must have faith in the future.
We are ready to give Quebec what we can under the existing
Constitution, which is very flexible.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Madam Speaker,
here is a perfect example of why the Bloc Quebecois has its place
in Ottawa. We are here to face a government that is constantly
insulting the intelligence of Quebecers. It is with great reluctance
that we are debating Bill C-110, which will go down in history as
the last insult the federal government will have inflicted upon
Quebecers.
Bill C-110 proposes a formula to amend the Constitution of
Canada. It is simply a federal statute with all that it entails. It does
not change in any way the amending formula since the procedures
for amending the Constitution of Canada can only be modified
through the procedure set out in section 41 of the Constitution Act,
1982. I will come back to this later on.
This bill does nothing but restrict the federal government's
discretionary power to propose resolutions authorizing
constitutional amendments. All in all, the federal government,
being generous as it is, is lending to the provinces its constitutional
veto. This bill brought forward by the Prime Minister and his
associate, the Minister of Justice, adds to the numerous amending
formulas already provided for in the Constitution Act, 1982.
It will take a Ph. D. in constitutional law to be able to understand
all that. Let us take a look, if we may, at the amending formulas
already provided for in the Constitution of Canada. Four legal
procedures for amending the Constitution are set out in sections 38
to 44, Part V, of the Constitution Act, 1982. The most demanding
formula applies only to fundamental changes to the Constitution.
Amendments in this category must be authorized by resolutions
of the Parliament of Canada and of the legislative assembly of each
province. That is what we call the unanimity formula. There is also
another amending procedure for changes in the distribution of
legislative powers between the federal Parliament and the
provincial legislative assemblies.
(1145)
It is the same procedure that must be followed to amend most of
the provisions of the charter of rights and freedoms.
The changes must be approved by Parliament and at least
two-thirds of the provinces that have combined populations of at
least 50 per cent of the population of all the provinces. This is what
we call the seven and fifty amending formula. It provides that
major amendments could be made to the Constitution without
17014
Quebec's consent, because if Ontario were among the seven
consenting provinces, the population requirement would be met.
The third formula relates to amendments concerning one or more
provinces. They include changes to provincial boundaries and the
use of English and French within a province.
The fourth procedure is found in section 44 of the Constitutional
Act, 1982. It concerns changes to the executive branch of the
Canadian government, the Senate or the House of commons.
Now the Minister of Justice is proposing a fifth amending
procedure. In the future, one will have to be very clever to be able
to amend the Constitution.
Not only is the bill introduced by the Minister of Justice an insult
to Quebecers, it is the deathblow to the Constitution.
This minister insults us by pretending to be following up on the
promises made by the Prime Minister during the referendum
campaign. He takes us for turkeys and is trying to shove his right of
veto down our throats. He is debasing the concept and letting four
regions of Canada use the federal's right to veto.
If anyone in this House believes that Bill C-110 does more than
simply lend something from the federal to the provinces, he or she
is sadly mistaken.
Not satisfied with adding to the constitutional jumble, the
minister is strutting around saying he has a new formula for us. But
it is a rehash, déjà vu.
What the minister is serving up is a diluted version of the 1971
Victoria formula spiced to the taste of the day. Federal mandarins
have not waited long before showing their true colours. The only
solution found by this hypocritical government was to brush away
the cobwebs from the Victoria formula of 1971 and take the right of
veto out of it. A new and improved formula. What nonsense.
When the Prime Minister, through the Minister of Justice,
introduces a bill proposing a regional right of veto and a motion
dealing with the distinctiveness of Quebec, he adds insult to injury.
He could not care less about Quebecers.
Neither the present Prime Minister nor his successors will be
legally bound by the amending formula. If, God forbid, it should
become a law this formula would be an ordinary act like any other
act and it could be repealed any time by the federal government.
But how can we debate something we do not want to talk about
any more? The Victoria formula was one of countless negotiations
on constitutional reform. Those negotiations have been held ad
nauseam but to no avail, except perhaps to deprive Quebec of the
means it needs to develop itself in the Canadian federation.
Efforts to corner Quebec have been such that the province is
stifled and can only survive by acceding to sovereignty. The justice
minister is wasting his time and ours. Do you believe that after all
the affronts it has been subjected to, Quebec is going to accept such
a proposal? I remember. Like all Quebecers, «Je me souviens.»
Let us remember the so-called St-Laurent amendment of 1949,
the 1960 Fulton formula, the 1964 Fulton-Favreau formula,
Quebec's refusal of the Fulton-Favreau formula, the 1971 Victoria
formula, the attempts by Pierre Elliot Trudeau in 1976, the 1978
and 1979 conferences, the Pepin-Robarts formula, the conference
of September 1980, the patriation project of October 2, 1980, the
infamous patriation of the Constitution in 1982, the 1987 Meech
Lake Agreement, Meech II and its defeat in 1990, the
Charlottetown accord and its defeat in 1992.
(1150)
We will remember those 35 years of constitutional setbacks. The
most recent affront sustained by Quebec is one too many. The
Prime Minister of Canada, through his Minister of Justice, is today
signing the death warrant of any possible constitutional reform.
The Prime Minister is swaggering about and boasting about his
empty proposals. He has a short memory. He should play the
recording of the address he made to the nation four days before the
referendum of October 30.
I will never forget the sight of a desperate Prime Minister who
did not have a clue about what promises to make next in order to
win votes. A contrite and humble man.
Many believed in this Greek tragedy. Many fell for it and
believed the Prime Minister's promise to make changes. Today, the
Prime Minister is patting himself on the back, but there is nothing
to be proud of. Bill C-110 is a big bubble that is bound to pop
sooner or later. Everything has its limits.
The real purpose of the Prime Minister is to muzzle Quebec by
stopping any future constitutional change. His right of veto is
nothing but an illusion aimed at drowning Quebec in the Canadian
sea. One people from coast to coast, with a wall to wall nationality.
This bill is a rehash of the 1971 Victoria proposal. In an article
entitled ``Modifying the Constitution or mummifying Quebec'', in
Le Devoir of May 15, 1971, Jacques-Yvan Morin had this to say
about the Victoria formula: ``You do not have to be a rocket
scientist or even a sociopolitical expert to see what insurmountable
problems Quebec will experience as soon as it tries to gain some
significant change. Not that the amending formula is bad in
itself-it would be perfectly acceptable in a homogeneous English
state-but it does not take into account Quebec's aspirations or
rather, it does, but to quash them''.
17015
I go on with the quote: ``All in all, the anglophone provinces
and the federal power are telling Quebec it can seek more powers
and make as many major plans as it wishes, but it is only through
them that it will achieve these goals. The new formula is the
antithesis of the peoples' right to self determination. Under a
benevolent exterior, federalism is in fact hiding dregs of
colonialism''.
Although this was written 24 years ago, it is surprisingly
contemporary. This is to say that the federal government has not
progressed that much since then. It is still intent on mummifying
Quebec. Between the Victoria formula and the Meech Lake
Accord, Quebec was taken for quite a constitutional ride in 1982.
As we remember, in 1980, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the then Prime
Minister, and Jean Chrétien, his trusted lieutenant, had solemnly
sworn to renew the Constitution, taking into account Quebec's
interests. The Constitution forced on Quebecers in 1982 decreases
Quebec's fields of exclusive jurisdiction. Moreover, Ottawa gave
itself authority to amend the Constitution without Quebec's
agreement. Quebec's right of veto disappeared. As a result, Quebec
has had no say on constitutional amendments likely to change its
political future.
The unilateral patriation of the Constitution substantially
reduced Quebec's legislative powers in matters of education and
language. Since the patriation of the Constitution in 1982, the
federal government has had a field day. It has continually intruded
on matters under Quebec's jurisdiction, especially regional
development, manpower training, cable television and several
cultural areas.
(1155)
Then the whole constitutional process got bogged down at
Meech Lake.
When we talk about Meech Lake, we talk about the accord
signed in June 1987 by the eleven first ministers of Canada. It was
aimed at reintegrating Quebec into the Constitution ``with honour
and enthusiasm''. There again, the results reflected the ill will of
the federal government and of the English provinces.
Quebec had offered to sign the Canadian Constitution provided
five minimum conditions were granted. Namely, distinct society
status for Quebec; more power in matters of immigration; limiting
federal spending power in Quebec's fields of jurisdiction; Quebec's
participation in the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of
Canada; and finally, the right to veto constitutional amendments.
In June 1990, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Manitoba
reneged on their signature, thereby sinking the accord. Despite last
minute negotiations at the premier level, Manitoba and
Newfoundland refused to ratify the accord.
The day after its failure, the Prime Minister, who is now pushing
a bill which is not worth the paper it is written on, embraced one of
the most vociferous opponent to Meech, the Premier of
Newfoundland, Clyde Wells. A Canadian version of Judas' kiss. I
remember quite well, Madam Speaker.
The failure of the Meech Lake Accord, which was to be the
answer to the basic requirements of Quebec and bring the province
back into the constitutional bosom with honour and enthusiasm,
definitely proved that Canada refuses to recognize, among other
things, the distinct character of Quebec. This week, the Prime
Minister went so far as to reduce the distinct character to the level
of a simple resolution of the House of Commons, without any legal
meaning.
We can certainly congratulate the Prime Minister for his
consistency. He remains as sly as he has ever been.
Let us continue our constitutional tour. In August 1992, the
Charlottetown Agreement was signed by all representatives of
Canada: ten provinces, two territories, four aboriginal
organizations and the federal government. It was a ``made in
Canada'' response to Quebec's legitimate requests.
That agreement was a watered down version of Meech Lake and
Meech Lake number two. Among other things, it recognized
Quebec as a distinct society, accepted the transfer to Quebec of all
responsibilities in the cultural area and stated that the federal
government would withdraw from municipal affairs, tourism,
recreation, housing, mining and forestry.
On October 25, 1992, 57 per cent of Quebecers rejected the
Charlottetown Agreement. They considered, with reason, that the
agreement would give them only crumbs. The rest of Canada also
turned down that agreement. English-speaking Canadians voted
against it because they thought it gave too much to Quebec. Again
another striking example of their love for Quebec.
In spite of his commitment to negotiate on a one to one basis
with the federal government, Robert Bourassa agreed to negotiate
with representatives of nine provinces, two territories, four
aboriginal organizations and the federal government. He even
approved the agreement which gave Quebec even less than the
Meech Lake Accord.
For 35 years now, Quebec's requests for more power in the
cultural, social and financial areas have been constantly rejected by
the rest of Canada.
Again today, the federal government is laughing at Quebecers
with that bill. I say this to the government: the constitutional circus
is closed for good; stop acting like clowns.
17016
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spent
a lot of time talking about the process and much time lecturing
us on the history of the last thirty years.
Like me, millions and millions of Canadians were not here
during the last thirty years.
(1200)
They were not here in 1947, nor in 1911. Millions and millions
of Canadians came after that. Like me, these people and the rest of
Canada are interested in finding a permanent solution. We are not
interested in the process, we are interested in the objective. We
want to find a solution which is comfortable for the francophones
in Quebec and the anglophones and allophones in the rest of
Canada.
Everywhere in the world we see borders being taken down. If
you take the example of the European Union, you can see that
borders are disappearing fast, even in France.
With the new information technologies there are ever fewer
borders between countries all over the world, whether in Asia, in
Europe, in Africa or in North America.
I wonder why our colleagues do not stop being so vicious, so
idiotic and so indecisive. Why do they not give us a clear picture of
what they want? Do we want to built a multicultural, multi-ethnic
and multi-community country for all Canadians? Or is the final
object the separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada?
Indeed, we are wasting time talking about process and history. I
was not here in 1841 and I am not interested in what happened in
1841, in 1857 and in 1911. What I am interested in is a modern
country, because Canada is the best in the world. The best country
in the world, as we were told twice by the United Nations.
I ask my colleagues to focus on the real problems of Quebecers;
the real problems are the economy, the unemployment rate and the
political instability that are affecting many business people who are
thinking about investing in Quebec or doing business with Quebec.
Thanks to my colleagues from the separatist party in this House,
they are saying: we will wait until there is stability.
Let us hurry up. Let us work with the Prime Minister, with the
current government, because this government is willing to find a
permanent solution to this crisis. The time has come. The time has
come to let go of things that happened 2,000 years, 200 years, 20
years, 30 years ago. Let us talk now about the future.
Mrs. Venne: Mr. Speaker, I am quite astonished to hear a
member of Parliament tell us that he is not interested in the past. I
must admit seriously that this is inconceivable, when we know that
analyzing the past allows us to avoid making the same mistakes.
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): The past is
the key to the future.
Mrs. Venne: As my colleague just said, the past is indeed the
key to the future.
That someone would have such a vision of society is really
astonishing, but I do not want to insist further. I think that he just
got carried away.
On the other hand, when he asks us if we intend to build a
country, then obviously, we say yes. That is our goal. We want to
build a sovereign Quebec, an independent Quebec.
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I have two comments for the hon. member opposite. First,
I must point out that the purpose of the European Union is not to
eliminate borders, but to preserve its member states' sovereignty
while delegating, collectively and sovereignly, some of their
powers to a common authority. In other words, the European Union
is doing precisely what we intend to do in Canada. It is showing us
the way.
(1205)
My second comment concerns the best country in the world. I
have had enough of hearing that Canada is the best country in the
world. If Canada is so terrific, it is not because it is a federation. It
is because Quebecers and Canadians are active, inventive and
energetic people, but it really has nothing to do with being a
federation, because many other federations exist where there is no
prosperity, Russia, for example.
The system is not what makes us a good country, Canadians and
Quebecers do. If the country was split in two, both halves would
still have the same qualities, because, when you slice a cake, each
slice is as good as the whole cake.
Mrs. Venne: Mr. Speaker, I can only commend my colleague for
Blainville-Deux-Montagnes for his excellent comments. I totally
agree with his words.
[English]
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
absolutely delighted to take part in this debate today.
It is very interesting that I have the opportunity to make my
remarks on behalf of the people of Halifax and Nova Scotia in the
wake of that impassioned intervention by my hon. colleague from
the official opposition. There is no question that this is the best
country in the world in which to live. I am not going to argue the
whys and wherefores with the hon. member because a universal
truth is a universal truth. The universal truth is that Canadians from
sea to sea to sea are the most fortunate people on Earth.
I come from what is normally known as a have not part of the
country. It is quite true that there are many things that we have not
17017
in Nova Scotia. However, one of the things that we have, one of the
things we opted for and one of the things we chose was Canadian
citizenship. It is something we hold most dearly and most
preciously.
It is not merely because we live in Nova Scotia, which I think is
the best place in Canada to live, just as I know my hon. colleague,
the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, thinks that Toronto
and its environs is the best place in Canada. I know that my hon.
colleague from St. Boniface thinks that Manitoba is the best place
to live and my colleague from London thinks that London is the
best place. My colleague right over there from Alberta thinks
Alberta is the best place to live. We all look at the rest of the
country as the setting for our own particular jewels.
I want to speak today to the passion which came from my
colleague from the province of Quebec. I understand that passion
as I think we all understand it, but that does not need to diminish
our Confederation or our country.
On Saturday I attended a meeting back in my riding. I sat next to
a prominent Nova Scotia businessman. He raises money for all
sorts of good causes, one of them being the Liberal Party. He told
me he had been called upon by the premier and the minister of
public works to help raise money to ensure that students and
seniors who wanted to go to the rally in Montreal were able to go.
He said that in over 20 years of being a fundraiser for various
charitable causes and various political causes, he had never raised
money so quickly. There was such a good response and such an
absolute desire on the part of the people he called to contribute and
to help because it was for our country.
(1210 )
In my own family, my father's two surviving brothers went to
Montreal after World War II and raised their families there. It is
very interesting because my cousins in Montreal are a microcosm
of Canada. Some of them have Irish last names, some of them have
English last names, some of them even have Italian last names, and
some of them have French last names.
In my family while we may not be pure laine, we are purely
Canadian. My cousins who live in the greater Montreal area will
say that they are Quebecois and they are proud Quebecois. They
and their children will continue to be proud Quebecois.
The whole point of this debate, the whole point of this resolution
is to follow up on a promise made by the Prime Minister on the
responses of Canadians right across the country to the fact that
Quebec is indeed a distinct and integral part of the Canadian
federation, a distinct and integral part of the Canadian identity. We
could no more see Quebec leave our federation than we could as
individuals cut off an arm or a leg, or lose an eye.
As we debate this here today and in subsequent days, it is terribly
important for each of us to listen to each other and to understand
that one region of Canada does not seek and never has sought, at
least not in modern times, to defeat or humiliate the other side.
That day in Montreal when I saw 150,000 Canadians converge in
that square, I knew I was part of something very special. I knew
that approximately-numbers are hard to be absolutely sure
about-40,000 Canadians came from the other regions of Canada.
There were 150,000 people in the downtown core of Montreal. It is
clear that a vast majority of the people in that downtown square
were Quebecois. They were people who were saying to their fellow
Canadians: ``We want to stay. We want to hear from you that you
understand we are different''.
Whether we are from Quebec, Newfoundland or British
Columbia, we do understand that there is a distinctiveness and a
difference in our fellow citizens in la belle province. We know their
language, although that too is shared with francophone Canadians
in almost every other province and territory. We know their culture
and the incredible richness that is the ongoing Quebecois culture
within the Canadian mosiac is something that every Canadian
benefits from, not just those within the borders of Quebec itself.
We know Quebec's civil code again makes them different and
distinct from the rest of us.
Every single one of us celebrates that difference. We celebrate
the fact that we can share. We can build a Canada that is a better
place, whether one's language is English or French, whether one's
ancestral origin is western Europe, eastern Europe, Africa, the Far
East, or whether one is an aboriginal Canadian. None of these
things matter in the desire to make a better place for our families,
our children and our communities. I do not want my friend over
there to be upset or to take this the wrong way. What matters is that
this country is the best place in the world to live, whether you live
in Quebec or Manitoba or Nova Scotia. Yes, we have problems,
problems that those of us here in the House must work together to
solve.
(1215)
Most of us in the Chamber have had the opportunity to go
elsewhere. We have seen the Russian federation. We have seen
countries of the world where people are clamouring to come to
Canada, to Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. We are trying to
make them clamour to come to Nova Scotia too. Some day they
will find out that is a good place to live as well. They are
clamouring to be part of this incredible and unique and crazy idea
which is Canada.
I think we all understand the desires for recognition in the hearts
and minds of our colleagues from Quebec. We are saying that there
are similar desires in different areas for all Canadians. We cannot
maintain this incredible and bizarre idea, this federation, this
country, by standing back and hurling implications at each other. It
cannot be done by being accusatory or by suggesting motives that
17018
are less than applicable in these situations. It is done by reaching
out to each other the way we reached out in Montreal on that
incredible Friday and the way all Canadians, English and French
and allophone continue to reach out to each other.
As many have said, this resolution is a step in that direction. It is
something that the federal government, the Prime Minister and
those on this side of the House sincerely believe is a response to the
things the people of Canada asked us to do, including the people of
Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I listened carefully to what the hon. member opposite was
saying, and I would like to comment on some aspects of her speech.
For instance, she made a big thing of this reaching out to us by
people from western Canada, from Vancouver and Saskatchewan
and the other western provinces. I want to tell her I do not question
the feelings of love and affection these people showed Quebecers,
except that it was made very easy for them. For instance, air fare
from Vancouver to Montreal probably costs from $2,000 to $3,000,
and these people got their tickets for $150 or $200. Now what if the
situation was reversed? If Quebecers wanted to go and visit
Vancouver, I am not so sure people would do us a favour and offer
us tickets at $150 a piece. One starts to wonder how genuine this
love and affection was. It was a great opportunity to visit Montreal
on the cheap.
And I also noticed in her speech that she referred to Canada as a
wonderful host country for immigrants. I agree, but what difference
would it make if Quebec became sovereign? Immigrants who want
to go to Vancouver or Halifax, or Saskatchewan or Quebec would
still be able to go there.
(1220)
In our blueprint for a Quebec society, we did not say that if
Quebec became sovereign, we would stop immigration. I think the
civility and warmth that are typical of Quebecers would make
Quebec a very good host country for immigrants. I see no problem
there. Why this claim that immigration can only work within this
so-called great Canada? I do not understand.
Are you implying that a sovereign Quebec would not be a good
host country for its immigrants? Is that what you mean? Is this
Canadian federation the one and only panacea? Is it impossible for
a sovereign Quebec and English Canada to each find their own way
outside this Canadian federation instead of going on as we have
done for the past thirty years and wasting time, money and effort,
on all this constitutional wrangling?
In Quebec, successive provincial governments from Jean Lesage
to Mr. Parizeau have tried time and time again to find ways to stay
in Canada, but they never succeeded. Are we going to go on for
another thirty years about Meech Lake, Charlottetown and
constitutional problems? We are fed up. We want to go on to other
things. We have tried everything, but nothing works.
We never managed to reach an understanding. What makes you
think that by continuing the constitutional debate between English
Canada and Quebec, we would manage to agree? When I consider
all the attempts made during the past thirty years, I see no reason to
believe that continuing this useless debate will accomplish
something positive. Instead of this endless bickering under the
same roof, we would be much better off as good neighbours.
Ms. Clancy: That, Mr. Speaker, is unfortunate. I did not say
anything about Quebec not welcoming immigrants. The province
has a good immigration agreement with the federal government.
[English]
At no time did I suggest that immigrants were not welcome in
the province of Quebec. I did make reference to the question of
pure laine and by implication to the remarks by Mr. Parizeau.
However, I do not by any means attribute those to Quebec and its
history of welcoming immigrants.
It was unfortunate my colleague cast the kind of aspersions he
did in his opening comments. It is clear that he looks the wrong
way. He should have listened to my remarks. Perhaps he is not
aware of it, but I am not from western Canada. I do not know what
the situation was vis-à-vis the airlines.
I have flown to western Canada many times, to your city, Mr.
Speaker, and to cities farther west. If the hon. member is not aware
of it, even for $50 to get on a plane and fly from Vancouver or
Calgary to Montreal, go to a rally for two hours, get back on a plane
and fly back to Calgary or Vancouver is not a joy ride. It is
exhausting, tiring and cramped. If it is not done out of love then
there are thousands of people in western Canada who possibly need
to have their heads examined for doing this.
The hon. member is really reaching when he suggests that people
took advantage of cheaper air flights to have a good time in
Montreal, not that Montreal is not a city where a wonderful time
can be had. But I would suggest that very few people had the
opportunity to do that on that Friday. Time schedules were very
tight.
Second, as the hon. member heard me mention in my earlier
remarks, my good friend, the fundraiser, raised all that money
joyfully. People just rushed to contribute. Many people from Nova
Scotia came at no cost at all because the money was raised by
contributing businesses in Nova Scotia. Again, those people did not
have any time to enjoy the benefits of Montreal. They went to
17019
speak from their hearts to their love of country and their love of
Quebec.
(1225)
[Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to start my speech by looking at the situation in which we now find
ourselves. I think that Canadians, including Quebecers, have a
better understanding of the role played by the Prime Minister of
Canada and his government. They understood it yesterday and they
understand it even better today.
If we look at the current situation, we have on one side the Bloc
Quebecois, which wants to separate. They use words like
``sovereignty'' but we know that it really means separation. No
wonder they refuse to even look at this proposal, to review it, to
consider the possibilities. No. What they want is their own country,
period, no negotiations, no flexibility, no open mind, no nothing.
On the other side-as Canadians can see-is the other extreme.
All they have to say about the government's proposals is, ``No, no,
no, they are giving too much to Quebec and Quebecers''. I find this
alarming. The two extremes here in this House refuse to make any
efforts to consider what the government is proposing.
[English]
I mentioned in the House yesterday that I had checked Maclean's
of 1989. In one edition in a specific article the leader of the third
party suggested that distinct society had certain possibilities. In
fact he stated quite clearly that words were not important if people
really wanted to get together and work things out. That is what is
said in that article.
All of a sudden, no. Why would he think that in 1989 and have
no openness today? It is quite clear. From his perspective and that
of his advisers there appears to be an opportunity for his particular
party, his particular view of Canada, his particular set of policies. Is
it Canada first? Absolutely not. It is the party first and whatever
happens to Canada, so be it. I find that most unfortunate.
It is also interesting that the question of the regional veto is also
one that the Reform members have supported. They want a
regional veto to stop certain amendments. Did you know that, Mr.
Speaker? I have found that most interesting.
All of a sudden when we propose a veto that does not make a
constitutional change, which would give additional protection to
the provinces, which adds and does not take anything away, do you
think Reform members would explain it that way? Would they
attempt to talk with Canadians and say: ``Look, this is not
necessarily what we wanted exactly but we have a proposal that is
not terribly dissimilar to this?'' Of course not. Why not? Let me
tell you, Mr. Speaker. It is quite simple. Again, it is their political
agenda. It is their political party that comes first, not Canada. That
is unfortunate.
That is why some people see them as two sides of the same coin;
that is, we have one party that clearly states-
[Translation]
``We want to separate from Canada. We want our own country''.
[English]
-and the other party that tries everything in order to crush, to
deride, to set aside, not to look at openly, the proposals that are
being made by the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada.
Their policies hold a lot of contradictions. They suggest that they
do not want this regional veto, but they have a regional veto on
their books. They want one for B.C. but not for Alberta. The last
time I checked they were pretty close in population. I guess that is
what they want, I do not know. Perhaps they want one for all of the
provinces. Perhaps they do not know what they want.
[Translation]
I now come back to the issue of distinct society. Distinct is
defined as including the language, culture and institutions unique
to Quebec. I find this quite commendable and acceptable. Like the
vast majority of Canadians, if they made an error in judgment, they
will soon find out.
(1230)
What is interesting, as you know, is that we now need unanimity
on a number of issues to amend the Constitution. Nothing can be
changed without the provinces' unanimous consent on a number of
issues, on which I will elaborate later.
There is another clause providing that no changes can be made
without the consent of seven provinces representing 50 per cent of
the population. This bill deals mainly with the principle that the
7-50 formula cannot be implemented without the support of the
four regions. These regions include Ontario, Quebec, western
Canada-which means British Columbia and another province-,
and the Atlantic provinces. This means two provinces representing
50 per cent of the total population.
What is really frustrating is knowing full well that the
Constitution remains unchanged, that a little something extra has
been given to everybody, that they already have a proposal in hand
fostering this kind of veto and that they feel their party should
come first, and the country second.
I would now like to use the little time remaining to answer the
most commonly asked questions. ``Why not table a constitutional
amendment?'', our constituents ask. But we know that the leader
of the Parti Quebecois, the potential Premier of Quebec, has
17020
already made it clear that he does not want any constitutional
amendment. That is clear.
The purpose of this bill, on the heels of the Quebec referendum,
is to show where the elected representatives of the Canadian people
stand on this issue, and we will soon know it. We also know that the
Constitution requires that a first ministers' conference on the
amending formula for the Constitution of Canada be held by April
1997. Constitutional amendment proposals, if any, will be
considered at that time. This bill would in fact bridge the gap until
then.
There are other questions.
[English]
For example, what is covered and what sorts of future
amendments would be blocked by this bill? The real impact will be
on the amendments covered by the same seven and fifty rule, as I
have mentioned, changes to the division of powers in favour of the
provinces, changes to certain provisions relating to federal
institutions, extensions or additions of provinces in some general
amendments.
Another question that is frequently asked is how does this bill
differ from what is already in the Constitution. This bill does not
change the Constitution or the amending formula. They know that,
but of course they are not going to say it. It simply indicates how
the government will conduct itself with respect to its own veto. It is
willing to loan out its veto. That is what it does.
There are significant vetoes already in the Constitution for
provinces individually. For example, each province has a veto over
matters requiring unanimity, such as the composition of the
Supreme Court and the amending formula itself. Each province has
a veto over any changes in its boundaries or the constitutional
provisions specific to a province.
In addition, there is the right to opt out of amendments
transferring provincial jurisdictions to Parliament and to receive
reasonable compensation if the amendment pertains to education
and other cultural matters. This gives another type of veto to a
province.
The bill creates a regional veto, in effect, with respect to changes
to national institutions such as the Senate and the Supreme Court,
the creation of new provinces, and all amendments that transfer
power from Parliament to the provinces.
Another question raised is whether the Constitution already
provides provincial vetoes-does the bill provide for any double
veto? There are all kinds of amendments whereby provinces
already possess such a veto, such as changes to the composition of
the Supreme Court or to the boundaries of a province. They are
expressly exempted from the operation of the bill. So too are
amendments from which provinces can opt out under subsection
38(3), those which derogate from provincial rights and powers
expressly exempted through the operation of this bill.
(1235 )
Would the regional veto formula make it more difficult for
Quebec to separate? One view of the constitutional amending
formula as it stands now, which is a very common view, is that the
consent of all provinces would be required for Quebec's separation.
How would the regional veto formula work in practice? This is a
particularly important question because it is the very heart and soul
of the issue. When at least six provinces, including Ontario and
Quebec, two Atlantic provinces with over 50 per cent of the
Atlantic population, and two western provinces with over 50 per
cent of the western population have indicated their consent by
resolution, referendum or government approval, et cetera, the
federal government would be free to proceed with resolutions in
the Senate and the House of Commons. If one or more of the
regions fail to provide their requisite consent, the federal
government would not proceed with resolutions, even though seven
or more provinces with over 50 per cent of the population had
adopted resolutions under the current amending formula to
authorize the amendment.
We have talked about the kinds of combinations that would be
required for western and Atlantic provinces to get a veto under the
regional formula. I want to repeat this because I think it is
important. In the Atlantic provinces, Nova Scotia and either New
Brunswick or Newfoundland would have a veto. New Brunswick
would be in the same position with either Nova Scotia or
Newfoundland as would Newfoundland with either of the others.
P.E.I. would not have a veto except in combination with two of the
other three.
In the west, B.C. with any other province would have a veto.
Alberta would have a veto with B.C. but not with either
Saskatchewan or Manitoba alone. Saskatchewan and Manitoba
together would not have a veto.
[Translation]
It is important to note that we are not dealing with a new veto.
The bill only indicates how the existing veto is exercised at the
federal level.
I am running out of time. That is unfortunate, because I would
have had so much more to say. But I will conclude with, perhaps,
one last comment.
As I pointed out at the beginning of my speech, these proposals
concerning a distinct society, this bill and the right of veto are all
part of an effort to build a better country, a country in which people
work together and better understand each other.
17021
The Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately, the hon. member's time
is up. Is there unanimous consent to give the hon. member more
time?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I think that our hon. friend from St. Boniface
has said enough for now. He will have an opportunity, during
questions and comments, to expand on his thoughts concerning the
bill before us.
I have a comment for him. Then, I will give him the opportunity
to respond to my comment.
I listened very carefully to what our colleague from St. Boniface
said. More often than not, in fact I should say usually, he takes
things seriously. Having held important functions in Manitoba, he
is familiar with the meaning of the words and concepts we are
dealing with and he can fully grasp them and deal with them. He
must know what this bill we are debating means and how
far-reaching it is.
Indeed, I am surprised, to put it mildly, that he is adding so much
confusion to the debate. One thing is sure-he said so himself
several times in his remarks, both in French and in English-the
bill before us does not change anything at all. What we have here is
the status quo, no change. If this bill does not change anything, why
table it in this House? I will go into this further later today.
(1240)
You will probably be amazed to hear what has prompted the
government to put this bill forward at this point in time. But what I
want to emphasize right now is the element of confusion
introduced by the hon. member for St. Boniface in his remarks by
insisting and suggesting that this bill will actually change
something and that a lot noise of noise can now be made around
Quebec's new right of veto on any future constitutional change.
That is wrong.
At the same time, he says the bill does not change anything, that
what we have here is the status quo, that the good people of English
Canada, outside Quebec, have nothing to worry about, because
there will be no change. Supposedly, all they are doing, the only
impact this bill will have will be to give the federal government a
new set of rules to go by, under which it will try to determine if the
changes it contemplates would garner the support of a number of
provinces or certain regions of Quebec and Canada. That is what he
is telling us, but basically what he is saying is that there will be no
change.
I would personally like the hon. member for St. Boniface to tell
us which part of his remarks we are to believe. Which part should
we give credence to? The part where he tells Quebecers: ``You will
have your veto''? Or the one intended for people outside Quebec,
which says: ``Nothing will change''?
Could the hon. member clarify?
Mr. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the hon.
member's question.
It was certainly not my intention to add to the confusion, and I
apologize if I did. I thought I was clear when I said that, for
example, provinces currently have a veto. All the provinces have a
veto over certain issues. I also said that, as regards other issues, the
support of seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the
country's overall population was required. I added that this bill
would be used to see if we could activate that 7-50 formula.
The member who just accused me of adding to the confusion is
fully aware of the situation. This is what is annoying and, if it were
not also funny, I would really be upset.
The member is the one adding to the confusion, because he
claims that what I said is inaccurate. I invite him to check my
notes, to look at Hansard and to rise in this House to publicly refute
my comments if he thinks they are contradictory. There is no
contradiction. It is the constitutional status quo. There is a new
mechanism to ensure that some elements of the Constitution are
used in a certain way. It is wrong to claim that this will not increase
the power of Quebec, Ontario and the other provinces. The member
knows that.
I also want to point out that he did not allude to the distinct
society concept. I suppose he will again accuse me of adding to the
confusion. There is no confusion. We recognize Quebec as a
distinct society, because of its language, culture, and unique
institutions. There is nothing complicated in that and it is
absolutely fair.
If the member is willing to co-operate, I am prepared to do the
same and to clarify our terms. It is unfair and wrong to use a term
such as English Canada. There is no such thing as an English
Canada. We live in a country called Canada, which includes a
number of provinces and territories, and the member knows that as
well as I do.
In making such a comment, he tries to put in the minds of
Quebecers the notion that French is spoken in only one part of the
country. I, for one, am proud to speak French. Some people back
home, and west of it, speak it better than I do. There are quite a few
of them. As the hon. member knows, there is also quite a large
number of people in Atlantic Canada who speak French and who
are proud to do so.
(1245)
It is misleading to use the expression English Canada, as the hon.
member did, because it is both inaccurate and wrong. I must say
that he is not the only one to do so. I would appreciate it if he and
his colleagues made a commitment to stop using that expression.
17022
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I remind the Chair that I will be splitting my time with the
hon. member for Vegreville.
As I speak to this unity debate I am very mindful that I represent
all of the people of Edmonton Southwest. I represent everyone
whether they voted for me or for someone else. It is absolutely
essential that members of Parliament remember the fact that we
represent every one of our constituents and that all 295 of us in
combination represent all of the people of Canada, whether they
voted for us or not.
When I go home tonight I will be seeing my brand new
granddaughter who I have not seen a lot of because I have spent so
much time in the nation's capital in Parliament. Everything I do is
directed toward my children and grandchildren. It seems
reasonable that we in the House should have our eyes firmly fixed
on the future.
The tragedy is that so many people of Canada are represented by
members in the House who have their eyes firmly fixed on the past.
While we all recognize that the foundation of the future is the past,
we cannot live in the past. There is nowhere to go. The past is dead.
There is nothing in it for us. If we as a nation continue to live in the
past, we are never going to spring into the future which belongs to
our children.
Our generation and preceding generations have managed to
somehow magically saddle our children and grandchildren with a
debt which has been built up over a number of years. In addition to
that we have saddled them with a relationship of our constituent
parts which has been fractious and has not worked smoothly for all
of my adult life.
The rest of the country has tried at various times to coerce or to
buy the affection of Quebec through constitutional changes,
quasi-constitutional changes, outright money or outright
advantage. For instance, to satisfy the people of Quebec the now
infamous CF-18 maintenance contract went to Quebec. None of
this has worked. Constitutionally, we are still at exactly the same
place today as we were 30 years ago.
All the primary protagonists of this debate are from Quebec.
Every damned one of them is from Quebec. The Prime Minister is
from Quebec. His primary advisers are from Quebec. The leader of
the Bloc Quebecois is from Quebec. Obviously all of the Bloc is
from Quebec. We have to ask ourselves why the rest of Canadians
are being dragged along as helpless spectators as these people go
through their never ending Gordian knot they got themselves into.
It is almost as if the leader of the Bloc and the Prime Minister both
represent the past. They are bound so tightly to the past that they
are unable to see the future. They are unable to see how Canada has
grown and how Quebec has grown since the silent revolution.
(1250)
I ask myself, why in the name of God are we trying to satisfy the
separatists? Why are we trying to satisfy people who would break
up the country at the expense of federalists? What is it in the nature
of this debate that causes us to be so shortsighted that we would
risk the future of the country, that we would risk the west of the
country in order to satisfy separatists in Quebec who will never be
satisfied?
It is our responsibility to build for the future, not for the past.
Our responsibility is to our children and our grandchildren and to
their children, not to our grandparents and our parents. It is to the
future, not to the past.
On the record I would like to quote from a book entitled Rights
of Man, written by Thomas Paine. Thomas Paine was one of the
architects of the American constitution. The American constitution
has lived for all these hundreds of years because it is flexible,
because it is living, because it has room for everybody in its
constituent parts to grow. He states in his book:
It is the living and not the dead that are to be accommodated. When man
ceases to be, his power and his wants cease with him; and having no longer any
participation in the concerns of this world, he has no longer any authority in
directing who shall be its governors, or how its government shall be organized,
or how administered.
Members would recognize the corollary of that in which he
states: ``The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave
is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies''. What he is
saying is that each generation has the right and the responsibility to
govern for its time and should no more bind the hands of future
generations than our generation should be bound by the past. This
then brings into play the whole notion of whether or not a veto is
reasonable in a democratic federal state for anyone under any
circumstances based on the notion of tying the hands of future
generations.
Everybody had a reason to vote against the Charlottetown
accord. This was mine: I did not think it was responsible for our
generation to tie future generations into a Constitution that would
be so inflexible it could not be changed. Is that any legacy to leave
to future generations? Do we have that little trust in our children
and our grandchildren that we would bind them to a Constitution in
cement?
This then brings us to part two of the Prime Minister's new
amending formula. If we saw our country from outer space or if we
came to this country and we saw this as a blank canvas, how would
we and what would we do to make it work? Surely in this country
which extends over 5,000 miles from one coast to the other with
just 30 million people in it, there is elbow room for everyone.
Surely we can figure out a way that we can live together in peace
and harmony and with mutual respect. Surely this is not an
impossible situation.
17023
The suggestions we have brought to the table concerning the
amending formula or veto keep in mind that all of us, every single
human being in this country and in this world, are equal by virtue
of the fact that we are human beings. When we gather under an
apple tree or when we gather in a room and we determine what
rights we are going to have, we do not do so based on whether
we are male or female, whether we speak French or English, or
whether we are black or white. We gather together and through
commonality we have governance because we are human beings,
because it is in our best interests and our common interests.
(1255 )
How then would we go about doing this? How would we make
our country work if we had a clean slate and we could start from
scratch? It seems to me that if one group in our country feels
threatened and feels that the only way the group can protect its
future is through a constitutional veto that gives it the authority to
ensure that nothing in the future without its consent can have
impact on the group's language, culture, civil code or the way in
which it has evolved as a society, what is wrong with that? It is a
recognition of the obvious: Quebec is a distinct society. Of course
Quebec is a distinct society.
How do we go about recognizing that without at the same time
suggesting to other Canadians that they are less distinct or
somehow not favoured? We do this with an amending formula
based on the regions of the country, but most important the
ratification is done by the people through referenda, not by the
Parliament and not by the legislatures.
The reason for this is very important. Most Parliaments and most
legislatures can have a decided majority yet that majority may only
have received a minority of the votes cast. This Parliament is one
such example. The Liberals have a huge majority of seats with a
minority, 43 per cent, of the votes cast.
The only way we can possibly ensure that changes to the
Constitution will bear the imprimatur of the people is to ensure that
these changes are ratified through a referendum. That is one
exceptionally important reason.
The regions are important because they are and have always
been homogeneous groups. The region for Alberta, Saskatchewan
and Manitoba has always been referred to as the prairies.
Everybody knows that. No one has ever described British
Columbia as the prairies. British Columbia is growing at a great
rate and in one generation will equal the population of Quebec.
Alberta is growing more quickly but is balanced by Saskatchewan
and Manitoba. It works, and if it works why should we be tied to an
amending formula which came from people who woke up from a
Rip Van Winkle sleep and said: ``Let us just drop the Victoria
amending formula on top of this today''. That is not the kind of
flexibility we require.
The final comments I would like to put on the table today have to
do with how we got into this mess in the first place. How did we go
about giving legitimacy to this notion of two nations? How did that
come to pass?
We have been blessed with some very fine Canadians over the
years. One such very fine Canadian was Eugene Forsey. Eugene
Forsey was a constitutional scholar. He was recognized by friends
and foes alike as one of the paramount constitutional scholars in
our country. All his living life he supported the New Democratic
Party. In 1961 he left the party because of the notion of two
founding nations which it never was; it was one nation from the
very beginning.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in a hastily
planned and executed press conference, the Prime Minister
announced the Liberal government's agenda for change.
The package the Prime Minister has put forward is both negative
and divisive. He offers Quebec distinct society status which Meech
Lake and Charlottetown have demonstrated to be divisive. He is
offering the regions of Canada a veto power, which means the
ability to stop change instead of the ability to offer change, change
which is so badly needed in this country.
The Prime Minister gives the provinces control over manpower
training. While this might be a step in the right direction, he chose
not to go all the way. He offered the provinces the responsibility
but the federal government still controls the purse strings.
(1300 )
Bill C-110 proposes to divide Canada into four regions, the
western provinces of B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba;
Ontario; Quebec; and Atlantic Canada. The bill gives the four
regions a veto over any constitutional amendment which includes
changes to national institutions and the creation of new provinces
and amendments regarding the distribution of powers. Currently
only the House of Commons holds a veto over most constitutional
amendments.
The bill is not a constitutional amendment or even an amending
formula. It is simply an unenforceable code of conduct for the
federal government. The bill promises the federal government will
oppose any constitutional amendment, even one Ottawa puts
forward, unless the amendment is consented to by the four regions.
The four regions proposal is a slap in the face to western Canada.
If all the west, the netherlands as the Liberal government seems to
consider the west, is allocated as one region, obvious problems
come forth. If sometime in the future B.C. has a population which
exceeds the combination of the population of Saskatchewan,
Manitoba and Alberta, and that seems very likely, Alberta,
Manitoba and Saskatchewan will lose all real power in terms of
constitutional change.
17024
First, they lose it to B.C. because if B.C. becomes more
populous than the other three provinces together it will have a
majority which will carry under Bill C-110.
Second, under the provincial government ratification procedure
now in place a change will be able to get the required support of
seven provinces without getting the consent of Alberta,
Saskatchewan or Manitoba. Clearly the three prairie provinces lose
out under this proposal.
Under the legislation if a region refuses consent it vetoes
constitutional change. Because the bill is vague Quebec would be
able to veto constitutional change through a written statement from
the premier, a resolution from the National Assembly of Quebec or
a province-wide referendum.
Therefore the bill would provide a veto of any constitutional
change the province of Quebec or Ontario did not want. This
change gives the current separatist premier of Quebec a veto over
any constitutional change. How much sense does that make? I will
touch on that subject a little later in my speech.
The bill is not part of the Constitution and therefore the existing
amending formula still applies. If the existing formula still applies
and we add the new formula, it would not only give central Canada
a veto but it might require unanimity.
Bill C-110 would create a system where there are two rounds of
provincial ratification with little federal say in constitutional
amendments. Under the current system each province has its say.
The federal government, presumably acting on behalf of a united
Canada, the country as a whole, is a necessary and vital part of the
process.
Under the legislation the government proposes to delegate the
important responsibility of constitutional change not to Canadians
but to provincial legislatures. The provinces will be consulted
twice: once under the old amending formula and once by the
federal government in determining whether to apply its veto in
support of provincial concerns.
The provinces will look after provincial interests and the federal
government will ensure that provincial interests are respected.
With the federal veto delegated to the provinces, no one will be
looking out for a united Canada, Canada as one country, which is
what Canada is.
(1305 )
Can the government not see that Canadians deserve more? They
deserve carefully thought out proposals made in the open and not
behind closed doors and not by a top down centralist government.
They deserve forward thinking proposals, not the reheated
leftovers of the failed Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords.
In contrast to this negative and certainly divisive approach by the
government the Reform Party has offered Canadians a new and
better Canada through our new confederation proposal. The
proposal includes a plan to modernize and decentralize the federal
government by transferring certain powers to the provinces and the
people while strengthening other federal powers.
The proposal also includes a plan to renew certain federal
institutions. Among the 20 proposals Reform would guarantee
provincial control over natural resources, language and culture.
Reform would change the federal role with regard to provincially
administered social services such as welfare, education and health
care. Reform would foster co-operative agreements rather than
impose unilateral standards which are enforced by threats to
withhold federal funding.
In addition, the proposals would provide for a further
decentralization of powers through an overhaul of federal
institutions, for example Parliament, the Senate, the Supreme
Court of Canada and the Bank of Canada.
These measures would give the power to the people and to the
provinces where it is needed. In turn, it would reduce duplication
and interference from Ottawa in areas where it is not needed or
desired. Canadians have long been concerned about the
concentration of too much power in the hands of the federal
executive and the cabinet. The proposals give Canadians a new and
more accountable system of government for which they have been
asking for some time. I believe Canadians want change. They do
not want more constitutional wrangling. The proposals can be
realized without reopening old constitutional wounds.
The proposals that have been presented demonstrate once again
the lack of a democratic approach on the part of the government.
We have seen in the past the lack of democracy in legislation, for
example Bill C-41 and Bill C-68, the gun control bill, where MPs
who dared to vote against the government-
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry but the hon. member's time
has expired.
[Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out
regardless, and particularly to bring it to the attention of our
viewers today, that this is a historic day for Canadians and for all
Quebecers as well, of course.
Yesterday the Prime Minister announced recognition of Quebec
as a distinct society. Of course, we spoke about a resolution. Today
it was decided that we would speak of a veto right for Quebec, as
well as for three other regions of the country, of course.
Quebec has also experienced in recent months, in recent years in
fact, a debate which has forced the population to make a choice.
And the choice Quebecers made in the referendum on October 30
showed that they want to remain within the Canadian federation.
17025
I count myself among those who acknowledge that discussions
were stressful at times and that, unfortunately, the Leader of the
Opposition did not hesitate to divide Quebecers.
(1310)
Several conclusions may be drawn, I believe. What people want
is change. But some, Quebecers in particular, want change without
a break-up. This is undeniably the conclusion reached from the
referendum, its results and the interpretation we have made of them
after consulting the pollsters. Very nearly two thirds of Quebecers
want the Government of Quebec to reach agreement with the
Government of Canada in order to move ahead with change, not
only changing the Constitution but also, and above all, addressing
economic and job creation issues.
I listened with a great deal of attention and interest to the speech
the Leader of the Opposition gave yesterday afternoon in this
House. I found it regrettable that the Leader of the Opposition, who
has always claimed to be a spokesman of sorts for some of the
people of Quebec, does not wish to acknowledge that Quebec is a
distinct society and is not prepared to support us, the Government
of Canada and the people of Canada, in finally recognizing Quebec
as a society that is distinct by virtue of its language, laws and
culture. I find it unacceptable that a leader, a member from Quebec
like the Leader of the Opposition, will not line up on our side to
defend the true interests of the province and of those whom we
represent.
For some time now, and today in particular, I have had the
impression that a number of opposition members will again put
federalism on trial, but will unfortunately not take into
consideration the progress Quebec has made within the Canadian
federation in the last 130 years.
We are well aware that there are only seven million French
speakers in Quebec. I have also learned that there are nearly
800,000 or a million allophones, anglophones and so on, who are,
of course full fledged members of Quebec society.
However, within the Canadian federation, despite our
constitutional differences over the years-which I have had
nothing to do with-we are well aware that the average Quebecer
has made incredible gains in contrast with individuals in other
societies and other countries, which are less well off than Canada
and the people of Quebec.
I believe the Canadian federation has, nevertheless, helped build
the bases of our distinct society. We have created a
telecommunications network, through all sorts of federal offices,
Radio-Canada in the 1930s and the National Film Board. We
nevertheless allowed Quebec to look after cultural matters and
especially to sign agreements not only with other provinces, but
even with foreign countries in order to strengthen and guarantee
French where I come from, that is, in Quebec. With the close
co-operation of the Canadian government, we have assured the
influence of the francophone culture not only within Quebec, but
elsewhere in the country as well.
We must not forget that francophones may be found in other
regions of the country. I am back from a business trip to western
Canada. I met francophones in Alberta and in Manitoba. The
communities there are dynamic. They depend a lot on the presence
of the federal government and on good relations with other
communities, including the anglophone community.
I find it unfortunate that, during the referendum, there was an
effort to exclude and isolate the French fact outside Quebec.
(1315)
You know, there is close to one million francophones outside
Quebec. Close to 450,000 young anglophones are in French
immersion. I believe that this presence was intentionally
minimized by the opposition for purely symbolic reasons, but
mostly for political expediency.
I believe it is important to tell Quebecers that we are not the only
ones, that there are other francophones in Canada. As a matter of
fact, we had the privilege to hear one of those, a member from
Manitoba, speak in this House, in both official languages, of
course. I often have the opportunity to listen to members either
from Ontario or New Brunswick. I find it remarkable that, in this
country, and especially in this House, there is an increasing number
of members, not only anglophones but people of Italian descent or
of other ancestries-we have members from all over the world, I
believe-who speak French fluently.
If we look at Canada today, especially the make-up of this House
of Commons, particularly on this side, it is obvious that
bilingualism has allowed French to gain ground across Canada,
which is an important breakthrough. I got a note telling me not to
hesitate to speak about francophones, indeed, encouraging me to do
so.
I noticed, during the referendum campaign and increasingly in
the media, that Quebecers have come to one important conclusion.
Increasingly, they have come to recognize the presence of
francophones outside Quebec, who have a very significant role to
play. I admit that I am digressing, but I wanted to show that
Quebecers are not the only francophones in Canada. We must
support and work in close co-operation with those who are
promoting French throughout the country.
I truly believe that, with the help not only of the people of
Quebec, but also of people outside Quebec, we are finally going to
recognize Quebec as a distinct society. With this in mind, we are
inviting the Leader of the Opposition to support us. It is very
important, not only for Quebecers, but for francophones outside
Quebec, who, from now on, can rely-and why should they
17026
not-on the Quebec government taking an active part in the
Canadian federation. This is what we are seeking.
I believe that Quebecers, and Canadians as a whole, are sick and
tired of constitutional debates, but I believe that we must seize this
opportunity to recognize Quebec for what it is and, of course, Mr.
Speaker, before you rise-
The Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately, dear colleague, your time
has expired.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine the opportunity to finish his
speech, since I realized from his reaction that he wished to have a
few more minutes. So, the fact that we are now moving into
comments will certainly allow him to continue.
However, I would like to make a few remarks concerning his
speech because, as he rightly mentioned, what the member tried to
do during the few minutes that he spoke was to tell us how English
Canada-even though our colleague from St. Boniface does not
want us to use that expression-loves us and how it recognizes the
importance of the French fact, since he emphasized that several
Canadians are now taking French courses, which is a fact and a
good thing.
(1320)
It is also well known that Quebec is where we find the greatest
number of people who can speak both languages, French and
English. On an individual basis, everybody recognizes the
importance of speaking both French and English. I will add that, in
Europe, it is not two languages that most people speak, but three,
four and even more, and sometimes very complicated languages,
much more complicated than French and English.
Having said that, and with all due respect for our colleagues
opposite, that does not solve in any way the political situation in
Canada. That does not solve the political and constitutional
problem that that federalists have been struggling with for many
decades, and trying to solve in all kinds of ways. It is important to
point this out because, every time government members stand up in
this House, they tell us that it is the separatists who are preventing
constitutional changes. At the present time, that is the only
argument that they are using to say that, unfortunately, they cannot
change the Constitution. The Prime Minister, almost with tears in
his eyes, as well as the Deputy Prime Minister, with her crocodile
tears, tell us: we cannot bring about constitutional changes. The
Leader of the Opposition, who will become Quebec's Premier, said
right away that he did not want any changes.
That is the whole debate in a nutshell. Even though I recognize
the facts raised by the member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine concerning the importance of
the French aspect, I wish that he would speak a little more
substantively about the bill itself.
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine): Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member opposite for his openness
and his generosity and I hope other members will follow suit.
There is no doubt that, in all this, Canada has been able to follow
a peaceful approach where other countries resorted to violence.
What I find extraordinary in our country is the fact that it is because
we have a flexible system that we are always in the middle of some
negotiations.
Unfortunately, things are different in France and even in the
United States. When it is time to make changes, to move on as a
society, these countries are unfortunately stuck with constitutions
which often are inflexible and very difficult to change, especially if
the changes are to reflect the reality we face at the turn of the
century.
The previous speaker just said again what all Quebecers know
already, which is that the Leader of the Opposition, once he
becomes Premier of Quebec, will reject every constitutional
agreement with Canada. One thing is clear: his only objective is the
separation of Quebec, the end of Canada.
One of the highlights of the last century has been, of course, a
true political and economic feat, which will endure only if we can
rely on the support of the opposition and the Leader of the
Opposition and next Premier of Quebec, in order to recognize
Quebec as a distinct society and to recognize its veto within the
Canadian federation.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak on a
subject that is near and dear to my heart. However, I would like to
take it in a slightly different direction and speak of my own riding.
My riding is at the head of Lake Ontario, near Hamilton. It is
probably as anglophone a part of the country as we could possibly
hope to get. Yet the first European who set foot in my riding was
René Robert Cavelier de La Salle. He came there in 1682. He came
by canoe through Hamilton harbour, climbed the escarpment by a
stream and visited an Indian village near the present town of
Waterdown.
(1325)
Around my riding there are signs everywhere, vestiges of French
explorers. Just two miles from my village there is a creek called
Fairchild Creek. This is a reflection of the coureurs de bois who
explored the Grand River and its tributaries in the 17th century.
17027
La Salle was exceptional. I do not wonder that my Bloc
colleagues are very proud of their heritage when we think of this
man who in 1682 came to the Hamilton area and then for the next
10 years explored everywhere around southern Ontario. He was
searching for the Ohio River, which he believed would lead to the
orient. In doing so, he was the first man to build a ship for the
fur trade on Lake Erie at Niagara Falls. He also became a great
entrepreneur in the fur trade at Kingston, which at that time was
Fort Frontenac.
I say this to point out that the early people of New France
represented the most fantastic spirit of adventure we could wish to
find anywhere in the world.
What of myself as an anglophone? I can parallel that. On my
mother's side of the family there were United Empire Loyalists.
They settled in the United States in the 17th century and after the
American revolution came to my area, the same area La Salle
explored, to settle when they fled the Americans. Here we have a
situation of my ancestors, like the ancestors of my Bloc Quebecois
colleagues and my Quebec colleagues, who have this wonderful
spirit of adventure.
I could look at my own father. My father came over to the
country in 1924, leaving England at the age of 17. Again we have
this sense that we share. Whether we are French or English
speaking, we share this very Canadian sense of adventure, the sense
of reaching out and trying brave new things to do.
When I was a young man I tried to cross the Sahara Desert to
visit Timbuktu. I have to say that as I crossed the Mediterranean I
met another young man. We recognized one another because of our
passports. He was another young Canadian from Quebec who was
on the same type of adventure I was. There we were, doing what I
think is one of the things that unite us as a people, whether we
speak English or French, a people who have a true spirit of
adventure.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if you travelled the world now
you would find young Canadians, both French and English
speaking, in every corner of the globe on similar missions of
adventure.
I mention this because separatism, the movement we see today
to withdraw Quebec from Confederation, is not in the best tradition
of our ancestors. It is a defensive reaction. It is building walls.
Separatism today is fear rather than bravery. That is a great shame.
What has made this country the richest nation in the world and the
greatest trading nation in the world, whether we speak English or
French, is our spirit of adventure we have inherited from all our
ancestors.
To return to my history lesson, La Salle did not find the Ohio
River. A decade later, after running around in southern Ontario and
making a killing on the fur trade, he crossed over to the Mississippi
River and explored the entire length of the Mississippi. He arrived
there in 1682 and claimed the entire territory for France. Thus,
Louisiana was born.
Louisiana became a far richer colony of France than Quebec. It
was on the edge of the Caribbean. In those days the resources were
much richer in that region than they were in the frozen north. What
happened to Louisiana? In 1803 Napoleon sold it to the Americans.
The Americans did not move in and change Louisiana into an
English speaking state. They were totally laissez-faire about the
situation. Louisiana was left alone with its language and culture.
However then, as today, there was an enormous economic boom in
North America. The west was opening up, the Mississippi was
opening up and there were entrepreneurs everywhere.
(1330)
The net effect of the freedom that Louisiana had as a state of the
United States, rather than the protection it had when it was a French
colony, was that within a century it lost most of its French culture.
The French language was replaced by English. Now this former
French colony, which was bigger than Quebec, is merely a shadow
of its French self.
I submit that is the kind of danger that is presented by the
prospect of Quebec's separation today. The reason why Quebec
still exists, perhaps some of my Bloc colleagues will not agree with
this vision of history, is that there were accommodations reached
between Britain and Quebec right at the beginning, right after the
conquest. This spirit of accommodation has been a characteristic of
Canadian society ever since.
The other thing that makes all of us Canadian is the fact that for
centuries we have had to accommodate our differences. Our most
fundamental difference was language, and not just in Quebec, but
in northern Ontario and Acadia. Nevertheless, that is what has
sustained Quebec all those years.
We now come to Bill C-110 and the distinct society resolution. I
feel these two things are very important moves. There is the spirit
for separation in Quebec which has always been with us and will
always be with us. There is nothing wrong with that but right now
there has been a resurgence. There are more people in Quebec now
than ever before who are afraid of losing their language and
culture. We in the rest of Canada cannot afford to see that happen
because so long as Quebec retains its language, its culture and its
traditions, then the rest of Canada has to accommodate and make
room for something that is an essential difference.
It makes us a society that is truly tolerant and truly generous.
That is why the rest of the world sees us as the best country in the
world in which to live. It is not because we speak English, not
because we speak French, but because we tolerate one another and
we have a spirit of generosity that goes back through the centuries.
17028
I hope the people in Quebec are listening to this and understand
that the movement toward separation is a movement that will hurt
us all. It will hurt those who speak English as well as those who
speak French.
Debate is good. It is always good for us to come to Parliament or
anywhere in this country, examine our differences and come to
understand one another once again. However, separation is not the
answer. The movement with respect to Bill C-110 and the distinct
society resolution are a form of reassurance from all the people of
Canada that we need to stay together and respect one another.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
very carefully to the speech made by my colleague opposite.
First, I would like to tell him that for us, Quebecers, sovereignty
does not mean establishing borders or putting up walls between us
and the rest of the world. Quite the contrary. I think Quebec
sovereignists have shown, through the kind of partnership they
have proposed to the rest of Canada, that they are open, that they
want to sit down and talk, that they want a change at this point in
their history.
(1335)
So I hope the member has understood that also. In his speech, he
talked about other places in the world where there are
francophones. Louisiana in one of them. We know that Napoleon
sold Louisiana to the Americans and that the small community
living there at that time decided to let itself be assimilated.
Today, the French culture in Louisiana is nothing but folklore.
There are still some people who speak French, but they are very
few. It must be understood that these people were assimilated
because they were in the United States of America, where English
is the only official language. We do not want this to happen to
Quebecers.
What we want is to control the economic and political
instruments that will allow Quebec to grow and to secure its future.
We will have to start all over again, to explain, as the member said,
that sovereignty is something that will not die. But I want to tell the
member that the sovereignty of Quebecers and of Quebec is
something positive, something dynamic.
It is a movement that is leading us into the third millennium in a
positive way. A people who decides to take control of its own
destiny, that is just fantastic. I remember the night of the
referendum when Claude Ryan, former leader of the Quebec
Liberal Party, said: ``The rest of Canada will have to recognize
Quebec as a distinct people in the Canadian Constitution''. Today,
what we are being offered is a motion of the House that is valid
only if it is supported by the majority. So I think what we are
discussing today is entirely different from the offer Quebec would
like to see.
We are not afraid of losing our language and our culture, and
sovereignty which, as I said earlier, is a positive thing, is the reason
why we are not afraid. However, we must go about this
intelligently. We must have the means to ensure our survival, and
we will have them in a sovereign Quebec. As I said yesterday here
in the House, when the Canadian Confederation was established, an
understanding was reached. Today, more than 125 years later, it is
time the rest of Canada realized that we are talking about the future
and the very survival of this Canadian territory.
So I would like the hon. member to comment and try to
understand the position of Quebecers, which is very positive.
[English]
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I would like to
point out to him that sovereignty, as he describes it, and separatism
look inward. He has to admit that the separatist movement is
building walls around Quebec.
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): It is not true.
Mr. Bryden: Yes it is.
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): No.
Mr. Bryden: It is walls to protect-
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): You see the walls. We do not see them.
Mr. Lincoln: That is the problem.
Mr. Bryden: There are walls and the rest of the world sees them
as walls. I tell the hon. member that those walls will be broken
down without the protection of Canada.
That is what happened in Louisiana. Economic forces, business
forces and global forces destroyed the French culture in Louisiana.
The same will happen to Quebec unless Quebec has the rest of
Canada and the faith of anglophones like me who believe we share
a tradition. We are generous with one another.
If Quebec rejects the rest of Canada, including other people in
Canada who speak French-
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): That is not true.
Mr. Bryden: Oh yes, it will be the end.
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): C'est complètement faux ce qu'il dit là.
Mr. Bryden: The lesson my hon. colleague should appreciate is
the lesson of Louisiana.
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): Ça, c'est au siècle passé.
Mr. Bryden: It happened in Louisiana in about 60 years and
Louisiana had state rights. It was a loose federation, far looser in
the United States at that time than Canada today. Louisiana's
17029
culture disappeared under the pressure of economic and business
forces within about 60 years.
(1340 )
I suggest that were Quebec to separate and not have the genuine
partnership that exists in the Canadian Confederation today,
especially with the Americans just south of the border, there would
not be anyone speaking French anywhere in the business
community of Quebec. That would be a shame because it would be
the end of a culture.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter this debate, since I feel it is
important to establish the government's intentions in tabling Bill
C-110. It is not my intention in the next few minutes to react to the
interpretation of history given by the Liberal member who just
spoke. I would simply advise him to do some sorting out of his
historical reference books. Drawing a comparison between
Louisiana and Quebec is not only nonsensical but an insult to the
reality of Quebec.
What I would like to do instead is talk about Bill C-110 and the
veto.
To begin with, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out this
morning, when reference is made to the right of veto, this generally
means a procedure or rule that is a key element in a constitution.
With such a rule, changes of a constitutional nature cannot be made
without the agreement of one part. In the case of concern to us here,
the case of Canada, what is involved is a part of Canada without the
agreement of a certain number of provinces plus the federal
government.
This is, therefore, an important measure. So important that, over
the past 20 or 25 years, the federalists have discussed among
themselves on a number of occasions the necessity of arriving at a
formula for amending the Constitution which would include this
famous right of veto. Naturally, there was the Victoria charter,
which referred to a regional veto, a bit like Bill C-110. The
Pepin-Roberts Commission referred to a regional veto as well, but
one supported by a Canada-wide referendum in which a majority
would be required in each of the four or five regions of Canada.
The 1982 Constitutional Act, the one that governs us at present,
assigns to each Canadian province the right of veto in several areas
for amending the Constitution and the institutions, among other
things. The Meech Lake accord also contains the same right of
veto. The Beaudoin-Edwards committee spoke of a regional veto.
So did the Charlottetown accord.
What I would like to point out with this reminder is that the right
of veto has always figured prominently in Canadian political
discussion, in the political speeches of federalists, sincere ones,
who wanted to improve Canada and Quebec's situation. Never,
however, have we been able to reach an agreement that would
respect the rights of both Quebecers and Canadians. Never.
That is why the Trudeau government accorded the right of veto
to all provinces in 1982, in desperation, and this is how the
situation stands now.
(1345)
So, if we want this right of veto to mean anything, there must be
constitutional changes. Because he could not do so-and not
because the Leader of the Opposition may eventually go to Quebec
City, but because he could not convince the anglophone provinces
to agree-the Prime Minister, reacting to the results of the
referendum on October 30, decided to table a bill in the House that
has no constitutional significance, a bill that will force the present
government to take certain criteria into account before it proposes
constitutional change, if it really wants to, because it can amend its
bill at any time.
However, as the Prime Minister has already said he does not
intend to make any proposals so long as the nasty separatists are in
power in Quebec, the bill will never be implemented in any case.
This is where I want to point out the intention of the government
and, particularly, of the Prime Minister. This bill is nothing more
than a hoax. I would even describe it as skulduggery, because it is
misleading Quebecers by implying that the right of veto is a
guarantee of Quebec's future constitutional rights.
This is wrong, absolutely wrong, because, in the same breath,
most of the speakers on the government side have made a point of
saying in their speeches-the Prime Minister first and then the
Minister of Justice this morning in tabling his bill-that the bill
changes nothing in the existing formula, in other words, it is the
constitutional status quo.
Quebecers must understand that the government and the Prime
Minister are simply trying to waste time in this House with this
hasty bill that has no effect.
Some will say I am being hard on the Prime Minister. With your
permission, I would like to turn to what the Prime Minister has said
in the past.
Let us look first at his speech in 1990 as he was preparing to
enter the Liberal Party leadership race. The current Prime Minister,
who was then a leadership candidate, said, right here in Ottawa, to
University of Ottawa students, that, as a candidate to the Liberal
Party leadership and future head of the Canadian government, he
was opposed to any form of veto, for any province. He basically
said that a province wishing to oppose constitutional changes could
do it if it had a veto. He did not specifically mentioned Quebec, but
he was certainly thinking about that province, since Quebec has
always been the one asking for such changes.
17030
In addition to a veto power, the concept of distinct society is
supposedly recognized in the motion tabled in this House.
(1350)
Again, this is a big joke. The Prime Minister is trying to make
Quebecers, but particularly Canadians, believe that he recognizes
the principle of distinct society. Yet, during the referendum
campaign, he ridiculed that principle by making an analogy to his
own linguistic skills. He said: ``There is no need to put the distinct
society principle in the Constitution. Everyone knows that I am
distinct. Just listen to me speak English''.
At the time, the leader of the Action démocratique condemned
the Prime Minister's comments, saying that it was contemptuous of
Quebecers to make such an analogy between the notion of distinct
society and one's ability, or lack of, to speak English, in this case
the Prime Minister himself.
This is what the Prime Minister thinks of the distinct society and
the right of veto. Today, because it tabled a bill and a motion on the
concept of distinct society, the government would like Quebec
members to applaud and say: ``Mr. Speaker, the issue is finally
settled. Quebec is now recognized as a distinct society and it has a
veto power. Let us move on to other matters''.
No. Quebecers are not fooled by all this. They are fully aware of
the federal government's deceit in tabling this bill and this motion,
and they will react strongly. In that sense, the Leader of the
Opposition who, in a few months, will lead the Quebec
government, was right, is right and will be right to say no to such
trickery and deceit.
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
opposite is at it again with his emotional blackmail.
A debate at least two-months long has already been held on the
referendum. At times, it was quite intense, very emotional. We
heard from both sides, supporters of the yes camp and supporters of
the no camp, those who were for Canada and those who were
against Canada, those who wanted to give Canada a chance and
those who did not.
Those who wanted to give Canada a chance won. The democratic
result of the referendum was a yes to giving Canada a chance. On
the evening when the results were announced, I was out of the
country, unfortunately, but I saw the Leader of the Opposition on
television. It was a very emotional moment. I stayed up all night
and watched the Leader of the Opposition on CNN International as
he said: ``The democratic result of the referendum must be
respected''.
Interestingly that what the opposite of what Mr. Parizeau had
said when he chose not to respect the results. At the time, the
Leader of the Opposition and leader of the yes camp in Quebec
said that the referendum results were to be respected. But what is
happening today? Just the opposite. No respect for the Quebec
referendum results; total disregard for the basic principle of
democracy in Quebec, in Canada and in every international
standard.
Nowhere else in the world do you have a group like the one we
have here in our federal Parliament, a Parliament representing the
people of Canada, Canadians from coast to coast.
(1355)
In no other country in the world do you see people like the
members across the way, rise on their feet and announce with great
pride their plans to tear apart the best country in the world. They
want to tear apart and break up a great country, a fantastic country.
The Prime Minister said, and my colleagues on this side also
said so time and time again: this is not going to happen, because the
best country in the world just cannot be broken up. What the
government decided to do and managed to do is to present concrete
proposals, and we expect opposition members to act with common
sense, to respond with common sense, to respect the democratic
result of the referendum, to sit down at the table and to negotiate
honestly, without any hypocrisy, and to stop using the words
``sovereignism'' and ``independance''. They should talk in a
positive way, saying that Quebecers voted to give Canada a chance.
Then we would have a real debate. Then we would really be able
to talk face to face. So, I ask my colleague if it would not be better
for him and for his colleagues of the Bloc to sit down with the
federal government and to tell us what they really want. They are
not satisfied with that, but what do they want exactly? They want to
put that in the Constitution, but they do not say so. They do not dare
say what makes sense.
What I have heard today is nothing but blackmail, a history
lesson, another explanation of what happened 20 years ago. Several
members of that party voted against the Meech Lake accord and the
Charlottetown accord. I want to ask the member-
The Speaker: I think the question has been put. The hon.
member has one minute to respond. We will give him the chance.
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): Mr. Speaker,
I would ask my colleague from Ottawa-Centre to sit down and go
back to sleep, like he did the night of the referendum, since he
obviously did not listen until the end to what the Leader of the
Opposition said. Not only did the Leader of the Opposition, who
will become Quebec's Premier, say that he would respect the
results of the October 30 referendum by making sure to deal with
the problems facing Quebec, that is, public finance, he also said
that the federal government was expected to act and to propose real
changes.
17031
So, what do we have here? I said it earlier: trickery and deceit.
The next time we will talk about the Constitution in Quebec, it
will be about Quebec's Constitution in an impending referendum.
_____________________________________________
17031
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, in the 1994
budget the government announced cuts to UI, which hit Atlantic
Canada the hardest. Of the $2.4 billion that was cut, $634 million
came from Atlantic Canada. Our region, with 8 per cent of
Canada's population, suffered 27 per cent of the UI cuts. Now we
hear it is going to happen to us again.
A large portion of the Atlantic Canadian economy has a seasonal
nature. I agree that we have to implement measures that allow the
region's economy to grow and evolve, but what the government is
proposing will not do that. Even the Liberal premier of New
Brunswick has called the proposed UI plan devastating for our
region. He has also said that he believes it will merely push people
from UI to welfare.
I support thoughtful measures to get our deficit under control.
We need to help people to help themselves. I fear this is what the
government's UI plan will not do. I urge it to reconsider. In fact,
this plan is one I would expect from the Reform Party.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Davenport.
* * *
(1400 )
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Environment Canada recently charged the Noranda forests mill in
Thorold, Ontario, with 150 apparent violations of the Fisheries Act
and pulp and paper effluent regulations.
If we are to have sustainable development we need regulations
and their enforcement to protect water, fisheries and health from
damaging activities. This example shows the importance of
Environment Canada in maintaining properly monitored and
enforced federal environmental regulations.
* * *
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Liberal cabinet is giving rights to same sex couples
that members of the House have not approved and the public do not
support.
I rise today to condemn a Liberal Treasury Board directive
leaked last week which extends a number of spousal benefits to
homosexual and lesbian partners who are not formally recognized
as being legally married.
During the debate and a free vote on Motion No. 264 in the
House last September members refused to grant legal recognition
of same sex couples, defeating the motion decisively. Treasury
Board officials have defied the will of members of the House by
giving homosexual and lesbian couples the same rights as legally
married men and women.
On behalf of the majority of my constituents, the majority of
Canadians and the majority of MPs in the House I demand the
Liberal government bring any extension of government benefits to
same sex couple relationships to the House for a free vote.
* * *
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last week I attended a ceremony marking the site of the
Ripples Internment Camp near Fredericton. This camp was
originally constructed to accommodate Jewish refugees during the
second world war and was later used as an internment camp. The
organizing committee hopes eventually to rebuild the camp along
with a museum to keep the camp's memory alive.
Canada has a long history of accommodating refugees, a history
of which it can be proud. However history tells us that mistakes
have been made. We must learn from them, grow and make sure we
recognize our international obligations to those oppressed around
the world.
It is important to remember what happened during the second
world war because history must live. I commend Ed Caissie and the
rest of the committee for reminding all of us of the horror of the
Holocaust.
* * *
Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish today to
recognize the achievement of one of my constituents, Miss Amy
Kaufman. Tomorrow Miss Kaufman and five others from across
Canada will present themselves at Government House to receive
the 60th Anniversary Award of the Society for Educational Visits
and Exchanges in Canada.
SEVEC is a not for profit association run by teachers that
organizes educational visits and exchanges. Its aim is to create and
promote enriching educational opportunities within Canada for the
development of mutual respect and understanding.
Miss Kaufman spent two weeks in Quebec last year as a
participant in a SEVEC program. She was struck by both the
similarities and the differences between our two peoples. She was
17032
especially impressed by the depth of friendship and understanding
that can be achieved in so short a time, an interesting observation.
I ask all members to join me in recognizing Miss Kaufman, a
proud Canadian.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on Monday
the Leader of the Opposition and I attended the opening of the 24th
convention of the FTQ, Quebec's largest labour federation.
I think it is significant that there were 1,500 delegates at this
historic convention, which was focussed on employment. For the
first time, the presidents of the CSN and the CEQ were invited to
attend. In an extremely courageous speech, FTQ president Clément
Godbout spoke of the major challenges to the trade union
movement now and in the years to come. The labour federation
wants to fight against the emergence of an increasingly powerful
right and in support of labour legislation reform, union-employer
partnerships, and increased power over the way work is organized.
It is therefore important to congratulate those behind such an
initiative aimed at enabling Quebec decision makers to undertake
an in depth examination of tomorrow's Quebec.
I would also like to wish FTQ past president Fernand Daoust a
prompt recovery; he was injured in an automobile accident the day
before yesterday.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the environment minister's decision to sign an interim
order banning the export of PCBs to the U.S. defies logic,
especially since the EPA in the U.S. has recently reversed its
decision to allow PCB imports for destruction.
This reversal enables Canadian companies to safely dispose of
their stockpiled PCB contaminated waste at the lowest possible
price and in the safest possible manner. The minister ought to be
elated. Unfortunately she has decided to ban PCB exports to the
U.S. despite the fact that Canada exports over 100,000 tonnes of
waste to the U.S. each year.
(1405)
The distance now that the PCBs have to travel are much greater
when shipped across Canada than when shipped to the United
States. Canadian companies are also paying an extra $150 million
to do this.
Considering the overwhelming information in support of
allowing PCB exports to the U.S., I urge the minister to reconsider
her government's position, do the right thing, and stop pandering to
the protectionist stance that does little to help the overriding goal of
PCB removal.
* * *
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
inform the House of the completion of the global vision program
for 1995 and the release of the annual report.
As parliamentary chair I am pleased to announce that this
non-profit organization was able to conduct cross Canada regional
seminars involving over 800 students. These young people met
with industry and government experts to discuss issues involving
science, trade and technology, and to acquire the skills needed to
compete in the new global economy.
In addition, the junior trade corps program allowed 18
participants to visit Taiwan in the Republic of China in August. I
thank the many sponsors of the global vision program. These
include Canadians Airlines, the Canadian Imperial Bank of
Commerce, Canadian Heritage, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency, FEDNOR and Western Star Trucking.
I personally thank Mr. Jason Yuan and his staff at the Taipei
economic and cultural office. Without his assistance and the
co-operation of the Republic of China's foreign affairs department
and the China Youth Corps, our trade mission to Taiwan would not
have been possible.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow, December 1, is International HIV-AIDS Day.
On the same day last year our Prime Minister was one of the
cosignatories of the Paris declaration.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that
Canada followed up on this summit by creating a task force on
Canada's international response on HIV-AIDS.
On this day, the theme of which is ``Share rights, Share
responsibilities'', I would like to acknowledge the important role
played by nongovernmental organizations such as the International
AIDS and Development Coalition, the International Council of
ONGs against AIDS, the Canadian AIDS Society, the Canadian
Public Health Association, the Global Network of People Living
with HIV/AIDS, the réseau international francophone
d'intervention SIDA and the International Community of Women
Living with HIV/AIDS.
17033
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Liberal and Reform members of the Standing
Committee on Canadian Heritage have openly declared a witch
hunt. The representatives of Canadian unity are against
sovereignist artists, like Marie Laberge, getting federal funding.
Obviously, ridicule has never killed anyone. Quebec
sovereignists still continue to send their tax money to Ottawa. Each
year, the federal government collects $30 billion from Quebecers.
Do the members of the committee seriously think that the federal
government could deny access to its programs to 50 per cent of
Quebec's population? As Franco Nuovo put it so well in the
Journal de Montréal, Canada Council grants are not given out to
``serve the allegiance and political stripe of artists, but to recognize
and support talent and excellence in the arts world in Canada''.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians are astounded to learn that our human rights
commissioner feels it is inappropriate to comment on human rights
abuses in China. His tolerance of forced abortions and his inability
to pass judgment on the execution of political dissidents show
shameful disdain for women's rights, equal rights and human
rights.
We must tell China that this policy is wrong. As Canadian
Human Rights Commissioner it is his responsibility to lead, not to
follow. He has a moral obligation to help bring about change in
areas where the humane treatment of people is rejected. He must do
this by showcasing Canada as a model of democratic tolerance, a
champion of human rights and a defender of the exploited.
We cannot sit idly by, as women, children and others suffer
abuse at the hands of inhumane governments. Instead of resigning
himself to indifference, Max Yalden should resign, himself. If he
refuses, the government must remove him from office as he clearly
lacks the courage to promote and represent Canadian values
internationally.
* * *
(1410)
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the sovereignist's sovereignist Gérald Larose,
president of the CSN, delivered a hefty blow to the Quebec
Premier's economic strategy, labelling it devastating. He went on
to say, and I quote: ``We have the vague impression that, having
failed to control all our levers during the referendum, the
Government of Quebec wants to take the shortest route and throw
itself wildly on spending to avoid sinking like the Titanic''.
The union leader's barrage against the PQ government has
failed, however, to wound the claimant to the throne, whom nobody
wants to upset. The union leader's whole strategy reeks of
opportunism and should be condemned, given the benefits his
organization has always enjoyed from its affiliation with the PQ.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
take this opportunity to remind members of the House that
November has been proclaimed Diabetes Awareness Month by the
Canadian Diabetes Association.
Over one million Canadians including many members of my
own family have diabetes, a major cause of premature death,
blindness, kidney disease, heart disease, stroke, limb amputation
and other significant health problems. The chances of having
diabetes increase with age. It affects more than 13 per cent of
Canadians between the ages of 65 and 74.
The Canadian Diabetes Association supports diabetes research
and provides a wide range of services for and on behalf of persons
with diabetes and their families. I am proud to say the federal
government also plays an important role by supporting diabetes
research, with the Medical Research Council of Canada being the
country's largest contributor to diabetes research.
I ask the House to join with me in wishing the Canadian Diabetes
Association and its many volunteers a very successful Diabetes
Awareness Month.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is the dawning of a new age. During the referendum campaign,
the government promised change. Now, change is under way. First,
the members of this House are to vote on recognizing Quebec as a
distinct society with its own language, culture and legal tradition.
Also, we have before us today a bill granting a veto to Quebec, to
the people of Quebec, and to the other regions of Canada. This
makes for a great start. That is what I call delivering the goods.
And we must continue to ensure that the changes contemplated also
apply to our way of doing things. In the context of these changes, I
urge all hon. members of this House, regardless of their political
17034
affiliation, to work at making this country of ours, Canada, the
country of all Quebecers and all Canadians.
* * *
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Peter
Jacobs has lived almost all his life in Kahnawake. He was adopted
at the age of three weeks and has contributed to this Mohawk
community for 40 years. Even though he is a status Indian under
the Indian Act, Mr. Jacobs has now been excluded from the register
by a Kahnawake band council resolution that in effect has stripped
him of his status as a member of this band and of entitlement to all
related rights.
Without prejudging a highly technical issue currently before the
Canadian Human Rights Commission, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois would like to express their strong disagreement with
this act of discrimination and exclusion, which would appear to be
based on race and ethnic origin.
* * *
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it seems that Quebecers
will once again have to pay for the lack of courage and conviction
of the person who let them down almost one month before the
failure of Meech. In a speech befitting a never ending soap opera,
the leader of the opposition said once again yesterday that he will
not support the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society.
The Bloc Quebecois leader refuses to accept Canada's offer to
co-operate, preferring to concentrate on his emotional speeches, in
which he keeps crying over old stories of humiliation and rejection.
Quebecers are discovering, regretfully and somewhat late, that the
person who is asking them to put their confidence in him is only
interested in his career and imminent crowning as Quebec's
Premier. Unfortunately, he refuses to acknowledge the consensus
among Quebecers to be recognized as a distinct society and to have
a veto power within the Canadian federation.
_____________________________________________
17034
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1415)
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in an all out attack against the federal government,
Premier McKenna of New Brunswick, a faithful ally of the
Canadian Prime Minister, strongly condemned the UI reform
proposals.
Mr. McKenna warned that by directly targeting workers in
Eastern Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, these reforms will
create what he referred to as ``an unprecedented political
backlash''. Mr. McKenna's scathing attack is similar to the stand of
the official opposition on the new cuts in unemployment insurance
Ottawa is about to make.
Does the Minister of Human Resources Development agree that,
as stated by the Premier of New Brunswick, these new cuts will
come down hard on seasonal workers in Eastern Quebec and the
Atlantic provinces?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again the Leader of the
Opposition, as he has done so many times in the past, is
exaggerating the comments.
We had a very useful meeting with the Atlantic premiers. We
were able to deal with many of the concerns they raised. If the hon.
leader of the opposition were more careful in his research and
analysis he would know that when they came out of the meeting
they actually said they found the approach we are taking to be quite
praiseworthy and one they wanted to support.
I would like to quote Premier McKenna directly: ``Several
features of the reform will be very positive in terms of making it
worth while to work and there are a number of elements of the
reform that we find praiseworthy''. Mr. McKenna, after having had
the opportunity to find out the real direction and approach we want
to take, as opposed to all the suppositions, allegations, and paranoia
the leader of the opposition puts forward, actually finds this to be
something he finds praiseworthy.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I have not met Mr. McKenna recently, but I saw reports in
the newspapers this morning that he condemned the minister's
reforms and warned they would create an unprecedented political
backlash. And I am fully aware of the fact that Mr. McKenna is a
Liberal like the minister himself, so he cannot be accused of being
soft on policy.
I want to ask the minister whether he realizes that young people
and women will be the main victims of his reforms, since these will
tighten UI criteria by substantially increasing the number of hours
and weeks worked.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the
Opposition once again totally contradicts himself.
17035
When he made his announcement that he would become leader
of the Parti Quebecois and the future premier of Quebec, he said
he had one major ambition, jobs, and he wants to work with people
to do this. That is our ambition as well, to transform a system that
has been around for 50 years and over the years has developed
a number of problems in terms of giving people the tools and the
opportunities and the encouragement to go to work. That is why
we are changing the system, so we can help people go to work.
I say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition if he believes, as he
said he did during the referendum campaign, in ``partnership'', I
am prepared to be a partner with the hon. Leader of the Opposition
when he becomes premier. I would like to work with him to create
jobs for Quebecers. I ask him, is he prepared to be a partner with us
in creating good, serious jobs for Quebecers once he becomes the
premier of Quebec?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the minister tells us his reforms are intended to create
jobs. Would he agree that, in fact, his reforms are intended to get
people off unemployment insurance so they will have to go on
welfare, all of which will add to the bill the provinces will have to
pay?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact they will not. There
will be a number of initiatives that will help people who now find
themselves without the tools or resources to get back into the
workforce. They will be given that opportunity.
(1420 )
I would point out that unlike the minister of social security in the
Government of Quebec, who cut back welfare payments and took
away the very incentive, the very resources, the very income being
used to help people on social assistance to go back to work, we are
attempting through the reform and modernization of the
employment insurance system to give those tools back to people so
they can go back to work.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The Globe and Mail reported this morning, in even greater
detail, how much the second so-called UI reform package is out of
touch with the labour market, where precarious jobs are no longer
the exception but rather the rule.
In fact, the UI reform will discourage young people by making it
harder to qualify for benefits, with work requirements going from
12 fifteen hour weeks to 14 thirty-five hour weeks, even in the
regions hardest hit by unemployment.
Does the Minister of Human Resources Development confirm
that one of the first and most painful effects of his reform will be to
ensure to an even greater degree that thousands of young people,
who often can find only precarious jobs, are excluded?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be tabling in the House
of Commons tomorrow the full details of the new employment
insurance package.
We will be, as part of our courtesy, giving a full briefing to the
hon. member and other members of the opposition. We intend to
extend coverage for unemployment insurance, to take into
consideration the new workplace, where there is a lot more part
time work, a lot more multiple jobs, a lot more people dealing in a
workplace that has a lot more flexibility to it.
That is part of the problem with the existing system. It was
designed 50 years ago. It does not accommodate the new world of
work we are into. That was one of the key recommendations of the
committee that studied it, of which the member was a part. The
committee recommended that we find a system that more
accurately fits the reality of the new world of work. That is what we
have done.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if the
minister had briefed the official opposition and the third party first,
before briefing every member of the media in town, we would not
have to rely on what journalists say. At least, journalists are doing a
good job. And I doubt there would be any evidence to the contrary.
Here is my question: Does the minister not realize that by
making it even more difficult to have access to UI, a fact confirmed
by every information leak, he will force onto welfare a good many
women who are desperately trying to find a way out of poverty?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, please excuse me if I allow
myself to smile. The hon. member is complaining about the fact
that we were briefing journalists.
It was the hon. member who week after week was waving
papers, studies, and leaked reports from her friends in the CSN who
purported to know what was in the report. If anybody is responsible
for the misinformation about the new program, it is the hon.
member for Mercier. She is the one who has been responsible.
17036
Fortunately tomorrow the hon. member will have an opportunity
to see what the program is really all about.
* * *
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government has tabled its package of proposals for Quebec, which
lo and behold have been rejected by the PQ Government of Quebec
and by the future premier of Quebec.
In advance of the next referendum, will the government also be
taking other steps? Will it table not only the proposals it has tabled
for positive change, but will it also make clear to Quebec in
published documents the likely terms and conditions of separation
and the real costs of separation?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unlike the Reform Party, we
are not salivating at the prospect of a referendum.
The majority of Canadians and the majority of Quebecers do not
want a referendum. What they want is for the Government of
Canada to work in a constructive way with provincial partners
across the country and with workers to get Canadians back to work.
That is exactly the agenda we intend to pursue.
(1425)
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I hate
to inform the Deputy Prime Minister that bad things can happen
even if you wish they will not. It is a rule of life.
Regardless of what the Canadian people or even the Quebec
people think, it is clear what the plans of the Quebec government
are. I ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs once again, is
the government consulting anyone-Canadians, think tanks, the
C.D. Howe Institute, the Canada West Foundation, the business
community? Is the government consulting anyone on the terms and
conditions of separation and the contingencies to plan for in the
event the Government of Quebec goes down this path?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we know that Canada will not go down this path because
we are taking the necessary steps and we will continue to take them
so that Canada remains a united country.
The group on unity, as I have mentioned, is looking at present at
all kinds of constructive ways in which we can deal with the
differences that exist among the various parts of the country. We do
not want to underline these differences. We prefer to underline the
points that are common all across Canada, among all Canadians.
The solutions we will bring are solutions that will help us to
remain together.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
minister assured the House that the PQ would lose the provincial
election. He assured the House that the government would win the
referendum by a strong majority. None of the things this
government has assured us have come to pass.
This time, if it will not at least prepare its own position on the
eventuality of another referendum, will it at least insist through a
formal request that the Government of Quebec table its proposal
for separation, its so-called sovereignty partnership, so that before
a referendum all Canadians, including Quebecers, can judge the
credibility of these proposals?
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, when we indicated that we were going to look at the
results of the referendum and deal with them, we also indicated that
we were going to look at the real solutions to present day problems.
The real solutions are not the splitting of Canada into various parts,
even though the Reform Party sometimes gives me the feeling that
this would be its preferred option.
The best way to prevent that from happening is clearly to give
good government. We have won the referendum, not lost it. The
best way is to deal with the problems that presently exist, not start
planning for the worst.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Every scrap of information on the UI reform, whether leaked or
not, points to the fact that women, young people and seasonal
workers will be the main victims of the reform about to be
introduced by the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Does the minister recognize that his reform will penalize women
twice over, by limiting their entitlement to benefits because of the
longer work period required, and by making this entitlement
dependent not only on recipients' incomes but also on their
spouses' incomes?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, just a few minutes ago the
hon. member's colleague was complaining about the leaks and the
fact that they did not get the proper information. Now the hon.
member is using
17037
other leaks or misinformation to make an allegation or charge
about the impact of the study.
The reality is that tomorrow we will present a fully
comprehensive indication. The hon. member will find that the
purpose and the direction we have adopted is designed to give more
support for women coming into the workforce, to provide extended
coverage for those in part time work, to provide for a stronger
element of resources for people to get employed.
It would seem to me that the sooner the Bloc Quebecois starts
getting itself interested in the issue of defending and promoting
jobs as opposed to defending unemployment, it might be an awful
lot better off.
(1430)
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, here is
my supplementary question.
Does the minister realize that his reform will jeopardize 20 years
of sustained efforts on the part of women to achieve greater
financial independence?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is a very simple fact.
Last year, because of the change in the emphasis of our
employment programs, the number of women in Quebec who
participated in our employment programs actually increased.
Furthermore the new employment equity bill which we hope the
Senate will return before Christmas will be providing further
opportunities.
When the hon. member says we are ignoring the cause of
women, frankly she does not know what she is talking about.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Prime Minister pleaded with Canadians to support his
Quebec package of Mulroney leftovers: distinct society and
constitutional veto. However the government does not have the
courage to let those very same Canadians vote directly on the
package. Instead of trusting Canadians, the Prime Minister has
decided to ram the proposals through Parliament.
Because the government will not trust the Canadian people with
the country's future, will it at the very least call off the Liberal
whip and allow a free vote on the Prime Minister's Quebec
package?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Canadian
people are a lot bigger and a lot more generous than the Reform
Party gives them credit for. The Canadian people support the
initiative of the Prime Minister. Frankly, my phone has been
ringing off the wall with people complaining about the disgraceful
performance of the Reform Party in the debate about Canada.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians voted no on Charlottetown and I suspect if the
government had the courage to ask them to vote again they would
again vote no, loudly and clearly.
This government talks about equality but it learned absolutely
nothing from Meech Lake and Charlottetown. If the national unity
package is to have any hope of succeeding, it must win the support
of Canadians. It has to be by Canadians. It needs to be for all of
them and it must receive popular ratification.
Canadians are sick and tired of being used as the Liberal
government's personal political pawns. They want the first say and
they want the final say when it comes to these things. Will the
government commit to holding a national binding referendum on
any constitutional change so that the Canadian people, not
provincial governments and federal politicians, have the final say
as they were allowed to do with Charlottetown in 1992?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member
makes claims about the positions of the government, she would be
well advised to read what her own leader had to say on the issue of
distinct society back in 1989. He said in an interview on the distinct
society clause: ``At a strategic level I think we could accept some
kind of trade-off between Quebec and the resource producing
regions''. That is what Preston Manning had to say about distinct
society then. Why is he saying something different now?
The Speaker: Colleagues, I would remind you to please address
each other by title rather than by name.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Human Resources Development.
In his full-scale attack against UI reform, the Premier of New
Brunswick, a faithful constitutional ally of the Prime Minister,
accused Ottawa of revamping the UI program on the backs of
workers in eastern Quebec and the Atlantic provinces.
Does the minister endorse the New Brunswick Premier's
statement that his reform is a deliberate attack against the Atlantic
region and eastern Quebec?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will tell the House what
words of the hon. premier of New Brunswick I do agree with. He
said in today's Saint John Telegraph Journal: ``Several of the
features of the reform will
17038
be very positive in terms of making it worthwhile to work and there
are a number of elements of the reform that we find praiseworthy''.
(1435)
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): I have a short question, Mr.
Speaker. Does the minister share Premier McKenna's opinion that
his UI reform will cause an ``unprecedented political backlash''
east of Ontario? That does not sound like someone who agrees with
the minister.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again I want to point out
that the meeting last evening with the four Atlantic premiers was a
very useful and helpful exchange. We were able to share concerns.
What is more, the four premiers of the Atlantic region, unlike the
hon. member and his colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, understand
good information. They do not deliberately go out to create
distortion. In fact, when they were given the opportunity to work
with and understand the facts, they came out and said as Premier
McKenna did, that they found the reforms praiseworthy.
* * *
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, a recent memo confirms Indian affairs is planning to
throw money at resolving some outstanding issues it has been
dragging its feet on. This is a payoff to silence Quebec's aboriginal
people during the dream team's constitutional talks in Quebec.
While I can understand that Quebec natives want to see their
issues resolved, blatantly bribing them to keep quiet during the
Quebec round of talks is an insult to them and to all Canadians.
Will the minister of Indian affairs confirm whether one of his
ADMs is responsible for this policy position, yes or no?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the member is referring to the
article in the Globe and Mail and several others, I did not see that
memo. I never asked for that memo and if I have to read it in the
Globe and Mail I am not going to pay much attention to it.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I was not asking the minister whether he had seen it or
heard of it. I was asking him whether his ADM is responsible for
it. Does the buck stop with him and his department or not?
We believe in the equality of all Canadians but clearly this
Liberal government does not. This week the Prime Minister is
adding a new class of citizens by recognizing Quebec as special
and giving Quebec distinct society status. Now we learn that the
department of Indian affairs is considering granting premier status
to Quebec native leaders.
Apparently the Liberals intend to grant distinct status to two
groups so far: the Quebec separatist government and Quebec native
leaders. How many more do the Liberals intend to recognize?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a couple of weeks ago the
Reform Party put out its policy on aboriginal people. We waited
two years for what is now its interim policy. It was received as
follows: Blaine Fable: ``Earth calling Preston''; Blaine Fable:
``Silly and bizarre''; Erasmus: ``It's like reading something from
the 1920s''; and John Edward: ``This is pretty much a bunch of
cheap shots from the Reform Party''. These are aboriginal leaders.
The Reform Party knows nothing about equality. If it knew
anything about equality, all 42 members who voted against the B.C.
treaty process would have been in here voting for it.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is also for the Minister of Indian Affairs.
The document signed by Deputy Minister Jack Stagg, which all
the media reported on this morning, recommends that the
government pay money to the aboriginal communities in Quebec,
in return for their support for the federalist side in the last
referendum, and also, in the words of the deputy minister himself,
to buy their silence while the federal government tables
constitutional proposals to satisfy Quebec.
Since the media all reported on this document, I ask the minister
if he bothered to summon this person, who is not just anybody, but
the person responsible for his department's strategic directions and
policies. Has he since summoned his deputy minister to find out if
he did in fact write this memo?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my former
answer, I did not ask for that document and I did not see that
document. If it is accurate as far as the Globe and Mail then it is a
pretty silly document.
17039
If the hon. member wants to know what my deputy minister, my
ADMs or my regional directors general have to do, there is an even
more significant document which is accurate and free. It is called
our red book and we follow it.
(1440)
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I think
the minister is trying to dodge the issue. His deputy minister, who
is very well known, who is responsible for the department's
strategic directions and policies, did in fact write a memo. I want
the minister to tell me if he did summon his deputy minister and
ask him for his version of events.
I am not interested in the red book. I am quite familiar with it, I
studied it, and there is room for improvement on aboriginal issues.
What I want to know is this: Did the minister summon his deputy
minister and can he admit that he promised the aboriginal
communities in Quebec that he would compensate them for their
support for the federalist cause in the last referendum?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our policy in Quebec is clear
and apparent and I think my friend does support it.
We are working with the James Bay Cree on their issues. We are
working with the province of Quebec and with the Huron which has
signed a treaty with the province of Quebec. We have made offers
to the Attikamek-Montagnais in the north of Saint-Laurent of $400
million with the Quebec government. He says to work with the
Quebec government. We are working with the
Attikamek-Montagnais, the Innu. We are working with all of them.
Our policy is our red book. Everybody who works for our
department is supposed to follow that red book.
* * *
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the continuing
conflict in Sri Lanka is a matter of great concern to many
Canadians, including many in my riding of Rosedale who have
come here from Sri Lanka.
Would the Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific inform the House
of Canada's position on the Government of Sri Lanka's military
operations in the north which have displaced so many innocent
civilians?
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are all very concerned about the continued
conflict in Sri Lanka. Recently when I accompanied the Prime
Minister and my colleague, the Secretary of State for Latin
America, at the heads of the Commonwealth meetings in New
Zealand, I personally sought out the Sri Lankan foreign affairs
minister to express our concern to him.
Canada does not believe there can be a military solution to the
conflict. We urge all parties, including the Liberation Tigers of
Tamil Eelam, to negotiate a lasting political settlement. The LTTE
must accept that there is nothing to be gained by continued
guerrilla warfare and acts of sabotage. Also, the Sri Lankan
government should recognize that only a negotiated political
settlement will bring peace to Sri Lanka.
* * *
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
provinces are leading the federal government again. Yesterday
Ontario announced a balanced budget plan. Nine out of 10
provinces have a balanced budget plan in place.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. When will this
government announce to Canadians a balanced budget plan?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not enough to
simply have a balanced budget plan which stretches years out.
What is important is to have in place a process that will enable the
government and any government to consistently hit its targets, to
maintain a steady downward tract both in the deficit and the GDP
ratio and that is what we have done.
That is why for the first time in over a decade a Canadian
government was able to stand up and say that it had beat its deficit
targets.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if the targets
are easy to reach, anybody can do it. The real litmus test of
financial or fiscal responsibility is a balanced budget plan and a
budget plan that can be reached. In Canada there are only two
governments that do not have a plan: the separatists in Quebec and
the Liberal government here in Ottawa.
Is the finance minister, according to the answer that was just
given, telling Canadians that when he tables his budget in the
spring there still will not be a balanced budget plan?
(1445 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been very
consistent. We have said that we are going to operate on the basis of
rolling two-year targets and that is what we are going to continue to
do.
The hon. member talks about last year's budget target being an
easy target. If that was true, then the allegation also would be true.
It was a very difficult target to hit. In three years we will have taken
the deficit from 6 per cent of GDP down to 3 per cent.
17040
As far as proof that it was a very difficult target I would only
cite the leader of the Reform Party and the hon. member who last
year stood up and said that we would never hit that target, that
the sky was falling and we had to have countless mini-budgets.
We did not have mini-budgets. We beat the target that member
said we could never hit.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the heritage minister.
The committee in charge of reviewing the mandate of the
National Film Board, Telefilm Canada and the CBC has postponed
until January 15 the tabling of the report that was supposed to be
released today.
The Quebec motion picture and television production industry is
very disturbed by rumours of Telefilm Canada being dismantled. In
a letter to the Prime Minister, spokespersons for this industry have
condemned the government's plans to abolish Telefilm.
How can the minister reconcile delaying the tabling of the
Juneau report until January 15 when budgetary decisions have to be
made now about three major Canadian cultural institutions, namely
the National Film Board, Telefilm and the CBC?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that I would have liked to have
received this report today, but that is not the case. I have spoken to
the chairman of the mandate committee, and have pointed out to
him that I fully intend to have the January 15 deadline met. At that
time, I will release the report.
As for the relationship between mandates and budgetary
decisions, it is clear that we will need to work faster, and we will.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, does the minister intend to grant the private industry and
audiovisual industry's request, which is a real cry of alarm, that
Telefilm and the resources allocated to the motion picture and
television production industry be maintained?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, our colleague mentioned earlier that the government
was planning to dismantle Telefilm Canada. I would like to know
where she got that information. How could we plan to do so, when
we have not yet received the report, which, as she just said, will be
tabled on January 15? Decisions will be made at that time.
[English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for
the second time this year the OECD has proven that the Liberal
economic and social policies are failing.
The Liberals have driven growth down to 2.3 per cent from 4.2
per cent. They have increased taxes and killed jobs. They have
driven more people on to welfare and closed more businesses.
If the Minister of Human Resources Development really cared
about the 1.2 million people he has left unemployed, would he not
create jobs by rolling payroll taxes back by more than the wooden
nickel he is?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question
reminds me of that very felicitous phrase used by her colleague
from Calgary when referring to the Minister of Health. It seems
that like dogs the members of the Reform have a fascination with
trees.
In response to the question, the hon. member knows that
tomorrow we will be presenting an employment insurance package.
I think the hon. member will find there will be a number of
initiatives in that package that are designed to help Canadians get
back to work and, in particular, to provide incentives for the
business community to create jobs.
(1450 )
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do
have a sense of humour, so I will let that tree comment pass.
The Minister of Human Resources Development is a tax junkie.
He gets his fix by funnelling billions of dollars from UI into
wasteful job creation schemes and into deficit reductions. However
there is hope for recovery. The minister can register today in a
12-step program to break his tax addiction.
Will the minister commit to breaking his tax addiction by rolling
payroll taxes back by more than a wooden nickel?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon.
member's sense of humour. It is always nice to discover that
somebody in this House has one. It is a refreshing change.
However, the hon. member should check with statements made
by the finance critic for the Reform Party. He was complaining
about all the problems related to the deficit. Now the hon. member
wants us to take away even more money, which would add to the
17041
deficit. It would seem to me that sooner or later the Reform Party
should get its act together.
* * *
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
has been 25 years since the Royal Commission on the Status of
Women outlined its concern with regard to women's economic
status, specifically, various aspects of their paid and unpaid work.
Could the Secretary of State for the Status of Women please
inform the House what the government is doing to improve the
economic status for women?
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)
(Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while it is true that the
royal commission looked at the economic status of women and
related that as well to ensuring that violence against women would
be reduced, we also brought in the whole question of employment
equity and the right of women with equal competence and merit to
have access to fair jobs and to break the glass ceiling, as it is called.
At the same time, we have recognized that the unpaid work of
women and men is of great value to our society. It was an issue we
brought to the meetings in Beijing. The issue of unpaid work and
its value is now part of the platform for action out of Beijing.
Canada is the first country in the world that will measure both the
work and the value of unpaid work to our society as we push and
promote women's economic access to independence in our country.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is directed to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Anatoli
Delets and his family came to Canada from the former Soviet
Union in 1992. Their refugee claim has been turned down and this
family, despite having integrated well into Quebec society, will
soon be deported to Moldavia. There is every reason to believe that
they will be subject to the same persecution as they were before
they left that country, for Mrs. Delets is Jewish and is not
considered a Moldavian under that country's laws.
How can the minister explain that, instead of exercising his
discretionary powers to allow the Delets to become permanent
residents, he has allowed employees of his department to arrest Mr.
Delets and place him in a detention centre awaiting deportation,
which will take place as soon as his wife is released from hospital?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the people the member refers to
had full due process under what can argued to be the best refugee
determination system in the world. They have also received a
humanitarian and compassionate review from my department as
well.
There was also the possibility of trying to facilitate in response
to the family, rather than going back to Russia perhaps for a
facilitation into Israel.
It is absolutely unfair for this member, given the statements that
have come from that side of the House with respect to immigrants
and the role they can play in society, to suggest that Canada has
been unfair to them.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Delets
is ill in hospital. Where is Canada's humanitarian policy? Does the
minister not believe that it is his duty to show compassion when
there is every reason to believe that the Delets family faces
incalculable risks, since the Moldavian embassy in Washington has
notified them that they are no longer welcome in that country?
(1455)
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when it comes to compassion
and how we treat Canadians from various ethnocultural
backgrounds, we need no lectures, no lessons from that side of the
House.
No one suggested we would take her out of the hospital and
deport her. There were rumours suggesting that we were going to
deport part of the family and leave the other part in Canada.
Members of Parliament from our side made representations to
the ministry and officials with respect to a compassionate
deportation. We have shown that compassion. We have not forced
anyone from a hospital bed. To make such allegations is simply a
reflection of the manipulation for which his party is well known.
* * *
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when we toured the Saskatchewan penitentiary in Prince
Albert the guards expressed concern that neither the guards nor the
prisoners were aware of inmates who were HIV positive. They did
not even know which inmates had AIDS.
Can the Solicitor General of Canada tell us when he will protect
the lives of guards and prisoners by making HIV-AIDS testing
mandatory for all prisoners?
17042
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a year ago there was a report of an expert committee on
this matter.
The correctional service is moving to implement almost all the
recommendations of the committee designed to control the spread
of AIDS in federal prison institutions and have a safer atmosphere
for inmates generally.
There is an increased use of testing but mandatory testing raises
important legal and constitutional issues which are still being
considered. We are working to deal with the issue in the spirit and
light of the recommendations of the expert committee.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it logically follows then if the solicitor general is not
willing to make HIV and AIDS testing compulsory, that the
government and the minister will be liable for damages when other
prisoners and guards contract HIV or AIDS while under his care.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Correctional Service of Canada has been moving for over a year
to implement the recommendations of the expert committee on
AIDS. This includes a greater degree of HIV testing as well as a
number of other measures to control, limit and lessen the spread of
AIDS.
I would think that if the hon. member is concerned, he would
read the report of the committee and support us in implementing its
recommendations.
* * *
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister in charge of the wheat board.
In the 1970s, farmers bought hopper cars through the wheat
board and governments bought hopper cars because railways
refused to supply cars for shipping grain.
Recently the minister's SEO committee recommended that
farmers pay $1 per tonne for the purchase of the government's
13,000 hopper cars. Although farmers would pay for them,
ownership would revert to the railways.
Since the deregulated U.S. style system this government is
emulating has one abiding rule, if you want rail service, you had
better own rail cars, why does he not instead allow the wheat board
to own the cars on behalf of farmers?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is referring to a
report that has been received by the government from a group of
senior executive officers in the grains industry, including a number
of farmers, which has come forward with some ideas about how to
deal with hopper car ownership and rail car allocation issues.
That report is presently being discussed among farm
organizations in western Canada. As yet the government has taken
no decision with respect to our response to that report.
One point is important to note. The report represents a consensus
among a widely divergent range of interests. It is not entirely fair to
the situation to single out one recommendation relating to car
ownership and not also observe that another recommendation from
the SEO's group to balance that recommendation was referred to by
the hon. gentlemen. Another recommendation from that same
group was to maintain a maximum limitation on freight rates for a
period of one full decade.
* * *
(1500)
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Considering that pilot safety is one of the most serious issues
facing the Canadian airline industry today, can the minister tell us
when he will implement the flight duty regulations introduced this
summer?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the whole question of how the pilots and the attendants
spend their time, how many hours they are allowed to work, has to
be taken into account as a result of extensive consultation with the
industry. We have also looked at what happens in other countries.
We have tried to strike as fair a balance as we can.
I am pleased to advise the hon. member that we will be
introducing and implementing those new regulations late next
spring.
The Speaker: This brings to a close the question period.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it would be appreciated if the Government House Leader
would announce the business of this House for next week.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today and tomorrow the House will consider second reading of Bill
C-110, the bill on the regional veto. If this is completed, we will
17043
call Bill C-108, the housing legislation, followed by Bill C-99, the
small business loans bill.
On Monday the House will deal with the motion now on notice
in the name of the Minister of National Defence regarding the
Bosnia peace process. Tuesday shall be an opposition day. On
Wednesday we will return to the resolution concerning a distinct
society. Next Thursday and Friday shall be opposition days.
_____________________________________________
17043
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-110,
an act respecting constitutional amendments, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on this particular matter today,
especially in light of some of the comments that were made earlier
today by different members, in particular from the Reform Party.
In discussing this piece of legislation we have to look at what has
already taken place and the rules that are presently in place. We
have to look at the existing rule, the seven, ten, and fifty rule,
requiring seven provinces out of ten to agree, with fifty per cent of
the population. Under this particular rule, the Atlantic provinces, if
they all agree on not supporting an amendment, have a veto.
Ontario has a veto simply by virtue of population. The western
provinces, if four of them get together, effectively have a veto as
well. The only region of Canada that does not have a veto under the
rule is Quebec.
(1505 )
It is not a matter of fairness when one region of Canada does not
have a veto when three regions already can effectively veto
legislation. We have to look at rectifying this situation.
Under Bill C-110 there are four regions, which have been
referred to many times. One has to read Bill C-110 closely to
determine that it does not deal with vetoes; it simply deals with the
consent that is required to effect a constitutional amendment.
Under the bill the consent of Ontario is required, the consent of
Quebec is required, and two or more of the Atlantic provinces that
have a combined population of at least 50 per cent of the population
of all the Atlantic provinces, as well as two or more of the western
provinces that have a combined population of at least 50 per cent.
The rules change somewhat when moving to the second step.
I would suggest that the people of Saskatchewan now are better
off. Under the previous rules it was quite difficult for
Saskatchewan to stop legislation. It was difficult for Saskatchewan
to deal with legislation because to exercise the veto all four
western provinces had to agree. Under this rule, however,
Saskatchewan along with B.C. or Saskatchewan along with three of
the western provinces can stop legislation. It is much more
effective for the province of Saskatchewan than in the past.
For a small province like Saskatchewan this is most helpful. The
population of Saskatchewan is small, but it is being treated very
well by Bill C-110. Saskatchewan's position has improved, but it
has not improved at the cost of any other province.
I have listened to the speeches of Reform members. They
indicated that there should be five regions, with B.C. having a veto,
or even six regions, with B.C. and Alberta having vetoes. It appears
that they are willing to cut loose Saskatchewan and Manitoba
because there should not be two provinces in one region having a
veto with such a small population. I find it interesting that the
Reform Party would cut loose those two prairie provinces by
having vetoes for the two most westerly provinces. It would cut
them loose and they would not have a say in constitutional
amendments. Are the occupants of these two provinces simply
chopped liver?
The federal government has considered all the regions of the
country and all the provinces, no matter how small the population.
Saskatchewan was considered, Manitoba was considered, and
provinces such as P.E.I. were considered.
To hear Reformers speak, it certainly appears that the Reform
Party is willing to abandon Saskatchewan. The Reform Party has
not proposed anything for Saskatchewan and Manitoba. It has not
proposed anything because the Reform Party has abandoned us. Let
me remind the Reform Party that in the next election the people of
Saskatchewan will not forget what Reform has done.
The suggestion has been made that British Columbia may reach
50 per cent of the population in western Canada. That is a
possibility. If any more people from Saskatchewan move to British
Columbia, it should reach that sooner than we may think. That has
certainly happened in the past. However, Saskatchewan can hold its
own and may attract a few people back to Saskatchewan from
British Columbia and may hold its own for the next number of
years.
(1510)
If British Columbia reaches the level of having 50 per cent of the
population, some of the speeches made today by the Reform Party
indicate that in effect British Columbia would have a veto and none
of the other provinces in the west would have any effect. This is
absolutely not true.
Two or more provinces with 50 per cent of the population in the
west must consent to a constitutional amendment. Yes, British
Columbia may get a veto if it has 50 per cent of the population, but
even if British Columbia wants to consent to legislation, the other
17044
three prairie provinces can stop that legislation even though they do
not have 50 per cent of the population. In effect, both areas have a
veto. British Columbia has the veto and the prairie provinces have a
veto.
Again, it appears this is a little too much for some members of
the Reform Party to indicate in the House. They want to show that
we have not given any consideration to the prairie provinces, which
is absolutely false. All areas of Canada have been considered by the
Liberal Party. In particular, all small provinces have been
considered, whether they are in the prairies or elsewhere.
The Reform Party has complained that B.C. does not have a veto
now, and then says that if it does the prairies will not have any say.
As I have indicated, this is not only wrong, it is false and a
misrepresentation of what is in Bill C-110.
It certainly would help if the members of the Reform Party,
before they start speaking in the House on a bill like Bill C-110,
read the legislation. It is very short; it is one paragraph and two
subsections. It is not very difficult to go through. It would maybe
take a minute if they concentrated on it, half a minute if they went
through it quickly, five minutes if they wanted to reread it. Simply
going through it in that manner, they could and would determine
that both areas have a veto built in. British Columbia, when it
reaches 50 per cent of the population, would have the equivalent of
a veto. The three prairie provinces together would also be able to
stop legislation, because consent requires two provinces in the
west.
We have accomplished what the Reform Party has been talking
about. Unfortunately the Reform Party has not seen this today.
That is a perspective from a small province in western Canada,
the province of Saskatchewan, which is benefiting from Bill C-110,
as do many other regions of Canada. And it is benefiting not at the
expense of any other province.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to
hear a member from the province of Saskatchewan oozing around
this question of what the legislation will do for or to the small
provinces. I am glad he has cleared this up, because we know that
Saskatchewan has not been relegated to fourth class status but only
to third class status. This is progress. I really do appreciate the hon.
member's words.
When he goes home to Saskatchewan and is able to present his
case before his electors, I am sure they will be thrilled beyond
measure by this. If the name of a certain Norwegian during the last
war, which Beauchesne will not let me mention, is ever raised at
one of his meetings, he will know what they are talking about.
Mr. Bodnar: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to hear comments from a
member when he refers to oozing around this. Unfortunately I do
not know what he means by the term oozing. The reference that we
are not relegated to fourth class but to third class is absolutely false
and shows a complete misunderstanding of what is in Bill C-110.
(1515)
Under the existing constitutional formula the province of
Saskatchewan could only stop a constitutional amendment with
three other provinces. That would require all four provinces in the
west to stop a constitutional amendment. Under this legislation,
Saskatchewan with three of the smaller provinces in western
Canada could stop the legislation or Saskatchewan and British
Columbia could stop an amendment.
This is a tremendous improvement for the province of
Saskatchewan. I simply ask that the member perhaps look at the
legislation first.
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to participate in
this important debate. Bill C-110 may be one of the smaller bills we
will debate in the House. Although it is only comprised of one
clause it is certainly one of the most important.
This past Monday the Prime Minister announced three key
initiatives: first, to recognize that Quebec forms a distinct society
within Canada; second, to undertake changes to bring government
services and decision making closer to citizens; and, third, to
ensure that we do not make any constitutional changes that affect
Quebec without the consent of the Quebec people.
Bill C-110 is an important component of our commitment to a
united Canada. It is also proof of our government's willingness to
make positive and substantial changes to the way Canada works.
As the Prime Minister and the government have proven time and
time again, when we make a promise we keep it.
Liberal governments in the past have offered strong support for
regional vetoes. The action we are taking now transforms the
principle we have long supported into reality.
I will take a few moments to go through some of the specifics of
the bill. As it currently stands in Canada's Constitution, only the
federal government has the specific veto over constitutional
change. This legislation will change that.
By implementing Bill C-110 we will now require consent of all
Canada's regions, Quebec, Ontario, Atlantic Canada and the west,
before any constitutional amendments that affect them can be
proposed in Parliament. In the case of Atlantic Canada and the
west, consensus much be reached by two or more of the affected
17045
provinces representing more than 50 per cent of the region as a
whole.
In tabling the bill our government is keeping a commitment we
made to the people of Quebec. We also recognize that the
constitutional amendment process is of interest to all parts of the
country. That is why we are lending our veto to Canada's four
regions.
The one clear message we heard on October 30 was that the
status quo was no longer acceptable. I have also heard this message
from my constituents in Annapolis Valley-Hants. During the
referendum campaign and in recent weeks I have spoken with
many people on the issue. I have received numerous telephone calls
and letters from constituents who have offered many valuable ideas
and suggestions. I have moved those suggestions on to the
appropriate people.
In Annapolis Valley-Hants people have said clearly that they
want Quebec to stay. They have also clearly expressed their desire
to be heard on any future constitutional issues. The implementation
of a regional veto will achieve both these goals.
It responds to the concerns of Quebecers. For many years
Quebec has called for a veto on amendments to the Canadian
Constitution. By implementing Bill C-110 we are saying that we
want Quebec to be an active participant in the evolution of the
Canadian Constitution.
(1520)
The bill will also protect Quebec against amendments that could
diminish its powers, rights and privileges. The government
recognizes the legitimacy of Quebec's concerns. Bill C-110 offers
strong recognition of the fact that as the nation evolves we must
work to ensure constitutional changes are acceptable to all
Canada's regions. We also recognize that constitutional change
cannot and should not be made if a substantial portion of Canada's
population does not approve.
In the final days leading up to the no vote the nationwide
grassroots outpouring of public sentiment was a significant factor
in the no victory. The giant 150,000-person pro-Canada rally in
Montreal was an emotional watershed in Canadian history. Tens of
thousands of Quebecers came out and declared their desire to
remain in Canada. Canadians from every province came to Quebec
to say loud and clear: ``We want you to stay''.
I was fortunate, along with other members, to have the
opportunity to be at that rally. That morning I was in Dorval airport
waiting for the unity plane to arrive from Halifax to join with my
fellow Nova Scotians and Atlantic Canadians in delivering a
message of unity. It gave me the opportunity to share their deep
affection for the country. I never felt more proud to be a Canadian.
Some people say that Canadians do not wear their flag on their
sleeves and do not show their national pride. When the chips are
down Canadians are the proudest people of any nation on earth.
Now is the time for us to repay the confidence the people of Quebec
have shown in us. It is time to prove to Quebecers that their trust is
not misplaced.
It is true the initiatives we are now debating will not satisfy
leaders of the separatist government in Quebec or separatist
members in the House. Quebec leaders have been very vocal in
their refusal to negotiate with the federal government. However in
so doing they are doing a disservice to their constituents. The
people of Quebec are more reasonable than the extremist leaders of
the yes camp. These changes will help to restore their faith in
Canada.
I support the bill because it addresses the concerns in Quebec
and the desire of citizens in all Canada's regions to be heard on
constitutional issues. This initiative shows that we have listened to
the call for change. We have listened to the people of Quebec and
we have listened to our constituents. Now is the time to move
forward.
Canada is a continuously changing and evolving federation. By
supporting Bill C-110 we can be sure future change will be
beneficial to Quebec and all other Canadian regions.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
advise the House that I will be splitting my time with the hon.
member for Kindersley-Lloydminster.
It gives me pleasure as a loyal Canadian to rise in the House
today to speak to Bill C-110. It is a privilege to stand in the
Chamber to outline the reasons I oppose the bill. As someone who
was not present as a member of the House when the previous
Parliament debated the Meech and Charlottetown initiatives, I
nonetheless have an eerie feeling of déjà vu. If the legislation were
some grade B horror movie they could very well have called it
``Son of Meech''.
(1525)
I must preface my opposition to the bill by noting an old saying I
have heard several times in the House: those who do not learn from
the mistakes of the past are destined to repeat them. History, or so it
would appear, is not a subject with which the framers of the
legislation are even remotely acquainted. Those historical remarks
come very close to describing the thoughts of all Canadians on the
bill.
I listened to the Prime Minister yesterday and I looked at the bill
before the House today. I cannot help but ask myself if the Liberal
government has not learned anything in 30 years of constitutional
wrangling. The answer would clearly appear to be a resounding no.
This would be much the same response Canadians everywhere
would give to this package if, and it is a big if, they could be given
a say in its acceptance or rejection.
17046
The bill does not give the power of veto to the people. It is the
very worst kind of top down decision making because it gives the
final say to politicians. To this I ask again if hon. members on
the other side have learned nothing. Worse yet, this initiative along
with the motion tabled in the House yesterday is an action born
out of desperation. It is the worst example of so-called leadership
we have seen in recent memory.
Without consulting his caucus, the unity committee, the
premiers or the Canadian people, Mr. Chrétien has unilaterally
offered further appeasement to Quebec separatists.
The Speaker: Order. I know it was probably a slip but we refer
to other members by their titles and not by their names.
Mr. Ringma: Forgive me, Mr. Speaker. It was an oversight. I
meant the Prime Minister.
In any event I ask the Prime Minister and the government if they
have not learned anything from the past. It is clear that the Prime
Minister has not. He is determined to allow history to repeat itself.
Following his speech yesterday on the other half of this initiative,
the hon. member for Beaver River was moved to say it was like
listening to former Prime Minister Mulroney defend the
Charlottetown accord.
In addition to telling the past, history also affords us the ability
to gaze tentatively into the future. That is why when I look at the
bill I see past failures along exactly the same lines as those being
proposed here.
The bill seeks to implement an amending formula similar to that
contained in the Victoria charter of 1971. However, just as insulting
to Canadians, the formula was rejected at the time by provincial
premiers. The initiative before us does not take into account the
realities of today's Canada, that the people of the country want a
final say in how their Constitution is amended through referendum.
They do not want the process controlled from beginning to end by
the political elites of the country. That much should have been
learned by the government following the Charlottetown accord.
The bill would certainly place a constitutional straitjacket on any
certain constitutional changes, no matter how desirous they might
be. The bill would allow the federal government to withdraw its
support for any proposed change if either the premier of Ontario or
the premier of Quebec did not like it.
(1530 )
In addition, as this bill would not be part of Canada's
Constitution so far, the old amending formula would apply as well.
The combined effect of this situation means some bizarre form of
double jeopardy would apply to proposed constitutional
amendments. That is not good.
Beyond that, this bill would not be acceptable to many
Canadians because it gives the separatist Government of Quebec a
veto over the Canadian Constitution. I ask that the members on the
government side think about the consequences of that action for a
moment. A separatist government would now be handed a de facto
veto over the Constitution of a country it has decided to break
apart. Has the Prime Minister thought about the consequences of
such an action?
From a personal perspective as a representative from the
province of British Columbia, I am offended by this bill. Implicit in
it is the notion that British Columbians are relegated to second
class status in Confederation. I would also remind members across
the way that along with Alberta and Ontario, B.C. is one of the
three net contributors to Confederation. All that this legislation
serves to do is perpetuate the mindset within the federal
government that B.C. and the west is a colony.
When I was a boy in Vancouver some 50 or 60 years ago, I was
conscious of a separatist movement within British Columbia at that
time. It came about because it was resentful of the treatment
accorded the west by central Canadian interests. It seems to me that
precious little has changed since then, despite the fact that B.C. is
now the third most populous province.
I have a warning for the government across the way. Proposals
such as Bill C-110 before us are sure to rekindle the separatist fire
in the west. That is something we do not want to have happen.
In concluding, I tell members now and inform the House that as
a loyal Canadian, I will be voting against this bill every step of the
way.
I further encourage members opposite to join with me and do the
same if they think about the constitutional consequences of this bill
for Canada, if they believe in their heart of hearts that the people of
this country, not the governments, are the ones who know what is in
their best interests. If they understand the lessons that 30 years of
constitutional bickering have taught us, if they truly understand all
those things, then they must vote against this bill. To do otherwise
is an affront to all Canadians.
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member from Cowichan and the Islands misunderstands
the intent of Bill C-110. He claims that the people would like to
have the final say in constitutional matters. Bill C-110 does exactly
that. Let me explain to the hon. member.
If his great province of British Columbia, a province in which I
resided at one time, would like to cast a veto and would like to
borrow the federal veto but before doing that it wants to go to the
people of British Columbia in a referendum to sanction that action,
that is allowed for in Bill C-110.
Bill C-110 in no way stops the people of British Columbia from
taking a decision on a constitutional matter. That includes the veto.
If the member wants the veto of the province of British Columbia
17047
sanctioned by the people, for heaven's sake go right ahead and do
it.
I can assure the member that under this legislation, if the
province of British Columbia comes to us along with another
province in the western region and says, we want a veto cast
because we have held a referendum and the people in our province
have asked for the veto, it will be respected under this law. There
can be no other interpretation. You can respond to that if you like.
(1535)
The Speaker: Order. I would encourage all hon. members to
address the Chair instead of speaking to one another.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The
previous speaker kept referring to something other than the motion
before the House.
The Speaker: We are going to have an answer here from the
hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan if he cares to have the floor
for a minute or two.
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, the main response I would have for
the hon. member is that the intent of this bill is not directed at
British Columbia or the west. The intent of the bill is another sop to
the separatists of Quebec. That is its total intent. In effect, the west
is disregarded, as it has been, as I tried to point out, for the last 50,
60, 70 years. It is a continuation of the same old thing.
Anything the member might say about what wonderful things
this will do for the west I reject as nonsense.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to speak to Bill
C-110.
This is a serious time in the history of our country. I see all the
empty chairs across from me. I cannot speak to members who are
not here, but you would think there would be more than two Liberal
members in the House.
Mr. Harvard: Respect the rules.
The Speaker: I would ask all hon. members to refrain from
mentioning whether the House is full or empty, who is here and
who is not. There are traditions.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I know that many Canadians are
watching as we debate Bill C-110 which would give veto power
over constitutional change to four regions in Canada, one region
being the region I am from, western Canada, four provinces with a
population of over eight million.
I have been requesting feedback from the province of
Saskatchewan. Early indications are that there is absolute rejection
of the proposal put forward by the government in Bill C-110 and
also in the motion we debated yesterday, the motion on recognizing
the distinct society as a special status for the province of Quebec.
I would hope and I would plead with this government that it
would reverse its direction, reverse its position and walk away
from the failures of the past, the closed door approach, and embark
on a new course of action, an open and an honest approach with
clear proposals that are made open to the public, that they can
access those proposals and that they can also express their opinion
in quantifiable ways.
I want to talk about past performance. When we have gone down
this road before what has happened? We have two classic
examples, the Meech Lake accord and the Charlottetown accord.
I grant that with the Charlottetown accord there was a
referendum and, in fact, Canadians were able to express their
opinions. From one end of the country to the other they said no to
the Charlottetown accord. They said no in the province of Quebec,
but they also said no in the province of Saskatchewan, the province
of Alberta, the province of British Columbia and even the province
of Nova Scotia.
How do we come up with these concoctions, particularly the
Meech Lake accord and the Charlottetown accord? How did we
develop something that was rejected so adamantly by Canadians?
It started out with 11 people behind closed doors. If you go back
to the Meech Lake accord, it was 10 premiers and the prime
minister. It was Prime Minister Mulroney, the Conservative prime
minister. They got behind closed doors and began a wheeling and
dealing session. We are opening the opportunity for another
wheeling and dealing session with Bill C-110.
What happens when they start wheeling and dealing behind
closed doors? I will tell you what happened in the province of
Saskatchewan. Premier Devine sat at the table and said: ``I will go
along with this Meech Lake accord idea, but I want something for
it''. What did he ask for? He got a billion dollars for the
agricultural industry. It was a difficult time for agriculture, so he
said: ``I will sell my soul for a billion dollars''.
I spoke shortly after that decision with an aide of one of his
MLAs. This was during the time of the GST debate when the
federal government was trying to implement the GST. I said to this
member's aide: ``Why did our provincial government agree to lend
support? Why are we going on with the GST and why are we going
along with the Meech Lake accord concept?'' Very honestly this
assistant said: ``You have to do something to get a billion dollars''.
(1540)
We have paid billions of dollars in GST to get that billion
dollars. As a province we signed on to the Meech Lake accord even
though the people of Saskatchewan opposed it.
17048
Closed door negotiations without including the Canadian public
is wrong. More than that it is dangerous. It very costly. It detracts
from the reputation of politicians. It gives us a bad name.
We got our billion dollars. Newfoundland got Hibernia. Joe Ghiz
in Prince Edward Island got the fixed link. Mr. Bourassa thought he
was going to get a special deal for the province of Quebec. We all
remember there was a big news story when his staffers got caught
talking on a cell phone. They were debating whether or not he had
sold out too cheaply, whether he gave up too much. In this cell
phone conversation that was recorded some of his assistants felt
that Mr. Bourassa had settled for too little.
That tells us they were wheeling and dealing behind closed
doors. They were wheeling and dealing with our future. It is wrong.
It is dangerous. It is sad that this government is embarking on the
exact same course with the implementation of Bill C-110. It needs
to be defeated. It will not be accepted by the Canadian people if
they have any say in whether it is a success or not.
The same thing was going on in British Columbia. The
wonderful thing about modern technology is that some of these
politicians get caught. They get tripped up. One of the B.C. cabinet
ministers, Moe Sihota, was in the interior of B.C. He did not realize
there was a reporter or a camera there or he was not thinking. He
talked about how B.C. had got the best of the deal at other
provinces' expense.
There was outrage in the province of Quebec. They realized
there was wheeling and dealing behind closed doors. There are
winners and losers. The winners are not the people. The winners
are the politicians who are trying to get re-elected by making these
deals behind closed doors. It is shameful and it is disgusting.
What happened with the province of Alberta? Mr. Getty wanted
something but it has not lasted. He got the election of a senator. We
have elected one senator to the other place and that was through
wheeling and dealing with the Meech Lake and Charlottetown
accords. This one happened to be in relationship to the
Charlottetown accord. That was his plum and it did not even last.
He got one senator elected and after that we just slipped back into
the old patronage system where friends of prime ministers are
appointed to the other place. It was not a very valuable plum that
the premier of Alberta received from his wheeling and dealing
behind closed doors.
The previous prime minister, Mr. Mulroney, has been in the
news a great deal lately. He was involved in this wheeling and
dealing. How did he describe this whole process? He described it as
the rolling of the dice. Do you remember that, Mr. Speaker? You
remember how incensed Canadians were. It began the demise of
the former prime minister as Canadians began to realize these
people were not looking out for the best interests of Canadians.
They were out to protect their own hides and wheel and deal and
see what they could get. They were gambling with our future. It
was repulsive to Canadians then and I assure the House, as sure as I
am standing here, it is repulsive to Canadians today.
If we give the regions a constitutional veto through their
governments alone and bypass the people, there will be wheeling
and dealing again. As sure as I am standing here there will be
closed door negotiations. They will be sitting in a hotel room
somewhere deciding who gets how many senators. They will
deciding what distinct society means. They will be deciding what
special privileges this confers on the province of Quebec. They will
be deciding what plums the province of Ontario gets, if they go
back to this wrongful way of deciding our country's future.
It is time for a new direction. It is time to bypass governments
and their whips. It can be said these 11 people represent the
electorate because they were voted in. I have been here long
enough to know that the way the electorate are represented in this
House is by way of the traditional party whips who whip their
members into voting for legislation. I have been told and I believe
that the same thing happens in our provincial legislatures.
(1545)
In fact you have given power to eleven people without giving
true accountability to the public if you allow the provincial
governments to have a veto, bypassing the people and not allowing
them to speak their minds through a referendum. In most cases
Canadians will reject the approach of determining our country's
future behind closed doors.
I conclude by expressing how important this is. We are not
talking about fishing violations. We are not talking about
registering a pesticide. We are talking about the future of our
country. We are talking about the operations manual for the future
of our country. This will have an impact on my three children. It
will have an impact on our grandchildren. It will impact future
generations, who will ask how eleven people managed to wheel and
deal their future away and no one rose to speak against it.
I am standing against this process. It is wrong. It is harmful to
Canada. It is harmful to our reputation as a democracy. It cannot go
on. It has to stop. Canadians keep telling us to stop. When will the
government listen and abide by the wishes of the people?
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have to rise again because I cannot believe what I am hearing from
the other side of the House.
Bill C-110 has to do with lending the federal veto; it has nothing
to do with enabling a constitutional initiative. This has nothing to
do with a province wanting to change the Constitution. This is
simply a matter of a veto, providing it through federal legislation,
offering it to the four regions of the country.
17049
I do not think a service is provided to the Canadian people when
this kind of disinformation is disseminated across the country by
the Reform Party.
Let us get this straight: this piece of legislation does not change
the Constitution one iota. This is a narrow initiative having to do
with the veto, having to do with offering the federal veto to the four
regions. It is as simple as that. It is unjust, it is wrong, and it
certainly is spreading disinformation to speak otherwise.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, in responding to the hon.
member for Winnipeg St. James let me say that we are not talking
about a change to the Constitution, but about a new constitutional
procedure that could be implemented under the seven and fifty
rule.
We are talking about using the legislatures of the provinces twice
to try to implement something behind closed doors, rather than
going to the Canadian people to ask them directly what their
opinion is and then having that ratified by the seven and fifty
formula, seven provinces with fifty per cent of the population
agreeing to the constitutional change.
This is a very dangerous bill. It is trying to pit province against
province. It is trying to find out who will put forward the best deal.
B.C. and Manitoba in the western provinces, or Nova Scotia and
Newfoundland in the Atlantic provinces, can somehow concoct a
deal with the federal government, with the support of Ontario and
Quebec, to change our Constitution without going to the Canadian
public. Once that is done, the second step is much easier, which is
getting seven provinces with fifty per cent of the population to
agree to the constitutional change. It is sneaky, it is crafty, and it is
wrong. It should be stopped.
Mr. Derek Wells (South Shore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise in the House today to speak on Bill C-110, an act
respecting constitutional amendments. I applaud the Minister of
Justice for bringing forth such legislation at a time when our
country is looking to its politicians for direction. I feel that this
legislation is an important first step toward involving the provinces
more directly in the introduction of constitutional amendments that
directly affect their respective citizens.
(1550)
I was in Verdun on the Tuesday before the referendum and I
heard the Prime Minister's commitments to Quebecers and to
Canadians. I was in Montreal on the Friday for the incredible unity
rally with a large delegation from my South Shore riding and with
some of my family. I experienced the incredible goodwill and
outpouring of affection for Quebec and of course for Canada that
occurred in Montreal. There were 150,000 of us, but we
represented many more.
Those of us who were there and the many others we represented
came away from Montreal with a renewed commitment to Canada
and a greater understanding of what this country is all about. We
also recognized that there would have to be changes in the
federation of Canada, not only a recognition but a will to see that
this would be done. We left Montreal fearful for Canada but
confident and recognizing that after the vote the promised changes
would have to be implemented.
After an agonizing Monday evening we all woke up on Tuesday
morning realizing that we had almost lost our country, almost lost
Canada. We also woke up with a renewed will to do what had to be
done to ensure that Canada was not destroyed. There was a
recognition that Quebecers voted for change but change within
Canada.
This bill and the distinct society motion are both a fulfilment of
the Prime Minister's commitment made in Verdun and a beginning
of the change Quebec voted for, which Canadians support.
In a federation like Canada there is a delicate balance of power
between the provinces and the federal government. Throughout our
country's history it has not been easy to maintain this balance and
appease the entire country. Let us face it, Canada is both the most
decentralized country in the world and the largest. People want to
maintain their own identity associated with their respective
province. Yet many of our most fundamental services are
centralized in the federal government.
I feel very close to my home province of Nova Scotia and to
Newfoundland, my province of birth. Yet I am most certainly a
federalist. It is important to maintain certain services at a national
level so that this diverse country remains the same in some ways
and creates a common bond among all Canadians.
I believe this bill is very important to Canada as a federation. It
is not easy for any federal government to accommodate all facets of
its society. This bill is a step toward hearing the voices of the
provinces, especially in cases where amendments put forth by the
government could be detrimental to a particular region of the
country.
As I said previously, Canada's federation is a balancing act. The
desires of all provinces must be taken into consideration and given
their due weight in the entire scheme of things. The way in which
the veto power will work I am sure was not an easy thing to
determine. However, the formula that has been decided upon is in
my view satisfactory. This particular formula is a replica of the
formula contained in the Victoria charter, which has been discussed
in constitutional circles for decades. Even as recently as 1991 this
formula was recommended for adoption.
The provinces will now be doubly protected in constitutional
matters that directly affect them. This, in conjunction with the
Prime Minister's motion on distinct society, is part of what Quebec
has been asking for. I believe the other provinces will be pleased to
have the same power to veto.
17050
The balancing act I have mentioned is not only between the
federal government and the provinces, it is also among the
provinces. Provinces, like people, feel it is paramount to maintain
equality with their counterparts and receive equal treatment. That
is why I am pleased this bill will make regions within Canada
equal to all other regions. Most important, the veto will involve
all ten provinces, not just one. The balance has been maintained.
Coming from a province the size of Nova Scotia, I am pleased
that the veto has been extended to all of the regions. It will serve as
an added protection to all provinces, especially for smaller
provinces, as in Atlantic Canada. The fact that the provinces
included in the regions are either alone or grouped together with
provinces with similar demographics makes the bill both fair and
equitable.
(1555)
The new veto is especially important to Quebec. Quebecers
should have the right to halt a constitutional amendment that could
endanger the preservation of their distinct culture, language, and
civil law. It is unfortunate, however, that the Bloc Quebecois will
not accept this bill as a first step toward what should be our
common goals. The Bloc will do everything in its power to
discredit this type of action, although any other action, be it
constitutional amendment or whatever, would prove to them to be
unacceptable.
The agenda of the official opposition is to have Quebec separate
from Canada. Hon. members opposite should accept reality and
come to the realization that Quebecers voted to stay within Canada.
We on the government side have recognized this fact and are
dealing with it. This bill is a first step toward improving our
country and making some necessary changes.
While the Bloc will argue that this bill does not go far enough,
the Reform Party will argue that it goes too far. The Reform Party
will agree to change only if that change means nothing. There are
some members of Parliament who would like to separate Quebec
from Canada. There are other members of Parliament who would
like to separate Canada from Quebec. These people will never be
satisfied.
The Constitution is up for review before April 1997. It will be
counterproductive to have constitutional talks now rather than
waiting for the review to take place so that we know if and where
changes are needed. This bill, as I have said, is the first step toward
fixing what needs to be fixed in Canada. I believe it will be quite
productive to deal with one issue at a time, as the Prime Minister is
presently doing.
Quebecers who voted in the referendum want Parliament to
prove we are listening to them. Canadians who wished they could
have been at the rally in Montreal want Parliament to prove we are
listening to them. Canadians want Parliament to make sure we do
not lose sight of the forest for the trees.
I hope those Canadians who invested their hearts in the rally in
Montreal will see that Parliament is working hard to make a
difference for the better. I hope Quebecers and all Canadians will
encourage their members of Parliament, regardless of their party
affiliations, to vote for this progressive course of action.
This bill is central to the accommodation of the diverse cultures
that are evident in Canada's four regions.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to speak in favour of the
actions being undertaken by our government to further the process
of ensuring a united Canada. Our actions will recognize the reality
of Quebec as a distinct society, increase veto power, and move to
eliminate duplication in the area of training.
Prior to the victory for national unity in the recent referendum in
Quebec, Canadians from all provinces told us they wanted Quebec
to stay in Canada. They told us they understood Quebec's
frustration, understood that we must make changes to address the
needs of our fellow Canadians in Quebec. They told us they
recognize the depth of the emotion and they understand its source.
We promised Quebec and the rest of Canada we would deliver
change to them. We promised them this was not just lip service, but
an actual desire, willingness and commitment to achieve change
for lasting unity in Canada.
I contrast that to the actions of the third party, whose solution to
this problem is to pit region against region, one part of Canada
against another part of Canada, and whose view of this nation is
one in which national standards are gutted so that the right become
richer and the poor are abandoned.
We in the Liberal Party believe in Canada, a Canada that
includes our historic First Nations, the founding European people,
both French and English, and the many who have come since who
have added to the diversity of this great country.
(1600 )
We believe in a Canada in which its citizens collectively have
accepted a social responsibility to maintain a social safety net,
including health care, education, security for seniors and income
support for the unemployed. Most of all, we believe in a Canada
built on compassion and inclusion, not the hate and the division
preached by some in this country.
Part of the action we are undertaking addresses one of the issues
of foremost importance to Quebec. It recognizes that Quebec is a
distinct society within Canada. It recognizes those items that make
Quebec distinct: a French speaking majority, a unique culture, and
a tradition of civil law. These distinctions are not new. They do not
17051
exist at the expense of other parts of the country. It is time that
Canada officially recognized this reality.
Our initiative to recognize Quebec's distinct society within
Canada is part of our overall commitment to change. That includes
the concepts in Bill C-110 which gives all of the regions of Canada,
including Quebec, a veto in matters of constitutional change.
As a result of this bill, we will require the consent of Quebec,
Ontario and the Atlantic and western regions before any
constitutional amendments will be accepted by the Parliament of
Canada. This will ensure that all provinces will be active
participants in any evolution of the Canadian Constitution. It will
protect the regions of Canada against amendments that could
potentially diminish their powers, rights and privileges.
We are also introducing measures to give the provinces
jurisdiction over training to eliminate program overlap and to give
all provinces the flexibility they need to deliver training
effectively. These are strong first steps toward refining our
relationship with Quebec and building a stronger Canada. These
are part of our commitment to Canada and to all Canadians.
We live in the greatest country in the world. All members and
our constituents, we are Canada. What we do in the House affects
all Canadians. Our goal is to preserve all that is great about Canada
and to change that which needs to be changed. These are the
reasons we will achieve lasting unity in this country. By working
together, by listening to each other, by honouring our commitment
to change, we demonstrate our commitment to each other and to
this country. That will be our legacy to future generations of
Canadians.
I think we are on the right track. Members of the third party think
we have gone too far. Members of the official opposition think we
have not gone far enough. I believe both of these parties have not
thought this through. They are fighting to gain control for their own
self-serving purposes while our government is fighting for
Canadians and for Canada. That is what is important now. Our
actions speak louder than their words.
Several weeks ago I was on a bus that came from my riding of
Parry Sound-Muskoka. It was filled with constituents who
wanted to be at the giant national unity rally in Montreal to show
Quebecers they were committed to a united Canada and to making
change so that Canada works better for all of its citizens.
As parliamentarians, we are now charged with the responsibility
and the privilege of following through with our promises, of living
up to the faith and the trust that Quebecers and Canadians placed in
our hands following the referendum. We will not let our country
down. We will proceed logically and practically to build on
Canada's strength to work for conciliation and to better the lives of
all our citizens.
These measures are both important and meaningful. What is
more significant, they are achievable in the short term. We can
simply recognize the reality that Quebec is a distinct society, that
all regions of Canada want to have a say in constitutional change
and we are doing that quickly and expeditiously.
The action can later be entrenched in our Constitution if we so
desire, providing Quebec indicates its desire to do so. Granted, if
the Leader of the Opposition becomes the next premier of Quebec
he has already indicated that he certainly does not want Quebec's
distinctiveness to be entered into the Constitution.
(1605 )
The member for Lac-Saint-Jean talks from both sides of his
mouth, as they say. He demands change for Quebec but when it is
offered, even before the details are known, he rejects not the
proposal but the very fact that it is offered. He does not appear to
care about trying to make Quebec a better place in which to live. He
certainly does not care about Canada as he constantly ignores the
oath he took when he came to this place as he tries to destroy this
country. He cares only for power and his place in the sun.
I believe in my country. I believe in a united Canada from coast
to coast to coast. As proud Canadians, we will not soon forget the
overwhelming show of support we saw for national unity across
Canada leading up to the referendum in Quebec. We will not forget
that historic moment on October 30 when Quebecers voted to
remain in Canada.
I am very pleased to add my support to my government's pledge
for lasting national unity. I am pleased we will achieve our goals
quickly and that we will soon return to our task of building an
economy in which jobs and growth occur.
I pledge my continued support for this great country, Canada. All
of us in this place are here for what will be a blink in Canada's
history. In that short time I have a sacred duty and an obligation to
my children and my children's children not to let the forces
attempting to destroy this country succeed. The people of Canada
will stand united and the Government of Canada will ensure that
together we remain one strong nation both proud and free.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member criticized our leader for saying he did not agree with the
distinct society resolution proposed by the government and did not
agree either with the veto proposal.
I think the hon. member failed to realize that the distinct society
proposal does not give Quebec any power, any opportunity to be
distinct.
17052
In fact, what we want is not a piece of paper that offers
meaningless recognition of the distinct society concept. Our leader
reminded the Prime Minister of this yesterday. So I think the hon.
member did not quite grasp the purport of this offer.
First of all, it is not an offer that will be entrenched in the
Constitution, and by the way, at the same time they are saying we
have a veto. Today, they announced Quebec had a veto. However,
they are giving the same veto to the other regions as well. If you
give a veto to everyone, it is no longer a veto. It becomes
meaningless, because the other regions could use their veto to
block Quebec's legitimate demands.
I think this is a trap. They would have Quebecers believe that the
government is responding to their aspirations by offering a veto
and recognition as a distinct society. I hardly think Quebecers will
fall for that.
I have this question for the hon. member. Did he realize what
was involved or was his speech prepared by the Prime Minister's
Privy Council Office or would he just have Quebecers believe they
are not smart enough to understand what the government is offering
us today?
[English]
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the hon.
member, I will answer very plainly.
(1610 )
If the Bloc Quebecois really believes that Quebec is a distinct
society, if it really believes that Quebec should have a veto, if it
really believes in the decentralization and the turning over of
manpower training to the provinces, then Bloc members can prove
it very simply and very clearly: vote for the resolution, vote for Bill
C-110 and do what they say.
When the hon. member talks as he just has, all he is doing is
listing a series of excuses of why Bloc members will not do what
they said all along they wanted to have happen. It is all political
double-talk. If they want Quebec to be a distinct society, then they
should vote for the resolution. If they want Quebec to have a veto,
then they should vote for Bill C-110. If you want control over
manpower training, then vote for Mr. Axworthy's reforms when he
brings those forward. It is fairly straightforward.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Colleagues, I understand the
member for Parry Sound-Muskoka has concluded his remarks. I
will simply remind the House in two areas. In the one instance all
interventions must be made through the Chair and not directly
across the floor from one member to the other, and members should
be referred to either by their riding or their portfolio.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with interest to the comments made by my hon. colleague from
Parry Sound-Muskoka.
When we look at Bill C-110 we are looking at nothing new. We
have looked at this kind of approach to the unity question in
Canada for the last number of years and it is a failure. If anyone
questions the failure of this kind of approach as contained within
Bill C-110, all we have to do is look across the floor every question
period and see the evidence of that failure which sits 53 strong in
this House. For years and years and years we have heard this same
kind of approach and it has failed.
One of the most discouraging aspects about this bill is the
process. At least two premiers have expressed vehement opposition
to it. If the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka believes it is
just us Reformers who are trying to split factions and have factions
fight against factions, let me quote from the front page of the Globe
and Mail. Mr. Roger Gibbins, a political scientist at the University
of Calgary, says: ``This is little short of a constitutional coup d'état
by the Prime Minister''. Mr. Philip Resnick, a political scientist at
the University of British Columbia, states: ``The Prime Minister
hasn't just got a Quebec crisis on his hands, he may also have an
incipient revolt of the western provinces on his hands''.
I would ask the hon. member to consider those comments. We
are getting all sorts of comments like that from our western
colleagues. Surely there must have been some lessons learned from
the Charlottetown accord and the Meech Lake accord. Surely that
top down approach in process alone spells doom and failure in
terms of acceptance by the people of this country, particularly in
the area where I am from.
I ask my hon. colleague if he would respectfully address those
areas that we have to deal with in dealing with this bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I would simply ask the hon.
member for Parry Sound-Muskoka for his co-operation for a brief
response. When members are splitting their time, the time of five
minutes for debate is very short. Therefore the questions must be
put succinctly and we must hope that the responses are brief also.
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief but I will not be able
to address everything the member raised.
This is a time in Canada when we need to put the nation first. It is
possible to be regionalistic in an approach. It is possible to put the
interests of our region first. However it is not appropriate in this
case. In this case Canada has to come first. Canadians have to come
first. That is what we ought to do.
(1615)
This plan will work. These measures will work. There is a time
when it might need to be constitutionalized, but we are not talking
about the Constitution today. We do not want to get into a long
17053
series of where we were in the late 1980s and the 1990s. We have
an economy to deal with. We have jobs to create. Let us get this
done. Let us do it quickly and do it in the interest of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity today to speak to Bill C-110 which deals
with the regional veto.
First, we can say that this year, which is now drawing to a close,
was the year of the referendum on the future of Quebec. In fact, on
October 30, nearly 94 per cent of registered voters exercised their
right to vote. It was an exemplary and laudable exercise in
democracy. In this referendum, 50.6 per cent of the population of
Quebec said no to the sovereignty and partnership proposal of the
Quebec government.
We accept the outcome, although the margin was very narrow,
because we always said, unlike Jean Chrétien, that we would abide
by the verdict-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I simply want to remind the
House that members should always be referred to by their riding or
their portfolio. In this case, the Prime Minister.
Mr. Bergeron: I stand corrected.
Unlike the Prime Minister, we always said we would abide by
the decision of Quebecers.
Democracy is the very foundation of the sovereignist movement,
which will be guided in the pursuit of its ideal by a respect for
democratic values and principles, while abiding by the democratic
decision made by the people of Quebec. Meanwhile, it behooves us
to keep calm and pull together after this vote of historic
importance, until our next rendezvous with history.
However, the extremely close results of the referendum should
give the No side something to think about. The ball is now in the
federalist court. They will have to move with those winds of
change they claimed to feel, all of a sudden, during the latter part of
the campaign when the Yes side was ahead. But they must realize
that after this referendum, Quebecers will no longer be satisfied
with merely cosmetic changes to outmoded and meaningless
formulas or with vague and inconsistent administrative and
legislative reforms.
The vote on October 30 clearly indicated the desire of Quebecers
to be recognized for what they are, a people. To provide that
recognition within the Canadian federal system, major
constitutional changes will be necessary.
The question was, would the federal government be willing to
make those changes and would it be supported by the provinces and
the rest of Canada?
The howls of protest that went up in English Canada indicated it
would probably never respond to the legitimate aspirations of
Quebecers. As for the Prime Minister, considering his past record,
he seems clearly incapable of keeping his promises.
Promises for change were hastily drafted by the federalist camp
during the last days of the referendum campaign. These promises
were not made in a flurry of enthusiasm; quite the contrary, they
were motivated by fear that the yes side would win.
Last Monday, we saw the apotheosis of a panic operation that
started during the last weeks of the referendum campaign. As soon
as the Leader of the Opposition came on the scene to lead the yes
side, the federalist forces realized there was a real possibility they
would be defeated.
To prevent this from happening, the Prime Minister, in a last
ditch effort, promised Quebecers that changes would be made in
Canadian federalism if the no side won. It was the threat of defeat,
nothing else, that forced the federal government to promise what it
cannot deliver. That is obvious if we consider, in chronological
order, the statements made by Prime Minister.
(1620)
Given the speech made in early October in the Maritimes, in
which he ridiculed the idea of enshrining Quebec's distinct nature
in the Constitution, and given his stubborn opposition, until
October 24, to any change in the federal structure, we can only
conclude that the Prime Minister has an aversion to the issue of
Quebec. In fact, the promises for change he made in the last week
of the referendum campaign were vague, and no specific proposal
was put forward at the time.
Remember what the Prime Minister said, on the evening of
October 30: ``For the second time in 15 years, we just went through
a difficult and emotional period. We must now contemplate
innovative solutions, so as to never again go through such an
existential crisis''. Let us not forget that, even at the very end of the
referendum campaign, the federal government did not have any
concrete and innovative constitutional proposal to make to
Quebecers. The government knew that it had to make some kind of
an offer, but that was it.
The very narrow no side victory forced federalists to quickly
make proposals to Quebec. The federal government hastily set up a
cabinet committee to make such proposals. However, from the
moment it was set up, it was clear that this was a phoney
committee, with no real mandate and no real power. The same goes
for the Quebec Liberal Party, which adopted a constitutional
position, if you can call it that, only last weekend. Everything was
done on the spur of the moment by people who are still unable to
listen to and agree with the will of Quebecers.
The deafness of the federalist leaders became even more
apparent on Monday, with the federal government's proposals.
These proposals deal with three specific issues: manpower training,
Quebec's distinct nature, and the granting of a regional veto. In the
Prime Minister's mind, these proposals give concrete expression
17054
to commitments made during the referendum campaign. But what
do these proposals really mean? Nothing, absolutely nothing,
because they will be entirely dependent on the mood of the
government in office, since none of the proposals will be enshrined
in the Canadian Constitution.
At best, these proposals will become trivial motions that are not
binding on anyone. This is what the Liberal government opposite is
intending for the concept of a distinct society. At most, they will be
tabled and passed in the House like ordinary legislation, which may
be revoked at any time by this government or by some future
government. This is where the government wants to relegate
manpower training and the right of veto.
What is really apparent in the November 27 proposals is the
irreconcilability of Quebec's traditional claims with English
Canada's position. We can see, in reading Bill C-110, that never
before has the granting of a veto been so devoid of value. Let us be
honest, this veto, which is apparently being offered to Quebecers is
simply on loan, so long as Quebec does what the federal
government wants.
To illustrate this, we have only to look at the present position of
our colleagues in the Reform Party on the veto for the regions and
recognition of Quebec as a distinct society. Reformers clearly see
Quebec as just another province and therefore will never accept the
concept of a distinct society, even if it were to mean
nothing-which in fact it does. Obviously, the same applies to the
veto for the regions, which to them means giving a sovereignist
government a veto over Canada's future, at least that is what they
claim.
The Leader of the Reform Party has already indicated he would
revoke the veto of Quebec, Ontario and the other regions in Canada
if he ever came to power. In saying so he reveals ever so clearly,
even before it is enacted, the ridiculousness of the Prime Minister's
proposal. Given that the veto proposed for Quebec would be
granted only through ordinary legislation, the Reform Party, once
in power, could simply repeal or amend it.
(1625)
Paradoxically, the mechanisms that are supposed to prevent
amendments to the Canadian Constitution without the consent of
Quebec could be dropped just like that. In fact, since the veto
powers of Quebec and the other Canadian regions are not
entrenched in the Canadian Constitution, it will always be possible
for a political party like the Reform Party, for instance, to deprive
Quebec of its veto.
The same applies to the distinct society resolution. Here again, a
future Reform Party government would have no compunction
about revoking this simple resolution, thus abolishing a
meaningless concept.
The bill before us today illustrates the authoritarian and
paternalistic approach of the Canadian government, which is
refusing to safeguard the interests of Quebec. All this reminds me
of an old trick people use to play. They would take a wallet that was
ostensibly full of money and put it on the ground, attached to a
fairly thin thread that would be practically invisible to the potential
victim. Then they would squat behind a bush and wait. As soon as
the victim saw the wallet he would try to pick it up, but every time,
the other person would jerk the thread and pull the wallet away.
This could go on for some time until there was no more thread left
to pull or the victim realized what was going on or simply gave up.
In fact, until the victim gave up chasing after something he would
never be able to get.
This is like the Prime Minister's constitutional promises. This
week it was obvious that he wanted to give the impression there
was a nice package for us on the table while in fact, he has the
proverbial thread which he can use to take the package back, if he
wants to.
Furthermore, and this is an important point, Bill C-110 gives the
federal government considerable latitude when it must define what
constitutes the consent of a province. Of course, this was all
planned by the federal government, because it wants to keep the
latitude it needs to test the veto granted to a region. There are at
least seven ways for a province to signify its consent or refusal to
Ottawa.
It could be a resolution of the legislative assembly, an order in
council, an order signed by a provincial minister, an order signed
by a province's lieutenant-governor, a provincial referendum
organised by a province, a federal referendum in one or several
provinces, or a vote by the federal members of a given province.
It could easily be imagined that the federal government could
hold a referendum in Quebec to get the province's agreement,
sidestepping the government democratically elected by the people
of Quebec.
On the other hand, the federal plan to give a veto to the regions is
already meeting strong opposition on the part of some English
provinces. For instance, Alberta is against this principle because it
believes that all provinces are equal and, as such, it cannot accept
not to have its own veto.
British Columbia is also opposed to the idea of a regional veto
since, under the present formula, it does not have one. Moreover,
Mr. Harcourt, the province's premier, believes that British
Columbia should have its own veto since, in his opinion, it is a
region in itself. We can see that this right of veto-as pointed out
recently by columnists, observers, and Quebec political analysts-,
and the vague and insipid principle of a distinct society are far less
than what Quebec has always asked for. Some even say that there is
a long way to go before meeting Quebec's historical demands.
17055
(1630)
I would even go so far as to say this is a real setback for Quebec.
This is unacceptable. As soon as each region obtains a veto, and is
therefore able to impact on the decisions of the federal government,
this government is no longer in a position to entrench the principle
of distinct society or the special veto for Quebec in the
Constitution. The federal government will no longer be able to
recognize these principles in the Canadian Constitution if the other
regions obtain a veto on all federal actions and all constitutional
amendments. The government therefore knows that it is guarding
itself against any constitutional entrenchment of the very principles
it is trying to sell us today.
At the individual level, on the subject of a veto for Quebec, there
is evident dichotomy between public opinion in Quebec and in the
rest of Canada.
A Gallup poll conducted November 8 to 13, where 1,005 persons
were polled, showed that 66 per cent of Quebecers want Quebec to
obtain a veto. On the other hand, only 10 per cent of the people
polled in other provinces support that concept. In fact, 78 per cent
of respondents in the prairies, 77 per cent in the Atlantic provinces,
70 per cent in British Columbia and 68 per cent in Ontario are
opposed to it.
These data clearly show that, outside Quebec, the support for a
Quebec veto is slight. This confirms that Quebec could easily lose
its veto after a change of government at the federal level since any
future federal government will certainly want to obtain the support
of all Canadians and that will be at the expense of Quebec.
Finally, what can we say about this federal initiative launched in
chaos and panic only a few weeks ago? As I have just said and
explained, the Ottawa's proposals, meant to fulfil the promises the
Prime Minister made to the Quebec people during the last
referendum campaign, are nothing but smoke and mirrors. The
truth is, we are facing a large scale camouflage operation whereby
the federal government is trying, once again, to hide from the
people the fact that it is unable to radically change the Canadian
federal system.
Quebec has always had legitimate demands and aspirations
within this system. But these demands and aspirations were never
met. Realizing that, after the referendum on sovereignty, the
demands would be higher than ever, the Canadian Prime Minister
did not even try to find a solution to the problems plaguing the
country he is heading. Instead he tried a bit of sleight of hand and
gave us crumbs.
As I said, the Prime Minister is trying to put one over on us; he
would have Quebecers believe that he is making a grand gesture
towards Quebec, but what he does not say is that his grand gesture
means absolutely nothing.
Not only is the Prime Minister's action totally meaningless, he is
trying to make the population believe that he cannot do more in the
area of pseudo-changes because the sovereignist government in
Quebec would prevent him from going ahead with them in any
case. For the federal government it is a way of blaming others for
its problems.
The Prime Minister has taken great care to avoid saying that his
proposal for amending the Canadian Constitution would meet with
strong opposition, perhaps an even more so from some of the other
Canadian provinces than from Quebec itself. Instead, he has
blamed the sovereignist government, refusing to
acknowledge-when the federal government is asking us to
acknowledge the people's verdict-that the people of Quebec
elected that government democratically and legitimately and-I
would remind our colleagues opposite-they elected a majority of
sovereignist members in this House as well.
Knowing that, how could we accept offers from the federal
government that are so weak that they are light years away from the
Meech Lake accord and from Charlottetown proposals, which also
meant nothing or next to nothing.
(1635)
How could we accept something that is even less than what
Robert Bourassa himself never accepted? How could we ever claim
to have the moral and political authority to put ourselves in a
position of extreme weakness relative to the rest of Canada?
No, the Bloc Quebecois, which I am part of, will never agree to
such a window dressing operation by the Canadian federal
government. We will not be the accomplices of the Prime Minister
of Canada in this senseless approach. The Bloc Quebecois will
therefore vote against this bill, because it means absolutely nothing
for Quebec. It is a meaningless bill and, furthermore, it does not
provide any guarantee for the future, any guarantee for Quebec.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to see
that the opposition is not necessarily ready to recognize the
people's verdict of October 30, because the other day, as you know
full well, members of the Liberal opposition in Quebec asked the
Quebec government and its Premier to respect, and above all to
recognize, that verdict.
I find it strange that the PQ government refuses to recognize the
fact that Quebecers have chosen to remain within the Canadian
federation.
Having said that, I still have a few questions for him. For
Quebec, the motion as tabled, the resolution in question, is aimed at
regaining a veto that was abandoned by the former PQ government,
the 1981 government of which the hon. member for Mercier was a
member. I find it strange that they do not want to regain this veto
that the PQ government forsook in 1981.
17056
We are talking about change, about sincere change. The other
day, opposition members accused us federal Liberals of dragging
our feet. They said that they were still waiting. That the
referendum was over. We have now come up with a serious
proposal, which is obviously a step in the right direction, but I
must tell you that if we are in favour of enshrining this veto, and
especially Quebec's distinct society, in the Canadian Constitution,
we are asking the provinces to invite the Canadian Parliament to
entrench this concept, this Quebec reality, in the Canadian
Constitution.
That is why we are asking the opposition to do the same thing,
because the Leader of the Opposition, as we know full well,
supported the concept of Quebec's distinct society not so long ago.
Unfortunately, they are not ready to do so, and that is why we made
a formal commitment not to enshrine anything in the Canadian
Constitution without the support and consent of Quebecers, and
above all of their National Assembly.
I urge the hon. member of the opposition to pressure his leader,
who will likely become Premier of Quebec, into making a public
commitment today in the House of Commons to tell Quebecers that
he, too, will recognize Quebec as a distinct society and ask
Parliament to ensure that this principle is entrenched in the
Canadian Constitution.
Mr. Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine for his comments more than
for his questions, since there were few questions in his comments.
I would say that we, of course, recognized the decision made by
Quebecers on October 30, as evidenced by the fact that we are still
sitting as members of this House and taking part in proceedings.
We as Quebecers are still paying our taxes to this government and
complying with federal laws and regulations. We therefore respect
the decision made by the people of Quebec.
I would remind my esteemed colleague from
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine that Quebecers simply
rejected a proposal from the Quebec government. Their no vote
does not mean that they are willing to accept just anything. Despite
the claims made by our friends across the way, the no vote is no
indication of Quebecers' attachment to Canada.
(1640)
They simply rejected a proposal. That is all. One thing is for
certain: by voting no, Quebecers did not indicate that they would be
happy with any symbolic trifle like what the government is now
trying to sell us. Accepting this kind of trifle does not imply a
recognition of the decision made by Quebecers. Rather, it is the
government that does not abide by their decision by trying to pull
the wool over their eyes.
As for that famous right of veto, the government continues to try
to fool us, to have Quebecers believe that at one time they had such
a veto, that they could have used it but that the then premier of
Quebec gave it up. The fact is that the Quebec premier of the time
did not give up anything. The Supreme Court, that august assembly
of Canadian judges, ruled that Quebec never had any veto.
Therefore, we could not give up something we never had.
The government wants us to believe that this bill will
re-introduce this vague notion of veto power that never really
existed, as confirmed by the Supreme Court. In order to be valid,
that power would have to be enshrined in the Constitution.
However, this is not what is proposed in the bill, quite the contrary.
The bill ensures that neither the concept of distinct society, nor
Quebec's veto power will ever be entrenched in the Constitution
since the other Canadian provinces, or regions as they are now
called by the federal government, could use their own veto to
oppose the entrenchment of these two basic concepts.
The member opposite should know that, traditionally,
constitutional negotiations have always carried high expectations
but invariably produced very little. Now, the government would
have us believe that, for the first time in history, in spite of the
current political situation, these meagre and minimalist proposals
will ultimately turn into big and beautiful things for Quebec and the
rest of Canada. It goes without saying that no one believes that
except, of course, the hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
As for the concept of distinct society, the hon. member should
know that Quebecers have reached the point where they will
definitely not settle for anything less than their recognition as a
nation. Quebec is a nation and wants to be recognized as such, and
not merely by a vague and meaningless motion in this House.
As for accepting the results of the October 30 referendum, the
hon. member should know that we could never-as indicated by
the current leader of the opposition and future Quebec
premier-accept less than Meech, which was rejected, and
Charlottetown, which Quebecers rejected. What is being proposed
now is not even close to Meech, and not even remotely close to
Charlottetown.
[English]
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
shed a tear for truth. From time to time in this chamber truth comes
under great strain and I think this is one of those times.
Earlier in his speech the hon. member for Verchères described
himself and other separatists in the province of Quebec as victims.
They live in the country called Canada, one of the greatest
countries in the world and he has the gall to say he is a victim. We
have one of the greatest charters of rights and freedoms in the
world and he says he is a victim. He stands in the highest court in
17057
the land he spouts his separatism and his separatist complaints and
he describes himself as a victim. Give me a break.
The member says that the ball is now in our court. Exactly and
what is the Prime Minister doing? He made two specific promises
in the referendum and he is acting on those promises right now.
The member says that Bill C-110 is a watered down approach.
What was Meech Lake? Was it watered down? Was it acceptable to
the separatists? No. What about Charlottetown? Was it watered
down? Was it acceptable to the separatists in Quebec? I do not
think so. Is there anything on the face of the earth that would be
acceptable to the separatists in Quebec short of giving them a new
country? The answer is no. He can answer the question, yes or no.
If he wants to be honest he will say no.
(1645)
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Winnipeg St. James for his question.
First, the hon. member would certainly do well to reread my
speech tomorrow in Hansard, for I never claimed that we were
victims. Quebec has gone far beyond that in its historical
development. Quebec is not a victim, it is simply a people.
I did say that the ball is now in the federalist court-I hope he is
listening in the foyer-the ball is in the federalist court, but the
federalists should not keep the ball to themselves.
That being said, I would like to get back to his statement that
separatists, as he calls them, were in disagreement with the Meech
Lake accord and with the Charlottetown accord. First, it has to be
said that if he goes over the history of this again and if he tries to
remember the events that led up to the Meech Lake accord, he will
realize that there are people who are sovereignists today who, at the
time, were in favour of Meech.
The Leader of the Opposition is a fitting example. He was in
favour of the Meech Lake accord. The hon. Leader of the
Opposition was in favour of Meech.
The Meech Lake accord, which represented the most minimal
conditions Quebec had ever put forward, having been rejected, how
could we, the sovereignists, accept less that Meech with the
Charlottetown accord?
Of course, to answer the hon. member's question, all of the
sovereignists were against Charlottetown.
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before I hear the hon.
member on a point of order, I just want to say that the word
``dignified'' was used and I am very pleased to see how dignified
this debate in the House of Commons is.
The hon. secretary of State on a point of order.
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask, through the
Chair, if there is unanimous consent to extend the sitting until 11
p.m. tonight, so that we can go on with this debate on Bill C-110.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was not possible to reach an
agreement pursuant to Standing Orders 78(1) and 78(2) with
respect to the proceedings at second reading of Bill C-110, An Act
respecting constitutional amendments.
Therefore, I give notice that, at the next sitting of the House,
pursuant to Standing Order 78(3), I will be moving a time
allocation motion for the purpose of allotting a specified number of
days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at
that stage.
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the series of motions and the legislation that is before
us today essentially come down to three items: the issue of the
regional veto, the distinct society and attempts to further improve
the economy of the country with more devolution and
reorganization of economic activity between the provinces and the
federal government.
This all must be considered in light of the fact that in
approximately 18 months a meeting between the provinces and the
federal government will be required to consider the 15th
anniversary of the 1982 agreements with respect to amendment and
that must be borne in mind at all times. As described by the
Minister of Justice, this is a bridge to the meeting which will take
place 18 months hence. Those who would like to have the motion,
the resolution and the economic measures expanded to something
greater should recognize that.
(1650)
Some of the suggestions I have heard, particularly from the
Reform Party, would take over a year to implement. There would
have to be a full discussion, meetings and the whole long rigmarole
which we remember from Charlottetown. It should be understood
17058
that this is not a substitute for the 1997 meeting which will be held
between the provinces and the federal government.
I point out that the distinct society definition is quite limited.
The wording has been very carefully chosen. It is that the House
recognize that Quebec is a distinct society within Canada and that
the House recognize that Quebec's distinct society includes its
French speaking majority, its unique culture and its civil law
tradition. These are important parts of the Canadian reality which
are generally understood and accepted across the country.
Wherever one may be in Canada it is well known that there are
these three elements of Quebec society which distinguish that
society from the societies of all other provinces and territories.
It is also important to recognize that Canada is not a
homogeneous country. It is a country of many variations: regional
variations, variations in its population, where it came from, how
settlement has developed and how attitudes have developed. It is
that diversity which we celebrate so often and which makes Canada
one of the more unique countries of the world. It is an important
part of the Canadian reality. It was that long before 1867.
We have to remember that diversity means there are differing
needs and differing aspirations in the different regions of the
country. Historically, provincial differences have dictated the need
for different approaches. The British North America Act and the
changes which were implemented in 1982 with the Constitution
have made it perfectly clear that we have historically recognized
those differences. If we go back beyond 1841 we will find that the
differences within Canada have always been recognized in
constitutional documents. It is one of the reasons so much of the
country has been able to flourish. It is the reason for which we are
the envy of the world.
Acknowledging Quebec as a distinct society is part of something
perfectly logical and natural. It is not something which is being
forced on any part of the country. It is a recognition of differences
of which we have all known since our first days as Canadians. It is
part of the evolution of Canada to recognize that distinctiveness
and to make the accommodations which the bill and the resolution
put forward. It is also a recognition of the affection and
considerable pride which Canadians have in Quebec, which we saw
in the few days before the referendum vote.
I would like to speak about the veto. These changes have not
come completely out of the blue. They have been discussed before.
Veto provisions were discussed at the time of the Victoria charter in
1971. Vetoes have been discussed at many constitutional
conferences, in the press and elsewhere. In no way is this some
sudden imposition of a formula which has been devised. It is a
responsible recognition that over that long period of time certain
basic understandings of the nature of the country have become
evident with respect to the Constitution and the veto, particularly
with respect to the 1982 changes.
(1655)
Again I would stress that the current formulae for changing the
Constitution are in four categories. You have some changes which
would require the federal government and all the provinces before
there could be a change. Others affect only a single province and
the federal or perhaps even single provinces themselves and their
neighbour. In addition you have this category which is the seven
provinces and 50 per cent of the population.
All that is being put forward is that the federal government is
limiting itself by legislation in the manner in which it will exercise
the federal veto. It is not a constitutional change and that should be
recognized. It is not a question of embarking on some great
adventure as has been attempted by previous governments with
Meech and Charlottetown where there were many things
incorporated as well as the issue of the veto.
I will turn to the veto with respect to western Canada and in
particular, with respect to British Columbia, my home province. At
the present time for British Columbia to succeed it would have to
impose a veto on constitutional change under the seven and fifty
formula. It would have to have the support of three of the smaller
provinces, so there would be four provinces opposing. In other
words, the seven provinces requirement would not be met. Or else
British Columbia would have to go in with one of the bigger
provinces and thus, get 50 per cent of the population opposing.
The present proposal which does not change the Constitution is
that if British Columbia opposed a constitutional change and it got
one of the three western provinces to agree with it, then the federal
government would not proceed with the constitutional change.
Thus there is the so-called veto. The veto remains with the federal
government but it would be exercised in that way. That is very
important.
There is a substantial change proposed with respect to the
powers of British Columbia on the veto. That is why I thought it
appropriate that the headline in the newspaper pointed out that B.C.
and Quebec were getting changes and the two provinces were listed
side by side.
Second, when British Columbia gets to the position of having 50
per cent of the population of western Canada, then of course it will
essentially have the veto of its own in the same manner as Quebec
and Ontario.
At the present time British Columbia is about one-third the size
of Ontario and about one-half the size of Quebec. In the not too
distant future, because currently British Columbia has a about 44
per cent of the population of western Canada, it will reach 50 per
cent; when, I do not know. All I know is that over the last 15 years
British Columbia has dramatically expanded with an increase in
population of something approaching 29 per cent. It is important to
recognize that there has been substantial gains and this trajectory,
this trend is likely to continue.
I will turn to the point that has been raised that this will
somehow prevent future constitutional change because there will
always be provinces which will oppose it. Obviously we will never
17059
get constitutional change, for example, with respect to the Senate.
To this I say I do not think we should sell future generations of
Canadians so short. They will be capable of making intelligent
decisions, just as we have been, just as our forefathers and mothers
and all past generations have been.
Why do we have to suggest that they will be unable to handle the
matter of constitutional change to take care of the differences that I
spoke about at the outset of my speech in an acceptable manner?
Obviously they will be able to do that and we should trust them to
be able to do that.
Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with the hon. Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development. This is a responsible
package which will help hold us as a country together and allow
that diversity and development and ability to continue to remain
the world's leading country in the future.
We want a united Canada in British Columbia. We are willing to
recognize that there have to be some trade-offs. Not everybody can
get everything all the time. There has to be some recognition that to
keep Canada going we cannot simply be a people who say no to
everything.
(1700)
When we have a whole country to govern there must be
trade-offs. This country we are trying to govern happens to be the
best country in the world. I think it is well worthwhile to make the
trade-offs to keep it together and that is what this package is all
about.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before proceeding to the
five minute question allocation to the hon. minister, it is my duty
pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the
questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as
follows: the hon. member for Jonquière-Committee chaired by
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs; the hon. member for Parry
Sound-Muskoka-Confederation Life Insurance Company.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according to
the minister of National Revenue, the veto will improve the
Canadian economy and, since Canada has a highly diversified
make-up, this diversity will also help to improve the Canadian
economy. He never mentioned that the most important aspect of
this diversity is that Canada is made up of two nations. They never
say this. He did not mention it.
He also said that Canada is the best country in the world, that we
are the envy of the world. I find it strange to still hear that today
when Canada has an 11 per cent unemployment rate and when there
are more people on welfare in Quebec than at any other time in the
history of our country. This is beginning to sound strange.
He also said that the veto will help to amend the Constitution. I
find that strange and utterly unacceptable since the more vetoes
there are, the lesser the chance we have to amend the Constitution.
To me, what the government is proposing and what the minister is
saying all boil down to the fact that these numerous vetoes will
mean that it will be impossible to amend the Constitution. It is as
simple as that. This a trap that the federal government is setting for
the Quebec government because, with this veto, it will be
impossible to amend the Constitution.
Would the minister please tell me how these vetoes will make it
easier to amend the Constitution? As you know, it is quite the
opposite. I would like him to prove that.
[English]
Mr. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the first point made was that
somehow the veto was linked to the economy. Let me put it this
way. The economy will benefit dramatically from getting the
wrangling of constitutional issues such as the referendum and
separation out of the way. The economy will improve when we deal
with these measures here in the House quickly and get back to the
real agenda for all Canadians, whether they live in Quebec,
Ontario, British Columbia or any other province. We must get the
economy back in shape, get interest rates down and get the
unemployed that the member's party has never linked before to the
issue of constitutional development. Fortunately you now have and
I think it is about time that you recognized the linkage between
the-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I just want to remind hon.
members to make their interventions through the Chair. Sometimes
it can be very helpful.
Mr. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, you will note that the hon. member
for the first time is linking these constitutional issues with
unemployment. It is about time the Bloc recognized that because it
is very important.
The member goes on to say that there can be no change and
vetoes will be there. Vetoes provinciate, he is right. Does he regret
that we are giving or establishing a veto for Quebec so that the
constant refrain that Quebec will be forced to accept changes from
other parts of Canada will suddenly disappear as a complaint, a
whine, a constant background noise that we hear from the Bloc
Quebecois? Maybe that is the Bloc's concern. The issue is that if
there are major changes the regions of the country, Quebec,
Ontario, the maritimes, the west, or British Columbia do not want,
then there is no point in proceeding with the changes because they
are unacceptable to the overall.
17060
(1705 )
Let us not get entirely hooked up on the issue of constitutional
change. These are not constitutional measures. It is an example of
the ingenuity of Canadians. It is an example of the ingenuity of the
Prime Minister in overcoming problems without necessarily going
back to the Constitution. If in the future people would like to see
changes, administrative arrangements that would improve the
system of government of Canada, I will bet that future generations
of Canadians will be just as good as we are at arranging them
outside as well as inside the Constitution.
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand here
today to enter this debate. As Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, I will start by repeating what the Prime
Minister said yesterday vis-à-vis aboriginal people:
As it concerns the aboriginal people of Canada, my government is clearly on
record as respecting their aspirations. We recognize the unique legal position of
aboriginal people, including the protection of aboriginal and treaty rights in the
Canadian Constitution and the inherent right of self-government.
What does that mean? It means we must listen, and I address the
separatists, when Grand Chief Matthew Coon-Come of the Cree
says that ideological separatists will not treat them like cattle,
moving them from one territory to the other. We must listen when
the Inuit vote 95 per cent no and when the Crees vote 96.3 per cent
no, and when the Montagnais vote 99 per cent no. We will listen.
The Prime Minister has proposed that Quebec be a distinct
society. He has proposed that we will make no constitutional
change that affects Quebec without consent and he has delivered. I
want to be here when the leader of the Bloc stands up and does not
support this because it tells me his agenda is simple separation. It
tells me that when he looks out his window to look at the French
fact in Canada, the only thing he sees is his own reflection.
Maybe I am losing it. I sit here day after day and see the hon.
member for Bourassa who is from Chile. He is a political refugee
who has come to this country. Oddly enough, this country Canada
is an Iroquois name that means the village. Quebec is a Micmac
name which means where the water overflows. The hon. member
for Bourassa sits here and he debates and thinks in a British
institution whether he should be called by a Mohawk name or an
Iroquois name, while taxpayers pay his salary. If he thinks long
enough and gets re-elected he will get a pension. Only in this
country Canada would we be that tolerant. What a democracy, but
that is a fact.
Oddly enough, 15 years ago I gave my maiden speech in this
House. I was sitting over there. The maiden speech is a member's
most important speech. You come with your life experience and
you want to say what is important to you. My maiden speech was
about the French Canadian fact in Canada, their contribution to the
national character of this country. I had come off the CRTC where I
sat with Rhéal Therrien who was the vice-chairman then. He would
say to me: ``Ron, a country is not a piece of paper; it is a frame of
mind''.
It was so important to me to get my life experience on the record.
As the member of Parliament for Sault Ste. Marie I spoke about the
French Canadian fact in Canada. I spoke about the importance of
biculturalism and multiculturalism. To that I would add the culture
and the aspirations of the First Nations people of this country.
You see me every day fighting for aboriginal rights, but I fought
just as hard for French Canadian rights because I come from a part
of this country with 700,000 franco-Ontarians. You do not want to
even seem to acknowledge that there are places-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Colleagues, order.
Mr. Irwin: The Bloc does not want to even acknowledge that
there are places like Dubreuilville, Chapleau, Timmins and
Sudbury in Ontario where there are 700,000 francophones. What is
going to happen to them? The Bloc does not care.
(1710)
We have lived with these people for generations. They are our
family. They are our neighbours. We share our schools with them.
Bloc members do not care. I am convinced of that. They do not care
about the Acadians. They do not care about the franco-Manitobans.
They only care about their agenda.
Members of the Bloc talk about Cartier, Champlain and LaSalle.
These are Canadian heroes and they are as important to my history
as they are to any separatist. The Guy Lafleurs and the Cardinal
Légers and the giant French Canadian community in industry and
science and on the international stage. I remember them.
I remind the separatists that except for a few months, in 25 years,
in a quarter of a century of leading this country, all of the Prime
Ministers have been from Quebec. I remind the Bloc that we are the
party of Laurier who cared about French Canadians in Quebec, who
cared about French Canadians outside Quebec, who cared about
Canada on the world stage. If Laurier were looking down today at
the leader of the Bloc, he would weep.
I cannot say much more for the Reform members who thought
Meech was too extensive. They opposed Charlottetown because it
was too extensive. Today, I heard they cannot support this because
it is a single page. I saw the way they voted on the aboriginal
issues. I see how they treat the francophones here.
I was shocked when the Reform Party that wants us to sing ``O
Canada'' in this House said that 50 per cent plus one on a faulty,
fraudulent question divides and destroys this country. This
generous, historical piece of property on this planet, and Reformers
would destroy it with 50 per cent plus one. I used to find the
17061
Reform interesting. I now think the Reform is dangerous if that is
the philosophy its members are spreading across the country.
I do not know how I can convince the Bloc members. What they
are destroying is the spirit of the French Canadians. These are the
people who were at the foothills of the Rockies, who explored
Hudson's Bay, who opened up the Mississippi.
I returned from Williams Lake, Alberta the day before yesterday.
North of Williams Lake is the town of Quesnel, British Columbia. I
just happened to be there. I remember this point from 15 years ago.
Maybe it was part of the point I was going to speak on today. Who
knows how the creator works. Fraser is the explorer who found the
mighty Fraser. He got it named. He had a better publicist but those
people, all nine of them, who paddled his canoe were French
Canadians and the aboriginal people in that area showed him the
way.
That is my Canada. That is my concept of who we are. It has
been 15 years that I have been prepared to fight in my area of
northern Ontario for the aspirations of francophone minorities until
the very day I die. I am prepared to stay here and reaffirm my
commitment.
When I vote personally on the resolution next week, I will not be
doing it with timidity. I will not be doing it as the leader of the
separatists say, because it is politically expedient. I will do it with
pride because I believe it is important to my country.
There were 150,000 people who came to the Montreal rally.
There were French Canadian federalists there. It is a misconception
when we say that the people in Quebec are separatists. There are
staunch French Canadian federalists in Quebec and they were at
that rally, but we were there together. Why? To say that we love this
country.
The leader of the separatist party mocks that love. He mocks it.
He tries to destroy former Prime Minister Trudeau by mocking
him. He tries every day by mockery to destroy our present Prime
Minister. If Louis St. Laurent or Laurier were here today, the
separatists would do the same thing. I see it every day. That is their
agenda.
(1715 )
In my city of Sault Ste. Marie we had 2,000 steelworkers show
up at an opening on a Friday or a Saturday. There were two days
that went together. They took their hats off when we were singing
the national anthem. It was amazing. I have never seen that. It was
cold. The next day 1,000 people showed up in Sault Ste. Marie.
They raised Canadians flags and Quebec flags. I looked down and
saw young people there saying ``We love you, we want you to
stay''. It was the first meeting for these little kids, and they looked
at me and said ``Do not destroy this country''. That is my Canada.
The Haida people of B.C. have a creed. They say ``We do not
inherit this land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our
children''. That should be our creed.
My forefathers came from Italy and Ireland. They were very
poor. From the Irish I learned that we have to pay something back. I
am the fourth politician in my family. My grandfather Alfred was a
councilor; my uncle Tom was a mayor; my uncle Fred was a
councilor; I was a mayor. They said ``You must pay something
back''.
From the Italian side, my grandmother, without even knowing
the language, had to go from Rome by train, then by boat to Halifax
all the way up to Sault Ste. Marie to meet my grandfather. She
could not speak the language. She had eight kids. If she could be
here and see today that her grandson is a member of Parliament she
would be so proud. She taught me that this country is the best
country in the world. It is.
I do not know if there is an afterlife. I hope there is. If there is, I
am sure that Laurier, my grandmother, and my grandfather are up
there saying ``Go for it''. That is what we should be doing.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I just want to
comment briefly on what the Minister of Indian Affairs said.
First of all, there is something I do not understand although I
have been here in Ottawa for a number of years. Why is the federal
government using aboriginal peoples in many cases to discredit
Quebecers? Perhaps he will admit it today, since only yesterday, his
deputy minister admitted they would have to give aboriginal people
in Quebec financial compensation for voting no.
I also remember that a few years ago, they used aboriginal
people to file claims in New York, to prevent the Great Whale
project from going ahead.
It is rather amazing to see the minister stroking aboriginal people
today and trying to tell Quebecers that he loves them and wants to
promote economic and social development, when meanwhile, the
same minister is using aboriginal people to prevent Quebec from
developing its hydro potential, for instance. Those are a few
examples.
Of course, it is not easy to prove all that, but anyone who is the
least bit intelligent and has an interest in economic development
and politics is aware of this, and Quebecers are very much so.
Aboriginal people were consistently used to obstruct megaprojects
in Quebec, probably to promote other sources of energy like
uranium or western oil. This is atrocious.
If the Minister of Indian Affairs thinks we can trust him, he is
wrong. We have seen too much evidence to the contrary, and
Quebecers are not easily fooled.
17062
He referred to the people in Sault Ste. Marie, and I agree with
what he said and I want to thank them. I suppose they wanted to
apologize for what they did two or three years ago, when they
trampled Quebec's flag. I imagine he remembers that. Of course
these people wanted to apologize, and I understand that and
appreciate it. We remember very well what happened. It was on
all the tv channels. The people of Sault Ste. Marie trampled the
Quebec flag two or three years ago. Today, they want to apologize.
We are pleased that they did, and we appreciate the gesture. But
people should stop trying to fool us.
(1720)
[English]
Mr. Irwin: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to read
my speeches and look at my record. I would not be here in the
Prime Minister's cabinet if I in any way felt the way this member
says I do.
Why are they worried about the separatists in Quebec? It is
because you have a premier talking about ``the ethnics''. You have
a vice-premier, and you know what he did. You have a member in
the Quebec legislature who calls the aboriginal people gypsies. You
have Max Gros-Louis, chief of the Hurons, who is saying the
separatists are racist.
The separatists are living a lie. They say that Canada is divisible
but not Quebec. That is a lie. There is such a thing as the 1898 line.
There is such a thing as territorial integrity. There is such a thing as
Cree territory, Mohawk territory, Abenakis territory, Micmac
territory. Every time the separatists put that lie out, this minister is
going to repeat what I said in Quebec at every house, at the UN and
at Geneva.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I must now resume debate.
Having passed, I believe, the five hours of debate, we now go to the
next stage of debate, which is ten minutes without questions or
comments.
If I might ask the House for its co-operation, it is 5.23 p.m. and
the hon. member for Calgary Southeast would be given a full ten
minutes. I would not see the clock at 5.30 p.m. until three minutes
past, so she would have her full ten minutes.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the consent of the House on that suggestion.
The last thing I heard last night before I went to sleep was Jason
Moscovitz on ``The National'' talking about the dreariness of this
debate and how we were again looking at the discussion that had
come up during Meech and the Charlottetown accord. There was a
dreariness in all of this discussion because the House was mostly
empty, the galleries were devoid of people, and there was no one
around with any passion or enthusiasm to talk about the matter of
Canada.
When I woke up this morning I thought I wanted to capture some
of that in what I have to say today because I think it is important we
remember what brought us here. I thought I would like to direct my
comments from where I sit. Where I sit in the House of Commons
is a very special place for me, because I have watched for two years
the House of Commons work together, pull together when we
needed to and have debates that were reasoned.
Over time something has happened. Now we have this
rancorous, bitter exchange across the floor of the House of
Commons. I wondered about that as I reflected on the throne
speech of January 1994. I recall what the leader of the official
opposition said that day about his responsibility as an opposition
party: ``We intend to take these responsibilities seriously and we
will do so loyally, correctly, and with due resolve. We know that is
what Quebecers expect us to do, and they would never forgive us if
we deviated from this path''.
Although that was a very tough foreshadowing of this debate
today, I believe that what the hon. Leader of the Opposition was
saying that day was that he wanted to work within a democratic
environment for the good of his constituents and for the rest of
Canada. His vision was one we should never forget to respect,
because his vision is his own vision, as the Prime Minister's vision
is his vision and the leadership of our party carries our vision.
None of us respect that. We have forgotten that we should
co-operate and that our professional lives are within these walls.
The rhetoric we hurl across the floor has become meaningless. No
wonder everyone feels so embittered.
On that day the Prime Minister said: ``By working
co-operatively to create economic opportunity, by restoring
common sense to our public finances, by rebuilding a sense of
integrity in government, and by pursuing a positive and innovative
agenda for our society, my ministers are convinced that Canadian
unity will be preserved and enhanced''. Where have we come from
that day to today, when we are talking about constitutional
amendments, constitutional veto, distinct society? He made a
promise to Canadians two years ago that it would not be that way in
the House of Commons.
Our leader, prior to the election, said on October 12, 1993: ``I
personally believe that the Canadian people have the capacity and
the desire to define not only what this election should be about, but
what kind of Canada they want for themselves and for their
children for the 21st century. In other words, I believe it is possible
for a new vision of Canada itself to emerge from the bottom up if
we begin to truly let the people speak their hearts and minds''.
17063
We came here as a different party with a different vision. We
never were told that the difference was a good thing; we were
always told it was bad. No one could define that difference in
terms of a new idea, a new vision, a different way of looking at
this country. We were always told we were bad. We were poor
performers in the House of Commons. The press gallery said that
our ideas were poor. How could a bunch of hayseeds or rednecks
from the west ever have a good idea to put forward? It was our
vision and it should have been respected in that context, but it
never was. Part of the reason it never was is why we are here today
debating constitutional matters and distinct society.
I ask all members to remember why we are here. Our
constituents sent us here. We have forgotten about that
representation. We are not simply preparing for an election in
1997; we are renewing and retooling Canada for 2050. That is
something we absolutely must not lose sight of in this debate, that
we are retooling our vision for this country for the next
millennium, for our children and for their children. We are really
leaving them with one hell of a mess. Excuse my language.
The issue of unity does not reside in a unity committee, a small
committee with a small number of people who have small ideas.
Those ideas are going to capture the hearts and minds of the
country if they go out to the people. It is the people of the country
who are going to make the difference. They are the ones who drive
the engine and the heart of Canada. We can sit here and debate this
issue until we are all white with exhaustion and fatigue and we can
be embittered. But I believe we have a country that is worth
working together for.
It must be that westerners understand there is an opportunity to
become involved in a debate, but so too must Quebecers and
easterners recognize there is an opportunity for us all to debate. It
should be taken out of the House of Commons and placed into the
hands of the people of Canada.
Eugene Forsey wrote in his memoirs: ``I have faith that
Canadians, both English-speaking and French-speaking-would be
able to face the future united-`One equal temper of heroic
hearts-strong in will To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield'''.
That is what we must do in the House. The bitter rhetoric we hear
every day must give way at some point to argument that is
reasoned, to ideas that are new, to a vision that will take us into the
next millennium. My fear is that we are not moving in a direction
whereby we are recognizing one another as colleagues and as
Canadians.
The hon. member of the official opposition has become a very
embittered politician. I have seen that over two years and from
where I sit it is sad to see.
The Prime Minister, this man who had the hopes, hearts and
tremendous support of Canadian people, has become shrivelled in
his ideas, in his demeanour and in his approach to the country. We
are back to this dreary Meech and Charlottetown debate.
I am not saying that the Reform Party has all the answers, but
until we start talking together as Canadians even the best of visions
will have no place to go but in its own entrenched little part of a
balkanized country. It is my hope and prayer that will not happen.
I cannot support the bill because it would concentrate the power
in the hands of governments and not of Canadians. I remember why
I was put here by my electors in Calgary Southeast. It was to carry
their hopes, their dreams and their visions for a Canada into the
third millennium.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.30 p.m. the House
will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
17063
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from October 26 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-315, an act to complement the present laws of
Canada that protect the privacy of individuals with respect to
personal information about themselves obtained by certain
corporations, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in the House tonight on an issue of
grave importance, the protection of personal information. I am
pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-315, an act that will
help to protect the privacy of Canadians. Since Bill C-315 was last
in the House much has happened on the issue. Several groups have
called for federal government action to protect the personal
information of Canadians.
First, the Canadian Standards Association has expanded on its
voluntary privacy codes and its desire for implementation of those
codes.
Second, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre based in Ottawa
released a document entitled ``Surveying Boundaries: Canadians
and their Personal Information''.
Third, the Information Advisory Council established by the
Minister of Industry continues to push for recognition of its privacy
recommendations.
The protection of personal information is a serious concern for
all Canadians. If we do not begin to address the unauthorized
collection and exchange of personal information about
unsuspecting Canadians now, we may not be able to stop it at all in
the future.
Bill C-315 gives us the opportunity to counter the invasion of
personal privacy before it gets out of control. New technology and
17064
universal access to the Internet have accelerated the problem and
immediate government action is critical.
I quote from The Economist:
Individually, most new technologies are introduced for perfectly benign
motives. Their cumulative effect, however, is to cast a shadow over personal
privacy. Is it really acceptable for most of your actions, even the most mundane,
to be recorded and then sold to the highest bidder? Most people take their
privacy for granted but are outraged when it is breached.
The growth of computer technology makes tasks easier for
Canadians, but at what cost? I am very concerned that Canadians
have their privacy compromised every day without their
knowledge. Companies routinely collect information about them
every time they use a credit card, buy something over the phone or
subscribe to a magazine.
An Industry Canada paper released in October 1994 stated:
While each technology brings different capabilities, they all contribute to a
completely unprecedented capacity for the surveillance of every man, woman
and child, whether as a customer, student, employee, patient, taxpayer, or
recipient of government services. It is this growing trend for information
systems to place limits on our freedom, on our life's potential, that privacy
advocates and science fiction writers alike find utterly chilling.
(1735 )
Just what will Bill C-315 do? It specifically tries to curb the
collection and exchange of personal information. This could
include names and phone numbers, business addresses and phone
numbers, any identifiable physical characteristic, religion, national
or ethnic origin, age or other information about education or
financial history. The information is recorded in many ways:
electronically such as on a floppy or hard disk, manually on paper
or microfilm, or virtually such as in computer memory or an
electronic network.
Bill C-315 would require all companies covered by the Canada
Labour Code to abide by some very strict privacy protection
guidelines. Before selling any list containing an individual's
personal information, the person would be sent a notice that, first,
personal information about the individual as listed in the notice is
held by the company; second, permission is needed to keep the
person's name on the list; and, third, the person shall be told his or
her name can be removed at any time at no cost.
In addition, any corporation using a purchased list shall send to
everyone on the list a notice containing the source of the
information, a description of the information held and a statement
outlining how individuals can have their information removed.
Companies receiving a removal request must comply within 10
days and confirm with the individuals that their requests have been
acted on.
Non-compliance will result in a summary conviction. For a first
offence a company or individual would face a fine of up to $5,000.
A repeat offence could double the maximum fine to $10,000.
Charges would have to be laid within one year of the offence.
The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin who introduced the bill
would be amenable to increasing the sentences if the industry
committee studying the bill believed that they are too weak. It
might also look at strengthening the bill to prevent the rental of
information lists.
In September the Canadian Standards Association released a set
of privacy codes after wide consultation with several agencies and
associations. It sought to develop its code at a time when there was
growing debate about the range of innovative approaches to the
protection of personal data on the information highway.
There is one big problem with the code. Adherence is strictly
voluntary. While the code may be good, it is merely a band-aid
solution and has no teeth to protect consumers from greedy
companies with no regard for their personal privacy. By the
association's own admission none of the codes has any explicit
statutory force in contrast with the privacy codes developed under
the mandate of legislation and the oversight of a data protection
agency.
In addition, the association also admits that ultimately the
success of the CSA model code will depend on the various
incentives that might operate to encourage registration. Several are
noted and discussed: moral suasion, the desire to avoid adverse
publicity and the use of the privacy standard for competitive
advantage.
Is this realistic? Companies that profit from a $300 million a
year industry will hardly be overcome with moral suasion or a
concern about adverse publicity. While the CSA code may
convince some organizations to operate more responsibly, most
organizations will only use it when it is convenient for them or if
they must comply.
The CSA notes that in New Zealand and the Netherlands where
privacy codes have been complemented by statutory regulation,
there is more effective protection of their citizens. In Canada
combining the CSA's code with the legislative teeth of Bill C-315
will provide consumers with real privacy protection.
The Public Interest Advocacy Centre is a non-profit group that is
also focused on the protection of personal information. In a recent
paper it investigated whether there is a problem. It found that 76
per cent of Canadians believe they have less control over their
personal information than they did 10 years ago; 95 per cent of
Canadians want to be informed about collection processes and
about the uses to which their personal information may be put; 94
per cent insist permission be sought and given before any informa-
17065
tion is passed on to another organization; and 86 per cent want to
understand how new technology can affect their personal privacy.
It is clear from the research done by the organization that
Canadians are very concerned about their privacy.
(1740)
Bill C-315 would establish statutory protection without the
requirement for any new taxes. It is the missing link advocates are
calling for. The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin has assured me he
would support changes the industry committee might suggest when
it examines the bill. We must act soon. Every day we dawdle, more
personal information about private citizens will be collected and
sold.
I conclude with a quote from a book called ``A Consumer's
Survival Guide to a Cashless World'':
As consumers we often feel powerless to change the status quo, but public
pressure can succeed when enough people get excited about practices they feel
to be wrong or unfair. The only way it will change is for us as consumers and
citizens to demand fuller disclosure, stronger privacy protections and better
security procedures.
We can wait no longer. Consumers and citizens want and need to
see changes to the rules that protect personal information. Bill
C-315 is an answer to a concern that each and every member of
Parliament shares with his or her constituents. I urge the House to
support the bill so we can begin to protect the personal privacy of
all Canadians.
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when Bill C-315 was first debated in the House in the month of
October I must say I was impressed with the information the hon.
member brought to us in support of the proposed bill. I understand
the original complaint brought to the hon. member for
Cariboo-Chilcotin was from an individual who found himself on
the mailing list for pornographic materials and was unable to stop
the material from arriving. While this may not be the most
damaging type of abuse of personal information, many Canadians
would agree it is one of the most annoying and can leave people
feeling helpless and frustrated.
The bill the hon. member has put forward, however, would do
nothing to stop this kind of privacy invasion. While I share the
concerns expressed by the Reform Party about this kind of abuse, if
Parliament is to intervene with new legislation, we had better be
sure we are doing something which actually fixes the problem.
Here are some of the flaws in Bill C-315. First, it would apply
only to corporations. Many operators who do this kind of thing are
individuals or small partnerships and would not be covered by the
legislation.
Second, it applies only to the narrow range of corporations
engaging in a federally regulated activity. This would include those
in the banking, telecommunications and broadcast industries but
not small entrepreneurs.
Third, it does nothing to solve the problem of operators setting
up outside our jurisdiction, such as across the U.S. border.
Fourth, it addresses only the issue of people's names appearing
on lists or nominative lists, as the practice is referred to in the
Quebec privacy legislation that covers the private sector.
Technologies are changing and developing quickly these days.
Information is being collected and messaged in new and different
ways. It may soon be out of date to talk about lists because
information travels easily and is gathered automatically. It is no
longer necessary to hand someone a computer tape to trade
information.
In addressing the protection of personal privacy we ought to talk
about the use of personal information in the broadest possible
ways. The rules we come up with should address every sector of the
economy, not only the direct marketing industry.
Instead of working on the bill we should support the work that
has been ongoing for several years at the Canadian Standards
Association, the CSA. The consensus committee passed a model
privacy code in September of this year, the result of three years of
work in a committee with representation of industry, consumers
and federal and provincial governments.
This code of fair information practices is soon to be published as
a national standard for Canada. This initiative has the support of a
broad range of private sector organizations including the Canadian
Direct Marketing Association.
(1745 )
In fact, on October 3 of this year the president of the Canadian
Direct Marketing Association called on the Minister of Industry to
introduce legislation in the House that would use the CSA standard
as the basis for legislation federally and to encourage the provinces
of Canada to do the same in their jurisdictions.
I understand that the issue is being studied by the departments of
industry and justice with a view to developing solutions that will
work for the protection of personal information in all sectors of the
economy and across the country. This is a huge and complex issue
because the increasing availability and use of personal information
and consumer profiles to target service delivery affects virtually
every sector of the economy in some way or the other.
The protection of personal privacy was identified as a key
priority early in 1994 when my colleague, the Minister of Industry,
established the Information Highway Advisory Council to advise
him how to make the most of the new possibilities brought to us by
the communication networks. The council studied the issue,
17066
consulted experts and produced a number of recommendations on
privacy.
I will read them now. First, the federal government should act to
ensure privacy protection on the information highway. This
protection shall embody all principles of fair information practices
contained in the Canadian Standards Association draft model code
for the protection of personal information. To this end, the federal
government should continue to participate in the development and
implementation of effective national voluntary standards based on
this model code.
Second, the federal government must take leadership in the
implementation of these principles through the following actions:
in co-operation with other levels of government that share
responsibility for various sectors of activity on the information
highway, it should establish a federal-provincial-territorial
working group to implement the privacy principles in all
jurisdictions.
It should create a level playing field for the protection of
personal information on the information highway by developing
and implementing a flexible legislative framework for both public
and private sectors. Legislation would require sectors or
organizations to meet the standard of the CSA model code, while
allowing the flexibility to determine how they will refine their own
codes.
In co-operation with the CSA working group on privacy, and
other interested parties, it should study the development of
effective oversight and enforcement mechanisms; establish a
working group to co-ordinate the development, demonstration and
application of privacy enhancing technologies for the provision of
government services and information; update and harmonize
appropriate privacy protection policies, legislation and guidelines
applicable to its own operations and to the delivery of government
services and information.
Third, Industry Canada should establish a working group that
includes representation from the private, provincial and federal
governments and consumer organizations for the purpose of
increasing public awareness and understanding about privacy
issues and personal privacy rights through the preparation and
dissemination of educational materials and encourage the CSA to
advance its privacy standard in international standards fora.
There are several other recommendations on encryption,
educational and health records but I will not take up more time to
read them. As members can plainly see, this is already a tall order
that the advisory council for the information highway has presented
to my colleague, the hon. Minister of Industry. I know the
Department of Industry is engaged in discussions with other
departments involved in the privacy issue, notably the Department
of Justice.
This is a complex issue. Serious work has already been
undertaken by the government to address the problem. I believe we
should wait until the Minister of Industry has studied the
recommendations and can report to us on progress.
Finally, we need more protection for personal information than
is offered by Bill C-315. I say we should get on with the work and
not take a detour down this path.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in this debate on the
bill tabled in this House by our colleague, the hon. member for
Cariboo-Chilcotin, which is aimed at protecting the privacy of
individuals with respect to personal information about themselves
obtained from certain corporations.
(1750)
This is a very important issue in the world in which we live, an
issue that, too often, is not taken seriously but that has major
consequences in people's lives.
It is no secret that just about any personal information is now
available for all kinds of purposes to almost any individual or
corporation wishing to obtain this information. In the business
world, everyone knows that our personal credit records can be put
under the microscope by all kinds of institutions interested in
digging into our past. Everyone also knows that, more often than
not, information on our lifestyles and consumption patterns falls
into the hands of all kinds of individuals and corporations whose
goals may be questionable, without most governments being
concerned about it.
In this regard, I say right off the bat that although the bill tabled
by our Reform colleague does not, as the hon. member for
Winnipeg St. James just pointed out, meet all our expectations with
respect to this problem, it places it in the public domain and urges
the federal government, which so far has been negligent in this
area, to examine the problem and, hopefully, come up with more
restrictive legislation in the near future.
What I also like about our Reform colleague's initiative is that
he refers to the Quebec legislation. In introducing his bill, he
referred to the fact that, in 1994, Quebec enacted legislation to
protect personal information not only from public institutions but
also from private enterprise. This legislation was Bill 68, which, as
I mentioned, was enacted in 1994.
I said earlier that Bill C-315 is quite commendable as far as its
goals are concerned, but that it has flaws that should be pointed out.
First of all, the bill refers to the sale of information. Any federally
registered company wishing to sell information on a group of
individuals would have to notify each of these individuals of its
intention and of the personal information in its possession, and to
17067
obtain his or her consent. Never can we in any way prevent
companies from providing information or exchanging lists,
provided the lists are not actually sold.
So, there is some kind of a loophole there that should be looked
at and plugged if at all possible. There is also, as I said earlier, the
requirement to send a notice concerning the sale of any list of
individuals. But, even if this bill is passed, nothing will stop
companies from selling information on one individual at a time.
(1755)
These two examples show that there are deficiencies in the bill
put forward by our friend from the Reform Party, deficiencies that
must not be overlooked. As the hon. member from the Liberal
Party suggested earlier, perhaps in a future bill we can take all of
this into account and come up with ways to prevent this kind of
problems.
Another point I wanted to raise is the small fines for
non-compliance. The bill provides for fines of $5,000 to $10,000. I
was listening to the hon. member from the Reform Party who spoke
before me talk about the huge profits generated by the sale of this
kind of information. It stands to reason that imposing such small
fines is not likely to discourage companies from breaking the law.
We should therefore make sure that fines are much larger, stiffer.
Another deficiency of this bill concerns the type of personal
information covered by the act. A full list, a rather long list in fact,
can be found in clause 2 of the bill. Again, it is not quite complete.
The problem in making a list is that you can forget to include
major elements. I would like to point out that there is no mention,
in this list, of political affiliation. I gather that this information is
not considered personal in nature. Criminal record, work
experience, place of birth, sexual orientation and mother tongue are
not included or listed either in clause 2 of the bill, while I would
think this information as strictly personal information that needs to
be protected under a bill like this one.
To conclude, as I said at the outset, although the bill contains
major deficiencies, it at least has the merit of being a first. It is a
step in the right direction, as the first piece of legislation
introduced by the federal government to protect personal
information.
This debate is also an opportunity to alert the public to the real
danger of not having legislation on the subject. In a way, as limited
as its scope may be, it is difficult not to support this bill.
I would like to point out, since our colleague from the Reform
Party referred to the Quebec legislation, that the latter is much
more meaningful and precise. I would hope that when this act, if
passed of course, is amended in the future, we should be able to
refer to the Quebec legislation to ensure that personal information
is better protected.
This goes to show, once again, if you do not mind my saying so
without a trace of parochial spirit, that in many areas like this one,
Quebec's know-how can easily be exported. People are welcome to
refer to our legislation; they will not be disappointed.
I will close on this, just adding that the Bloc Quebecois supports
the bill put forward by our colleague from the Reform Party.
(1800 )
[English]
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while I
agree with the spirit of Bill C-315, I am not in a position to support
its content, which I find narrow and burdensome, particularly in
consideration of the much broader and flexible measures presently
being looked at.
Bill C-315 has a narrow focus when broad based measures are
needed to ensure the level playing field for industry while
protecting the privacy of Canadians. With advances in information
and telecommunication technologies, the privacy of consumers is
at risk, but this bill does not provide the type of broad based
protection which is necessary.
As part of a global economy, we can expect that cross-border
consumer transactions will increase and with them a related growth
in direct to home sales of the type which make regular use of
mailing lists in order to gain access into the homes of Canadians.
Mailing lists, when combined with other transaction related
databases such as credit ratings and financial accounts, can be
assembled into profiles of individuals. These records can cross
national borders, be exchanged, resold, reused or integrated with
other databases, often without consent or remuneration, for
purposes unrelated to those for which the data were originally
collected.
Consumers are frustrated and angry when subjected to perceived
intrusions by commercial interests into their personal domain.
Personal information privacy is an issue of considerable
importance to Canadians as has been revealed by numerous surveys
in recent years.
Bill C-315 has a very narrow focus. It applies only to the sale of
lists containing personal information when in reality the normal
business practice is the rental of such lists. The bill focuses
narrowly on lists when in fact a vast amount of personal data can be
blended and put together from the type of consumer transactional
data currently exchanged between firms or within large
organizations.
The bill only applies to federal corporations when in fact mailing
lists and other information is often transferred between provincial
corporations, individual proprietorships and partnerships.
17068
If passed, the result would not be a level playing field of clear
and consistent privacy rules applying to all sectors, but rather a
patchwork quilt of uneven privacy obligations from sector to
sector, firm to firm and jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Other initiatives currently under way might provide a better
approach. We are currently studying these options. Most notable is
the Canadian Standards Association model privacy code. The CSA
code sets out 10 principles governing how personal information
should be collected, retained, kept up to date, used and disclosed by
the private sector.
Adoption of the code by firms using mailing lists would tend to
ensure that consumers are informed of the existence of such lists,
given the opportunity to consent to their use and verify their
accuracy.
The CSA code is voluntary, but I propose and support that it
become the basis for flexible framework legislation. The Canadian
Direct Marketing Association, the Information Highway Advisory
Council and Canada's privacy commissioner all agree. The CSA
model privacy code represents a potential basis for the
development of flexible national standards.
I agree with the spirit of Bill C-315 and applaud the efforts of the
hon. member in this regard. However, I am not in a position to
support its contents as I find it too narrow, particularly in
consideration of the much broader, flexible and less costly
measures available to us.
I will continue to work to convince the government to introduce
broad based and enforceable privacy protection for Canadians'
personal and financial information in the marketplace. I feel that
such legislation is important to my constituents. It is important to
all Canadians. The legislation that we can accept must be
enforceable, must have teeth and must apply to institutions like
banks. It must also consider new technology like the Internet.
I believe that this bill is too narrow and does not create a
comprehensive framework to deal with the real privacy concerns of
all Canadians. I commend the hon. member for his efforts but I fear
that his bill does not go far enough.
(1805)
[Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on this bill. I must start off by saying that I
applaud this initiative on the part of my colleague and can see the
good intentions behind it. I do, however, also believe, having seen
the criticisms of it, that it contains certain weaknesses which I
would like to point out. At the same time, I would like to review the
entire matter, propose some potential solutions, and point out why
it will be very difficult to proceed with such a bill.
As I have said, this is a well intentioned bill but one with a
number of weaknesses which have already been described by a
number of my party colleagues and by at least one member of the
opposition.
[English]
I believe that if we were to send this bill to committee and try to
correct it we might lose some significant time trying to redirect an
approach which some people would believe is too narrow to
address all of the concerns Canadians continue to express about the
protection of their privacy. That is not for me to decide by myself.
Let me share with the House why.
Every time we open a newspaper we see another story about the
abuse of personal information with the potential that new
technology has to invade our privacy and provide surveillance of
our every movement. Even the chairman of Microsoft, Bill Gates,
in an article which appeared in the Ottawa Sun on September 20 of
this year pointed out the need for government action and indeed
legislation to protect privacy in the face of new technologies which
he would be well placed to understand.
He used the example of software programs which would replace
human travel agents and track customers' tastes and preferences to
give the best possible service.
He states in the last two paragraphs of that article: ``The
marketplace may be able to resolve some of these issues. For
example, customers may learn to avoid travel agencies that don't
share personal profiles, or that share them too freely''.
``But the marketplace won't resolve every privacy issue. Neither
will technology. What's needed is a great deal of unrushed debate,
leading to intelligent public policies''.
I doubt that these new automated travel agents would be covered
by Bill C-315 and we need to consider how serious a problem this
might be.
I applaud the hon. member for bringing the issue of privacy
protection to the attention of Parliament. I believe that he has done
what he ought to do. I believe that we could follow Mr. Gates'
advice and start a process of unrushed debate leading to intelligent,
profound public discussion on a policy that will meet the needs of
today's society, not necessarily by accepting this bill and fixing it
but by building on the work that has been done in Canada where we
have among other initiatives the first data protection legislation in
North America to cover the private sector. I refer to Bill 68 in the
province of Quebec.
We need a far more comprehensive approach to these problems.
The government has been doing the groundwork necessary to
provide greater privacy protection. I would like to talk a bit about
17069
this work and about a better way perhaps to address the hon.
member's concerns.
My first point is that the Canadian Standards Association model
privacy code provides a basis for a broad based approach to privacy
protection.
The Information Highway Advisory Council has recommended
to the government that it bring in flexible framework legislation
based on this code and that it work with the provinces to find a way
to get a standard of fair information practices incorporated in the
areas where it does not have jurisdiction.
On October 3 the Canadian Direct Marketing Association
echoed this, calling on my colleague, the Minister of Industry, as
minister responsible for consumer affairs, to table framework
privacy legislation in the House of Commons. The CDMA has been
a key player in the development of this national standard for the
protection of privacy under the aegis of the Canadian Standards
Association. I applaud not only its efforts in helping to develop this
code but the leadership that it has shown in recognizing the merits
of the legislation.
The House will recognize that it is not often that industry calls
for more legislation. I think this action underlines the importance
of privacy in the minds of consumers and the need for us to look at
it carefully in all of its aspects. In particular, I believe that we must
respect both the rights of the citizen and the information needs of
industry when we think of legislation.
(1810)
There are legitimate needs for personal information gathering in
each sector. Banks need to gather information to assess credit risk,
medical researchers need to conduct long term health studies to
determine the effects of drugs, environmental concerns and health
practices. Direct marketers do not want to send special offers for
lawn mowers to folks who live in apartment buildings. Market
research helps us as a society to tailor product innovations to the
needs of consumers. These are good uses of personal information
and we do not want to shut down the use of personal information.
Bill C-315 could shut down federally incorporated businesses
doing direct marketing through the use of lists because while the
bill speaks of obtaining the consent of each consumer, which
sounds to be a reasonable enough option, the administrative burden
and liability involved in this process would cause businesses to
drop the activity altogether in a number of cases.
This may or may not be the goal of the hon. member but I believe
both consumers and Canadian business deserve a more careful
approach to the problem and one in which they can actually
participate.
The Information Highway Advisory Council made a number of
other recommendations concerning the protection of personal
information, including the use of technologies which protect
privacy. It called for the banning of scanning devices which
monitor cellular transmissions. It called on the federal government
to form a federal-provincial-territorial working group to start a
dialogue about some of these important issues and work together
for harmonized solutions. It called for the CSA to continue its work
and for the consensus group which crafted the model privacy code
to work together to develop meaningful oversight.
These are all thoughtful suggestions from a group of experts who
took the time to study the issue in some significant depth. I believe
that we should wait for the government response to these
recommendations before we jump the gun and attempt to start
legislating privacy protection.
As I come to the end of my remarks, I would like to share with
the House a letter which was given to me that I think speaks to the
issue. It is as follows:
Please share the following message with government MPs who will be
speaking today on Bill C-315.
Members of the Canadian Direct Marketing Association agree that a
legislated comprehensive set of privacy principles is needed to guide business
in their activities to respect the rights of the individual. There is an excellent
model to accomplish this in the 10 principles of the new code for the protection
of personal information of the Canadian Standards Association.
The current bill before Parliament, Bill C-315, while formatted with the best
of intentions, is so fundamentally flawed that it cannot be saved by any
amendments. The bill would not accomplish the fundamental purpose of
protecting personal privacy; would seriously limit an individuals' freedom of
choice and would be an unnecessary and destructive interference in the
marketplace.
CDMA is very concerned that if this bill is allowed to proceed to committee,
the consensus among business, consumer groups and government which
produced the CSA code after two years of hard work and compromise, will
entirely collapse.
It is signed, John Gustavson, President and Chief Executive
Officer.
It is up to the members now to decide how to proceed.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-315. I
should begin my complimenting the hon. member for having put
the bill before the House. I believe that its intent is good and that
the idea of trying to protect consumers and ensure that the personal
information we supply as individuals to corporations and other
entities is not just used willy-nilly in whatever fashion somebody
other than an individual may decide.
(1815 )
It no doubt is disconcerting for consumers to go to large
institutions and buy a product or get a service of some sort and all
of a sudden appearing in their mailboxes the next month, and
oftentimes for the next decade, are solicitations of one sort or
17070
another. Obviously consumers are not anxious to see that happen.
They are not anxious to have that practice continue to the extent it
obviously is. In that respect, I want to compliment the hon. member
for putting together a private member's bill to deal with that.
The bill and the process of correcting the problem needs to go
beyond the recommendations that are in front of us here today. We
need to continue a process that has already been undertaken by the
government. There is a consultative process that many of my
colleagues have talked about previously in the House, where the
industry department is working on this issue and in coming up with
the solution is trying to be as comprehensive as possible to deal
with this problem in a way that finds a good workable solution and
finds a solution in a way that is not going to by itself create a
burden for the consumer, is not going to create new government
bureaucracy, is not going to result in a situation where adherence to
the new rules will be so expensive that invariably and inevitably
that kind of increased expense would be passed on to the consumer.
In reviewing the bill, there are a couple of places where I think
we need to step back and ensure the problem is dealt with more
comprehensively. As has been mentioned by a number of
government speakers previously, one of the concerns with the bill
in the format it is being presented to the House is that the definition
of personal information is too narrow. We want to make sure that
when we address the issue of privacy and confidentiality we do it in
as broad a manner as possible and capture as many of the situations
that are occurring out there as possible. We do not want to deal with
this piecemeal, where we deal with one aspect of the problem and
then have to come back and deal with others. We want to make sure
that the definition of personal information is indeed as broad as
possible.
We also want to make sure that in solving the problem we do not
create a new problem. I know the hon. members of the third party
would agree with me that the last thing we want to do is create a
new regulatory regime, a new regulatory infrastructure that places
an enormous burden on businesses. The way this bill is drawn up
and the amount of consultation and notification that would have to
take place when we are trying to delete specific information would
create an enormous burden for individual businesses. There is
probably a more efficient way to do it, a way that would not create
quite as much of a workload and create such additional burdens on
the private sector.
In coming up with the solution for the problem in this particular
bill, it is going to call for a whole new amount of direct mailing as
you ask for permission from the consumer to use their particular
name. If the list is being sold then people have to write to the
consumer and ask for their permission and then they have to write
back. That seems like a very difficult and cumbersome type of
situation.
There is a concern about capturing a very narrow portion of the
market, those corporations that are federally incorporated.
Obviously there are a lot of other entities that exchange and use
information, right from an individual through partnerships,
provincially incorporated entities.
(1820 )
It is important we ensure we have as broad a scope as possible in
the bill. As I mentioned earlier, we have to ensure we address as
vast a range as possible of consumer privacy concerns. I really
believe we have to deal with this problem in as comprehensive a
manner as we possibly can, making sure all of the issue is dealt
with.
As I said in my opening remarks, obviously the intent of the bill,
the desire to ensure consumer protection, is excellent. It is one the
constituents in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka and I am sure
all Canadians want to have addressed. They are genuinely
concerned, particularly in these days of computerization.
Information can be transferred electronically and in great amounts
from one institution to another. They are concerned in that kind of
environment that their privacy be protected.
As the hon. member who introduced the bill knows, it is
important that the consumer receive protection in this respect. That
is why I believe it is important to broaden this initiative. When we
address the problem we must ensure that we address it in the fullest
possible way. When we have done our work we must ensure we
have covered as much ground as possible in order to protect the
greatest number of consumers we possibly can.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
we consider Bill C-315 we should review what the government is
doing in this area.
Industry Canada and the Department of Justice are working on a
comprehensive approach to privacy protection to respond to the
recommendations of the information highway advisory council.
For this reason, I do not want to support Bill C-315. I would rather
wait until the Minister of Industry tables his response to the
information highway advisory council.
Both that council and the Canadian Direct Marketing
Association have called for comprehensive legislation based on the
Canadian Standards Association's model privacy code. It seems to
be more advisable to start from this consensual base and start the
work that needs to be done to get broad-based support in the full
community for action in this area.
I understand that the ministries of industry and justice are
examining the recommendations I just mentioned. They are trying
to come up with a broad based approach to the issue that both
consumers and business would prefer. Any such approach would
encompass existing voluntary efforts and the many excellent codes
business has already put in place in a voluntary fashion. We should
17071
take the time to allow this process to unfold and not start working
on quick fixes to one problem after another.
This is not to underestimate the work of my hon. colleague who
brought forward the legislation, but rather to pull the threads
together of work that is being done in many areas of government on
this issue. For example, my colleague, the hon. member for Nickel
Belt, has also called for a national privacy law, building on the
work of the Canadian Standards Association. He has also called for
a working group to be struck to work on the drafting of such
legislation, ensuring that it is enforceable and that there is an
independent body for oversight. I commend his interest in this
issue and I would suggest that we build on the work that is already
going on in government.
(1825 )
Bill C-315 would require that an organization notify each
individual on a mailing list each time that list is sold to another
organization and ensure that the individual's consent has been
received. In addition, it requires that the organization selling the
list also notify that same individual that his or her name has been
obtained. The legislation deals only with the sale of mailing lists.
Organizations would have 10 days to comply with requests from
individuals to have their names or certain elements of information
removed from the list. Fines for repeated offences could reach
$20,000.
This legislation would affect the marketplace narrowly, in that it
focuses only on personal information linked to mailing lists. It does
not provide protection for personal information involving the vast
majority of marketplace transactions.
The role of the federal government could be open to
constitutional challenge, in that the regulation of personal
information provided as part of a contract could be interpreted as a
provincial responsibility. Quebec has already made such a claim in
establishing privacy legislation applicable to all personal
information gathered as a result of marketplace transactions.
A government infrastructure would be required to enforce the
legislation. The sheer number of names contained in mailing lists
suggests that there would be numerous complaints to be handled by
the federal government. The resulting bureaucracy could be very
costly.
Some have said this legislation is too narrowly focused to
provide adequate protection of personal information. Lists are
more commonly rented than sold today, and the legislation fails to
address rentals. The legislation would be costly to enforce and
cannot deal with nominative lists originating with organizations
based outside of Canada.
A recommendation from the information highway advisory
council on establishing framework privacy legislation is currently
under consideration.
I know the minister does not support the passage of the bill at
this stage, as he is hoping for a broader response to this very current
issue that affects consumers. As a result, I am not going to be
supporting this bill, although I would like to thank the hon. member
for bringing this important issue forward to the front burner of our
national agenda. I believe we should ask the Minister of Industry to
report back to the House on the work that is in progress rather than
cut short his efforts and those of the justice minister by starting
fresh work in a new and more limited direction.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I had understood Reform Party
members wanted to put up an additional speaker. I was leaving that
time available. However, if they do not intend to speak then I would
certainly wish to debate this bill. If they could perhaps indicate
whether they do have another speaker, I would be happy to stand
down.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I am not here as a negotiator,
just as a Speaker. I am simply putting the question to the House.
Mr. Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that there
would be another speaker from my party. If the debate has come to
a conclusion, I would like an opportunity for a brief summary.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There may come a time for
that to transpire, but right now we are simply resuming debate. I
give the floor to the chief deputy whip and there is approximately
one minute remaining.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one
obviously cannot speak a great deal on this important issue in one
minute. However, let me just take the minute to acknowledge the
importance of the issue that has been brought forward: the
protection of the privacy of individuals in an increasingly
technologized world.
I do not think any of us can go through a day without being aware
of how much very personal information about us is available to a
myriad of people without our knowledge and the fact that the
putting together of that information can jeopardize our privacy
extensively. That is precisely why the Minister of Industry is
addressing this extremely important issue and fully anticipates
bringing measures forward to the House earlier in the new year.
(1830)
The bill is well intentioned. It has some flaws in it, however. It
would be appropriate for the proposer of the bill to engage in
another hour's debate on the matter, to make some points as have
been made in the debate so far that he believes need to be
considered by the government in drafting the bill, and to take the
17072
points forward in debate on legislation that will come before the
House. Potentially there will be amendments. We are open to
having appropriate action on the matter for the protection of
Canadians and their privacy.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the order is dropped to the bottom of
the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
17072
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on November
24, I put a question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I
asked him whether the interim report he transmitted to the Prime
Minister on behalf of this committee included the option of putting
before the House a simple resolution on the distinct society concept
and whether that option was the one favoured by his committee.
As usual, the minister evaded the issue, saying it was not up to
him to reveal the results of the work of this committee and that
later on, at the appropriate time, the opposition would see whether
that was the Liberal government's option.
We asked this question because we wanted to warn the
government against proposing to the House a simple resolution to
recognize Quebec as a distinct society within Canada. We simply
wanted to tell the Liberal government that it was useless, that it was
an entirely symbolic gesture that would in any case fail to satisfy
Quebec because it did not go far enough and would be rejected by
English Canada because it would involve too many changes,
according to them.
We wanted to say this because in Quebec, the distinct society
issue was raised in the Liberal Party's platform around 1984 or
1985. Robert Bourassa, who was subtle in his approach, had found
this expression and used it as a synonym of the concept of the
Quebec people, to make it palatable to English Canada. Basically,
Mr. Bourassa thought that Quebecers would agree, saying that it
was in fact a synonym of the Quebec people and that English
Canada would agree in the belief that it meant nothing. History has
shown that English Canada was right.
At one point the concept surfaced in the Meech Lake accord. It
has often been said that this particular concept was more important
than the one in the federal government's current proposal, the
claim being that it would affect the way the Constitution was
interpreted and that the concept of distinct society in the Meech
Lake accord would even take precedence over the charter of rights
and freedoms.
This was far from obvious. Eminent legal experts in English
Canada, including Professor Peter W. Hogg at York University,
claimed the opposite was true, and said quite clearly: ``The new
section does not take precedence over the charter of rights and
freedoms. In fact, as a straightforward interpretative clause, it is
subject to the charter''.
(1835)
Had the Meech Lake accord been accepted in its day, we would
have found ourselves again before the Supreme Court, which
would-contrary to what Premier Bourassa said-again have
concluded that the agreement Quebec had signed in good faith did
not take precedence over a fundamental element of the
Constitution, namely the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Obviously we have nothing against a constitution's containing
sections aimed at defending citizens' rights, but nevertheless the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been useful to those wishing to
block the aspirations of Quebec, to restrict its development
culturally and linguistically.
That charter has helped these people, whom I could almost
describe as malevolent, to hobble the development of Quebec and
to make it so that today Quebec has no other solution than to
promptly and firmly reject any notion of a distinct society and to
come up with the proposition that was ours during the last
referendum, which is to state loud and clear that Quebec is not a
distinct society but a people, period.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
November 24, the member for Jonquière asked the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs a question on the federal government's
intentions regarding Quebec.
The Minister responded, quoting the Prime Minister, who had
said the following:
To ensure the change and modernization of Canada, no change is excluded.
The Prime Minister promised he would act on the matter of a
distinct society and the matter of a veto. He acted on these two
promises very quickly, and Quebecers have seen that the Prime
Minister is a man of his word, who keeps the promises he makes.
The committee discussed the matters of a distinct society and a
right of veto, and we have already seen the initial results, which the
Prime Minister announced Monday. The distinct society clause is
one Quebec has long sought.
17073
The Prime Minister of Canada's resolution finally accords
Quebec Canada's full recognition, because Parliament is the only
place representing all Canadians from all regions.
The Prime Minister had promised during the last week of the
campaign that he would act to reinstate the right of veto that René
Lévesque had lost. We will reinstate it, and this is a big step toward
resolving Canada's problems.
The changes required can and must be made within Canada. This
is the message sent to all Canadians, including the members of the
official opposition, by the October 30 vote.
As the minister said yesterday in the House, his committee is
currently studying other questions, including rationalizing powers
among the provinces and Canada, and will submit
recommendations to the Prime Minister when they are ready.
Our aim is not to destroy Canada, but to build it. This is what the
majority of Canadians and Quebecers have asked us to do, and,
because we believe in democracy, we will try to continue to build
Canada.
[English]
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, following on my question to the Secretary of State for
Financial Institutions, I wish to emphasize that many of my
constituents in the riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka have had their
retirement savings jeopardized by the collapse of Confederation
Life. They have come to ask for assistance because as every day
passes they are suffering financial uncertainty as a result of the
collapse of this financial institution.
Obviously what has happened as a result of the collapse of
Confederation Life has affected each and every one of them, but
some are paying a higher price for the collapse because of their
own personal financial circumstances. It is for these people that I
urge a speedy dissolution of the assets of Confederation Life, an
expedited liquidation process, so that all Canadians affected by the
collapse receive their money as quickly as possible.
Not long ago I presented a petition in the House with over 500
signatures on behalf of a group of Bell Canada pensioners who
were frustrated not only with the collapse of Confederation Life but
also with their inability to convince their employer, Bell Canada,
that it had an added responsibility to the company's pensioners.
These pensioners believe that because Bell Canada not only chose
Confederation Life as the administrator of its group RRSP but also
encouraged its employees to participate in the plan, it must now
take responsibility for those actions.
The petition I presented calls upon Parliament to initiate an
investigation into the collapse of Confederation Life with
particular reference to Bell Canada's responsibility toward its
employees' funds. I too would like to see this matter resolved
expeditiously.
Unfortunately, this whole matter is essentially in the hands of the
liquidator and the government's ability to intervene is somewhat
limited as a result. We know that when a financial institution goes
into liquidation it ceases to be a regulated financial institution and
responsibility for the distribution of the estate passes to the
liquidator under the court's supervision.
My concern right now is with the length of time it is taking to get
through this liquidation process. One of the greatest priorities is to
recover as much per dollar as is possible by getting the best price
on the sale of assets. That is a given. It is my hope this process can
be hastened in the interests of those who have been affected by the
collapse. We need to get those funds that are guaranteed paid back
to the investors, the men and women in this country who put their
faith in this company, Confederation Life.
Retirees with the Bell group RRSP investments below the
CompCorp limit will eventually be fully compensated for the time
value of their money. The failure of Confederation Life did not
affect Bell's principal pension plan, but in the case of amounts
above the $60,000 CompCorp limit, until the liquidation process is
completed it is impossible to determine the proportion of benefits
that will eventually be paid.
Granted, in the two previous liquidations of life insurance
companies in Canada, policyholders received a significant portion
of the benefits owed by the companies, but this is small comfort to
those whose life savings are now in jeopardy. These funds are of
significant concern to my constituents and many other Canadians. I
appreciate their difficulties and I want to do all I can to help resolve
this issue and to encourage Bell Canada to accept the fact that it has
an obligation to work with its employees and former employees to
come to some kind of understanding or compromise.
It is my sincere hope that Bell Canada will address this issue
with its present and past employees and will work judiciously to
resolve what has become a contentious matter.
[Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I realize
that this is a particularly touchy subject for my colleague and for
those affected by this problem, of course.
[English]
I recognize this is a very difficult issue for those Canadians,
including Bell pensioners, who had investments in Confederation
Life. There are several factors that should serve to diminish the
17074
adverse consequences of the failure of Confederation Life on Bell
pensioners.
First, the funds at issue were part of a supplemental savings plan
that were intended to augment pension income for Bell pensioners.
Bell's principal pension plan is separately managed and was not
affected by the failure of Confederation Life.
Second, I am informed by the Canadian Life and Health
Insurance Compensation Corporation, CompCorp, that the group
RRSP in question is guaranteed by CompCorp to a maximum of
$60,000, including principal and interest. Amounts over $60,000
will be recoverable through the liquidation process.
Finally, a hardship committee has been established by the
liquidator to review requests in cases of unusual financial hardship.
The intention is to ensure that funds are immediately available to
those most in need.
Regarding whether anything can be done to speed up the
liquidation, responsibility for the liquidation of Confederation Life
is a matter for the liquidator under the supervision of the court. As
such it would be inappropriate to intervene.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In accordance with Standing
Order 38, the motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been
passed. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 6.44 p.m.)