CONTENTS
Thursday, May 16, 1996
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) 2851
Motion moved and agreed to 2851
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 2851
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 2851
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 2860
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 2864
Amendment to the amendment 2866
Amendment to the amendment 2870
Amendment to the amendment 2870
Amendment to an amendment 2872
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 2879
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger) 2882
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 2885
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 2885
Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex) 2887
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 2887
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 2887
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 2887
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 2888
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 2888
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2889
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2890
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 2890
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 2890
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 2890
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 2891
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2891
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2891
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2894
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 2894
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2894
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 2894
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2894
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2895
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 2896
Consideration resumed of motion; the amendment; and
theamendment to the amendment 2897
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 2900
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 2900
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 2904
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 2906
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 2909
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 2909
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 2911
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 2911
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 2911
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 2913
Amendment to the amendment negatived: Yeas, 39;Nays, 135 2914
Amendment and motion negatived on division: Yeas, 39;Nays 135
2915
Bill C-201. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 2915
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 2918
Bill C-201. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 2920
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 2923
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 2925
2851
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, May 16, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in both
official languages the government's response to four petitions
presented during the first session.
* * *
[
Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing Order
34(1), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the
report of the Canadian Parliamentary delegation to Chile, from
April 8 to 11, 1996.
* * *
(1010)
[English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there have been consultations between the parties on a travel
motion. I move:
Pursuant to its mandate in relation to the comprehensive review of the Young
Offenders Act, phase II, and specifically, to observe how the youth justice
system operates in practice, that six members of the Standing Committee on
Justice and Legal Affairs, four from the Liberal Party, including the chair, one
from the Bloc Quebecois, and one from the Reform Party, be authorized to
travel to Toronto, London and Windsor, Ontario from Sunday, June 2 to
Thursday, June 6, 1996 in order to hold public hearings, visit sites, young
offender facilities and programs, and meet with officials, and that the necessary
staff do accompany the committee.
Motion agreed to.
* * *
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my duty to present a petition signed by 25 residents from different
ridings in the city of Calgary.
The petitioners note that section 43 of our Criminal Code allows
schoolteachers, parents and those standing in the place of a parent
to use reasonable physical force for the correction of pupils or
children under their care. The petitioners call upon Parliament to
end such legal approval of this harmful and discriminatory practice
by repealing section 43 of the Criminal Code.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36, I have a petition to present on behalf of 75
Canadians regarding the merchant navy veterans of World War II.
These petitioners are asking Parliament to consider extending
the same benefits armed forces veterans receive to merchant navy
veterans.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a
petition signed by 25 Canadians in B.C.
The petitioners are concerned with the government's
consideration of taxing supplemental health care and dental care
coverage. The petitioners call upon Parliament to refrain from
implementing a tax on health and dental benefits and to put on hold
any future consideration of such a tax until a complete review of
the tax system and how it impacts on the health of Canadians has
been undertaken.
[Translation]
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Cochrane-Superior, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition this morning on behalf of
45 citizens of Mattice, who are greatly concerned about clause 17
and the resolution the government will have to adopt in future.
2852
There are serious concerns that this would create a precedent
which would allow any provincial government to suppress the
rights of a minority.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. 28 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 28-Mr. Forseth:
Regarding the spraying of gypsy moths by Agriculture Canada in the
McBride/Sappleton area in New Westminster, British Columbia: (a) what is the
exact ingredient of the formulation Btk, (b) what were the gypsy moth counts
before and after spraying over the past 10 years in the general urban area, (c)
what specific notification procedures and what education programs have been
conducted over the past six months to constituents living in the affected area,
and (d) what alternative forms of dealing with the gypsy moth are available and
what is the cost-effectiveness ratio of each?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): (a) Btk: Due to proprietary information
exemptions in the Access to Information Act, Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) cannot disclose the total contents of
Foray 48B, the particular formula of Btk used for the eradication of
gypsy moths. What we can say is that the active ingredient is a
bacterial insect disease, Bacillus thuringiensis Kurstaki-Btk.
Small amounts of chemicals are used in the commercial
fermentation process, and the bacteria metabolize these into
complex and simple sugars and water in the final formulation. The
final formulation has been examined by Health Canada and
Environment Canada and has been proven safe; it is even certified
for use by organic growers.
(b) Treatment Effectiveness: European gypsy moths (also knows
as North American gypsy moths) have been accidentally moved to
British Columbia on household effects numerous times in the last
17 years from infested areas of eastern North America and
elsewhere. Thirty-nine male moths wer caught in
pheromone-baited sticky traps in B.C. in 1994 and again in 1995;
prior years moths trapped have numbered over 200 males. (The
pheromone is a sexual lure used to attract male gypsy moths only.)
When gypsy moths are trapped at low density (one or two in a trap
with no moths in surrounding traps), the figures do not necessarily
indicate a sustainable population and therefore eradication is not
necessary. However, the area surrounding such finds is always
closely monitored for two subsequent years to determine whether
the population is increasing or has failed to develop.
British Columbia is uniquely placed in that it has the pressure of
introductions of North American gypsy moths by land and air from
eastern North America and of Asian gypsy moths by sea and air
from countries to the west. The Asian gypsy moth threatens its
habitat far more than the European gypsy moth, being a more
aggressive feeder, feeding on a wider host range, and having
females capable of flying before they deposit their prolific egg
masses. It was multiple catches of the Asian gypsy moth on the
Vancouver waterfront that launched the intensive spray program in
1992. Asian and North American gypsy moths are capable of
cross-breeding, the result of which is a North American gypsy
moth with females capable of flying. Prior to determining a
treatment response, it is thus essential to determine whether the
gypsy moth is of the Asian, European, or hybrid genotype; this is
done through genetic fingerprinting.
The following shows the number of male gypsy moths trapped
before and after spraying during the last 10 years in the greater
Vancouver regional district.
Vancouver waterfront (includes areas of North Vancouver, West
Vancouver, Burnaby):
-1988-1 male was trapped1;
-1989-6 male gypsy moths were trapped2;
-1990-10 male gypsy moths were trapped3;
-1991-33 male gypsy moths were trapped inside the spray
zone (27 Asian gypsy moths introduced from Russian freighters in
Vancouver Harbour)4;
-1992-area was treated with Btk for Asian gypsy moth;
following treatment 2 male gypsy moths were trapped, one just
outside the treatment zone;
-1993-0 male gypsy moths were trapped;
Burnaby
-1992-9 male gypsy moths were trapped (3 of these were
outside the treatment zone);
-1993-area was treated with Btk; following treatment no male
gypsy moths were trapped in treatment area;
Richmond
-1991-3 male gypsy moths were trapped (just outside what
later became a treatment zone);
-1992-61 male gypsy moths were trapped;
-1993-area was treated with Btk; following treatment 2 male
gypsy moths were trapped outside the treatment block;
-1994-0 male gypsy moths were trapped;
-1995-1 male gypsy moth was trapped5;
----------
1 Singleton moth not requiring immediate treatment.
2 Singleton moths not requiring immediate treatment.
3 Singleton moths not requiring immediate treament.
4 Information pertaining strictly to treatment zones was forwarded to MP's
Ottawa office as a result of a request to Gypsy Moth Information Line.
5 Singleton moth not requiring immediate treatment.
2853
South Vancouver
-1991-1 male gypsy moth was trapped6;
-1992-5 male gypsy moths were trapped (1 just outside what
later became a treatment zone);
-1993-20 male gypsy moths were trapped;
-1994-area was treated with Btk; following treatment no male
gypsy moths were trapped in treatment area;
New Westminster (Sapperton)
-1993-1 male gypsy moth was trapped7;
-1994-1 male gypsy moth was trapped;
-1995-8 males gypsy moths were trapped in what is the
proposed treatment zone;
New Westminster (other than Sapperton)
-1995-4 male gypsy moths were trapped8.
(c) Notification/Education:
(i) Gypsy Moth Open House public information session on
February 15, 1996 in New Westminster;
(ii) mailout to residences in treatment blocks;
(iii) newspaper advertising of pesticide use permit application;
(iv) newspaper and television education and interviews;
(v) door-to-door contact with homeowners during egg-mass
searching;
(vi) resource materials in local libraries;
(vii) information letters to the school in the New Westminster
treatment block;
(viii) frequently-asked question list sent to the newspaper (this
list was not published):
(ix) telephone 666-MOTH line to answer questions on a
one-to-one basis;
(x) presentations to city Councils in treatment blocks;
(xi) consultation with local medical health officers;
(xii) detailed information sent to B.C. Environmental Appeal
Board in response to appeals against AFFC's pesticide use permit.
(d) Alternative Treatment Information: An aerial application of a
chemical insecticide is the most cost-effective and efficacious
method of eliminating gypsy moths. However, these chemicals
tend to affect a wide range of non-target organisms and to raise
public concerns about human health. While AAFC chooses not to
use these alternatives and therefore does not know the
cost-effectiveness ratio for such a treatment, it can be deduced that
the treatment would be cheaper because chemical insecticides are
cheaper than bacterial insecticides and only one spraying is needed
to eradicate the moths.
Mass pheromone trapping is a non-viable alternative for
eradiction because of the fact that it is not a legal option in Canada.
It is an experimental approach of using huge numbers of traps to
interfere with mating: 5,000 traps per square mile are set out two
years running at a current cost of around $100,000/square mile.
For the eradication of the gypsy moth population indicated in
Sapperton, the British Columbia Regional Office of Food
Production and Inspection Branch of AAFC has chosen to use an
efficacious ground-spraying program of Btk to take into
consideration public discomfort with the aerial application of a
pesticide. This year, the cost-effectiveness ratio of a ground
application compared with an aerial application of Btk is 8:1,
though this varies with the size of the areas.
----------
6 Singleton moth not requiring immediate treatment.
7 Singleton moth not requiring immediate treatment.
8 Moths not requiring immediate treatment.
[English]
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be
allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to ask the government House leader when I will receive answers to
Questions Nos. 2 and 4. It was not clear to me yesterday. I have
been waiting for 80 days for these replies. Prior to the prorogation
of the House, I waited for 71 days without an answer.
The answers are a matter of public safety. They include
government liability for injuries suffered by prisoners under its
care and the unsafe storage of firearms by police and armies. When
can I get an answer to these two important questions?
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, as I explained to my colleague yesterday,
both of those answers are being finalized. I regret there has been a
delay, but we are attempting to make the answers as fulsome and as
responsive to the member's request as possible. He will be familiar
with the fact that neither issue can have just a yes or no answer.
They deal with policy matters and need appropriate replies.
_____________________________________________
2853
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1015)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ) moved:
That the House endorse the declaration of the Prime Minister of Canada, who
stated in 1985, ``If we don't win, I'll respect the wishes of Quebeckers and let them
separate''.
He said: Mr. Speaker, to begin with, as the Standing Order
allows, I would like to request that all speeches from here on be
split into ten minute segments.
Now, to explain the context of this motion before the House, let
us say that, recently, the Prime Minister has acquired the bad habit,
2854
if I dare describe it as that, of going back on his word about certain
things he has said, explaining to the public that, of necessity, in
political life sometimes commitments cannot be met, and that
politicians must not be required to keep their word.
We have seen that in the GST matter, where the PM had
promised to scrap the GST and where, finally, the government's
decision was quite different. It was the opposite, in fact: to expand
the GST. Since the federal government is digging itself further and
further into a constitutional hole by cosying up to Guy Bertrand in
contesting the legitimacy of a Quebec referendum, we thought it
worthwhile to review the statements the Prime Minister has made.
For this reason, we are submitting the matter to the House, and
are asking our hon. colleagues, both those in the Reform Party and
more particularly those in the Liberal Party, to join with us in
ensuring that the House deals with a statement made by the Prime
Minister, when he said in 1985 that ``If we don't win, I'll respect
the wishes of Quebeckers and let them separate''.
This is a quote from Straight from the Heart, written by the
Prime Minister himself. In 1985, the Prime Minister waxed most
eloquent, saying: ``We'll put our faith in democracy. We'll
convince the people that they should stay in Canada and we'll
win''. It is normal for a politician to believe in what he is
proposing, normal for him to think that he can win in his political
undertakings. But he ends up saying: ``If we don't win, I'll respect
the wishes of Quebeckers and let them separate''.
That is the quote, and the book, behind today's motion. The
question being asked of our colleagues across the way is this: Are
we going to take steps to ensure that the House in its entirety,
through a majority vote or, who knows, even by a unanimous vote,
endorses these words by the Prime Minister? Is what the Prime
Minister promised, stated, in 1985, still endorsed, first of all, by
himself-something we might well wonder-and then by his
ministerial colleagues, of whom solidarity is required, and his
caucus colleagues, who are also supposed to be in solidarity with
their Prime Minister on a matter as basic as this?
To facilitate the decision, I shall be making use of some more
quotes by the Prime Minister, for this is not the first time the Prime
Minister has made a statement on this matter. Doing so may
perhaps help them see that this was not just an unfortunate slip of
the tongue that got past the Prime Minister in an angry moment, or
in some speech or other, but indeed something that he felt
profoundly, or at the very least, something he wanted to get across
to his fellow citizens by writing it down and repeating it in a variety
of ways.
(1020)
During the proceedings of the Bélanger-Campeau Commission,
on December 17 1990, which is even more recent, the Prime
Minister declared, and I quote: ``I am a democrat. I said in
numerous speeches in 1980 that if we had not recognized that
Quebec had the right to opt for separation, we would have acted
differently. There were powers we could have used but we decided
not to''.
Therefore the hon. members across will appreciate that the
Prime Minister formally recognized for a second time that Quebec
has the right to separate. By saying that there are powers which
could have been used but were not, he also excluded resorting to
legal guerilla warfare as a means to challenge the referendum.
We feel concerned because unfortunately the Prime Minister
went back on his word, on this point. We all know that this
government decided to team up with Guy Bertrand in a legal war
which could result in denying Quebecers the right to make a
decision on their future. In 1990, the Prime Minister repeated his
statement of 1985 according to which Quebec has the right to
separate.
Even more recently, on October 24 1995, the Prime Minister
declared in the speech he delivered in Verdun on the eve of the
referendum: ``Next Monday we will have to decide if we are ready
to abandon a country which personifies them better than any other
country. Think twice before voting''. This means that the Prime
Minister explicitly recognized that the referendum vote was
decisive. Indeed, he declared: ``Think twice before voting. Next
Monday we will have to decide if we are ready to break away from
our country''. Therefore, on the eve of the referendum, on October
24 1995, the Prime Minister repeated what he had written in 1985
and reiterated in 1990.
On October 25 1995, in his address to the nation, the Prime
Minister said: ``The vote on Monday will determine the future not
only of Quebec but also of Canada as a whole. This is a serious and
irreversible decision''. Once more he recognized what he had
already admitted in 1980, 1985, 1990 and on the previous day, on
October 24 1995: ``Canada, our country and heritage, are in danger.
Breaking Canada apart or building this country, remaining
Canadian or becoming foreigners, staying or leaving, those are the
issues at stake in the referendum. When we make our choice, we all
have the responsibility and the duty to understand the impact of our
decision''.
In the mind of the Prime Minister, therefore, a referendum in
Quebec is legitimate and its results are binding. The outcome of the
referendum must be respected.
The Prime Minister has the support of one of his colleagues in
cabinet, the super minister of the Quebec referendum, the present
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who said: ``We have
always said that Quebecers were entitled to have their say on
Quebec's future inside or outside Canada. Ours is a democratic
country, and we will respect the outcome of the vote''. So the
minister supports the Prime Minister.
2855
In closing, since my time is running out, any doubts the Liberals
may have had as to a vote in favour of this motion calling for the
House's endorsement of the Prime Minister's declaration: ``If we
don't win, I'll respect the wishes of Quebecers and let them
separate'', are fading.
I will close by saying that, if it might reinforce their conviction
that they must support what the Prime Minister has said, I will
quote his speech to the nation on October 25, 1995.
(1025)
In this last quote, the Prime Minister said, and I suggest they
think about it: ``My friends, we are facing a decisive moment in the
history of our country. And people all across Canada know that
decision lies in the hands of their fellow Canadians in Quebec''.
In all that he has said since 1980, in 1985, 1990 and 1995, he has
been consistent repeatedly. He has always said that Quebecers had
the right to decide their future themselves and that a referendum
would be decisive, binding and would change the nature of things
in Canada.
Accordingly, there is no reason for the Liberal members to think
the House will not endorse the statement he made in 1985. We
could have taken all the ones he has made since then, but we chose
1985: ``If we don't win, I'll respect the wishes of Quebecers and let
them separate''. We will see whether the GST is the only issue
where the Prime Minister reversed himself or whether, in the
constitutional matter as well, he will suddenly deny all he has said
on different occasions over a very long period of time.
[English]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask the Chair to rule on
an issue which was brought to our attention a few moments ago,
whether it is either customary or even procedurally acceptable that
members share their time on the original motion.
It has been customary in the past for the length of speeches of all
members to be 20 minutes. Later on, for subsequent speakers, in
particular during the second round, the whip can rise, and I believe
under the rules only the whip can do it, to invoke Standing Order
43, by which he or she will then state members can from that point
on share their time.
What occurred this morning was irregular in two ways. I would
like the Chair to consider this and rule on it later. The initial
speaker indicated to the Chair that he wished for all Liberal
members to have their time shared. I believe that proposition is in
itself irregular and that it must be done by the whip.
Occasionally members have between themselves agreed to share
their time, but that was not the proposition advanced this morning.
That proposition was put forward by an MP who is not the whip.
He asked that all members of his party be allowed to share their
time. I do not believe that is provided for in Standing Order 43.
The second point is that I do not believe the Speaker has
entertained that proposition in the past at the request of the initial
speaker on any particular motion. It has always been done with
subsequent speakers.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you consider the two points I
have brought to the attention of the Chair and to rule whether the
suggestion by the hon. leader of the opposition is acceptable under
our rules. I contend it is not and I ask the Chair to rule on that issue.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, speaking of custom, I will not go back to times
immemorial in this House but simply to March 20, 1996, which is
not so far back. The same thing happened then. The hon. member
for Medicine Hat shared his time. He was the first speaker, and the
issue was the GST. Imagine that. He shared his time with the
member for Capilano-Howe Sound who moved an amendment.
This was on March 20, 1996.
(1030)
The Chair did not see anything irregular in that. That time, our
Liberal friends did not rise to protest. I understand that they may
have regretted it afterward. They had some problems with the GST,
but this was on March 20, 1996. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that
this double standard is unacceptable. Even a triple standard, a rule
for the third party, a rule for the party in power and another one for
the Bloc Quebecois.
On March 20, 1996, everything was clear. Unless there is an
error in Hansard, nobody spoke up. I note that the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons was present. He made no objection. The member shares
his time, the member with whom he shares it amends the motion.
This was on March 20, 1996, not so long ago.
Beauchesne did not deal with this issue, he did not have the time.
I suppose that if he had, people on the other side would have risen
to protest that it did not make sense. Let us not try, by devious
means, to prevent the opposition from holding a political debate of
great importance.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, there are a few points I want to bring
to your attention.
First, it is well-known that one case does not make a precedent.
The Speaker has not ruled and so no jurisprudence can be invoked.
If Mr. Speaker does not rule on the previous case no one can claim
that it is good precedence.
2856
I would argue the following and invite you, Mr. Speaker, to
consider this. If this-
[Translation]
Mr. Plamondon: Your French is very good.
Mr. Boudria: I want to tell the member opposite that I have no
reason to be ashamed of the chance, the honour and the privilege I
have, in this country, to speak both official languages. I do not have
to apologize to him. I think I am competent in both languages and I
am free to choose the one that pleases me. As a Canadian, it is my
privilege and my right, a concept-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I ask all those who want to
speak to this matter to be co-operative and to stick to the point of
order.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Chair to consider this
proposal: if what was just done is allowed under our rules, it
could-and I invite the Chair to think about this carefully-make it
impossible to amend this motion or any other opposition motion in
future. The first speaker could table his motion and the following
one, from the same party, could ask the previous question, which
would preclude all amendments.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to do whatever is necessary
to invalidate what the opposition leader asked for this morning.
Otherwise, it would completely change the rules of the House of
Commons.
Mr. Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, since this concerns me primarily, I
would like to make a few points for your consideration. First, our
Standing Orders are full of provisions which, when used properly
by the House, shorten debates or prevent the taking of a vote, make
it compulsory to have a debate or prevent debate.
The Standing Orders are full of provisions which, when used
properly by parliamentarians, as is usually the case here, have an
impact on the nature and the course of the proceedings.
(1035)
Therefore, it is not justified to strike this particular provision
from the Standing Orders or overturn the ruling already made,
otherwise the Standing Orders would have to be reviewed entirely
and many provisions amended. If the hon. whip wants to embark on
such an operation, he should consult his House leader, and we will
see. But for the time being, this cannot be taken into account,
otherwise it would also apply to a lot of other provisions.
Second, I would like to respectfully point out to the hon.
government whip that, before going ahead in this manner, mindful
as I always am to follow not only the spirit but also the letter of our
Standing Orders, I consulted the Chair and the Principal Clerk of
the House, and they both confirmed, rightly I must say-they could
just as easily have ruled otherwise-that the ruling already
rendered and the practice of the House allowed me to ask that we
all share our time.
Therefore, I followed the directive of the House, on the
recommendation of its principal officer and on your
recommendation, Mr. Speaker, and therefore I do not know why-
Mr. Bellehumeur: The Liberals had no objection.
Mr. Gauthier: Indeed, there was no objection from anyone
when I did it. Moreover, the hon. whip raised his point after I had
finished speaking. If he had any objection, some of his colleagues
were there across the way when you agreed to my request and
everybody thought it was all right.
Why all of a sudden, once I have finished my speech, would I no
longer be allowed to do it? Mr. Speaker, I am asking you to take
these elements into consideration in your ruling.
[English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
while I understand the comments made by my hon. friend, it is
important to mention that it was out of respect for the fact that he
was in the middle of making his speech that no one rose at that
time. It was a courtesy to the hon. member. We felt that it was
important not to get up in the middle of his speech over one
comment. Otherwise, we would be always standing.
While I accept the point that my hon. colleague made, I do not
think that the Chair should take it too seriously. The points that the
chief government whip made amply demonstrate some of the
difficulties that we would endure if the Chair were to rule in a
different way.
My hon. friend, the opposition House leader, has talked about a
recent decision, but there was no decision of the Chair. It was a
practice; not a decision of the Chair. It is only one practice. It does
not make a ruling. There has been no ruling of the Chair.
There is no ruling and the chief government Whip has made that
point. There is no precedent. If there were a precedent, then I would
suggest that the chief government whip would not have risen at all.
I believe respectfully that the Chair should consider this matter
in due course and we should be given an opportunity to hear what
the Chair's ruling might be in this matter.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I think you authorized it by allowing
the Leader of the Opposition to split his time. It is done regularly
by members of the House. The whips do not always say: ``Our
members will be doing that''. The members just rise and say: ``I
will share my time with my colleague''. Liberals do it regularly.
2857
If the member is so courteous today, I imagine it is only
because, as a former leader of the rat pack, he experienced a
special surge of politeness.
Nobody objected. They could have done so before the beginning
of the speech and they did not. They realized later on that, since
nobody had offered any opposition, a second member would speak.
This member has the right to present amendments or not, just as
much as any other member in this House.
(1040)
I repeat there should not be two sets of rules, one for the party in
office and one for the opposition. Next time, be prepared; that is all
I can say.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I will take the question
under advisement and the Chair will rule on it later today.
[English]
I want to thank the chief government whip and the parliamentary
secretary to the government House leader on the government side
for their interventions on this point of order.
[Translation]
I would also like to thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition and
the House leader of the official opposition for their statements on
this very important issue. The Chair will study those statements
very carefully.
An hon. member: We should suspend our proceedings.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I do not think there is reason
to suspend the proceedings of the House at this time. I do not have a
crystal ball, but if the scenario suggested by the chief whip occurs
and the second member to speak does present an amendment to the
amendment, I will then take that new amendment under
advisement, just as I will do so for the statements, as I said before.
The Chair will then come back to the House with its final ruling as
soon as possible.
Resuming debate. We were at questions and comments
following the first statement of the Leader of the Opposition.
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have had
the opportunity to ask a question of the leader of the Bloc. This is a
major problem which at some point has to be addressed.
Within Quebec there are aboriginal peoples: Abenakis,
Montagnais, Cree, Innu, Algonquin, Mohawk, Huron, Micmac,
Malecite. According to Mr. Turp, the former adviser to the Bloc,
they have the superior right to self-determination. Everyone knows
about the outcome of the referendum taken by the Montagnais,
Cree and Innu. They are Quebecois. They are aboriginal people
living in Quebec.
Within Montreal, for instance, there are 450,000 Italian
Canadians. These are Canadian citizens living in Quebec.
Twenty-three of the 30 ridings in Montreal voted no. The people in
Hull, the Pontiac and eastern townships want to remain part of
Canada.
How does the Leader of the Opposition intend to deal with this?
Is he saying that 50 per cent plus 1 takes away the rights of all these
people who want to remain Canadian citizens? It is a very difficult
question.
[Translation]
Mr. Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to get a question
from the minister of Indian affairs because, for once in an exchange
between the two of us, an answer will be given.
It is unacceptable for a politician, all the more so one invested
with ministerial responsibilities, to continually disrupt major
political debates with remarks which do not make any sense. Let
me explain.
First of all, Quebec is an entity, Quebec is a territory, and Canada
is made up, as far as I know, of ten provinces and two territories.
When Canada was founded, it was not by the reunion of pieces of
land to form Canada, leaving the rest to form a separate country.
Recognized territories in their own right, provinces joined together
to form the Canadian confederation. The last example is
Newfoundland. Newfoundland joined as one, not as separate
pieces, even though it had to go through a second and third
referendum which passed with a majority of only 52 per cent.
(1045)
When the Minister brings up the concept of partition, he knows
full well that, should he venture on such grounds, what is true for
Quebec would also be true for the rest of Canada. Canada is a
collection of entities, Quebec being indivisible, just like
Newfoundland and Ontario are indivisible. These complete entities
constitute a whole, they are not the amalgam of small pieces of
regions which form Canada.
When Newfoundland held a recent referendum to put an end to
denominational schools, did the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development, with his wonderful logic, rise to say that
we should not take religion out of all Newfoundland schools? Some
regions voted for it, some massively against it, and others where
almost evenly divided. Did he rise to say: There is a problem in
Newfoundland, we cannot take religion out of all schools, because
there was not a majority everywhere?
He should understand that, in Quebec, the same logic applies.
The people of Quebec, as his leader said on several occasions, has
the right to decide its future. Should it decide to separate, so be it.
Besides, what we are asking him to support is what his own leader
said: ``That the House endorse the declaration of the Prime
Minister of Canada, who stated in 1985: 'If we don't win, I'll
2858
respect the wishes of Quebeckers and let them separate''. The
Prime Minister did not say: ``I will accept the separation of small
parts of Quebec'', he said ``I will-let them separate.
I quoted that statement on several occasions, and the Prime
Minister always said the same thing. If the Indian affairs minister
has difficulties with his leader's statements, that is his problem, but
I would simply remind him that, on October 25, 1995, not long ago,
his leader said: ``Dear friends, Canada is now at a decisive moment
in its history and people throughout Canada know this decision is in
the hands of their fellow citizens in Quebec''. The Prime Minister
never used the logic of the minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, and he never said Canada's future was in the hands
of some citizens in some small parts of Canada that will go. Never.
This is only the minister's logic.
The referendum that brought Newfoundland into the
Confederation brought the whole province into it. The last
referendum in Newfoundland to make schools non-denominational
will bring about measures throughout the province of
Newfoundland, even though there are some places where people
did not vote in favour of that.
And the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
would want it to apply to only bits and pieces. That does not make
any sense.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition is
very important. The big fuss made by the government this morning
about the way we are proceeding shows how significant and
important this motion is.
Later this afternoon we will see if the Prime Minister will vote
against his own democratic philosophy. We will also see if Liberal
members will disavow their own Prime Minister's statement by
voting against the motion. Above all, we will know where the
Prime Minister stands between his fine rhetoric and his concrete
actions.
For us, democracy is sacred. It is one of the greatest political
legacies we can leave to our children, and we will fight for this
democracy, as our ancestors did in Quebec. That is why we are
saying straight out that democracy has precedence over the law.
The rule of law does not stand up to a democratic verdict.
(1050)
When a people hands down a democratic decision, no
government, no court, not even a constitution can stop this people.
This kind of decision is so important that the federal government
has intervened in both Quebec referendums. In 1980 and again in
1995, the federal government felt the need to intervene in Quebec's
referendum debate because it knew that, in making a decision, the
people of Quebec were showing how important the democratic
action of casting a ballot was to them.
In 1980-I will not insist on this because I think we all know our
history, but it is still worthwhile to remind the members across the
way who seem to have forgotten-in 1980, democracy was so
important, the referendum was such an important event that the
federal government had to intervene. Seventy-four out of the 75
Liberal members at the time put their seats at stake and made
promises to Quebecers. Why? Because democracy is important,
because the referendum results were important.
In 1995-a very recent event in everyone's memory-the
federal government intervened once again. Once again, it made
promises to the people of Quebec, including three major promises:
distinct society, a right of veto, and the decentralization of powers.
Everyone in Quebec knows that what was said in November and in
the days following the referendum is rubbish; they did not keep the
promise they made, in October 1995 for example.
Democracy will judge this government as it did following the
unilateral patriation of the Constitution in 1982. It is democracy
that will judge this government. It is also democracy, at the level of
the Quebec people, that will decide whether or not Quebec will
become a sovereign country.
What this means, I guess, is that the federal government took
these two referendums seriously. It was fully aware of the
implications. Moreover, just days before the last referendum, the
Prime Minister of Canada addressed the nation, saying: ``The
decision the people of Quebec are about to make will be
irreversible''. That is quite a statement.
Indeed, in a democracy, when the people have spoken, it must be
acknowledged and taken seriously, without interpretation. You do
not come out and say that the result is not valid, because the
question was not clear or what have you. You speak up when it is
time to speak up. In 1980 and in 1995 for instance, the members
opposite were involved in the debate. They participated in it. They
should acknowledge the result, as they will have to acknowledge
the result of the next referendum, which, this time, the people of
Quebec will win.
The Prime Minister knows it. In his 1985 book entitled Straight
from the Heart, he clearly stated: ``If we don't win, I'll respect the
wishes of Quebeckers and let them separate''. There is no room for
interpretation in there. This is the same man and he will accept
separation if that is what the people of Quebec wish.
Why would he change his tune? In Quebec, we are used to
hearing the Prime Minister make contradictory statements. But this
week, he really surpassed himself. He has one version for Quebec,
another one for English Canada and we learned he has yet another
for the international community. Interviewed on an American
program rebroadcasted in Mexico and Australia, he held a totally
2859
different view of democracy, a view which may be more in keeping
with international law and with the statement he made in his book
in 1985.
The Prime Minister's rhetoric changes depending on the
circumstances: before or after a referendum. He does not give the
same definition of democracy in the days leading to a Quebec
referendum and in the days following a Quebec referendum. His
rhetoric and his definition of democracy change when he is the one
planning a unilateral move, as in the case of the patriation of the
Constitution in 1982. As far as I know, he had not been given any
democratic mandate to patriate the Constitution, but he did just the
same.
(1055)
Now, when a majority of Quebecers decide through a democratic
referendum that they want a country called Quebec, the Prime
Minister will say it is illegal, or that Quebec cannot unilaterally
decide to become independent. This makes no sense.
It did not really surprise me to hear the Prime Minister tell
Quebecers, on the eve of a referendum, that their choice would be
irreversible. Nor was I surprised to then hear him say that Quebec
could not unilaterally declare its independence, and to find out that
there is another version for international affairs.
What surprises me though is the government's strategy to take
Quebecers head on. This surprises me. I am also surprised to see
the Prime Minister join forces with a character such as Mr.
Bertrand. This surprises me, considering the declaration made by
the Prime Minister about the motion moved by the Leader of the
Official Opposition.
I would like to propose an amendment to the motion. I move:
.TPC Amendment
That the motion be amended by adding the following, immediately after the
word ``stated'':
in Straight from the Heart,
Why do I move this amendment? Simply because I want the
government to know exactly where the quote comes from. When
we make a claim, we can prove it. When the official opposition
makes a claim, it can prove it. The declaration referred to in our
motion is in the book
Straight from the heart, which the Prime
Minister may have written at a quieter and less emotional time,
probably when he was getting ready to run against John Turner for
the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada.
This statement is undoubtedly a more accurate reflection of the
democratic spirit of the Prime Minister. I do not doubt for one
moment that the Prime Minister is a democrat and that he really
means what he wrote in 1985 in Straight from the heart. Given the
motion moved by the leader of the opposition and my amendment,
members opposite have all the necessary information to make their
decision.
I hope they will not disavow such an important statement from
the Prime Minister. I hope the Prime Minister will not go back on
his own word and will support the Bloc Quebecois motion, which
reads:
That the House endorse the declaration of the Prime Minister of Canada, who
stated in Straight from the heart, in 1985, ``If we don't win, I'll respect the
wishes of Quebeckers and let them separate.''
This is what democracy is all about.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The Speaker takes this
amendment under advisement and will inform the House of its
decision as soon as possible.
[English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened carefully to what my hon. colleague said, as I always do. In
his view the Prime Minister has three different speeches for three
different audiences.
Did his former leader, the now premier of Quebec, Mr.
Bouchard, not have a different speech or a different commentary
when he was in California trying to explain the concept of
sovereignty to the American audience? In describing the concept of
sovereignty in the United States he was trying to liken it to the
sovereign state of California, and the Americans could not quite
understand that.
(1100 )
I am wondering whether my colleague wishes to comment on the
confusion which occurs. Perhaps it is planned with crooked
questions that are being put to people, with questions that are
confusing, with questions that in fact supplant democracy. We
believe in democracy, as my hon. colleague knows. However, when
my colleague talks about different kinds of speeches he might want
to reflect in the mirror or have his leader reflect in the mirror about
the kinds of speeches his leader is giving to the ethnic communities
and business communities in Quebec City and Montreal, the
Toronto business community or to the California community.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's comments
regarding Quebecers are quite scornful. Quebecers have made the
distinction and they have no trouble understanding the words of the
present Quebec premier, Mr. Lucien Bouchard.
The hon. member referred to Mr. Bouchard's visit to California.
What the premier said there was consistent, for it was exactly what
he said in Quebec, which is: ``Yes, we must separate from Canada
2860
to become a sovereign country.'' A sovereign country is never tied
to another country.
Quebec does not wish to be more sovereign than France or
England. To become a country, it must separate, of course. It is
obvious from the speech of the member opposite that history keeps
repeating itself: as they do not know history, Reform members
have no idea of what is really at stake or, rather, they did not follow
the referendum debate in Quebec.
I remember the hon. member in the Jacob case. Here again,
Reform members do not know the background. They are unaware
of the Referendum Act and of the tripartite agreement. They do not
know what the question was, and now they criticize us.
No part of Mr. Bouchard's speech can be compared with the
contradictory and inconsistent speeches made by the Prime
Minister who, within one week, on the same subject, on an
extremely important issue concerning democracy, said three totally
different things. The hon. member would benefit from reading his
leader's speeches to see how different they are.
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
going to begin my speech by noting that the government has passed
up its own first slot in terms of speaking in this debate. Obviously it
wants to gauge what all the parties are going to do before it has a
position. This is fairly typical of the government and on this
particular question it is totally irresponsible. Let me make that
absolutely clear.
The motion states that the House recognize or adopt as its own
the statement by the Prime Minister in 1985: ``If we do not win, I
will respect the wishes of Quebecers and let them separate''. I draw
the attention of the House to the French version which reads ``will
accept separation''.
I am rising today on behalf of my party to oppose this motion.
However I do want to thank the official opposition for bringing this
motion before the House for a couple of reasons. It will allow some
frank discussion of what is an important subject. There should be a
clear communication between Quebecers and other Canadians on
this. I also thank the official opposition for drawing the attention of
the House to the inconsistencies of many Quebec federalists on
these matters, particularly the inconsistencies of the Prime
Minister.
(1105 )
The Prime Minister's position on these kinds of issues over the
year has been an absolute mishmash of confusion. During the
referendum itself he said, as has been pointed out, that the
referendum result would be irreversible and that it would lead to
separation. Then he also insisted that separation could never
actually happen. He even suggested it would never be tolerated.
The Prime Minister has said recently that he opposes a unilateral
declaration of independence. Then of course there is the
aforementioned quote and others which suggest he would be open
to accepting it. There is a pattern by the Prime Minister in
particular of very dangerous vagueness, of a lack of clarity and
outright contradiction on a subject that probably more than any
other subject before the House requires absolute precision.
Instead, over the years, when it comes to relations between
Quebec and the rest of Canada, between English Canadians and
French Canadians, we have seen from many traditional federalists
dishonesty, vagueness and the outright manipulation of political
and ethnic symbols. Probably the best example of that is the entire
debate on the distinct society clause, which I hope to address in my
remarks today.
The history of contradiction and mixed messages reached a
dangerous crescendo in the last referendum. The Prime Minister
was asked by the leader of the Reform Party at the beginning of the
campaign whether he would take the results of the referendum
seriously, whether he would recognize that the vote would be either
yes or no, one way or the other. The term was 50 per cent plus one.
The leader of the Reform Party also asked if the Prime Minister
would recognize that the vote had important and lasting
consequences.
The Prime Minister, who only days before had said the vote was
irreversible, in a sudden about face refused to give a straight
answer to that question. Instead he attacked the leader of the
Reform Party saying that it would be irresponsible to break up the
country on a single vote, et cetera. He went on to suggest that he
would not even recognize a vote to separate under any
circumstances, although of course he was vague on that.
That was a very interesting response. It set the tone for the entire
referendum campaign. It is so typical of the way the Quebec
Liberals have handled this debate. In making that kind of an answer
he was, as he always is, deliberately sending mixed messages to an
English speaking audience and to a French speaking audience.
In English speaking Canada he was taking the position that the
country was indivisible, that it was certainly not divisible by this
tiny vote and that he would stand up against it. He would stand up
against the Bloc and the Reform Party to ensure that the country
stayed together. However, in French Canada he sent a very different
message. The message was that voting for separation really would
have no consequences. It was a message that undermined the entire
federalist campaign. As we know, every street corner in Montreal
had a sign that said ``separation''. All of a sudden they could vote
yes and there would not be separation.
It ultimately led to the Prime Minister's complete about face at
the end of the campaign. Far from waging a campaign simply
against separation in Verdun, he began to make all kinds of
promises about constitutional and other changes. Actually, he did
2861
not promise constitutional change, as he has pointed out. He sort of
hinted at it. He was actually just promising change, but he wanted
people to think it was constitutional change. Then he tried to get
out of that after the referendum. That is his pattern of behaviour.
More important and something the Prime Minister still does not
seem to realize is that he sent a mixed message on both sides of the
question. It is impossible for him to get up and say that he does not
recognize 50 per cent plus one, without sending the message that he
does not recognize it either way. When in the end, the result was a
very small victory for the no side, the Prime Minister's message
that small votes do not count meant that he had snatched defeat
from the jaws of victory. It is not surprising that no one accepts the
result of the referendum as final. He himself said it was not,
especially when it was by a small majority.
(1110)
The contradictions do not end there. Since the last referendum
the Prime Minister has made a statement to the Government of
Quebec which does reflect the views of Canadians both inside
Quebec and outside Quebec. He said that the Government of
Quebec should forget about sovereignty, get on with the economy
and respect the results of two referendums which have rejected
sovereignty. I would agree with that.
However, the Prime Minister himself insists on resurrecting
elements of his own constitutional agenda which have been twice
rejected. The distinct society clause was rejected in Quebec and
outside of Quebec in a national referendum on the Charlottetown
accord. In the case of the Meech Lake accord, it was rejected
without a referendum vote because nobody in the Conservative
government would even dare put that to a referendum. It is
important to note it was rejected in the Liberal leadership race by
the Prime Minister himself who ran against it and got elected by
being against it. He now wants to resurrect it. It is absolutely
incredible. And we wonder why there is mistrust among Canadians
on subjects like this one.
The government has intervened in the Bertrand decision, the
case that brought this matter to the fore. My party and I have said
that we support the intervention on the narrow issue that the
Minister of Justice is intervening on. That is the issue that the
Constitution and Canadian law must be respected and do have a
role to play in any process of secession by a province. Even here
there are contradictions.
I asked the Minister of Justice, what is the precise role laid out
by the Constitution? What is the process of separation which they
are defending? He said that he did not know. Experts have different
opinions, the government has none. There is a role for the
Constitution although we do not know what it is.
It is even more contradictory than that. I asked the government
this very question in October 1994. I posed questions to the then
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who is now President of the
Treasury Board, on October 17, 1994. On October 19, 1994 during
the adjournment debate, I received an answer from the then
parliamentary secretary which contained this statement: ``The
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, for whom I am answering,
believes that the Constitution acts do not provide any rules or
procedures for secession of one of the provinces''.
In other words, the government then had a position which was
almost identical to the position of the Government of Quebec: that
the Constitution is silent on these matters, and it is a political
question. If we read the rest of the answer that is precisely what the
government stated, although now it has changed its position. It has
changed its position to the correct position, nevertheless it has
changed its position once again.
Yesterday the leader of the Reform Party moved a motion in the
House to assert that this House will not recognize a unilateral
declaration of independence. Unbelievably, I was asked by
members of the press why we would possibly want this motion
moved and voted on. It is for the simple reason that this
government and the Prime Minister cannot stick to a line on this
issue for more than a month. That is why. Let us get it on the
record.
My view reflects the fact that I believe there is a serious split in
cabinet on the entire issue. It is not a split only between soft liners
and hard liners. It is a split between certain ministers from Quebec
and certain ministers from the rest of Canada who I will not name.
(1115)
It is a dangerous game. We have had this problem from the
Quebec Liberals, not only federally but provincially, for some
years. They want to take a position that is federalist and
pan-Canadian, but only from Quebec's perspective. It is the
dangerous game of being very unsure whether we defend the rights
of Canada as a country and as a nation.
That is why we have, as we see once again this week, Mr.
Johnson in Quebec City and the Quebec Liberal Party constantly
being led into position where they are parroting the constitutional
framework of the Parti Quebec, the framework of
self-determination.
This has led particularly to the Quebec Liberals and traditional
federalists in Quebec putting all their eggs in the basket of the
distinct society clause. This in itself is a perfect example of why we
have misunderstanding and distrust in this country.
It is a nationalist slogan. What would be the purpose of putting
the distinct society clause in the Constitution? The purposes are
unspecified. When we say it means special status, the government
2862
says it does not mean special status. When we amend it to make it
clear that it does not mean special status, the government says it
would have no legal weight. We ask would it unify the country.
Yes, but it would be a first step. A first step to what?
The basic reality is, as we have seen so many times with this
issue, that when we are speaking in French in Quebec, the distinct
society clause means everything. When we are speaking in English
outside Quebec, the distinct society clause means nothing.
In the process Quebec federalists repeat in effect the very
assertions of the separatist movement that Quebec's language,
culture and civil code have never been recognized in Canada. That
is absolute nonsense. Nevertheless it is the very basis on which the
proposal for the distinct society clause is made.
Let me move to our position. It is clear. As Reformers, we would
not accept simple separation on a simple majority vote. We voted
on this issue in the House in December 1994 when we voted on the
concept of self-determination. Only a few months ago we had a
debate on whether Quebecers constituted a people under
international law and therefore possessed the right to
self-determination.
In both cases we took the position that Quebec does not have a
unilateral right to separate on its own terms. This has always been
our position. We took that position consistently.
At that time the government in those votes and debates also took
that position. It is important for English Canadians to understand
that the Progressive Conservative Party has not taken that position.
It has taken the opposite position. It has consistently skipped
debates and votes whenever that issue has arisen.
Although we do not accept a referendum result in Quebec as a
mandate to separate, we accept it as a mandate to negotiate
separation. We would expect the federal government to respond in
good faith. We would go farther. Canadians, including Quebecers,
are fooling themselves if they believe a yes vote would lead to
anything other than separation.
It would begin an inexorable path that would lead to separation
in one form or another. We would maintain one probably not
satisfactory to either Quebec or to the rest of Canada. It would
probably damage our interest. Nevertheless it would lead in that
direction.
We have also made clear that we would accept majority rule as
the basis for that mandate to negotiate. No other position will really
be tenable as a practical political matter.
Let me make some reference to the last referendum. I would
qualify it to this degree. In the last referendum the Government of
Quebec was measuring 50 per cent plus one. It was measuring a
majority as a majority of the valid votes cast.
(1120 )
We say a majority should be measured as a majority of all votes
cast. In other words, a majority cannot be attained through the
elimination of ballots or through invalidating ballots. That must
never be allowed to happen. The majority must be absolutely clear
in the sense that it must be a majority of all votes.
Let us recognize the political realities. We know the
demographics in the province of Quebec. The majority of votes
cast for a sovereignty mandate should be the majority of the
population, which represents not only the majority of the people
and the majority of the Government of Quebec but a majority of the
ridings and, I know this is heresy, a majority of the ethnic base of
the francophone Quebec voter.
Not that I consider that any more legitimate than anybody else's
vote, but we have to face facts here. No matter what the Bloc
Quebecois says, we are dealing with an ethnic nationalist
movement and it is seeking an ethnic nationalist mandate. That is a
political reality.
I also point out for those federalists who accuse me or the
Reform Party of being weak on Canada by accepting a majority
vote, it is not Canada which suffers from this position. It is the
government and the people of Quebec who suffer from this
position, as I pointed out during the referendum debate.
If the Government of Quebec chooses to go into a negotiation in
which it has 51 per cent or 52 per cent support, it puts itself into an
extremely weak bargaining position with the rest of the country.
The rest of the country does not want separation. Many people, if
not most, are extremely hostile to Quebec's separation. Therefore
Quebec will face the rest of Canada which is united. It will bring
Quebec to the table in a position where Quebecers are extremely
weak and divided.
The final deal would have to be ratified by all partners to the
Constitution. Our preference is that it would be through a
referendum. However, let me be clear this is not to stop Quebec
from leaving. It is my opinion that if Quebec ever voted to leave the
rest of Canada would want Quebec gone. That would be the attitude
that would take hold after a few weeks.
What the rest of Canada would insist on is a settlement that
respected its interests. The rest of Canada has lots of bargaining
chips if it would choose to go to the table and would receive a
settlement that would reflect its interests. Ultimately Quebec
would be in a far worse position than it would be if it simply stayed
in Canada and negotiated a renewed federalism.
Canadians and Quebecers should back away from extreme
positions on this. One extreme position is that we can respect
2863
democracy without respecting the rule of law. Some sovereignists
say that. Some federalists say we can respect the rule of law and
somehow work around the democratic will. That is also a
dangerous position and the thinking of some Liberals.
The only position if we ever get into this secession thing deeper
is to proceed by respecting both. Even Mr. Lévesque in 1980
insisted there had to be a mandate to negotiate and there would
have to be a second referendum. I ask the sovereignists to look at
their own history on this matter.
[Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what the hon. member opposite has just said worries me. I
wonder if he has seriously considered the implications.
The hon. member told us that if an unspecified majority of
Quebecers were to vote yes in a referendum, he would prefer
Quebec to leave Canada as quickly as possible, or something of the
kind.
Has the hon. member seriously considered the implications of
what he has just said? Does he not think those are irresponsible
comments, especially on the part of someone who claims to be a
federalist, and that comments such as these are almost as difficult
to swallow and as contemptuous as those made by the Bloc
Quebecois? Would it not be appropriate for the hon. member to
reconsider his remarks to the effect that, in a matter of weeks after
a referendum, Canadians in the rest of the country would like to get
rid of Quebec as a member of the Canadian federation?
(1125)
Does he not think a close association that lasted more than 130
years is worth more than a few weeks before we decide to get out of
it? Does he not think, after reconsidering, that his remarks should
at least be left out of the Debates of the House of Commons?
Mr. Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the
attention of the Chair the fact that the whip has used the word
``contemptuous'' about the Bloc Quebecois, and therefore about
members in this House. Could he please withdraw these words?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): With all due respect, I think
the hon. member for Richelieu is on a point of debate.
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, this position is in no
way different from the one I have expressed in the past, even on
national television. I am saying that we have to abide by the rule of
law and the democratic will. If a majority of Quebecers vote for
separation, it will be impossible to ignore that reality.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): But the same thing holds true for
Quebec. Even if separatists are applauding, it is just the same for
Quebec. If a large proportion, if millions of Quebecers vote no, that
political reality cannot be ignored in the separation process, and
that is why there is a partitionist movement. That is a reality.
[English]
I am surprised the member finds this shocking. Of course
Canadians want to keep their country together. They do so on the
assumption that all Canadians want to be a part of this country. We
have been told for years, and I think the majority of Canadians
believe it, that in spite of the separatist movement and its power the
majority of Quebecers want to remain Canadians.
However, if the majority of Quebecers express themselves in a
democratic referendum and make it absolutely clear they do not
want to be Canadian, it will change the attitudes in the rest of the
country.
If we have intelligent leadership that cares about the interests of
the rest of the country, we will then negotiate sovereignty in a way
that is quick, peaceful and in the best interests hopefully on both
sides but particularly in the best interests of Canada.
We will not go to the barricades and have civil strife and unrest
so that we can keep a bunch of Liberals sitting in power in Ottawa.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the speech made by the hon. member for Calgary West
reminded me why the referendum results went from 40 per cent in
1980 to 49.4 per cent in 1995. Why is it that Canada has not been
able to adapt to this change?
Does the hon. member think that the results were affected
somewhat by the message the current Prime Minister has been
sending for some time now, when he says that there is no
constitutional issue to be resolved in Canada, and that the problems
between Quebec and Canada will solve themselves if we have a
good government?
Is it not also the result of trying to hide the fact that the Canadian
Constitution is outdated and needs to be changed, from a federalist
point of view-need I remind you that I am a sovereignist-but
from a federalist point of view, after 16 years of inaction on the part
of the federal government?
Is it not the best message that could be sent to Quebecers to let
them know that the system cannot be changed from the inside, but
more importantly, outside Quebec, in the rest of Canada, does the
message sent by the current Prime Minister not lead Canadians to
believe that there is no problem, when in fact we are still faced with
a problem and all we see are the Prime Minister's efforts to create a
diversion?
2864
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as
a federalist reformer, I have said several times that we do
recognize the need to overhaul the federal system.
(1130)
That, by itself, cannot explain the influence of the sovereignty
movement, because there is also dissatisfaction with the federal
system in Western Canada, although there is no sovereignty
movement. Of course, the situation is different over there.
I agree that the message the Prime Minister sent during the
referendum campaign was a factor in the increased support for
sovereignty. What I am saying is that if Quebecers had voted No,
they would have obtained nothing. It would have meant the status
quo, of course, the end of everything, but no reform and no
promises.
In his speech in Verdun, the Prime Minister said that if
Quebecers were to vote No, they would get some constitutional
concessions, and that a Yes vote would not be dangerous since
separation would never occur.
With messages such as these, we can easily explain, I think, why
the undecided voted Yes. I hope we can change things around, but it
will not be easy. We will try to convince Quebecers of two things:
first, that the federal system can be significantly changed for all
Canadians, and second, that sovereignty will not change the
important stuff and will not be in the best interest of the province of
Quebec.
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): I want to thank the
hon. member for Calgary West who at least understands and is
honest enough to say that he does not agree with referendums that
lead to separation but that he would accept that kind of outcome. If
Quebecers really vote for Quebec sovereignty, he will respect their
decision. What is important to him is not simply a fistful of money
or his own job as a member of Parliament but the will of the
Quebec people, and I want to thank him for this.
However, he has encouraged us to continue negotiating. I want to
remind him that we have been trying to change the federal system
since 1763, since 1838. Only recently, as he said himself a moment
ago, the Prime Minister promised real changes during the
referendum campaign. Everything was recorded but we did not get
anything.
Does the hon. member really believe that it is possible to change
the federal system? I do not.
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, this is not an easy
question. We suggested reforms to the federal system and I note
two things. The Prime Minister made commitments for reform
during the referendum campaign but he did not have a mandate
from the rest of Canada to do so. Moreover, do not forget that it was
Lucien Bouchard himself who spoke about a partnership with the
rest of Canada. This was his basic platform during the last
referendum campaign.
To have a partnership you need partners. A partnership is
negotiated among partners. It is impossible even for the
sovereignist movement to go on with its own plan without
negotiating or getting the consent of the rest of Canada.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, having had the honour of being elected by the citizens
of Saint-Laurent is particularly relevant to what I am about to say
in my maiden speech in the House of Commons.
(1135)
I will never be able to express my gratitude sufficiently to the
constituents of Saint-Laurent-Cartierville for having chosen me
to represent them. This diverse and harmonious community
inhabited by over 50 different nationalities fully integrated into
Quebec society intends to exercise its right to remain in Canada.
I dedicate what I am about to say to all the young people I met
during my election campaign last March. Sometimes speaking in
French, sometimes in English, and often in one or two other
languages, a sign of how well equipped they are for the next
century, these young people sadly told me that they were not sure
their future lay in either Saint-Laurent or Montreal. They belong in
Montreal and to the surrounding area, that is their home.
And rather than leave, they must convince their fellow
Quebecers that belonging to more than one group is a source of
strength, not a contradiction. They must convince their fellow
Canadians in other provinces that recognizing the distinct nature of
Quebec is not a threat to Canadian unity, but, on the contrary, a
wonderful way to celebrate one of Canada's fundamental
characteristics.
The theme of this first speech will be democracy, which the
opposition invites us to consider this May 16, 1996, by presenting
the following motion:
That the House endorse the declaration of the Prime Minister of Canada, who
stated in Straight from the Heart, in 1985, ``If we don't win, I'll respect the
wishes of Quebeckers and let them separate''.
This quotation is taken out of context by the official opposition.
It goes back to 1970, and was repeated by Mr. Chrétien in 1985. In
the same passage, the current Prime Minister also said: ``We'll put
our faith in democracy. We'll convince the people that they should
stay in Canada and we'll win''. We'll put our faith in democracy.
This reliance on democracy is an invitation to us to consider the
meaning of the word, and to ponder the teachings of the classics.
Let us begin with that great prophet of democracy, Alexis de
Tocqueville, and I quote: ``I consider unjust and ungodly the
maxim that, in matters of government, a majority of the people
2865
have the right to impose their will''. De Tocqueville is saying that
democracy cannot be limited to the rule of the majority, because it
also includes the rights of minorities, and of the smallest minority
of all, the individual, the flesh and blood citizen.
The second classical author I call on is Jean-Jacques Rousseau. I
will quote him in English.
[English]
The more important and serious the decisions, the closer the
prevailing opinion should be to unanimity.
[Translation]
What Rousseau is setting out here is not obviously the rule of
unanimity, which clearly is impracticable. What he is showing us is
that the more a decision threatens the rights of individuals, the
more irreversible it is and the more it involves future generations,
the more stringent must be the procedure democracy selects for the
adoption of this decision.
This brings me to the fine quote of Montesquieu linking
democracy tightly with universal solidarity. And I quote: ``If I
knew of something that could serve my nation but would ruin
another, I would not propose it to my prince, for I am first a man
and only then a Frenchman-because I am necessarily a man, and
only accidently am I French.
Tocqueville, Rousseau, Montesquieu. With these three French
authors, no one can accuse me of distancing myself from
francophone tradition. In fact, however, the principles these three
set out are universal and have guided constitutional democracies in
establishing their rules of law. These principles are the reason that
the supremacy of law is a vital component of democracy.
Let us apply these principles to the issue dividing us in Canada:
secession. It is defined as a break in solidarity among the citizens
of a common country. This is why international law in its great
wisdom extends the right of self-determination in its extreme form,
that is the right of secession, only in situations where a break in
solidarity appears de facto to be incontrovertible.
Let us quote, in this regard, the five experts who testified before
the Bélanger-Campeau Commission. I quote: ``Legally, Quebec's
eventual declaration of sovereignty cannot be based on the
principle of the equality in law of peoples or their right to
self-determination, which permits independence only to colonial
peoples or to those whose territory is under foreign occupation''.
(1140)
The secessions that have taken place to date have always arisen
out of decolonization or the troubled times that follow the end of
totalitarian or authoritarian regimes. It is not simply a matter of
chance that no well established democracy with a minimum of ten
years of universal suffrage has ever faced secession. Such a break
in solidarity appears very hard to justify in a democracy.
International law and democratic principles encourage the people
to remain united, not to break up.
While democracy infers that a group of people cannot be forced
to remain within a country against their will, it also sets strict rules,
which, under the law, maximize the guarantees of justice for all.
That is what we learned from near-secessions that have taken place
in stable democracies. It may be a good idea to review the
procedure by which Switzerland, a fine example of democracy,
managed to separate the Jura from the canton of Berne while being
fair to all. We could also look at how the U.S.A. intend to consult
the Puerto Ricans on their political future. Closer to home, we
might consider the approach taken recently by Canada to transfer
title, in all fairness, on lands in the north.
Now it the time to calmly set, under the law, mutually acceptable
secession rules. Not two weeks before a referendum. The
Government of Canada does not deny in any way the right of
Quebecers to pull out of Canada, if such is their explicit wish.
However, the Government of Canada does object to the Quebec
government's plans to unilaterally set and change as it pleases the
procedure according to which this right will be exercised and
expressed. A unilateral declaration of independence would fly in
the face of democracy and the rule of law.
What is not known is whether the secessionist leaders are able of
entering into a calm, level-headed and reasoned discussion process.
The coarse language used recently by the Premier of Quebec, who
compared Canada to a prison, or Quebec's Minister of Finance,
who compared the Canadian government to former totalitarian
communist governments, is an insult to the memory of the East
German and North Korean people who were killed trying to escape
totalitarian prisons. Independentist leaders must take a grip on
themselves and make responsible statements. Otherwise, they
should be prepared to call every constitutional democracy a prison,
as well as the separate entity they want to make of Quebec, whose
territory they consider indivisible and sacred.
With mutually consented rules in place, Quebecers could then
examine with some clarity the argumentation used by secessionist
leaders to try to convince them to break their ties of solidarity with
their fellows citizens of the maritimes, Ontario and western
Canada. It is my belief that Quebec will find this secessionist
argumentation very shaky.
Exploitation cannot be used as an argument to justify secession,
when the Canadian federation is one the most generous for
have-not regions. Neither can self-determination, or the lack of it,
be used as an argument, as few other federal components in the
world benefit from as much autonomy as Quebec does within the
Canadian federation.
2866
The only argument secessionist leaders could put forth is the
fact that, according to several established criteria, Quebecers could
be considered as a people and that each people must have its own
state. This idea that any group of people that is different from the
others must have its own state is terribly untrue.
(1145)
The flawed equation ``one people, one country'' would blow up
the planet. Experts have estimated at around 3,000 the number of
human groups with a recognized collective identity. But there are
fewer than 200 states in the world.
Quebecers and other Canadians should reflect on this fine
statement by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and I
quote:
[English]
If every ethnic region or linguistic group claimed statehood there
would be no limit to fragmentation, and peace, security and
well-being for all would become even more difficult to achieve.
[Translation]
Canada is the last place in the world where identity-based
fragmentation should be allowed to prevail. In the eyes of the
world, this country symbolizes better than any other the ideal of
how different people can live together in harmony in a single state.
In this regard, let us listen to President Clinton, who said, and I
quote: ``In a world darkened by ethnic conflicts that literally tear
nations apart, Canada has stood for all of us as a model of how
people of different cultures can live and work together in peace,
prosperity and understanding. Canada has shown the world how to
balance freedom with compassion''.
Many others have said the same thing about Canada. I will give
just one other quotation:
[English]
Canada is a land of promise and Canadians are people of hope. It
is a country celebrated for its generosity of spirit, where tolerance
is ingrained in the national character.
[Translation]
``A society in which all citizens and all groups can assert and
express themselves and realize their aspirations''. These words,
which have the ring of truth and could have come from Sir Wilfrid
Laurier or Pierre Trudeau, were pronounced on July 1, 1988, by the
then Secretary of State, the Hon. Lucien Bouchard.
The Canadian government's priority is to help Quebecers and
other Canadians reconcile. They must speak to one another, stay in
closer contact, clear up misunderstandings, find ways to make their
federation work better, and celebrate Quebec's distinctiveness
within Canada. They must reconcile, not only as fellow citizens
but also as inhabitants of this poor planet. Let us bet on democracy.
Therefore, if the amendment put forward by the hon. member for
Berthier-Montcalm is deemed to be in order, I, seconded by the
hon. member for Simcoe North, move:
That the motion be amended by deleting the words ``in 1985'' and by
substituting for those words the following:
``in the 1970s and in 1985 as outlined on page 150 of his book Straight from
the Heart: ``We'll put our faith in democracy. We'll convince the people that
they should stay in Canada and we'll win''.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that one cannot
move an hypothetical amendment, like my colleague just did,
because he said ``if''. The issue is under advisement.
(1150)
It is under advisement and as long as you have not ruled on the
original amendment, the only thing one can do is to move an
amendment to the amendment by the member for
Berthier-Montcalm. In this sense, you have to rule on that matter.
Should you decide-and I do not think that your ruling will be
along this line-but should you decide that the amendment is out of
order, another amendment could then be moved by a member. This
is very clear when you look at citation 581 which deals with
amendments to amendments; it says that you cannot move an
amendment when there is already one that has not been disposed
of. This is the case now, and the issue is under advisement.
You must make a ruling. Once this is done, the whole series of
amendments and amendments to amendments will start over again.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I agree that there can be only one amendment. However,
must I remind the Chair and the House that the Speaker has not yet
ruled on the amendment? If the amendment is out of order, which it
is not at this very moment, the minister is certainly allowed to
propose another amendment.
The Chair, with the help of the Table officers, is considering
whether the first amendment is in order, for two reasons: first, with
regard to the substance of the amendment and, second, with regard
to the point of order I raised as to whether the member had the right
to propose an amendment when he did. Once the Chair rules that
the first amendment is in order, if this is indeed the case, then the
minister's amendment will clearly be out of order.
But until the Chair rules on the first amendment, there is no
amendment before the House and, therefore, the minister has the
right to propose an amendment as he did.
2867
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Once again, I thank the
House leader of the official opposition, the hon. member for
Laurier-Sainte-Marie, and the chief government whip, the hon.
member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
First of all, I want to address the amendment brought forward by
the official opposition. I believe it is in order in terms of substance.
As for its timeliness, that issue is being considered as we speak.
Therefore, there is no amendment before the House at this moment.
As for the amendment proposed by the minister, I will take it
under advisement based on the ruling I will give in the first case
and also on whether it is in order.
I will read to you the text of the amendment proposed by the
minister: ``That the motion be amended by deleting the words ``in
1985'' and by substituting for those words the following: 'in the
1970s and in 1985 as outlined on page 150 of his book Straight
from the Heart: ``We'll put our faith in democracy. We'll convince
the people that they should stay in Canada and we'll win''. The
whole matter is being considered, and the Speaker will give his
ruling to the House as soon as possible.
(1155)
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to remind the minister and the House that the
Prime Minister's answer followed a question which reads as
follows: ``At a town meeting-a-Liberal got up and said
'Chrétien, when will you tell the separatists that there will never be
independence, that the federal government will never allow it to
happen?'.'' And the answer was: ``But I did not agree-it is Mr.
Chrétien who is speaking-. 'We'll put our faith in democracy,' I
said. 'We'll convince the people that they should stay in Canada
and we'll win. If we don't win, I'll respect the wishes of
Quebeckers and let them separate''.
Can the minister explain to us why, in the amendment which he
proposed and which may be in order, he deleted the part of the
quote which appears in the Prime Minister's book: ``If we don't
win, I'll respect the wishes of Quebeckers and let them separate''.
Why did the minister delete that part of the quote? In that quote,
there are two parts: if we win, we will do this; if we lose, we will do
that. That is how democracy works, it is making a choice between
the two.
That is the question I am asking the minister, but I have one last
comment to make.
In his speech, he said that Canada is practically the best country
in the world. I would like to submit to him, for his consideration, a
few examples of what Quebecers and French speaking Canadians
experienced in Canada.
The first example is the assimilation process in Manitoba, where
the French language was forbidden for many years, with the
acceptance of the rest of Canada for a very long time.
The second one is conscription, which was imposed on
Quebecers despite their decision not to take part.
The third one is that, ever since unemployment rates have been
calculated, unemployment in Quebec has always been 2, 3 or 4 per
cent higher that the national average. Is that an interesting
economic result? Is that acceptable?
For the fourth example, I will ask why, since 1982, all the
successive governments in Quebec, whether federalist or
sovereignist, never accepted to sign the Constitution that was
patriated without Quebec's consent? Do you really think that this
makes for an interesting country for Quebecers?
Mr. Dion: Mr. Speaker, the moment you mention the possibility
of winning, it infers the possibility of losing.
As I said before, what is at issue here is not the right of
Quebecers to leave Canada if they so desire and clearly state it, but
the Quebec government's claim to unilaterally choose and change
at will the process through which this right will be exercised.
Let the official opposition name one constitutional democracy
that would accept a unilateral process of this kind.
As far as the examples mentioned by the hon. member, countries
have their problems, but it is no reason to split. If you want to go to
the UN and explain why you want to secede, you will have to come
up with more serious reasons than this. You will not get anybody to
shed any tears over the problems we have had with the 1982
Constitution. As a matter of fact, other countries will be very
surprised to hear your objections, since Quebec representatives in
the federal government supported the new Constitution, since we
can produce polls showing that at the time Quebecers tended to
support Mr. Trudeau rather than Mr. Lévesque, since Mr. Lévesque,
instead of calling a referendum, appeased his own party, since in
the following elections the separatist party got only 2 per cent of
the votes; if you add up all this, you will not get anybody in the UN
to shed any tears with your arguments.
All they will say is that Canada is a normal country, a democracy
where there are disagreements, and that these disagreements must
be settled through mutual consent and within the law.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before continuing with
questions and comments, I would like to remind all the members
that they are to address their comments to the Chair.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I first
want to say that I am outraged at the lack of respect shown by the
2868
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to 49.4 per cent of
Quebecers who voted yes, when he said that it would not make
anyone cry.
To exercise a democratic right is not to try to make people cry.
(1200)
But to try to sell an idea such as that of secession is more serious.
Still, I should thank the minister for his excellent ``Politics 101''
lecture and for referring to three great classics: Tocqueville,
Rousseau and Montesquieu. His speech took me back to my
university years. I want to quote someone whom the minister
probably considers to be a great classic too, the current Prime
Minister.
Let us put things in their proper context with this more recent
statement from the Prime Minister: ``I am a democrat. I said it in
1980 in many speeches to that effect. If we had not recognized that
Quebec could make the decision to separate, we would have acted
differently. We could have used some powers. We did not use
them''. This is from the Bélanger-Campeau report, December 17,
1990, page 1515.
I have a question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Is he now telling us, after two referendums, after saying twice that
the rules were fair and legal, after recognizing that we were
democrats, that this is no longer the case and that the federal
government will use the other powers alluded to in 1990? If so,
what are these powers?
Mr. Dion: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's ideology makes him
incredibly touchy. It is an ideology based on paranoia, an ideology
that makes people feel constantly insulted, humi-
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The
minister, who just recently arrived in this House, should not only
learn its rules, but also the basic rules of politeness and respect for
others. It is unacceptable on his part to use such words, first
because he is insulting a colleague and, second, because he is
insulting those who suffer from this disorder. It is unacceptable and
the minister should retract himself and show that he was well
brought up.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I did not hear anything that
would lead me to ask the minister to retract. However, I will take a
look at the blues and deal with the issue if need be. I think we are
engaged in a very important debate.
Both sides of the House stressed the importance of being
respectful of each other. It may be even more important in the case
of debates such as this one, on the official opposition's motion.
I am giving the floor back to the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs.
Mr. Dion: Mr. Speaker, I talked about an ideology based on
paranoia. I would never say that the people themselves were
paranoid and I do not want the hon. member to believe that I was
talking about him personally. I just wanted to say that the ideology
he supports makes people feel constantly insulted and under attack.
I would say that the members' reaction and their request to have me
gagged and to make me apologize show that I am right to point out
how paranoid their ideology is.
(1205)
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the
minister explained what he meant by ``an ideology based on
paranoia'' by saying: ``Your ideology makes you feel paranoid'', so
that refers more-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Again, this is more a matter
for debate than a point of order. I would remind the House that
when some expressions or words are aimed at a group, they are
deemed acceptable. However, when they are directly aimed at
another parliamentarian, that is, as we say in Cornwall, a horse of a
different colour. So, with due respect for this debate being held in
the House of Commons during the 35th Parliament, I would ask the
minister to resume his speech.
Mr. Dion: Mr. Speaker, to say that some part of my speech was
insulting to Quebecers is really paranoid, because, the 49.4 per cent
of Quebecers who voted Yes did express their views. What was
unfortunate during the last referendum is that we did not know
exactly what a Yes vote would mean, because the rules of the game
were not quite clear, as evidenced by the fact that the leader of the
Yes side, Mr. Parizeau, on the night he lost the referendum, said
that the 49.4 per cent was the result of the indépendantiste vote, an
expression he never had the fortitude to use during the campaign
itself. Rest assured that the Government of Canada is very worried
about such a process that any constitutional democracy would find
irresponsible.
As regards the quotes the opposition likes to use, which are in
essence its only argument, I would like to point out that all the
quotes the opposition have come up with show that Canada is quite
ready to respect democracy but would never accept what any
constitutional democracy would also find unacceptable, which is
the violation of the law and a unilateral declaration of
independence.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister can test the theory he has just described on the public to
find out if they see it the same way. I put my seat on the line and
invite him to try and get elected in my riding with its francophone
majority. In order to get elected, the minister had to go through the
side door. But let him face the people, let him try his luck in my
riding. I wager my seat against his theories. He will see just what
the public thinks of his wonderful philosophy. Democracy is a
majority vote, the desire of a people to become sovereign or
2869
remain in a federation. When the Russian federation broke up, the
first government in the world to recognize all the small sovereign
countries was the Canadian government. But when the same thing
happens at home, it is a different story? Come on. What sort of
respect for democracy is that?
(1210)
Mr. Dion: Mr. Speaker, the first government in the world to
recognize the new republics created after the fall of the soviet
empire was the Russian government. If I were happy with the state
of opinion in Quebec and in Canada, I would be at the university
today.
I am well aware that numerous francophones in Quebec believe
that it is a contradiction to identify themselves both as Quebecers
and as Canadians, and that they must resolve this contradiction by
leaving Canada.
I intend to do everything in my power to convince my fellow
Quebecers that they must not give up on Canada. If ever I fail, after
rules expressing clearly and unambiguously what the people of
Quebec want, we should take steps in a manner that is fair to
everyone to bring about what for me would be a very sad thing, the
secession of Quebec.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville just made an interesting
speech in some respects, even though parts of it were rather
shocking. It was interesting because this man, who has his own
vision of Canada, concluded his speech by saying that if he cannot
convince Canadians that his vision is the right one, he will be sad.
The problem is that, since 1960, Quebec's premiers of all
political stripes have repeatedly tried to find a real place for
Quebec through negotiations with the rest of Canada. And they
have repeatedly failed to obtain satisfactory results.
The Deputy Speaker: I am told the member for Mercier will
have the floor to resume debate after questions and comments. The
minister has 30 seconds to respond and I will then give the floor to
the member for Mercier.
Mr. Dion: Mr. Speaker, from what I understood, the member
just said that Quebecers and Canadians have had an ongoing
dialogue for 30 years, which is normal in any federation, and that,
according to her, this dialogue would justify the break-up of
Canada.
Well, I will repeat what I have been saying since the beginning.
We are talking about Canada, one of the most decentralized
federations in the world. In my mind Canada is the most
decentralized. Experts recognize that it is one of the most
decentralized federations.
When we talk about one of the most independent federations in
the world, if Quebecers let themselves be persuaded that it is not
enough and that they have to separate from the rest of Canada, one
of the problems they would face is that they would have to explain
to their own minority that they refused one of the most generous
independent status in the world without even being able to give
them the same status. It would be sad and very difficult to swallow.
A reconciliation within Canada would be so much better.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville is not the first to enter
politics and to think that, because he is a politician, he will
convince Canadians. I also have a great perception of Canada.
I came to the conclusion that the best way for this country to
continue to give an example it has often given is to recognize,
given its nature, that it cannot and does not want to give Quebecers
the place they believe is necessary and, consequently, that it is
better at this time, as many authorities in English Canada are
starting to say, to make preparations to recognize that Quebec can
become sovereign, and to negotiate an agreement with it. This
agreement is called a partnership in Quebec and can be called
otherwise elsewhere. This is where the real solution, the real hope
lies. Not in plan B which the minister himself has flirted with.
(1215)
Not in plan B that, unfortunately-and I was extremely sad
about this because I know many colleagues opposite-the Liberal
caucus discussed in Vancouver. The latest episode in plan B is the
government's involvement, I do not know on whose advice, in
lawyer Guy Bertrand's case.
I would like to point this out: for all lovers of democracy, what is
Mr. Bertrand's logic? It is that Quebecers, who are a people, used
their right to self-determination in 1867? So much for democracy.
What referendum took place in 1867?
Guy Bertrand is saying: ``Quebec used its right to
self-determination once, when members of Parliament voted for
Confederation'', but we know that Confederation was a colonial
act, the British North American Act. This Constitution was only
patriated in 1982 and Quebec parliamentarians unanimously voted
against it.
When Guy Bertrand says Quebec used its right to
self-determination, when only members of Parliament voted for
Confederation, he is leading the government down a road it may
not wish to take, as it has spoken of letting Quebec clearly express
its will.
This issue of democracy is central to the evolution of the
sovereignist movement in Quebec. And I can even tell you that,
over several years, I heard Guy Bertrand say repeatedly and
eloquently that the 1982 Constitution was loathsome and that the
National Assembly of Quebec could declare independence alone,
without a referendum.
2870
On the contrary, the sovereignist movement is the full
embodiment of democracy. Over the years, it has, to quote a
prominent French politician ``accepted that its progression is the
progression of the slowest''. This was said by Michel Rocard,
who, at that time, confessed that he had great respect for our way
of doing things. Yes, Quebec's sovereignist movement accepts all
the demands of democracy. And its behaviour has been exemplary
in that regard.
Quebecers are becoming increasingly aware that they have no
future for them unless they become masters of their own destiny,
because they cannot take it any more, as many Canadians are tired
of constantly discussing the basic conditions required for Quebec's
recognition. Canadians are fed up, Quebecers are fed up, but this
situation must be resolved once and for all.
We are a people and a nation. This is an inescapable fact. This is
a historical fact. This is a fact the hon. member recognizes when he
says that, sadly, it must be acknowledged that sovereignty is
desirable, because the people of Quebec are the ones who will
choose to become sovereign. The inescapable fact is that we are a
pluralistic people and nation, which accepts and includes everyone
living on its territory.
We equate sovereignty with the quest for the majority's
approval, an approval that has been sought long and hard, with all
the difficulties we went through.
(1220)
To come out with statements to the effect that Quebecers would
not make anybody cry is to ignore the emotions felt worldwide
during the last referendum, where, I would say, the world admired
the open and honest debate that went on and the way people
accepted the result. Even if it was extremely close, there was no
expression of indignation from the many Quebecers, not only
francophones but also people of other origins with whom I have
worked for a long time, from all those people who, for years and
years, have dedicated their life to this cause in which they strongly
believe.
The government has to stop trying to prevent Quebecers from
proposing to Canada the ideal image that the minister should
commit to, and that is to ensure that Quebec and Canada, once
sovereignty is achieved, negotiate a partnership that will allow
everybody, both Canadians and Quebecers, to address the most
pressing issues that we have to set aside until this situation is
resolved.
I have a series of amendments. If the Bloc amendment is
rejected, I propose the following amendment to the amendment
proposed by the member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville:
That the following be added after the word ``win'':
``adding that he would recognize the independence of Quebec if he lost''.
If the amendment put forward by the member for
Berthier-Montcalm is deemed to be in order, I move an
amendment to the amendment.
That the amendment be amended by adding the words ``the book'' between
the words ``in'' and ``Straight from the Heart''.
If both amendments are defeated, I move:
That the motion be amended by adding the following immediately after the
word ``stated'':
``in his book, Straight from the Heart, on page 150''.
The Deputy Speaker: My colleagues, this is becoming very
complicated. We will consider the matter and give an opinion as
soon as possible. In the meantime, we can talk about any other
subject related to today's debate.
(1225)
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member quoted a well known French
political figure, Michel Rocard, to support her argument. I am
always pleased to hear the extraordinary variety of points of view
that come to us from that great pluralistic democracy, the Fifth
French Republic, which proclaims itself an indivisible whole, and
whose Prime Minister was recently quoted as finding the very idea
of holding a referendum in Corsica on the future of Corsica
ridiculous.
The truth is that the Canadian government's position on the right
to secede is more conciliatory than that of many other western
democracies. It is not saying that secession is always forbidden, but
rather that a decision such a secession by one province cannot be
made unilaterally. It must be done with the consent of the parties
concerned and within the law. That was the position of the
Government of Quebec and of the Government of Canada in 1980,
and it is still the position of the Government of Canada.
Mr. Bouchard needs to get hold of himself. Instead of insulting
the East Germans and the North Koreans who lost their lives in
escaping totalitarian regimes, instead of saying that Canada is not a
real country, he ought to keep in mind that, in free societies, in
democratic and peaceful societies, the usual way to arbitrate
disagreements and to settle conflicts is to plead one's case before
the courts and to recognize the right of one's adversaries to do
likewise.
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the hon.
minister, who no doubt is much more aware of this than I, having
taught political science for a long time, that facts come before laws,
and that before there were constitutions there were peoples who
constituted themselves before creating constitutions.
The people of Quebec are a people and a nation, one which, I
repeat, has never subscribed to the Constitution. The Constitution
began by being colonial, and when it was brought to Canada
through the good graces of Trudeau, the National Assembly in its
2871
entirety rejected the 1982 Constitution. Since that time, in Canada,
in Canada outside Quebec, there has been a debate on how Quebec
will, or will not, be allowed to rejoin the ranks of the Constitution.
During his term, Prime Minister Mulroney, regardless of what
other qualities or shortcomings we ascribe to him, tried to make
room for Quebec in the 1982 Constitution. This gave rise to Meech,
this gave rise to Charlottetown.
This is the truth, a fact, not just a notion. What needs doing is not
to convince Quebecers that Canada is an ideal country, but to find a
concrete solution so that Quebec will at last have the powers it
requires to develop as it is entitled to develop.
Mr. Dion: Mr. Speaker, the whole basis is there. What law is the
hon. member speaking of? It is not international law, which extends
the right of secession only in cases of decolonialization or manifest
exploitation. It is not Canadian law, which does not give a province
the right to secede unilaterally.
So, if she is not speaking about a formal law, she should
recognize that it is high time we talked calmly about rules that
would be acceptable to everyone in order to ensure that Canadians
are treated fairly in all circumstances.
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, never in this fairly long stretch
separating us from the two referendums has the Government of
Canada said such things. It always distinguished between politics
and the Constitution.
Why, when we almost won the latest referendum, did it change
its opinion? I hope with all my heart that my colleague opposite is
not the person advising this government to change its attitude,
which was the right one in a democracy.
(1230)
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, to start with I would like to recall the thrust of the
opposition motion. In the seventies the Prime Minister of Canada
said, as reported in his book Straight from the Heart, ``We'll put
our faith in democracy. We'll convince the people that they should
stay in Canada and we'll win. If we don't win, I'll respect the
wishes of Quebeckers and let them separate''. The aim of the
opposition motion is to have the whole House repeat this statement.
It is to have the Prime Minister confirm that the rules he believed in
in the seventies, and stated in his book, will still apply tomorrow.
This is the objective of the motion.
We can safely say that when the present Prime Minister made
that statement in the seventies, he probably had data telling him
that the sovereignist side would never win a referendum. This is
probably what he had in mind, given the numbers he had. But the
inability of the federal system to reform itself has resulted in the
sovereignist vote increasing from 22 per cent in 1970, during a
Quebec election, to 40 per cent in the 1980 referendum to 49.4 per
cent last year. Each time we make progress because federalists
make promises they do not keep.
Obviously I understand the fear of the present government when
it says that it cannot change the structure and come up with a
proposal that will please Quebecers. If the present government
were to say that it was going to negotiate between peoples, that it
was going to enshrine in the Canadian Constitution the recognition
of the two founding peoples of Canada, and that it would allow
Quebec to develop-
Quebecers have been making these claims for a long time, but
proposals never came to anything because they did not meet the
needs of both peoples of Canada. We can understand this and there
is a solution to it, which is what we are proposing. The aim of
today's motion however is to make sure it will be done
democratically.
I would like to clarify something the Prime Minister keeps on
repeating. He says: ``You lost the referendum twice, now respect
democracy''. Democracy does not mean we have to stop believing
what we believe in when we lose an election, democracy is keeping
on trying to convince people we are right and they are wrong. To do
this, you need tenacity. Evolution of thought is important also. In
Quebec, mainly at the suggestion of René Lévesque, we gambled
on the profound belief that we would solve the issue
democratically. We accepted the 40 per cent result of 1980 and the
more recent 49.4 per cent.
The current premier of Quebec was the first to accept the results.
We play according to the rules of democracy. We are sovereignists
and we say so very clearly. We will call an election, we will win
and we will prove to Quebecers that this is the right solution,
because you cannot make a flower grow by pulling on it, you have
to nurture it. We are ready to follow the pace of the people and to
present arguments to convince them.
What we need now is for the government, and particularly the
Prime Minister, to confirm their respect for democracy because,
over the last few days, we have heard all sorts of contradictory
statements saying that it cannot be done with just over 50 per cent,
that other conditions will have to be met. The federal government
and Quebec must agree on the question.
There is a paternalistic attitude now, just as there was in 1982.
The rules of democracy were followed then. In 1982, the
government said: ``We are legitimate, we have 74 federalist Libreal
members out of 75 seats. Therefore, we have the right to do so. And
we will put our seats on the line during the next election''.
Democracy prevailed because after the following election, they
were all gone. Since then, the movement has gathered momentum.
2872
We went from nationalist members within the Conservative Party
to the 53 sovereignists we now have, because of the Meech Lake
accord demise.
There will be sovereignists until Canada solves the problem with
Quebec and, for us, the solution is sovereignty. If the government
has another solution to propose, it should put it on the table and let
Quebecers judge its relevancy. At the present time, the game is not
played on the rink. The federal government is trying to change the
rules and the players' position on the rink. That is no solution. It
does not solve anything. It is like negotiating a collective
agreement, when, instead of agreeing at the negotiating table,
people start negotiating the back-to-work protocol, the strike issue,
etc. That is irrelevant.
(1235)
So, the objective of the opposition motion is to allow the Prime
Minister, the current government, to reaffirm what he said in the
1970's and 1980's, that is, if they do not win, they will let
Quebecers separate.
The current Prime Minister made that statement. When he says:
``I'll let Quebeckers separate'', which in his vocabulary is about the
most terrible thing that could happen, there is a fundamental
recognition that, if the results make sovereignty possible, it will
have to be accepted by the Canadian government.
It is also important to let everyone see clearly that we do not live
in a society that has always existed as such. Canadian
Confederation is not timeless, it did not come into existence at the
same time our planet did. It is the result of compromises that led
British colonies to become allied in a kind of organization in 1867.
It was finalized by a vote in their respective legislative assemblies.
That is when it was decided to found Canada.
In a sense, Quebecers could be said to be overdoing it. They have
developed an acute sense of democracy. After joining the Canadian
confederation by a vote in the legislature, they saw fit, in light of
the evolution of political thinking, to impose upon themselves as a
requirement that a democratic vote be held in which more than 50
per cent of the population should vote in favour.
Come to think of it, the result in 1995 was fantastic. Ninety-three
per cent of Quebecers voted in the referendum, a participation rate
unsurpassed anywhere in the world. It was a tight vote. The verdict
came in. And we said: ``We shall continue to be a part of Canada
according to the wishes of the majority''. The majority expressed
its wishes and we acknowledged the referendum results.
We also tolerated, without displaying any violence, having
20,000, 25,000 or 30,000 persons-the exact number was never
determined- come to Montreal to tell us in an ultrapaternalistic
way that they would decide in our place what we want. I think that
we can be proud of our democratic process in Quebec. It is fair to
say that this may be behind the largest consensus in Quebec.
While realizing there are differences of opinion, we are prepared
to live with them and to defend them. We are even prepared to take
up the fight once again and to accept what comes of it. We are
asking the Liberal government to take our lead. It should simply
respect whatever decision Quebecers make and stick to its guns.
In conclusion, I move as follows:
That the motion be amended by adding, immediately after the word ``stated'',
the following:
``in his book entitled Straight from the Heart, on page 140''.
I also move the following:
That the amendment moved by the hon. member for Mercier be amended by
adding the word ``autobiographical'' immediately before the word ``book''.
I move this amendment to an amendment.
I hope that members will rise in this House to tell us that, first
and foremost, they are liberals and democrats and that they will
respect whatever democratic decision is made. Being a democrat
must take precedence over being a federalist or a sovereignist. In
the decisions facing us, it is of paramount importance that the
wishes of the people be respected.
I expect the current Prime Minister of Canada to do so and to
reaffirm by voting in favour of this motion that he still holds the
same views on the matter, that democracy will prevail in his
decision and that he will accept the result of the next referendum,
which will see Quebec become a sovereign state.
(1240)
The Deputy Speaker: We shall carefully consider the official
opposition's latest initiatives. We will settle everything at the same
time, and as quickly as possible.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief to compensate for the length of the
official opposition's speeches and their repetitive, rhetorical
arguments as they pretend not to realize they have lost this debate.
In this matter, the Government of Canada defends the right of
Quebecers and other Canadian citizens to be treated fairly under
the law whatever the circumstances. As I just said, the official
opposition is pretending it does not realize it has lost the debate.
They can quote the Prime Minister of Canada as much as they
want; all this would do is show that, as a good democrat, the Prime
Minister has no intention of keeping a people against its will once
this people has clearly expressed its desire to leave Canada.
At the same time, it has been clearly demonstrated in this debate
that a unilateral declaration of independence would violate the rule
2873
of law and go against democratic principles and would not be
recognized by any constitutional democracy on this planet.
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, I have an interesting proposal for the
minister. If, as he claims, the Prime Minister is indeed a good and
great democrat, then let us hear him reassert his position. He
simply has to vote in favour of the motion. The Prime Minister
simply has to tell his government colleagues that he is not afraid of
repeating what he said in 1970 and wrote in 1985. This is what we
are asking him to do on this opposition day.
The minister also says that we lost the debate. The fact is that the
democratic and political debate is not over in one day. This is not
the society of a thousand years, as former Prime Minister Trudeau
once said. We have a right to democratically discuss ideas. We had
a good example of that last week. The debate on the issue of sexual
orientation as a prohibited ground for discrimination lasted for over
25 years in Canada.
People maintained their position and, thanks to their tenacity,
finally got what they wanted. This is how changes are brought
about in the political process. This is what we were taught in the
past by very democratic people, in Quebec and in Canada. We
learned that political debates are the way to go, that battles are won
by convincing people with good arguments.
Right now, new arguments come up every day and more and
more people are in favour of Quebec's sovereignty. It is so because,
in the days that preceded the October 30 referendum, the Prime
Minister, speaking for the current federal government, said to us:
``We will make major changes''. It is the second time in 15 years
that we are told major changes will take place, and this time again
there are no changes. Each time, some people realize they made a
mistake by voting no, and the next they will vote yes. This is the
reality. This is the real political debate, and we will win it.
The people of Quebec has been forging ahead for a long time.
The fact that sovereignists have been here for over two years is not
a coincidence. For a long time, we believed that we could become
sovereign by simply forming the government in Quebec City. We
realized it was important to send a message to Canada and to make
the country realize that sovereignty was not a folksy thing in
Quebec, but a deeply rooted feeling. Such was the message sent by
Quebecers to all federalists at the 1993 election.
Quebecers said: ``We want to be represented by a majority of
sovereignists, and we want Canada to know that. We will make
decisions accordingly and we will always do so in the respect of
democracy''.
(1245)
Today, we are merely asking the Prime Minister to say that, yes,
he will continue to respect the rules of democracy. The decision
rests with him.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member has used the pronoun nous or we many times:
We in Quebec want this, we in Quebec want that. He and I both
agree there is a lot of democracy going on here now and then.
When he uses the term ``we'' is he not also trying to speak for the
majority of Quebecers who voted no in the last referendum? How is
he able-
The Deputy Speaker: The member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I can tell my hon. colleague that when I say ``we'' as
democrats, I am referring to the vast majority of Quebecers. Last
October's referendum, in which 93 per cent of the population went
to the polls, shows very clearly that we Quebecers are democrats. I
would add that Canadians, too, are democrats. What we are asking
today is for the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada to
reaffirm that they still stand for democracy and that they are always
ready to accept the rules of the game, even though they are feeling
the heat.
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will share my
time with my colleague, the hon. member for St. Boniface.
[English]
I am very pleased to take part in the debate today. I am glad the
hon. member from Scarborough asked the hon. member from
Kamouraska the question about to whom the term we refers. When
I look at the quote in the original motion, I remind hon. members
opposite that in 1985 we did win, just as we did win in 1995. As far
as I am concerned we refers to all Canadians, whether you live in
Quebec, British Columbia, or the Yukon, whether you speak French
or English, the we includes all of us from sea to sea to sea.
The Bloc motion seeks to sow confusion once again among
Canadians, then blame it on the federal government. I draw to the
attention of the House and the attention of Quebecers in particular
to the true intention behind the words of the secessionists. I will
deal briefly with a number of myths that they enjoy circulating.
First, let me talk about transfers to the provinces, the first myth
we have to deal with. Quebec's current finance minister said when
he tabled his last budget that Quebec is the most indebted province.
Indeed, its economy generates revenues for the provincial
government which fall below the Canadian average.
It is precisely to remedy the inequalities this situation could
cause over time that the federal government provides Quebec with
generous and completely unconditional equalization payments
every year. A federal system can afford to do that, unlike a separate
and separated heavily indebted country.
2874
Quebec is not the only province that receives federal transfer
payments. My province of Nova Scotia does, as do Prince Edward
Island, Newfoundland and New Brunswick. It is because we are
a federation, it is because as a federation we believe in assisting
each other.
Mr. Speaker, you will remember there was a time when
Quebecers and maritimers, eastern Canadians in general, paid $5 a
barrel over the world price for oil in order to get the Alberta oil
industry moving. That is what a federation is about, helping one
part of the federation when it is needed.
Transfers to the provinces represent a substantial part of the
federal government's program spending. We could therefore not
reasonably streamline the spending in the last budget without
touching those transfers, but they are still there and will continue to
be there.
(1250 )
Nevertheless, the cuts in transfers to the provinces that were
made are far from disproportionate. They will require from all the
provinces an effort to adjust that is well below the one that the
federal government is imposing on itself. Thus, in the next two
years the federal government intends to reduce its own spending by
7.3 per cent while the main transfers to the provinces will be cut by
only 4.4 per cent. In other words, the federal government is being
much easier on the provinces, Quebec included, than it is on itself.
The Bloc is also trying to make people believe that cuts in
federal transfers affect Quebec more than the other provinces.
However, it has taken pains not to mention Le Hir study which
stated that Quebec's share in that regard has remained stable for 15
years at around 30 per cent, which is clearly greater than Quebec's
proportion of the Canadian population.
Moreover, the Bloc is also not mentioning that the reform
announced in the last federal budget in this regard even gives
additional protection to the seven less wealthy provinces, which
include Quebec, because equalization payments to these provinces
will continue to increase in the next four years. Equalization
payments to Quebec will thus increase by around $200 million for a
total of $4.05 billion in 1996-97. Yet another myth that just does
not cut it.
The Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois refuse to respect
the will of Quebecers, a majority of whom have twice chosen to
stay in Canada and work to renew it.
However, the Bloc and the péquiste keep singing the same tune.
For example, their unsubstantiated inflating of the cost of overlap
and duplication to $3 billion is another deliberate attempt on their
part to discredit Canadian federalism and to hoodwink the people
in the province of Quebec. Yet they will never admit that.
In the vast majority of cases where the two orders of government
are active in the same field of activity, their actions complement
one another because they serve different clientele or provide
different services to the same clientele. This federalism works and
works well for the people of Quebec as it works and works well for
the people of every province and territory in this great country.
Furthermore, they are very reluctant to tell people that the few
serious analyses of the subject show that the savings achieved
would be less than $1.7 billion and that those are gross savings
which would be offset in the event of secession by the loss of
economies of scale and by higher interest rates on government
borrowing.
The overlap being described to Quebecers is much less than our
friends across the aisle would have them believe. It certainly is not
worth destroying a country for. We intend to minimize unnecessary
overlap while ensuring that we effectively manage overlap that is
inevitable.
There are other myths too. Our opponents across the aisle like to
suggest that Canadian federalism is responsible for the high
unemployment in Quebec. That has nothing to do with the
Canadian system. Everyone, except it seems the Bloc, seems to
know that unemployment is a problem for all western countries.
Some unitary states have unemployment rates much higher than
Canada. Canada is taking the necessary measures to implement the
fullest employment policy possible.
The IMF forecast of a 2.9 per cent economic growth in 1997 is
good news for all Canadians and for the Canadian government,
whose main objective is to revitalize the economy and improve our
economic union. The standard of living of all Canadians depends
on it.
The secessionists may not like it but Canada actually works a
whole lot better than their highly speculative smoke and mirrors. If
federalism is so harmful to the economy and jobs in Quebec why
do economists unanimously conclude that the job situation in
Quebec would worsen considerably following separation?
The secessionists like to suggest that the Government of Canada
gives Quebec money only for unemployment insurance, social
assistance and seniors. Yet the federal government has always
invested considerable sums of money in Quebec year after year in a
large number of projects that are essential to its social, economic
and cultural development. Furthermore, statistics show
unequivocally that Quebec within Canada is very profitable for
Quebecers. In fact, Quebec provides 21.7 per cent of the federal
government's revenues and receives more than 24.5 per cent of
federal spending.
(1255)
Let me give a few examples of that spending: 47.5 per cent of
Canadian industrial milk quotas go to Quebec farmers; 32 per cent
of Canada Council funding is distributed to Quebec, specifically in
the literary and publishing field, Quebec receives 40 per cent of
2875
council funding; more than 50 per cent of financial assistance from
the Department of Canadian Heritage for publishing and
distribution of publications goes to Quebec; 37 per cent of Telefilm
Canada funding is distributed in Quebec; 33 per cent of federal
funding for the reception and integration of immigrants goes to the
Government of Quebec, even though Quebec receives less than 20
per cent of the immigrants who come to Canada each year; $204
million is earmarked for the economic development of the regions
of Quebec by the Federal Office for Regional
Development-Quebec.
How can the Bloc seriously claim that federalism is hurting
Quebec's development and keeping it in a state of dependency? It is
beyond understanding. It is smoke and mirrors. It is a sham and one
that I do not think Quebecers believe any more than other
Canadians do.
Canada is seen as the jailer of Quebec. That is the latest outrage,
to compare Canada to a prison in which Quebec is being held
against its will. Is this a strange sense of humour, or are the
secessionists serious? Indeed, how can Quebec want to separate
from their jailers today and yet want to reassociate with them
tomorrow?
Belonging to an political and economic union brings with it the
obligation of co-operation and consultation. In today's
interdependent world, doing what I like is not the objective of any
responsible government. It is not even feasible.
Quebecers have twice chosen with their hearts and with their
heads not to mortgage their future and their children's future when
they benefit from economic and political association with Canada
and are part of the country with the best quality of life in the world.
If our friends across the aisle want to help Quebecers, they will
have to do their part, abandon their completely unrealistic ideology
and work with the majority of their fellow citizens who want and
will help us all to build a better Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened carefully to what the hon. member had to say. I can tell you
that her speech will not go down in history since she constantly
changed subjects and contradicted herself. Let me quote some of
her comments. She talked about confusion. If there is someone who
is confused in this House, it has to be the Prime Minister. We were
given an example earlier. We were told that in 1970 he did not do
the same thing as he did in 1985.
One day, he says something, the next he goes back on his word.
Let me give you an example. Not so long ago, the Prime Minister
said in this House that we would ``have to face the music'' at the
next referendum. At the time, he was sure he was going to win.
When you are sure to win, there are rights, no such considerations.
He was sure to win, so he could say anything.
The situation has changed since then, with the growing
popularity of the sovereignist movement, the results of the last
referendum and the things yet to come. After the next referendum,
it will be over. Why? Because the federal government has not been
able since 1867 to deal with federalism as it should have. Initially,
within the federal system, the federal government and the
provinces were supposed to share Canada's sovereignty. Little by
little however, the federal government got involved in areas of
provincial jurisdiction, so much so that we now have a dominating
and centralizing federal government.
As for the hon. member's conclusion, we will come back to that.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are indicating I have only one minute
left. I will not be able to say much, but let me sum up what I wanted
to say. When we are told that we lost the last referendum, I always
answer that federalism did not even exist in 1867.
(1300)
Everybody agreed more or less with what was put on the table.
But in 1980 the results were 44 per cent and in 1995, 49.6 per cent.
Quebecers are becoming aware that, within the current system, we
are not progressing, we are moving backwards, and at the next
referendum, I am convinced we will get between 55 per cent and 60
per cent of the votes.
I just wish people would understand one thing: the only way to
put an end to the constitutional debate is for federalists to propose a
real program if they have one, but unfortunately, they do not have
any.
[English]
Ms. Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I understand our difficulty. The hon.
member suggested that I was confused and contradicted myself. He
did not give any examples, ergo I cannot refute his utterly
ridiculous charge.
He said that we do not share. I gave eight examples of where the
federal government not only shares but shares most generously in
federal funds with the province of Quebec without even getting into
the transfer payments.
Finally, our federation certainly has its problems as do other
federations. I know we can overcome these problems because on
this side of the House we have faith in the sense and sensibility and
the good hearts of all Canadians whether they live in Quebec or
anywhere else in the country. I am sorry the hon. member over
there does not. However we will prevail.
[Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to add my voice to those trying to describe the ties of
affection that have long existed, and that still exist, between
Canada and Quebec.
[English]
I am adding my voice in the House today to those of my
colleagues in the government, first to set the record straight for
2876
Canadians, especially Quebecers, and at the same time to respond
to the disinformation that is continually being put forward by the
Bloc Quebecois.
The Bloc would have Quebecers and other Canadians believe
that Canada is a prison, that the federal government is a jailer
keeping Quebec bound and gagged and thus preventing it from
expressing itself on issues that are important to its future. Nothing
could be further from the truth. That is the type of hysterical
rhetoric we have become used to hearing from the Bloc as it
defends its now secessionist position.
Let us look at the motion tabled by the Bloc today which is yet
another example of that kind of disinformation. The Bloc would
like the government of a country that has flourished for 129 years
to remain mute, absolutely mute with regard to a unilateral
declaration of independence that would flout the Canadian
Constitution in the courts.
Accordingly, the Bloc would like to see the 23 million Canadians
outside of Quebec stand idly by and give the secessionist
government a blank cheque by abstaining from discussing this
matter. It is now the secessionist government itself that has brought
us to this point. The Government of Canada now has an obligation
to respond even though a majority of Quebecers have expressed yet
again their desire to remain within the Canadian Confederation.
As Mr. Daniel Johnson, the leader of the opposition in Quebec
has said, this is a phoney problem. But because the PQ has
instigated this legal debate, let us do it calmly and coolly. That is
the position of the Canadian government. Anger and emotion must
not win out over reason. Unfortunately that is how the BQ and the
PQ are reacting.
[Translation]
Let us talk about some myths. I will read you a quotation: ``We
must separate from Canada, this prison, and fly on our own. Once
separated, we will re-establish our association with our good
partners in Canada''. This is what is really behind the Bloc's
motion. We are accused of hiding our true motives, while, for them,
duplicity and camouflage are the order of the day.
The motion introduced by the Bloc Quebecois today is proof yet
again. The public is not fooled. It is well aware that the official
opposition enjoys in this House considerable freedom of
expression that only a country as democratic as Canada would
tolerate. It can also tell the difference between reality and the
myths the Bloc Quebecois delights in spreading.
(1305)
I will now speak about the vitality of the federal system.
[English]
The Bloc is trying to make people believe that Canadian
federalism is outmoded, that it has not changed at all, that it is
keeping Quebec in a straitjacket. The truth is very different.
Members opposite may not like it but the federal system is doing
very well indeed.
The Fathers of Confederation who came from Quebec and three
other provinces wisely chose for Canada in 1867 the model of a
federal state in order to pool the assets and channel the energies
that existed in our wide geographic space. Above all, they wanted
as a population to be able to live and evolve within a political
system that would be able to adapt, improve and renew itself over
time and as needed. It was a system in which each part preserved its
distinctiveness but the whole was more than the sum of its parts.
The evidence has been in for a long time that the flexibility of
the Canadian federation has allowed and still allows all provinces
to develop in accordance with their priorities and their specific
characteristics while ensuring that they enjoy the benefits of
belonging to this great country of Canada.
Throughout our history the sharing of powers, which has been
revised on an ongoing basis, has yielded many benefits in the form
of flexibility, innovation and initiative. For example, it has allowed
the federal government to set national goals and standards which
apply to all Canadians, while leaving it to the provinces to ensure
that services best correspond to their own realities.
Quebec has been no exception to that rule, as evidenced by the
tremendous progress it has made particularly in the past 30 years.
The quiet revolution took place inside a united Canada, yet in all
that time Quebec was indeed a part of that same Canadian
federation the Bloc is now denouncing.
[Translation]
The distinct nature of Quebec. From its very beginnings, Canada
has always striven to improve, to modernize and to secure for its
citizens the best possible quality of life. Quebec's contribution to
this process has been unflagging and unique, especially because of
its French roots. But it has also derived benefit from belonging to
Canada, through such things as the support of federal institutions in
matters of culture, which has given it considerable influence on the
world scene.
Quebec is an asset to Canada, a treasured part of our country.
Canadians are attached to the distinct character of Quebec. It is
recognized and encouraged by the Canadian government.
It is therefore in this spirit that the Prime Minister asked
Parliament to make commitments regarding Quebec and to pass in
this House a resolution recognizing Quebec as a distinct society. By
2877
so doing, the Parliament of Canada made official one of the Prime
Minister's commitments and, as the only body that can speak on
behalf of all Canadians, gave a solemn undertaking. It thus
recognized an obvious reality, the distinct character of Quebec,
based on its language, its culture and its legal system.
This open-mindedness of the federal government with respect to
the distinct character of Quebec is part of what distinguishes
Canada from its neighbour to the south.
I would now like to look at the division of powers, because this is
an area in which we differ greatly from a number of other
federations.
[English]
In the wake of significant changes it initiated to modernize the
federation, the government announced in the speech from the
throne that it intended to open a new chapter in federal-provincial
relations. From now on the watch words will be respect, dialogue,
consensus and co-operation. We will be partners in serving
Canadians.
Those are not just empty promises. The federal government's
commitment has already been translated into tangible measures,
such as the approval of detailed action plans to improve federal and
provincial services, an action plan that has been rejected by the
secessionist government whose avowed aims are to make people
believe that the federal government serves no purpose and to break
up Canada.
(1310 )
The same secessionist government wanted us to withdraw from
labour market training. After investing $1.5 billion in that field in
1995-96 and $433 million this year, we agreed that we would
withdraw from labour market training. We did not want to do that
to make the secessionists happy. What was important to us at the
end of the day was for the governments' actions to complement one
another so that high quality services are delivered at the lowest cost
to taxpayers by the government in the best position to do so.
The Canadian government has also indicated its firm intention to
withdraw from other fields of activity, such as forestry, mining and
recreation and to transfer its responsibilities to local or regional
organizations or the private sector.
The federal government will respect provincial jurisdiction by
limiting its own spending power with regard to co-financed or
shared cost programs in fields of provincial responsibility.
Together with the provinces, it is also seeking out new forms of
consultation and joint management in certain areas, such as
environmental management, social housing, food inspection,
tourism and freshwater fish habitat. It is also actively pursuing the
establishment of a Canadian securities commission.
[Translation]
I see that my time is up. In closing, I therefore invite my
colleagues across the way to reconsider this federation, to look at
what it has done for us and what it can still do if we work together
with the goal of improving it.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first, what
stands out from my hon. friend's intervention is that he regrets that
Quebecers do not see Canada his way. Indeed, the 49.4 per cent of
Quebecers who voted Yes in the referendum already knew what the
hon. member wants them to be convinced of. This is not the issue.
When the hon. member talks about the distribution of powers, he
should remember that the main power, which makes the
constitutional power sharing illusive, is spending power. Spending
power radically changed the distribution of powers originally
negotiated by the Fathers of Confederation.
Finally, the hon. member should recognize that, when the Prime
Minister wants to limit the use by Quebec, which is not just another
province but a people and a nation in its own right, of its
democratic right through a referendum, the 1867 Constitution was
originally an act passed by Great Britain for its colonies, achieved
through negotiations between politicians from each colony, mainly
because, after the 1837-38 rebellion, in the so-called union of
Canada, that is, a forced union of what is currently known as
Ontario and Quebec, nothing worked any more.
Mr. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I feel that I have nothing to regret in
what I have said. What is happening is that we have two totally
different views. What I am calling for is a look at what a federation
is. Twice, the majority of Quebecers have agreed with what I have
said, every bit of it.
What I find regrettable is that I have heard nothing good said
about this federation. I find it incredible that even an Opposition
member cannot say ``Here are three or four very good aspects''.
Now, about the Prime Minister again, he has said: ``We will be
democratic, we will respect Canadian law and international law''.
(1315)
As you know, in his 1985 book Straight from the Heart, on page
140, the Prime Minister says ``We'll put our faith in democracy.
We'll convince the people that they should stay in Canada and
we'll win''. That is what he says.
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to have the floor, and I would like to ask my colleague opposite to
explain, since he has been talking for a while now about the
2878
beautiful great country Canada is, why their popularity in Canada
has dropped by 7 per cent compared to last month, according to the
polls.
Mr. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleague will admit that
this is a beautiful great country, a country held in esteem by
everyone on this planet. I trust that he did not want to indicate that
it was anything other than that.
As for the polls, I would be prepared to compare our polls and
yours across Canada, if that is what you want to do. We must pay
some attention to polls, but we must not let ourselves be led by
them. The most important poll of all is the one held on election day
itself.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
both proud and sad to take part in today's debate on the motion
moved by the official opposition, which reads as follows and
quotes the prime minister: ``We'll put our faith in democracy. We'll
convince the people that they should stay in Canada and we'll win.
If we don't win, I'll respect the wishes of Quebeckers and let them
separate.'' This is the subject of our motion based, you will have
understood, on a quote from page 150 of a book written by the
Prime Minister entitled Straight from the Heart.
I am proud because this is a very important debate, and sad
because this debate is part of the constitutional debate, which today
takes a threatening turn, as it has for some weeks now. Indeed, the
situation is extremely serious and these are difficult times for the
Canadian democracy.
Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice told us these
past few days that, in the event of a yes vote in a democratically
held Quebec referendum, the Canadian government would not
recognize it because the present Constitution makes no provision
for one part of Canada to secede.
What is important to remember is the underlying meaning of
such statements. This means that, in the mind of the Prime Minister
of Canada, the wishes expressed by Quebecers will be subject to an
amending process requiring the unanimous consent of the
provinces in order to be recognized. This means that the wishes of
Quebecers will eventually be subject to the will of Canadians, and
this supports the argument in favour of not recognizing the
existence of a Quebec people on this planet.
This is in keeping with the evolving federalist thinking. Over the
last 30 years, we have been a bit annoyed by the growing
sovereignist movement which English-speaking Canadians have a
hard time explaining and understanding; then there were different
theories like cooperative federalism, flexible federalism,
asymmetrical federalism, cost-effective federalism, the age-old
renewed federalism, which the Prime Minister mentioned again
recently, and now we have carping federalism. Carping federalism
is based on confrontation, on the B plan we could now call the
Bertrand plan.
(1320)
This confrontation is the antithesis of the other movement which
briefly prevailed and which, after referendums in Quebec, could
have created a momentum whereby English Canada would have
found ways to implement the changes promised by Pierre Elliott
Trudeau in 1980 and by the present Prime Minister in 1995. They
would have come up with offers acceptable to the majority of
Quebecers and would have made space for Quebec in the new 1982
Constitution. But that movement did not endure.
There were a few efforts, like the distinct society, but it was a
distinct society without any content or powers. The Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs said it himself after a conference in
Vancouver where he almost whispered to his audience that the
expression ``distinct society'' meant nothing. Maybe he forgot he
was being filmed, but we saw him on TV in Quebec. This killed the
rose in the bud because Quebecers quickly caught on that the
distinct society concept was an empty shell.
There was also the term ``principal homeland'' which appeared,
again through the initiative of the new minister, but it was
short-lived. Right from the beginning, it sounded fishy.
Finally there was a vote on a veto, but giving a veto to each and
every province meant essentially that they were refusing to
acknowledge the specific characteristics of Quebec and to
recognize Quebecers as a people.
It is very important to keep in mind the significance of plan B.
With plan B, instead of encouraging Canadians to think, the federal
government prefers to attack Quebec. It prefers to attempt to make
Quebec smaller. It prefers to attack its institutions, its laws, its
democratic traditions, its right to self-government, which is, once
again according to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, only
valid within Canada. We see he has studied the issue for a long time
and is very generous toward Quebecers.
With plan B, the federal government prefers to go to court
instead of going to the people of Quebec, especially to a court that
does not fall under the Quebec government, but under the federal
government, even though it is called the Superior Court of Quebec,
a court where judges are appointed by the federal government. So,
given the process by which judges are appointed, these people are
part of the federal government and of the federal system. These
judges will have to make a decision based on the Canadian
Constitution, which was almost unilaterally repatriated by Ottawa
without Quebec's consent, a Constitution Quebec does not
recognize and which it did not sign. By this Constitution, these non
elected and non accountable judges are being given, no doubt
sometimes against their will, major political and decision-making
powers.
2879
Conversely, when a referendum is held democratically, the
opposing forces, both from the yes side and the no side, have equal
financial means, at least when Quebec law is respected. When it
is violated, as the federal government did in October 1995, we
get the results we have seen.
So, a referendum held democratically is called a consultation
exercise, the will of the people being subjected to the colonialism
of the courts.
It should be pointed out that, for Guy Bertrand, the new ally of
the federalists, the mere idea of holding a referendum on Quebec's
future would be illegitimate, undemocratic, abusive, immoral,
fraudulent and anarchic. With such allies, who needs enemies. This
is as quoted by Mrs. Lise Bissonnette.
(1325)
I will conclude by quoting an editorial writer with La Presse of
Montreal, who is far from being a sovereignist. Mr. Alain Dubuc
wrote on May 14, two days ago, in his last paragraph: ``Beyond
their disagreement on Quebec's future, Quebecers agree on
believing an honest referendum is not merely a consultation
exercise and also, that Canada cannot legitimately prevent Quebec
from leaving Canada if it chooses sovereignty. It is this consensus
the federal government has attacked through its silences and
contradictions.''
Given the attitude the government has taken by sanctioning plan
B, the Bertrand plan, I dare hope the Liberal Party of Canada will
pay the political price one day.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to respond to the comments made
by my hon. colleague from the Bloc.
I believe the majority of the constituents of Prince
George-Peace River, whom I am pleased to represent in the
House, want to see Canada remain united. They want to see Quebec
stay a part of Canada.
However, from conversations I have had with them over the last
couple of years, they are sick to death of this issue. It is dominating
the agenda of the entire country and dominating the agenda of this
place.
My constituents want Quebec to decide once and for all if it is in
or out. They have a universal cynicism that the issue will never be
settled or decided. The Reform Party, the constituents of Prince
George-Peace River and I are in favour of referenda. We have
demonstrated that.
However, the Prime Minister, the Liberal government and the
separatists have fuelled the cynicism that exists. When the Prime
Minister and the government say they will honour and respect 50
per cent plus one provided it is a no vote, and the separatists say
they will honour and respect 50 per cent plus one if it is a yes vote,
but neither side will respect the results if they do not go its way,
what will be accomplished by holding a referendum? This is was
asked last fall. What is the point? What does it solve?
Last fall's referendum proved there is a lot of confusion in the
minds of Quebec voters. There is a lot of confusion in that province
about what exactly people were voting on. The hon. member
referred to an honest referendum, which is what we would all seek.
What result will it take? How many times do Quebecers have to
say no before the separatists give up on their foolish agenda to try
to destroy the country?
[Translation]
Mr. Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, some questions are made to seem
basic but they mean nothing. The people of Quebec have always
had respect for the democratic process. When a question is decided
by a 50 per cent plus 1 vote, as it was just recently, we accept the
referendum results.
What we hope and expect is for Canada to do the same, should a
referendum result in a majority voting in favour of achieving
sovereignty.
I also detect in the remarks made by my hon. colleague from out
west a lack of understanding of how the sovereignist movement has
developed. Sovereignty is nothing new in Quebec, it was being
contemplated long before 1993. The movement emerged in the
early 60s. In 1963, the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission, chaired
by two distinguished Canadians, concluded that two solitudes
coexisted. At that time, there were a few hundred Quebecers who
advocated Quebec's sovereignty.
From a few hundred, our numbers have grown to thousands and
now a few hundred thousands. When asked to vote on the matter,
millions of Quebecers vote for sovereignty.
(1330)
It would be wise not to apply the Ostrich Principle and think that
Quebec's will to become sovereign is something that sprang up
overnight, a creation of the mind. Probably ever since the events on
the Plains of Abraham, there has always been a desire in Quebec to
self-govern and to take charge of our destiny, throw off our
shackles, our British shackles in this case.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, although I am extremely pleased to rise today to speak to
this motion, I do so with some sadness.
I do so with some sadness because I cannot imagine how this
debate can take place in this Parliament where sat Henri Bourassa,
in this Parliament whose members, especially those on the
government side, extol the merits of democracy in detail at every
opportunity. What is democracy if not our collective ability to
decide what we are?
2880
Do you think that, if Henri Bourassa, Lionel Groulx, André
Laurendeau, René Lévesque were taking part in this debate, they
would not say that each of them worked in his own way, in
accordance with his own philosophy and through his own
contribution to political life, so that in the end we Quebecers can
democratically-repeat, democratically-determine our own
future?
I cannot imagine for a single moment, even during my most
eccentric musings, that there are Quebecers in this House who, like
us, received a public mandate under the election process and who
do not fully agree with the underlying philosophy behind the
motion put forward by the official opposition, which we are
reiterating very clearly. The fact that the official opposition in this
Parliament was democratically elected on the basis of a very clear
program, which, as you know, is still to promote Quebec's interests
and ultimately to achieve statehood, is quite meaningful.
I hope that all of us tonight will have a sense of history and agree
with the current Prime Minister's diagnostic at a public meeting in
Alma in the early 1970s, when he said: ``Let us be democratic''. He
was right to say that. The intensity of constitutional options can
never compete with what should be the purpose of communities,
namely the ability to recognize a democracy freely expressed
through its most legal forum, a referendum.
That is what the Prime Minister said in 1970 and that is what we
want to see recognized. That is why, in our opinion and in the
opinion of others-But I challenge any member of this House,
including Quebec members, to find a single decision maker-be it
an editorialist, a journalist or a member of the business
community-who supports what the Canadian government is about
to do by getting involved in the Bertrand court case.
No one supported this decision. Even La Presse, which is not
known for its sovereignist sympathies, said, through some of its
editorial writers, that this approach was stupid. Why is it stupid?
Because we know full well that international treaties recognize the
right to self-determination.
The people on the other side are proud to say that Canada
contributes $200 million to the operations budget of the United
Nations, they are proud to uphold international law along with its
main supporters at the United Nations, and that reminds me of what
the Secretary General of the United Nations, Boutros
Boutros-Ghali, said when he came to Montreal. He said that the
most accomplished type of collective organization, even though we
are at the dawn of a new century, is still sovereignty.
(1335)
Here is what he said and what caught our attention. He said:
``Sovereignty is the basic principle of universal organization. It is
the art of making equal powers that are not equal.'' That is what we
have in Canada, two nations within the same political
organization. There cannot be two nations within the same political
organization, because one is then subordinate to the other.
In essence, with this motion today and with the message it has
conveyed here for the last three years, the Bloc has remained loyal
to these principles and to the principles of international law.
The principles of international law and international covenants
stipulate two things concerning human rights, and especially the
right to self-determination. When one reads about international
law, it is interesting to see-and I have the privilege of sitting next
to a legal expert-that it is always subject to human rights. This is
so true that this issue is always discussed, year after year, at the
International Conference on Human Rights in Geneva.
So there is a very important relationship between human rights,
collective rights and the right to self-determination which,
according to the UN charter, is the first attribute of peoples.
If we follow the government's logic, it means that, by the end of
the day, unless the Liberals are hypocrites, which is always a
possibility, they should, if they are logical with themselves, rise in
this House and say that they do not believe Quebecers are a people.
From the moment it is recognized that Quebecers are a people, it
means that they have a right to self-determination even under
major international law.
The right to self-determination is not always but often exercised
through a referendum. But the law also says, and I think this should
be our first consideration in this House, that the right to
self-determination, in addition to the legal considerations, is first
and foremost a matter of political legitmacy, which can be
exercised under certain conditions.
Of course, you need to have a history. You need to control a
territory. You need to have the will to live together collectively.
You need to have a legal tradition and, once sovereignty is
achieved-and this was said clearly by the Bélanger-Campeau
Commission and was repeated many times during the referendum
debate-you need to have effective control of a territory under the
state continuity rules.
Which member will rise in this House, whether he is from
Ontario, Newfoundland or the Magdalen Islands, and say that
Quebec does not meet these conditions?
What interest does the government have in joining forces with
the man who will no doubt go down in history as the greatest crank
of our times?
I remember very well that in 1987, just to give you a few
biographical details, I was responsible for running Francine
Lalonde's campaign for the leadership of the Parti Quebecois, and I
came into contact with Guy Bertrand, who had just been campaign-
2881
ing all over Quebec telling us that we had the right to decide our
own future.
This man ran for the leadership of the Parti Quebecois on a
single theme, Quebec's right to decide its own future. He was so all
over the map that, had we been in a different century, he would
have been sent to see a doctor. But we are not in another century,
and everyone has the freedom of expression.
That being said, there is something deeply offensive and hurtful
in the action taken by the justice minister, who has always seemed a
courteous man, and the approval given by this government, in
trying through legal subterfuge, to deny Quebec's right to decide its
own future. If the action by the Government of Canada is taken all
the way, I can certainly promise you that something very serious
will happen in our political society, both for Quebec and for
Canada, and that will be the refusal to recognize the legitimacy of
this decision.
(1340)
It is not true that since 1960-there are even people who trace
the quest for sovereignty back to the 18th century-well, certainly
for 30 years, Quebecers have been preparing themselves as they
have, only to be denied the right to self-determination, now that
they have democratically elected representatives to this House.
Still, it is sad that the government has been so lacking in
judgement, perception and the most basic political tact, that it has
failed to recognize that this is a profound question of political
legitimacy. It is not by trying to transfer the debate to the legal
arena that the government will achieve its ends.
You know, not more than two years ago, there was a declaratory
judgment, because a member of the First Nations, Ovide Mercredi,
not to name names, also tried to have a possible referendum
declared unconstitutional. The judiciary was extremely clear on
this subject, by virtue of what democracy is, but also by virtue of
what should prevail in a society such as ours, that is the distinction
between the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature.
So let us hear from these Liberal MPs with ridings in Quebec, in
the coming days, in a public forum-they can choose the time, the
date, the place-let them tell Quebecers they do not have the right
to decide their own future. Let them come and say it in Montreal or
in the regions. Let them for one moment tell Quebecers that they do
not exist as a people, that what they have accomplished over the
last 30 years is all in their heads, a political fantasy.
It takes a justice minister from Toronto, a Prime Minister like the
one we have now with his own very personal view of history, to
support a motion such as the one before us, which is profoundly
irresponsible and profoundly disrespectful towards Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to the hon. member talking about separation and
self-government. Not long ago in this Chamber, I remember a vote
supported by all Bloc members under aboriginal self-government
and self-determination.
Will the hon. member respect a vote if the aboriginals in Quebec
decide to deal with self-government and allow them to stay with
whomever they choose democratically?
Another question I have for the hon. member is this. When he
has a chance to go forward with this referendum, will he be looking
at population? Is he more inclined to go poll by poll? This would
make a big difference in how the rest of us would look at the
situation.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I believe what the Bloc says is
logical and consistent. Once we recognize the right to
self-determination, we also recognize that this right can be
exercised by any group having the characteristics of a people.
If we finally recognize that legally speaking native nations have
the characteristics of a people, this means implicitly and explicitly
that they also legally have the right to self-determination, within
the legal territorial boundaries set for Quebec.
This being said, I am not sure I fully understood the second
question.
(1345)
The hon. member wishes to add a supplementary because, as we
know, there is a fair amount of excitement in the ranks of the
Reform Party, these days. Does he want a supplementary, Mr.
Speaker? I am always ready to answer.
This being said, it seems to me that my friend's second question
creates some confusion because one thing is very clear and clearly
affirmed by all leaders of Quebec: Quebec's right to
self-determination will be exercised in a referendum. The rule of
50 plus one will apply. The hon. member was asking if we would
proceed by way of a vote. I believe you understood the same thing.
Of course, the referendum process requires that we count the votes
and the final result will bring us victory or defeat.
Hon. members will recall, and I think this will be my most
important moment today, the famous words of the current Prime
Minister immediately after taking office. He said something I will
never forget. He declared that for Quebec, a no means no. I would
like to tell the Reform Party that if one day the answer is yes, it will
mean yes.
2882
[English]
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise on debate on today's
opposition motion. I to make a comment on behalf of all of my
constituents. It refers to a comment made by the former leader of
the Bloc Quebecois. He basically said Canada is not a real country.
On behalf of my constituents and I believe the vast majority of
Canadians, I state clearly and unequivocally Canada is a country,
Canada is a nation and will remain so, absolutely, not only in the
months and weeks ahead but in the years, decades and centuries
ahead. It will because we are a nation.
Despite what we hear from the other side, Canada is a nation. It
is a nation because we share many things in common and we share
this great land is Canada. We share a common geography from
coast to coast. We share our natural resources such as mining,
whether it takes place in Quebec or in Ontario, and the
development of energy and the development of agriculture. These
natural resources are things we share as a nation.
We have a common history on the north side of the North
American continent where together Canadians of all stripes, of all
ethnic origins, have built a strong distinct Canada, a distinct nation
with values and beliefs unique to us as Canadians.
We share some very important concepts from one end of Canada
to the other. We believe in the rule of law and we share this belief
among all Canadians. We believe in social justice. We believe as a
nation, as a government and as a people there are responsibilities
we hold to each other. We believe as Canadians that below a certain
level we will not allow people to fall.
When people walk into a hospital they are not asked how much
money they have. They are simply asked how sick they are. People
do not go hungry for a lack of food or shelter. We help those people.
Those are values we share as Canadians from coast to coast
whether one happens to live in the English speaking part of Canada
or in the French speaking part.
We believe in certain freedoms. We believe in the freedom of
thought, belief, expression and assembly. We share those core
beliefs as Canadians and they make us a nation.
We have differences in Canada, but they are not differences that
need divide us. They do not separate us one people from another
people. They are differences which make this country unique
among nations.
(1350)
Canada in its history, for 130 years, has shown the nations of the
world what can be accomplished, what can be done with a nation of
several peoples. We have shown the world our success. We have
shown the world we are a nation that works and can sustain itself.
As a nation Canada recognizes that it has differences. The people
of Canada recognize there are two founding peoples, the English
speaking Canadians live in Quebec and francophone Canadians
live outside of Quebec. We are an integrated nation, English and
French from coast to coast. We have been joined by many peoples
from around the world to make the fabric of Canada strong, a
nation which is integrated, open to change, one which accepts and
evolves over time.
As a nation, as a government, as Canadians we recognize we
need to make accommodation for different peoples. We recognized
and made the clear statement that Quebec is a distinct society. We
have recognized the importance of regional variance and evolved a
veto system. We have come to understand that different institutions
work differently in different parts of the country. We understand
there needs to be a division of power, that some things are done
better at the provincial level as opposed to the federal level.
When Parliament as recently as December made these
suggestions and showed we will evolve as a nation, that we will
accommodate our differences, the Bloc voted against it. Members
of the Bloc voted against the fact that Quebec was a distinct
society. They stood in the House and said: ``No, Quebec is not a
distinct society. No, Quebec should not have a veto. No, Quebec
should not have its own institutions''. Those statements were made
by their votes. That was terribly wrong.
What is at stake here? Canada. What is their base argument for
wanting to destroy the country? Politics is a big part of it. They
want to destroy the country over whether Mr. Bouchard is to be
called a premier or a president. Those are grounds to break up the
country? I think not. Those are not valid grounds for breaking up
the country.
Members of the Bloc said we need to have a more efficient
federation. Are we to break up the country because of the
mathematical formula for transfer payments?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I assure the hon. member for
Parry Sound-Muskoka he will have the time remaining after
question period to conclude his remarks.
The chair is now ready to rule on the point of order raised earlier
today by the chief government whip relating to the interpretation of
Standing Order 43(2), which provides for a 20 minute speech to be
divided in two.
A cursory review of our practice shows that motions have been
moved by both members sharing a 20 minute period. I refer
members to cases that occurred on March 25, 1993 and April 19,
1993.
[Translation]
It has also been common practice for a period of time now for
members to share the first speech on supply days. A quick check of
our proceedings reveals that the first speech was shared on
February 10, 1994 and subsequently on May 3, 1994, November
2883
22, 1994, March 16, 1995, March 26, 1995, May 11, 1995,
November 22, 1995 and, most recently, March 20, 1996.
(1355)
What has changed since March 20, 1996 is that the second
speaker from the same party has proposed an amendment to the
motion tabled by the first. This is the reason for the chief
government whip's point of order. The question he raised with the
Chair is whether, under the spirit of the Standing Orders, the main
motion may be subject to an amendment from a second speaker in
the same initial period of the debate.
[English]
I quote from Standing Order 81(22), which provides the time
limit on speeches for supply days:
During proceedings on any item of business under the provisions of this
standing order, no member may speak more than once or longer than twenty
minutes. Following the speech of each member, a period not exceeding ten
minutes shall be made available, if required, to allow members to ask questions
and comment briefly on matters relevant to the speech and to allow responses
thereto.
Furthermore, Standing Order 43(2) provides for periods of
debate to be divided in two:
The whip of a party may indicate to the Speaker at any time during a debate
governed by this standing order that one or more of the periods of debate limited
pursuant to section (1) of this standing order and allotted to members of his or
her party are to be divided in two.
[
Translation]
It is clear from Standing Order 81(22), that the first speech on a
supply day is limited to 20 minutes. If we apply the letter of
Standing Order 43(2), we may logically conclude that the first
speech on a supply day may in fact be divided in two.
[English]
The Chair has reviewed the standing orders and has been unable
to find any other standing order which would imply the first speech
of a supply day cannot or should not be divided in two.
Consequently, in light of the practice that an amendment may be
moved when a 20 minute period is divided and in light of the well
established practice that the first speech on a supply day has many
times been divided, it is difficult to accept the argument advanced
that it ought not be done today.
If the House considers this to be an anomaly, then the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has the means to
address the review of the wording of the standing orders.
[Translation]
That said, the Chair allows the amendment proposed by the hon.
member for Berthier-Montcalm, Mr. Bellehumeur, and I will put
it to the House. The other amendment proposals made earlier in
anticipation of this ruling will not be put to the House.
[English]
I thank all hon. members who have made a contribution on this
point.
[Translation]
The hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm, seconded by his
colleague for Laval-Centre, moved that the motion be amended by
adding the following, immediately after the word ``stated'':
Straight from the Heart.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify the matter of
the Chair's acceptance of the amendment by the member for
Saint-Laurent-Cartierville in the event the amendment by the
member for Berthier-Montcalm was not allowed.
Is this indeed what happened? Logically, therefore, it seems to
me that the amendment to the amendment by the member for
Berthier-Montcalm is also allowable, since we said that, if one
were not, the other would be. Since an amendment to an
amendment was tabled, it seems to me that it-the one taken under
advisement-is the logical conclusion of the amendment tabled, in
the logic of the ruling we have just been given.
The Speaker: My dear colleague, I heard what you said. I will
take the question under advisement and will return to the House
with another ruling after question period.
It being two o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to
statements by members pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
2883
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, 1996 marks the 125th anniversary of the incorporation of
the town of St. Stephen, New Brunswick.
This Friday, May 17, the mayor, council and citizens of St.
Stephen in recognition of this special anniversary have planned a
re-enactment of the first town council meeting in full era costume.
Following the re-enactment a special dinner will be served with
food customary of the 1871 era. Dessert will commence with a
cake constructed of 125 smaller cakes made by local St. Stephen
families.
It is also interesting to note that the member of Parliament in
1871 was Mr. John Bolton, also a Liberal.
2884
I commend Mayor Gillmor, the municipal council and the
citizens of St. Stephen for taking such pride in the 125th
anniversary of their town. They exemplify a true symbol of
community spirit and unity.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Canada's
image was built around its participation in numerous peace
missions, its efforts to help developing countries and its
commitment to the fight for human rights and democratic
development.
In this regard, we must remember the important contribution of
the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic
Development. At a time when several governments, including the
Canadian government, have a tendency to build a wall between
trade relations and human rights violations in the world, the
Centre's mission is all the more vital for people who see their
fundamental rights violated by their governments.
I want to salute and thank Mrs. Côté-Harper and Ed Broadbent,
who will shortly leave their respective positions as chairwoman
and director of the centre.
Thank you, on behalf of human solidarity.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today the
federal government is in court attempting to get fishermen ejected
from fisheries offices in British Columbia.
The place for the minister to talk to fishermen is across the
negotiating table, not in the court room. Despite infrequent visits to
B.C., the minister is imposing a plan on the commercial fishery
which will seriously impact the lives of fishermen and the
economies of coastal communities. What is even more disturbing
is the minister's refusal to go to British Columbia and seriously
defend his plan.
The minister's newly appointed adviser has recognized
shortcomings of the plan. He notes that the plan contains no
support for local communities, no protection against concentration
of control of the fleet, and uncertainty about the commercial share
of catch in the face of treaty negotiations.
Substantial change without serious consideration of stakeholder
input and without genuinely seeking consensus is impossible.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, mining is vital to the Canadian economy. The minerals
and metals industry provides some 341,000 direct jobs to Canadian
men and women and more than $20 billion to our economy.
I am pleased to rise today to draw attention to National Mining
Week and to acknowledge the importance of mining to our
economy.
Ontario accounts for 30 per cent of Canada's mineral production
and contributes more than $4.5 billion to the provincial economy.
Some 14,000 people are employed in mining nickel, copper, gold
and other minerals in the province.
I am pleased to acknowledge the importance of the minerals and
metals sector during this 1996 National Mining Week. I salute
those Canadians in Ontario and across our great country who have
contributed to building and sustaining this valuable industry.
* * *
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
1967 was a defining year in our nation's history. At the time of our
100th birthday every province, city, town and village joined
together to celebrate Canada's accomplishments. A wave of
national pride swept across this country as we took stock of our
blessings and our nation's future.
(1405)
Western Manitoba's wordsmith, Mr. Fred McGuinness, has
suggested that we repeat this centennial experience by giving
national recognition to the approaching millennium. I agree. We
have the leadership, the commitment and the creativity. Let us get
on with the show. Let us fasten our attention on the future and let us
celebrate being Canadian.
* * *
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
week in Ottawa we are being visited by 14 young ambassadors
from Vancouver.
Every year the Chinese Canadian Association of Public Affairs
sends a delegation of young people to Ottawa for them to become
acquainted with the political and parliamentary process. This year
there are 14 young ambassadors between the ages of 16 and 22. All
14 of them are top students and all-round good citizens.
The Chinese Canadian Association of Public Affairs is a
non-profit, non-partisan organization committed to promoting full
2885
citizenship participation by all Canadians. The organization is
interested in promoting various initiatives such as the annual trips
to Ottawa and seminars on important issues such as health care and
constitutional reform.
I was pleased to meet these young ambassadors both last year
and this year. I want to congratulate them for their commitment to
causes and their outstanding qualities.
I would like to ask my colleagues in the House to help me
welcome the Vancouver young ambassadors.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, once again, the Minister of Human Resources
Development has shown us his insensitivity, his thoughtlessness
and his blindness with his decision to eliminate subsidies to
agencies that help the disabled.
Yesterday, in this House, he even had the audacity to state that he
considered it more important to help the disabled than the
organizations that represent them. In the same breath, he added that
these organizations do a good job. Where is the logic? I do not
know.
The minister talks about the federal government's willingness to
negotiate with the provinces to find a solution. It is one thing to
negotiate transfers, but it is another thing to cut subsidies without
giving any consideration to the adverse consequences of such a
decision on the organizations and the disabled.
``Let us cut and we will see later on what the consequences are''.
That seems to be the minister's theme song. Yet he ought to know
that gagging people will not make them disappear.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, during the last five
months I have received a number of complaints that FCC's
agri-land division is manipulating land prices in my riding.
I provided the minister of agriculture with two specific examples
in which to support my complaints I quoted recent sale prices for
nearby land. In each instance I received a robotic ministerial reply
stating, without any reference to my evidence, that agri-land does
not engage in such practices. If the minister or his buddy Don
Jackson make dogmatic statements, they are holy writ regardless of
any contrary evidence.
With its huge land base, the FCC is in a better position than any
conventional financial institution to raise the price of its asset base
by manipulating the price of land. There has to be an investigation
into this.
* * *
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to congratulate St. Thomas University's
graduating class which held its convocation this week in
Fredericton. The day was the culmination of many years of hard
work and dedication by those students who received their degrees. I
wish them success in their chosen career paths.
I would also like to congratulate this year's honorary degree
recipients: Dr. Louis Dudek of Montreal, Dr. Eric Garland, Mr.
Frank McKenna and Mrs. Julie McKenna, as well as Rabbi David
Spiro, all of whom have contributed tremendously to their
communities.
All of this week's graduates worked hard to reach the goal they
set for themselves and I commend them. I applaud St. Thomas
University on its selections for honorary degrees. The choices do
credit to the university, to our communities and to the recipients
themselves.
* * *
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on June
1 Optimist International will celebrate Optimists in Action Day
around the world.
With the motto ``Friend of Youth'', Optimists strive to set a
positive example for youth. In addition to helping youth develop
those characteristics which they will require for future success,
Optimist clubs provide funding to the community for the purchase
of special medical equipment for children with special needs and
personal welfare for children in need.
(1410 )
In Brampton the Optimist Club has put over $1.6 million back
into the community to service the needs of its young people.
Among the programs run by the Optimist Club are respect for law,
bicycle safety and oratorical contests. Some of its projects include
Canada Day, the audiology room at Peel Memorial Hospital,
students against drunk driving sponsorship and other worthy
causes.
On behalf of all members I would like to congratulate the
organizers and participants of Optimists in Action Day and wish
them the best for their future success.
2886
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hand held out by Lucien Bouchard to the members
of the anglophone and allophone communities of Quebec was, in
reality, only a sham.
That, unfortunately, is the conclusion we are forced to reach this
morning after the Bloc Quebecois' insulting refusal to take part in a
meeting organized by Alliance Outaouais.
In response to their invitation, the Alliance Outaouais organizers
were told by the staff in the Bloc whip and leader's office that he
would not be taking part because, and I quote, ``all anglophones
think the same way, anyhow''.
Such an attitude must be decried, for it feeds the discrimination
and intolerance present in Quebec society. Once again, with this
latest escapade, the Bloc Quebecois has-
The Speaker: I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member,
but his time has run out.
* * *
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as a member
of this House of Latin American origin, I would like to call
attention to the visit to Canada of the presidents of Costa Rica,
Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala, and of the Prime
Minister of Belize.
Central America has made great strides in the areas of peace
agreements, human rights and demilitarization. Canada has worked
actively for peace in that region. Its economic assistance, however,
is constantly decreasing, at a time when the region requires outside
support to consolidate its process of pacification and
democratization.
The Canadian government must step up its diplomatic, trade and
cultural relations with our Central American partners, particularly
by opening embassies in places where there is no direct
representation.
Senores presidentes, bienvenidos a este pais y mucho exito en
sus funciones. Gracias.
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister has thwarted democracy once again. Earlier today
he appointed another new senator from Alberta.
The Prime Minister was fully aware that Alberta Premier Ralph
Klein intended to hold an election to fill Alberta's vacant Senate
seat. Rather than wait for Albertans to elect their own senator under
Alberta's Senates Election Act, the Prime Minister has used an iron
fist and smashed Alberta's right to have a democratic election. This
is tantamount to a dictatorship.
In a recent response to the leader of the Reform Party, the Prime
Minister stated in this House: ``I will name a senator who I will
choose and who will represent my party in the House of
Commons''. We can only assume this is exactly what the Prime
Minister has done in his latest patronage appointment which
occurred earlier today. This is aggressive arrogance on behalf of
the Prime Minister. It is an injustice to all Albertans and all
Canadians.
Allow me to remind the House that the late Senator Stan Waters
would be ashamed of this appointment. He was the only truly
legitimate accountable senator in Canada's history. I say long live
the memory of Senator Stan.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I appeal to you once again. We should
as much as possible refrain from making comments about the other
place as such.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today I wish to take the opportunity to congratulate one of
my constituents who was recently decorated with the Order of
Canada.
Mr. Norman Inkster of Cumberland, Ontario served as
commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police from 1987 to
1995.
[Translation]
He was born in Winnipeg, Manitoba, and joined the RCMP in
1957. His first posting was in Alberta, followed by Montreal and,
finally, Ottawa.
[English]
During his tenure, Commissioner Inkster provided invaluable
services to our national police force and served our country in a
most exemplary manner. I have no doubt that many Canadians,
indeed all Canadians, would join me in congratulating Norman
2887
Inkster who is more than worthy to have earned the very
prestigious award, the Order of Canada.
* * *
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last night in Ottawa Mr. Lloyd Robertson received the 1995-96
Gold Ribbon Award for Broadcast Excellence. This prestigious
award was presented at the broadcast excellence dinner which was
attended by over 300 people, including Prime Minister Jean
Chrétien.
(1415 )
As vice-chair of the Canadian heritage committee and on behalf
of all members of Parliament and Canadians everywhere, may I
extend to Lloyd Robertson our warmest and sincere
congratulations.
[Translation]
Congratulations, Mr. Robertson, on behalf of all of the members
here and all of the people of Canada.
[English]
In accepting his award, Mr. Robertson, who is chief news anchor
for CTV, praised the calibre of Canadian broadcasting. At the same
time he also called for a redoubling of efforts by Canadian
broadcasters in telling the story of Canada to all Canadians through
every means available.
In congratulating Lloyd Robertson we recognize and salute his
excellence and dedication to broadcasting in Canada.
The Speaker: My dear colleague, I would again ask you to
please refrain from using our names in here. The titles that we bear
are quite sufficient.
_____________________________________________
2887
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, last week the minister of revenue refused to suspend the
decision of Revenue Canada on the taxation of capital gains, which
led to the transfer of $2 billion to the United States tax free. In total
contradiction with the deputy minister of finance, the auditor
general said this morning that action in this matter was urgently
needed in order to prevent the loss of millions of dollars in tax
revenues.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Will he acknowledge
the urgency of acting to prevent the flight of capital on the basis of
the precedent set by Revenue Canada?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that
even though this decision was one made by a government previous
to ours, we have acted in an urgent fashion. We have asked the
finance committee to review these concerns the auditor general has
drawn to our attention. We asked the committee to do it the very
day the auditor general's report came down.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we are talking about billions of dollars, and the minister
of revenue talks about the previous government and about
convening the Standing Committee on Finance, but not in any
hurry. That takes the cake.
This morning the auditor general said action had to be taken
immediately, whereas the deputy minister of finance thinks
September will be time enough.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Since this is a matter
of urgency and the decision by Revenue Canada has yet to be
suspended, who is the Minister of Finance going to listen to: his
deputy minister or the auditor general?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that the case is urgent. I
would therefore ask him why one of his own members walked
away from the committee saying there was nothing important to do
there.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, for the past two weeks the opposition finance critic has
been calling for the committee to sit, and the government is
interested in having it sit only for minor matters.
I do not know if the minister of revenue is aware, but we are
talking about dollars leaving the country untaxed, billions of
dollars leaving the country untaxed. When ordinary people are
involved, there is a great rush to nab them, but when billions of
dollars are involved, there is no cause for alarm.
Given the urgency of acting and as a show of good faith, will the
minister of revenue, the Minister of Finance or a responsible
minister in this government undertake to put a stop to these flights
of capital in order to stop billions of dollars going to the United
States?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I cannot understand why the hon. member would deny
that the best place for these questions to be reviewed would be in a
very public forum where members who are elected by Canadians
2888
across the country have a chance to look at the law and make
recommendations to the Minister of Finance.
(1420)
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance, who, I hope, is much more
familiar with this issue.
On March 16, Revenue Canada made public its advance ruling
allowing rich families to move their assets to the U.S. without
paying Canadian taxes. This morning, the auditor general reiterated
that the government needed to act quickly to avoid losing hundreds
of millions of dollars in taxes once again.
Does the minister confirm that, since the decision was
announced, it has been possible to move large pools of capital out
of the country every day and that this situation will prevail until the
minister finally decides to act?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, indeed this is not the case.
Let me repeat the tax law is very arcane and complex. It needs
time to be reviewed, understood and the implications determined
not only for Canadians who have $2 billion in assets but for those
who may have only $2.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while
the government and its ministers are skating around the issue, rich
families are consulting with their lawyers, their accountants, their
tax experts, and preparing to tax-shelter their assets by moving
them out of Canada.
My question is for the Minister of Finance or the Minister of
National Revenue. Would one or the other agree to suspend
Revenue Canada's advance ruling, which could be used as a excuse
to move major assets out of Canada? Would he or she agree to
suspend this decision, yes or no?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there are too few Canadians who have $2 billion in assets.
I suggest that if Canadians continue their confidence in us, there
will be more money in the country.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Constitution, secession and the rule of law require
precise interpretation. But the Prime Minister continues to muddy
the constitutional waters with his off the cuff comments about
possible guidelines for future referendums on secession without
saying what those guidelines are.
Yesterday the Prime Minister said: ``If ever we have a
referendum by any province, I hope there will be a discussion
beforehand to make sure the rules are known by both sides''.
I am wondering if the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs can
explain what the Prime Minister was trying to say. In particular,
what discussions or negotiations was he talking about, who would
take part, and precisely what would be discussed?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada during the 1970s
delivered a speech that is reported in his book in 1985. I have the
quotation in French:
[Translation]
``We'll put our faith in democracy. We'll convince the people that
they should stay in Canada and we'll win. If we don't win, I'll
respect the wishes of Quebeckers and let them separate''.
I am very proud of my Prime Minister and proud to show what a
great democrat he is. A unilateral declaration of independence
would not be acceptable in any way, shape or form in a democratic
system. Democracy implies a mutual agreement to respect rules of
law. And we will work with all Canadians to ensure that these rules
are established in a context of calm co-operation between all
concerned.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister said there will be negotiations on
ground rules for the next referendum but provides no details at all.
He says 50 per cent plus one is not enough to separate, but he
does not know what percentage would be acceptable. He says the
federal government would never acknowledge a unilateral
declaration of separation but cannot seem to outline the grounds for
a democratic and legal secession.
Either the Prime Minister is making this up as he goes along or
the federal government does have ground rules governing the next
referendum on secession and is not disclosing them.
Which is it? Does the government have firm ground rules for
governing a future referendum on secession? If it does, will it table
them in the House?
(1425)
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
2889
The point is for now the debate is, yes or no, whether a
unilateral declaration of independence is supported by
international law and accepted by Canadian law? The conviction
of the government is that the answer is no.
When this is clear that will be the time to look at the specific
issues which the hon. member is speaking about. However, for now
the priority of the government is to work with all Canadians in
order to reconcile Quebecers with Canadians to ensure they will
improve the federation, that they will celebrate Quebec's
specificity within Canada and that they will stay together for the
next century.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if I understand the minister correctly, if that is the only
guideline the government is firm about, will the minister then
introduce a motion in the House declaring the House will not
recognize a unilateral declaration of secession by any province in
Canada?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is the conviction of the government that a unilateral
declaration of independence would not be supported by
international law and would be against Canadian law.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister of defence.
They are at it again. In an internal memo, Lieutenant-General
Armand Roy urged 140 or so senior officers to get cracking to help
the chief of defence staff, General Boyle. The memo also states that
a political decision had been made to muzzle the general and that
only the minister of defence would be allowed to make public
statements about the Somalia affair.
Does the minister realize that silencing General Boyle-a fact
confirmed by his spokesman, Steve Wills-is not only an act of
political interference but, worse yet, in direct contravention of the
military rules and procedures behind which he hid on Tuesday and
which state that the chief of defence Staff is the only official
spokesperson of the armed forces?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I stated in the
House some time ago-I think it was back in the fall of 1994 when
this issue came up-that all members of the armed forces are not,
as a condition of service, entitled to make public comments about
their duties.
With respect to the incidents in Somalia, I advised the House that
anybody who had anything to add to the situation, any evidence to
give, should do so before the commission. That is consistent. That
applies to everybody in the armed forces. It applies to the chief of
defence staff.
However, the chief of defence staff has the unfettered right to
communicate with his troops at any time. General Boyle exercised
that right a few weeks ago but has since taken the position, the
correct position and the one I directed in the House of Commons,
that any commentary on Somalia should not be made in an external
forum such as Parliament or in the news media but to the
commission of inquiry.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when
will the minister come to the realization that a serious conflict of
interest does justify suspending the chief of defence staff on a
temporary basis, since he is personally under investigation by his
own military police for allegedly having authorized the
falsification of documents?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we dealt with
this question a few weeks ago. The chief of defence staff is doing a
very good job and is working extremely hard. At the appropriate
time he will come forward to the commission to answer all of its
questions.
* * *
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Tuesday the Minister of
Foreign Affairs tried to justify excessive awards of CIDA contracts
to Quebec entities by citing cultural and linguistic ties to
francophone countries receiving Canadian aid. However, public
documents show that Quebec companies have major contracts in
Central America, Indonesia, South Africa, China, Egypt, the
Philippines and Bolivia.
(1430)
Why will he not admit these deals have absolutely nothing to do
with our ties to the francophonie and everything to do with trying to
buy the loyalty of Quebec?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, many of the companies and NGOs who work out of
Quebec have been very effective in providing aid and assistance
around the world representing this country as Canadians.
In the government we do not buy into the kind of regional
divisiveness the hon. member and the hon. member from the Bloc
2890
buy into. We think it does not matter where you come from in
Canada; if you do a good job, you get the contract.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I take it from the hon.
minister's answer that Canada has only one region.
What we have over there is a government that is absolutely
adrift. It is scrambling to find a national unity strategy and it is
coming up empty handed.
Why will the minister not stop trying to explain away this blatant
attempt at vote buying and admit his government has no policies
that will convince Quebecers to stay in Canada and is trying to
resort to bribing them instead?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Colleagues, a few weeks ago the word bribe was
used in the House. I think it is the kind of word which causes us to
escalate the rhetoric on both sides. I wonder if the hon. member
would withdraw the word bribe.
Mr. Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to withdraw that
word.
Will the government stop trying to curry favour with Quebec by
providing it with money?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will overlook the primitive nature of the hon. member's
remarks and instead focus on the central issue which is what is the
development program about.
Today the Prime Minister is hosting a meeting of the six heads of
state of Central America who in the last five or six years have
fought valiantly to establish democracies in that region of the
world. Canada has been a full partner using its development
programs. There have been Canadians from Quebec, Canadians
from Alberta, Canadians from the Atlantic provinces all working in
Central America to help those countries find democracy. That is the
point of development.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human
Resources Development.
Yesterday, when I asked him about cuts imposed on advocacy
groups for the handicapped, the minister said he would keep on
talking with these groups regarding their future and their funding.
Since the minister seems to be confirming his intention to
resume the dialogue with these groups, is he prepared to go one
step further and to restore their funding?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, several organizations are in a
position to continue operating, because funds are still available to
them. As we said on many occasions, we made a commitment. We
informed the organizations concerned that the government intends
to withdraw its financial support to several of them.
Originally, several agreements provided for funding over periods
of one, two or three years. We will, as usual, continue to consult all
our partners and discuss the issue with them.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, considering that these groups are often the only
voice for handicapped people, can the minister tell us with whom
he intends to discuss if, through his own fault, these groups
disappear?
(1435)
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, most of the services available to
people with problems of one kind or another are provided by the
provinces.
Day in day out in this House members urge us to respect
jurisdictions. When we do so and make sure that we do not
interfere in areas such as health and so on, we are told that we
should continue to fund organizations.
For example, we provide funding for Experience Canada and we
are told we should not do so. Should we get involved or not? Make
up your mind.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
morning the deputy minister of revenue, under oath, was less than
categorical in saying there was no political interference in the
movement of $2 billion offshore, tax free.
Will the Minister of Finance dispel the perception of Liberal
collusion in this decision by closing this loophole today?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have already answered that question. However, I will
just point out that one of the critical differences between our
government and the previous government is that we take action.
When we take action we take it in a very public way.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of National Revenue said this was an arcane and complex
problem, yet the deputy minister of finance said it was so simple he
did not even have to take notes on the issue. Either the minister is
slow on the uptake or the deputy minister is too fast for his own
good.
2891
Again I ask the minister will he stop the billions of dollars
moving offshore today and restore Canadians' faith in the Income
Tax Act, or is the government to allow more billionaires to take
advantage of this loophole before it closes it?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that supposition is not at all what the deputy minister said
in committee today.
I point out yet again the public accounts committee is the second
public venue in which this information is being reviewed. I again
congratulate the hon. member for being part of that committee. We
do look forward to its recommendations.
* * *
The Speaker: My colleagues, in a departure from our usual
procedure, I now draw to your attention the presence in the gallery
of visitors from the western hemisphere. I will introduce six heads
of state and I ask you to hold your applause until I have introduced
all of them.
I would like to introduce to you His Excellency Dr. Carlos
Roberto Reina Idiaquez, President of the Republic of Honduras;
His Excellency José Maria Figueres Olsen, President of the
Republic of Costa Rica; His Excellency Dr. Armando Calderon
Sol, President of the Republic of El Salvador; His Excellency
Alvaro Arzu Irigoyen, President of the Republic of Guatemala; Her
Excellency Violeta Barrios de Chamorro, President of the Republic
of Nicaragua; the Right Honourable Manuel Esquivel, Prime
Minister of Belize.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, since the beginning of the week, the Prime Minister has
told us three things: first, that Quebecers would not be allowed to
decide their future on their own, that all of Canada would have to
get involved; then, that the majority at a referendum would now
have to be more than 50 per cent plus one; and lastly, that he would
want to negotiate the referendum question with Quebec. In brief,
the Prime Minister is getting himself bogged down in a
constitutional debate and is dragging us in with him.
Does the Prime Minister realize that the process he is suggesting
could, ultimately, mean 13 referendums, in 13 provinces and
territories, perhaps with 13 different questions, so that we would
have to interpret 13 different results?
(1440)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the position of the Canadian government is very simple.
There have been two referendums where Quebecers have expressed
the wish to remain in Canada. If the opposition party had a
modicum a respect for democracy, it would recognize the fact that
the people of Quebec have already made their wishes known.
[English]
I am delighted to be on my feet to salute the six heads of state
and government of Central America. They all know what it is to be
in a prison. They have established democracies in their countries
and they are in Canada today. They have told me that they admire
the democracy of Canada, the quality of life, the quality of public
debate, and the quality of politics. I would like to salute them and
wish them good luck in their work.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I think the Prime Minister forgot to mention that he won
two referendums in Quebec by making empty promises to
Quebecers and by never honouring his commitments.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Dear colleague, I would ask you to choose your
words more carefully.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I was being very careful. Why
does the Prime Minister want so much to create between Quebec
and the rest of Canada a confrontation such as there has never been
before?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on the contrary, what I want is very simple. I would like
the Government of Quebec to show some respect for the people of
Quebec, by asking them a clear and honest question, that would be
acceptable to everyone, instead of asking a winning question to try
to encourage Quebecers to vote against their own wishes.
I would invite the Government of Quebec to do so and I am sure
that-As we saw this morning on television, people throughout the
world wonder why a province like Quebec is not happy to live in
the best country of the world, that is in Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.
Our country allows the import of food products which have the
benefit of pesticides that our own farmers are prohibited from
2892
using, and this is to their competitive disadvantage. Canadians eat
this food. In the Niagara region our entire peach crop is at risk
because of increasing resistance to current pesticides.
What measure is the government taking to expedite the pesticide
approval procedures in this country and to harmonize approvals
with the United States?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the
member on his continuing concern about this matter.
He will know that representatives from the pest management
regulatory agency met with peach and apple growers last week on
the question of reaching solutions to pest management problems in
orchards. That same agency is already looking at alternative
candidates for the control of pests. As well, it is in consultations
now with the United States EPA to look at joint efforts for pest
control management in the coming year.
With his vigilance and his support we will get the agency and our
American counterparts to look for long term solutions to pest
management control.
* * *
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister likes to go on and on about page 22 of the red book,
which everyone knows is another broken promise.
I would like to remind him of another broken promise on pages
23 and 24. This Liberal government promised to protect the steel
industry, the pork industry, softwood lumber and other products. It
said it would renegotiate the free trade agreement and NAFTA to
obtain a subsidies code, an anti-dumping code and a more effective
way of resolving disputes.
(1445 )
Would the Prime Minister admit that this was his first broken
promise?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been working with a trade remedies
working group that involves our partners from the United States
and Mexico toward doing the very things that the hon. member has
talked about.
We are fully committed to dealing with the reform of trade
remedy laws to cut down on the use of countervail and
anti-dumping duties so that we can have a free trade system. That is
our position and that is what we continue to work toward.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
point out that these working groups have been working for eight
years and have failed to come up with a subsidy definition.
In fact, the red book says nothing about working groups at all. It
says that the Liberals were going to renegotiate NAFTA and the
free trade agreement before they signed it. They promised to
demand an open market for steel and an anti-dumping code.
This Liberal broken promise has really hurt the people in the
steel industry in particular. When will the government honour its
promise to produce a level playing field for Canada and the United
States in this industry?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with the preamble to the
question.
The government is working not only through NAFTA but
through the World Trade Organization to help improve the rules
based system. The government is committed to liberalization in
trade and a rules based system. It will continue whether it is with
the working groups, the WTO, the OECD or whatever other
vehicle, to bring that about.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
I would like to start by pointing out that we find it somewhat
rude to proclaim one's country the first in the world when there are
international visitors present.
Day after day, improvisation after improvisation, the Prime
Minister's constitutional strategy is taking shape. If I may say so,
however, there are still some bits missing, before we can clearly
and fully understand what is in his mind.
Does the Prime Minister plan to hold a referendum right across
Canada to decide the future of the people of Quebec?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the title of number one country in the world has been
awarded to Canada by the UN several times. Having said that,
however, I am prepared to agree with the hon. member that we see
other very fine countries in our travels, in Central America in
particular.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Dion: I have a quote here, since the opposition may not
believe the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. This is a quote
about how we must look at Canada.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
2893
Mr. Dion: They will not let me speak, for fear of what I have
to say.
[English]
``Canada is a land of promise and Canadians are a people of
hope. It is a country celebrated for its generosity of spirit where
tolerance is ingrained in the national character''.
[Translation]
``A society in which every citizen and every group can affirm itself,
express itself, realize its aspirations''.
An hon. member: Who said that?
Mr. Dion: These words, of such truth that they could have come
from Sir Wilfrid Laurier or Pierre Trudeau, were spoken on July 1,
1988 by then Secretary of State, the Hon. Lucien Bouchard.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, might we remind this former university
professor that these words predate the failure of the Meech Lake
accord, which he may recall?
(1450)
Does the Prime Minister realize that the deeper his reflections,
the deeper he plunges the country into a constitutional impasse and
the better the conditions he sets for a confrontation between
Quebec and the rest of Canada?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, what the Government of Canada is after in this matter
is to ensure that, under all circumstances no matter how difficult,
the rights of citizens are respected and negotiations are always held
by mutual consent under the protection of the legal order.
Democracy is indissociable from the legal order. What we want
is to ensure that, if ever the option of the opposition were to win
out, we would not find ourselves in a situation where there would
be a legal vacuum. That would be very dangerous for both the
people of Quebec and the other citizens of Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had
a call from the fishermen occupying the DFO offices in downtown
Vancouver. They are outraged that the minister has broken another
promise.
On May 9 the minister said that his plan would not be used to
take fish away from the commercial fleet, would not be used to
reallocate fish. Then yesterday fishermen received a letter from
the minister reneging on that commitment.
First the minister flip-flopped on conservation, now he flip-flops
on allocation. When will the minister admit that his plan will not
work and dump it?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the allocations letter which was sent to fishermen was
in response to meetings held in Vancouver two weeks ago at which
we met with eight groups.
If there was any commonality among these groups it was that
there should be a further indication and reaffirmation of the
allocations policy for the commercial salmon fishery this year.
There has been no flip-flop. This allocations policy letter went
out under my signature. My understanding from the fishermen I
have heard from is that the allocations letter does what it was
intended to do, which was give greater confidence to the fishermen
of the allocation of commercial salmon they will have this year.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister
would do well to read his own press releases. Then he would know
what flip-flop is about.
The minister's newly appointed adviser described the minister's
plan as a cold shower, a plan where everything happens at once, a
plan where fishermen are forced to make decisions in the face of
uncertainty. As the minister's adviser pointed out, this includes
uncertainty about the allocation question.
Will the minister admit that fishermen cannot make informed
decisions about his plan by his May 24 deadline?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has agreed with me that the
commercial salmon situation and the condition of the salmon
stocks in British Columbia are desperate.
The capacity to catch salmon is overheated. I understand that
when a situation is overheated, a cold shower is often quite useful.
The description of the cold shower by Dr. Pearse was meant in a
positive sense. I mentioned to the hon. member a couple of days
ago that Dr. Pearse is very much in support of this plan. Contrary to
the words of the hon. member, Dr. Pearse is confident, as are most
members of the House, that the plan will work.
* * *
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
2894
The minister is meeting today with the just introduced leaders
of the Central American countries. Discussions will focus on
economic co-operation, sustainable development and the
promotion of civil rights.
Our countries have achieved great gains in the last few years.
Could the minister tell the House how CIDA is collaborating with
the Central American region in order to consolidate those gains?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the very historic meeting which the Prime Minister hosted
today with the Central American presidents is another step in
keeping the red book promise to expand into the western
hemisphere the influence, opportunity and activity of this country.
The discussion today dealt with how we can use our resources
through CIDA to helping environmental sustainable development
and the promotion of democratic rights.
It is another example of how we can use the benefits we have as
Canadians who live in one of the most open, tolerant, democratic
countries and share those benefits with other people who are trying
to achieve the same kind of great society we have.
* * *
(1455)
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Two months ago the minister agreed to re-examine taxation
provisions covering people with disabilities. Nothing has yet been
announced. However, according to eligibility criteria for the tax
credit, persons who are unable to cook, but able to feed themselves
with difficulty are not entitled to a tax credit.
When does the Minister of Finance intend reviewing these
criteria and all tax matters applying to people with a handicap?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what we said in the budget was that we intended to set up a task
force to look into this very relevant and important question. I
congratulate the member for raising it.
It is certainly our intention, and we are now looking at
parameters to ensure our study is properly targeted.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, when it comes to business taxes, the minister is quick to
announce the establishment of a committee where he carefully
invites those he considers primarily interested. Why does he not
accord the same treatment to people with disabilities?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
far as business is concerned, not only did we set up a commission
this year to look at all the facts, but, in our first three budgets, we
took very stringent measures regarding an increase in taxes for
major corporations, an increase in taxes on banks and the abolition
of the $100,000 capital gains exemption.
On the whole subject of corporate taxes, not only did we set up a
commission, but we acted immediately.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government is robbing prairie grain farmers of 30 per cent of the
price of wheat and barley by refusing to end the wheat board
monopoly on grain marketing.
On November 20, 1995 the Prime Minister promised farmers a
plebiscite on the future of the wheat board monopoly. In the last
election campaign the agriculture minister also promised farmers a
plebiscite.
Did the minister have any intention of keeping his promise? Was
he prevented from doing so by an act of God or was this whole
thing just another hollow Liberal promise to get elected?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's outraged
indignation hardly sells well before an audience that knows the
details of this issue.
The hon. gentleman should know what were the comments made
during the 1993 election campaign with respect to a plebiscite.
Those comments specifically said that the government would not
consider adjusting the mandate of the Canadian Wheat Board in
any fundamental way without first consulting producers by way of
a plebiscite. Obviously that is a commitment that we intend to
honour.
At the time that the comment was made the previous government
was in the process of amending the jurisdiction of the Canadian
Wheat Board without the legal authority to do it. This government
honoured the law and I would advise the hon. gentleman to honour
the law as well.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, how long
does this minister plan to consult? Already a commissioner has
resigned from the wheat board in disgust because of the way barley
is being handled by the board. He said that there is a very narrow
fringe that rejects outright any compromise on this issue, a very
narrow fringe of which the government is a part.
When will the minister catch up with farmers who know that the
monopoly power of the wheat board is hurting their interests,
2895
abandon this fringe position and hold a plebiscite on ending the
monopoly of wheat board marketing?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, careful reading of the quotation
from the former commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board will
show that he was referring to the other side of the argument, not the
side of the argument to which the hon. gentleman refers.
(1500)
On the occasion of the resignation of that former commissioner
of the Canadian Wheat Board, he went out of his way to indicate
that he had a concern about the process for barley pricing. He also
said the Canadian Wheat Board does a commendable job of
marketing and does not deserve the abuse that people like this
member hand out gratuitously without any respect for what the
system ought to be.
* * *
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Recently an initiative called Experience Canada, a Canada-wide
youth development and cultural exchange program, was attacked
by a Quebec critic. He has cited this program as a front for the
government to push Canadian unity.
Could the Minister of Human Resources Development explain
the purpose of Experience Canada and confirm what this program
represents for youth across Canada?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in asking a question about
Experience Canada, the hon. member is demonstrating his
commitment and the government's commitment to supporting
youth in the country by providing them with opportunities.
This is a unique experience which has been put together by the
private sector. There will be $21 million going into the program,
more than half of it from the private sector. Young Canadians from
all provinces and the territories will be able to become involved in
an exchange of visits.
In addition to learning about the country, they will be getting job
experience which will look very good on their CVs as they seek
employment in the years to come.
The only sad note in all of this is that we will be handling about
1,500 young people in this program and we could certainly use
many more millions of dollars because the take-up of the program
has been absolutely fantastic. A lot of young Canadians are wishing
to experience Canada.
The Speaker: We will proceed with the usual Thursday question
and then I will entertain two questions of privilege, one from the
hon. member for Mississauga South and another question of
privilege from the hon. member for Laval East.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, what is on the legislative agenda in the next sitting days?
[English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
order to assist the House, I will outline the business the government
will place before it for the remainder of this month.
Tomorrow we will continue with Bill C-20, followed by Bill C-4,
the Standards Council Act amendments, and Bill C-5, respecting
bankruptcy.
When the House returns on May 27, and on Wednesday, May 19
and Friday, May 31 it will turn to Bill C-31, the budget
implementation legislation. This will be followed by consideration
at second reading of the income tax legislation based on the ways
and means motion concurred in yesterday.
We will then return, if necessary, to Bill C-20, Bill C-4 and Bill
C-5. If there is time we will call Bill C-23, respecting nuclear
safety, and Bill C-24, amendments to the Tobacco Products Act.
Tuesday, May 28 and Thursday, May 30 shall be allotted days. In
order to assist the Table, I ask my friend, the hon. Minister of
Finance, to confirm their designation.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
confirm.
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a point of privilege relating to the subject of interfering with
members.
I refer to Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 92:
A valid claim of privilege in respect to interference with a member must relate to
the member's parliamentary duties and not to the work the member does in relation
to that member's constituency.
(1505 )
This point of privilege relates to my private member's bill, Bill
C-337, which proposes health warning labels on containers of
alcoholic beverages, which passed second reading in the House on
2896
December 7, 1995, was reinstated as Bill C-222 after prorogation
on March 5 and was referred to the Standing Committee on Health.
Accordingly, I believe my point of privilege satisfies section 92.
I further refer Mr. Speaker to Beauchesne's section 93:
It is generally accepted that any threat, or attempt to influence the vote of, or
actions of a member, is breach of privilege.
I have evidence that would appear to violate the provisions of
section 93 with regard to Bill C-222. First, during the consideration
of the bill the representatives of the alcohol beverage industry
circulated two customized pieces of literature and other formal
communications to all members of Parliament urging them to
reject Bill C-222.
Second, on or about Tuesday, May 14 certain members of
Parliament were each sent a baseball and tickets to a baseball game
and a communication from the alcohol industry relating to its
position on Bill C-222.
The third and most important point, the alcohol lobby
spokespersons in their literature and other written communications
and in committee testimony on this bill stated that if the
government mandates health warning labels to be placed on their
containers, the money spent on responsible use programs,
advertising and educational programs, some of which are cost
shared by the government, will be reduced or eliminated to recover
the costs of mandating labels.
This appears to pose a threat or adverse consequence directly to
Health Canada and therefore to the minister of health, and therefore
attempts to affect their position regarding Bill C-222.
I believe these examples violate section 93 of Beauchesne's sixth
edition and therefore violate my rights and possibly the rights of
many other members of the House. I am prepared to provide the
Chair or to table with the House all relevant documents in my
possession if so ordered.
It would appear the lobbyists on behalf of the beverage alcohol
industry are responsible for these apparent violations of section 93
of Beauchesne's. Therefore I respectfully ask that my rights as a
member of Parliament and indeed the integrity of the House of
Commons be defended by having a thorough investigation
conducted by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs or by other means which Mr. Speaker may deem
appropriate.
The Speaker: My colleague, as the Speaker of the House I take
very seriously the allegations you have brought forth. I invite you
to please put at my disposal all the information you have at your
disposal with regard to your claim.
After I have reviewed all the material you have put before me, if
necessary I will return to the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
point out that Bloc members never received baseballs, tickets to a
baseball game, baseball bats or anything of the sort. I do not know
what the hon. member is referring to.
The Speaker: Does any other member wish to rise on the
question of privilege?
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to say I do not think my privilege as a member has been
breached in any way. I did receive some correspondence, as I do
every day from numerous groups. I did not receive anything
resembling a baseball or tickets to a baseball game. Therefore, my
privilege has not been breached.
(1510 )
[English]
The Speaker: If there are no more interventions on this point of
privilege, I will await the information from the hon. member for
Mississauga South and, if necessary, will return to the House with a
decision.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, since the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle
referred to me personally as a member of Parliament in his
statement pursuant to Standing Order 31 before today's question
period, I would urge him to proceed with caution and to check the
facts before making accusations against my office. I call on him to
withdraw his comments, as they are not true.
The Speaker: Dear colleague, were these comments made
during proceedings?
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle is not here at this time, so you could
perhaps wait for a day when he is present before raising the
question of privilege. I will certainly hear your question again. Is
this okay?
Mrs. Dalphone-Guiral: With pleasure, Mr. Speaker.
[English]
The Speaker: Before question period today my hon. colleague,
the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole, made a ruling
on the splitting of time and the proposal of amendments by the two
members who were splitting the time, notwithstanding that both
these members were the lead off speakers.
[Translation]
Following the Chair's decision on the amendment put forward
by Mr. Bellehumeur, Mrs. Lalonde, seconded by Mr. Duceppe,
2897
moved, and I quote: ``That the amendment be amended by adding
the words 'the book' between the words 'in' and 'Straight from the
Heart'''.
This amendment is in order.
[English]
Before resuming debate on the business of supply, there are two
motions to be put.
_____________________________________________
2897
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate your indulgence. There are two travel motions which I
believe there has been unanimous agreement to put forward.
I move:
That the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Transport and one
researcher be authorized to travel to Washington, D.C., Chicago and Montreal
on May 21, 22, and 23 and on June 4, 5, and 6 to gather information on the
creation of a binational structure for the St. Lawrence Seaway.
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
move:
That 10 members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food
and the necessary support staff be authorized to travel to Washington, D.C. for
three days between May 27, 1996 and June 5, 1996 in relation to the impact of
the U.S. farm bill on Canadian agriculture
(1515 )
The Speaker: There are two motions here. Does the House give
its unanimous consent to propose both motions at the same time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Motions agreed to.
_____________________________________________
2897
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion; and of the
amendment; and of the amendment to the amendment.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, continuing with my speech, I will make two final points.
The first point is that Canada has a Constitution which has
evolved over 130 years. In fact many of the conventions and
concepts which are incorporated in the Constitution had evolved
before Canada officially became a country in 1867. A constitution
is the base law on which this country and other countries around the
world operate. It is incumbent upon us as a nation, as a people, to
adhere to the Constitution.
As was said in the speech from the throne not that many weeks
ago, the whole issue of Canada, our Constitution and our political
make-up is a discussion for all Canadians. It is not for just one
segment of Canada but for all Canadians no matter where they live,
no matter what their ethnic background is, no matter what their
language is. It is an issue for all Canadians. That is important to
remember.
The second point is a personal one. It deals with the work I am
undertaking in committee, a study on rural economic development.
When I talk to Canadians, whether they are from British Columbia,
Manitoba, the maritimes or Quebec, we share values as rural
Canadians. It is not as rural Canadians from English Canada or
rural Canadians from French Canada, we share values as rural
Canadians. We share that special quality of life which is rural
Canada whether it is in the Laurentians, the Eastern Townships or
my area of Muskoka. We share important rural traditions which
stretch from coast to coast to coast whether it is in Quebec, Ontario
or somewhere else in Canada. Together we share our attempt to
overcome those special challenges as rural Canadians.
Canada and Canadians are a nation and a people from coast to
coast to coast. Although we have specific challenges to solve as
Canadians we know and experience this nationhood every day. It is
time for members of the Bloc Quebecois to stop their political
posturing and to do their duty and take actions which are in the best
interests of all constituents, people who live in Quebec and people
who live in the rest of Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
very carefully to what the hon. member for Don Valley North said
and I cannot help wondering how an Armenian man of all people
can question the right of Quebecers, as a people, to
self-determination.
An hon. member: He is not Armenian.
Mr. Lebel: I am told that the hon. member is not Armenian,
please forgive me.
At any rate, not so long ago, the Armenians were mentioned, and
the hon. member for Saint-Denis also mentioned Macedonia,
Serbia and other countries in that part of the world. It is strange
how individuals from an ethnic group, members of an ethnic
2898
minority in Canada, claim elsewhere the very thing they are
denying us here. I have a great deal of trouble with that.
I would like to ask the hon. member, who nevertheless made an
excellent speech and professed his faith in Canada, if he could help
me understand what would be the point of having a Canada in
which Quebec would be forced to stay against its will, after voting
for sovereignty, all because of some legal texts, a Constitution it
never signed or entered into. Do you think this makes for a healthy
country? Is that healthy?
(1520)
Do you think the great and beautiful country you refer to three
times every half hour in this place will be able to keep projecting
the same image internationally if it forces seven or eight million
people to stay in your great and beautiful Canada? That is my first
question.
As for the second one, I was listening earlier to the members
who spoke before the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.
They talked about a Canadian nation. I have a very hard time
understanding how they can talk about a single nation when we
have two languages and when the central part of this country does
not understand its neighbours on either side, in the east and the
west. They talk about a country with a single nation but two
different languages. That is not easy to understand. As someone
pointed out to me earlier, it is like an egg with two yolks, it does not
give two chicks. Only one develops.
Please help me understand how a single nation can have two
languages. Yet the concept of nation and the use of a given
language are closely linked. One nation, one language, I can
understand, but one nation, two, three, five languages, I cannot.
The Prime Minister denied the existence of a Quebec nation. That
is probably what the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka was
referring to.
Anyone who considers that Quebec does not exist in the first
place will obviously have a problem admitting that it could leave.
Could you clarify this point for me please?
The Speaker: Dear colleague, I remind you that you must
address the Chair.
[English]
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that what my
ethnic origin might or might not be or what the ethnic origin of
anyone who sits in this House might be is totally irrelevant to the
debate today and at any other time. The member ought to realize
that.
The member asks what kind of a nation are we and what kind of a
nation will we be. We are a people and a nation that for 130 years
have worked in the northern part of North America to build a strong
and vibrant country. We have not done it because we are all the
same, that we all look the same, that we all speak the same, that we
are all the same colour. No, we have done it because we have
learned the importance of partnership. We have learned the
importance of working together. We have learned the importance of
addressing our challenges together.
We have done what many nations in this world envy. We have
succeeded in creating a country that, although it has its problems
from time to time, is admired as the best nation in the world,
according to the United Nations.
Members of a family are different. I am different from what my
brother was. I am different from my sister. My parents are different
from each other, as are my children. We do not allow those
differences to divide us. We celebrate those differences. It is what
makes us unique as a family. It is what makes us special. We build
upon those differences so that together we are more than what we
are individually. That is what we do as a family. That is what we do
as Canadians and that is why we are a great nation.
[Translation]
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Cochrane-Superior, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first I want to thank the hon. member for Parry
Sound-Muskoka, who just spoke, for sharing his time with me.
Today, I address this House, and the Bloc Quebecois, as a French
speaking person living outside Quebec.
(1525)
Canada is the most decentralized of all modern federations.
During the sixties, a series of agreements between the federal and
Quebec governments triggered a decentralization process, and it
was not necessary to amend the Constitution. These changes have
allowed Quebec to extend its jurisdiction to areas that traditionally
came under federal jurisdiction. Examples of this are the selection
of immigrants and the fact that Quebec is represented at the
Francophonie summit as a participating government.
In a study prepared for the Bélanger-Campeau Commission,
professor Edmond Orban, an expert on federalism, said that "the
autonomy of Canadian provinces and their possibilities are, in fact,
relatively greater than that of the German Länders and particularly
the Swiss cantons''.
Mr. Parizeau himself said the following when he was a Quebec
minister and delivered a speech at the University of Edinburgh:
[English]
``And because rather often in Canada we tend to talk of the
abusive centralized powers of Ottawa, we tend to forget that in
reality, Canada is highly decentralized''. This quote is from the
Globe and Mail of December 9, 1977.
2899
[Translation]
In light of this evolution of the Canadian federation, and in line
with the changes already made, the government pledged to clarify
the roles and responsibilities of the various levels of government,
so as to modernize the federation and make it more respectful of
the provinces' priorities and areas of jurisdiction.
Building a federation that is more receptive to the needs of its
citizens and better adapted to the realities and challenges of our era
is our government's goal.
The measures announced in the throne speech seek to implement
the commitments made by the government to improve relations
between the federal and provincial governments, including
Quebec, and to truly modernize the federation.
Canadians want their country to work. They want the various
levels of government to be effective and to perform their respective
roles.
The federal government has already brought about important
changes. It will continue to do whatever is necessary to achieve this
modernization, in co-operation with the provinces and with all the
people of Canada.
The government has promised, on the one hand, to undertake a
retooling of the federation on four fronts, and, on the other, to limit
its spending power. The plan is as follows: first, the government
intends to withdraw from certain fields of activity, such as
manpower training, forestry, mining, and recreation, and to transfer
responsibility to local or regional authorities or to the private
sector.
Second, the involvement of the federal government is no longer
necessary in certain sectors. The federal government will therefore
transfer management of these sectors to other levels of government
or to the private sector.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are replacing the Speaker of the
House. This is perhaps a first, having a member of the Bloc
Quebecois occupy the Speaker's chair in the House of Commons.
To continue what I was saying, this is the case for part of the
transportation infrastructure. Operational control of transportation
systems and facilities, now a federal responsibility, will be
transferred to local and private groups. Thus, we will reduce the
cost, and the services provided will address Canada's real
transportation needs.
Third, in a spirit of increased co-operation with the provinces
and greater respect for provincial jurisdiction, the government
intends to work with the provinces to find new forms of
co-operation and co-management in certain fields, such as
environmental management, social housing, food inspection,
tourism, and freshwater fish habitat. The government will also
explore the possibility of setting up a Canadian securities
commission, thus ending the proliferation in that sector.
However, such initiatives will not be introduced unless a number
of provinces express an interest. As well, participation is voluntary.
Fourth, the government intends to ensure greater harmonization
of federal and provincial policies.
All these measures have as a goal the harmonization of federal
and provincial initiatives, thus eliminating overlap. They will mean
significant savings and more efficient services to the public.
(1530)
No doubt the most eloquent example of the government's
intention to respect provincial jurisdiction is our intention to limit
the federal government's spending power in co-financed programs
that come under provincial responsibility.
The federal government will not use its spending power to create
new co-financed programs without the consent of the majority of
the provinces. Provinces setting up and providing equivalent
programs will be compensated.
This is an unprecedented initiative on the part of the federal
government, which, for the first time ever, is acting on its own
initiative to limit its spending power, unequivocally, and outside
constitutional negotiations.
The federal budget for 1996-97 consolidates the government's
initiatives and intentions in this regard. Measures proposed give
effect to the government's commitment to assume its fiscal
responsibilities and reduce the deficit to two per cent of the gross
domestic product for 1997-98 through ongoing reduction of its
expenditures.
The government is also providing long term predictable and
increasing funding to the provinces for social programs under the
Canada health and social transfer. What is more, the 1996 budget,
like the previous one, contains no tax increase.
In addition to these measures, the budget confirms the federal
government's commitment not only to spend less but to spend
better. In fact, the creation of agencies like the Canada Revenue
Commission is part of the federal strategy to modernize the
federation and to better define the respective responsibilities of the
various levels of government.
This government has made every effort to lay a solid foundation
by bringing the deficit under control, avoiding tax increases,
cutting red tape, and rationalizing government services to
Canadians. Its priorities remain job creation, economic prosperity
and stable social programs. Achieving these goals involves
modernizing and reinforcing the economic and social union that
brings all Canadians together.
We also firmly believe that changing the way the federation
works, improving federal-provincial relations, and bringing all
2900
Canadians closer to the decision making process will eliminate the
need for another referendum on secession and the break-up of this
country.
This government has resolutely embarked on a
co-operation-based process of change. These are the values that
will guide Canada and help it take on with confidence the
challenges of the 21st century. The measures and initiatives put
forward by this government will open a new chapter in
federal-provincial relations by emphasizing open-mindedness and
dialogue.
The process of change under way is part of an aggressive action
plan put in place by the Canadian government. It clearly shows that
the federal government wants to be pragmatic and that it is not the
great centralizing force portrayed by the official opposition.
Canada is a success story, although we agree that our federation
needs some changes. We are ready to take up the challenge, to roll
up our sleeves and to get down to work, but we need the
co-operation of all our Canadian partners. We sincerely hope that
the Quebec government will be open-minded and agree to act as a
full-fledged partner of Canada and work with our government to
modernize the Canadian federation. That was what Quebecers told
their provincial government on October 30.
(1535)
We must continue to build this country and make it stronger. The
initiatives undertaken by our government clearly show its intention
to bring about changes that fulfil the aspirations of all our fellow
citizens.
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon.
member was a bit off the mark today. He extolled the virtues of
Canada. There may be some advantages to living in Canada, but the
question is whether or not Quebec has the right to decide its own
future. That is what the questions I will put to him will be about.
It feels strange to hear members of this Liberal government
speak today, given that they had previously recognized
referendums as a means of decision making. When Quebecers lost
the referendum in 1982, the federal government acknowledged the
referendum result.
Same thing again with the referendum on the Charlottetown
accord. Quebecers won, the federalists lost. The government's
proposal was rejected and, once again, the verdict was readily
accepted. The question is why does the Prime Minister keep
repeating day in and day out that a referendum is nothing more than
a means of public consultation and that any decision made is not
final.
Strangely enough, this change in attitude coincides with a very
tight vote, with 49.6 per cent of Quebecers voting for sovereignty.
It took these tight results to notice all of a sudden that the
government is changing the rules of the democratic game. The
credibility of democracy and of our financial institutions are at
stake here. That is why we are debating this very important issue
today.
Why did it take two referendums before NewFoundland
eventually joined the Confederation? The first results were not very
high; they were closer the second time around. The decision to join
the Constitution in Newfoundland was made on the basis of a very
close vote-50 or 51 per cent, 50.5 per cent-in a referendum.
While a 50 per cent plus one verdict is good enough to join the
Confederation, it is not good enough when you want out.
I would like the hon. member to tell me why, if it takes 50 per
cent of the votes plus one to join the Confederation, the same rule
does not apply for leaving the Confederation. I would like to hear
what he has to say on this.
Mr. Bélair: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer this question.
The hon. member referred to the referendums held in 1982 and
1995. It is true that Quebecers spoke and that their decision was
respected.
Let me go back to the 1992 Charlottetown accord. At the time, I
was a member of this House, and so was the hon. member who just
asked the question. Now, I wonder why Quebec rejected the
Charlottetown accord, given that it included the distinct society
concept, a delegation of powers-in the mining, forestry,
recreation and housing sectors-, an elected Senate, and several
other major changes.
After the 1995 referendum, the Prime Minister said he would
hold out his hand to Quebecers. We did it by passing the resolution
on the distinct society, that Bloc members rejected. One has to
wonder what they want.
As for the 50 per cent plus one rule, the Prime Minister also held
out his hand to Quebecers last week and this week when he told
them that, should another referendum be held, there would have to
be agreement on the question. The Prime Minister is talking about
co-operation. I do not know whether you will accept his offer.
Probably not.
Personally, I would go a little further regarding the percentage
that should be required, because I really wonder if, from a legal
standpoint, it is acceptable to destroy a country with a majority of
just one vote.
(1540)
I firmly believe that the percentage required should be higher.
However, we should, in a spirit of co-operation, agree on this
percentage, as well as on the question itself.
[English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on the motion before us. It states that the House
adopt as its own the statement made in 1985 by the current Prime
Minister. The quote is: ``If we don't win, I'll respect the wishes of
Quebecers and let them separate''.
2901
That is a very open statement, ``if we don't win''. The term win
is not identified as what would be a win. It has still not been
identified some 11 years later. The term ``let them separate'' gives
no indication of how that tragic action, if it were to take place,
would take place.
The Reform Party cannot support this motion. As a party we
have said that we will respect a yes vote if that is the vote of the
people of Quebec, but we have also said that we can only respect it
if there is an honest question, and if there is honest debate on the
consequences of the question. If it does happen, it is critical to
follow the rule of law as much as it can be applied to answering the
question.
We are discussing this motion today largely because of a lack of
leadership by this government. There is no vision for the future of
Canada and there certainly is no plan for the future of Canada. The
lack of leadership, lack of vision and lack of any plan is not only
reflected in the failed unity issue. It is also reflected in the jobs,
jobs, jobs which have yet to materialize for Canadians both inside
and outside of Quebec. It is reflected in a failing economy that still
has not been revved up to its full potential or anywhere near it.
There has not been any plan for major changes to our criminal
justice system that is failing Canadians.
While we talk about the failure to address the economy and
create the jobs which Canadians are so desperately looking for, the
failure in both those areas plays into the hands of the separatists.
They can point to the failures in Ottawa and suggest that they could
do no worse on their own.
I recall some 30 years ago when the B and B commission was
first introduced. The government of the day appointed it in an
attempt to unite our country, to bring us together as one country. I
supported the commission which was originally the B and B
commission but became B and multiculturalism commission. I
supported it 30 years ago because I thought that was what we must
do to unite the country and get Canada moving on to the greatness
that could be ours.
After 30 years it is very evident that what has been done over this
period of time is not working. As a country we have never been
further apart. The October 1993 election in which 54 Bloc
members were elected on a mandate to take Quebec out of Canada
is living testimony, is living proof of the absolute failure of past
policies, of the status quo. It is not working, yet no one is asking
why we should be changing.
Going back to October 1993, not just 54 Bloc members were
elected, 205 new members of Parliament were elected to this place,
an unheard of turnover. Again the vote was a vote for change.
Canadians were telling Ottawa: ``We are not happy with the status
quo. We want changes to be made, not just a change of faces, but a
change of policies and a change of thinking''.
(1545)
That message for change was not just reflected in October 1993,
it was the message Canadians delivered when Meech was rejected
and when Charlottetown was rejected. Those were very strong
messages from the voters of Canada that the status quo was not
going to get us through.
With Charlottetown something unheard of happened. The three
major parties came together in support of a position, as well as the
major media. All of them said to the voters of Canada to vote for it.
The Canadian people rejected it.
We must never forget the Spicer commission. The government
of the day put the commission in place after the failure of the
Meech Lake accord to determine the mood of the Canadian people.
The taxpayers spent $27 million for Mr. Spicer and his
commissioners to go all across Canada and talk to hundreds of
thousands of Canadians to find out what was the mood of the
country and what was bothering Canadians. Probably all members
of Parliament have read the report. The message very clearly was
that we in this place must change.
The most important part of the report is the very last quote. It is
not a quote of Mr. Spicer's or of one of his commissioners; it is a
quote from one of the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who
were interviewed. It appears on page 137 under the heading
``Conclusion'': ``No hyperbole or political hedge can screen any
member of any legislature who thwarts the will of the people on
this matter. The voters are watching and waiting''.
That was in June 1991. Those were very prophetic words indeed
when we consider what happened in October 1993. The politicians
ignored the warnings in that report and because they did not
respond to the wishes of the Canadian people, 205 new members of
Parliament were elected.
Let us review the October 30, 1995 referendum. There was no
understanding on the part of the government of the message that
was delivered in the October 1993 election. The government felt
that the status quo, good government, would carry the day: ``Do not
worry, be happy. It is a family feud. Stay out of it. Do not get
involved. We will win. We do not have a problem''. Politicians
were encouraged to stay out of Quebec. As a matter of fact, when
we tried to raise our concerns in the House of Commons we were
accused of fearmongering. How tragic that almost was on October
30.
As we are doing today, we will continue to debate the yardstick
for breaking up a country, the 50 per cent plus one. There were
statements made in the House yesterday which were not accurate. I
will take a minute to clarify exactly where we are on the question of
50 per cent plus one, or what percentage of votes is required to
break up a country.
2902
Actually, it started in the province of Quebec with the leader
of the Liberals in Quebec. Mr. Johnson said that he was prepared
to accept 50 per cent plus one because no yardstick had been
defined. We had gone into this without clearly outlining what the
number should be, but the Liberal leader in Quebec said that he
was prepared to accept 50 per cent plus one. At that time the
Minister of Labour who was leading the government's position in
Quebec and is now the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
also indicated publicly her support for 50 per cent plus one. Two
major players in the October 30 referendum were saying to the
people of Quebec that yes, they would respect 50 per cent plus
one.
(1550)
However there was a lack of a plan or leadership. Mr. Bouchard,
then the Leader of the Opposition, challenged the Prime Minister to
back up the quotes that had been made by the minister and Mr.
Johnson, the leader of the Liberals in Quebec. Tragically the Prime
Minister backed away from the commitment of both of these
people and said he did not think he would accept 50 per cent plus
one. He did not say what he would accept.
The tragedy is that the Prime Minister played right into the hands
of the separatists. He was telling them there would be no
consequences to their rejection of Canada, that he may or may not
accept their position. The battle was lost to a great degree right
there in not making it very clear whether or not the government was
going to accept the 50 per cent plus one, the will of the voters.
We need to clarify that at no time did anyone from my party say
that it should be 50 per cent plus one. We challenged the
government to clarify its position on the issue. When the Leader of
the Opposition challenged the government as to whether it would
accept 50 per cent plus one, the government missed that great
opportunity.
It is this failure to understand the need for change that has
brought us to the unfortunate position we are still in today. We as a
party understood that the status quo was not sufficient, that there
was going to have to be change.
An hon. member: What did your party do in the referendum
campaign?
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): A gentleman on the other side of
the House is questioning our part in the referendum. The
contribution we made to the referendum campaign was one for
positive change. We did not stick our heads in the sand saying that
the status quo was going to carry the day. We realized far better
than anyone on the government side that change was going to have
to be made.
As part of our contribution to the referendum campaign we
prepared a list of 20 positive proposals for change that would go a
long way toward keeping the country united. We went so far as to
publish the 20 proposals in a full page ad in the Globe and Mail so
that all Canadians could see that what we were saying was that the
status quo was not going to do it, change had to be made and these
were the changes that would keep the country united.
We produced the same ad in French and offered it to many of the
Quebec print media. Some of them chose not to run it, some did.
We wanted to get the message to the people in Quebec who wanted
to reject the separatists that there were 52 members of Parliament
who agreed with them that the status quo was not going to carry the
day. We understood the desire and the need for change.
We were asked to stay out, that this was a family feud. In the
11th hour when the government finally realized that its plan was a
disaster, that it was going to lose the referendum then there was this
great cry to go to Quebec to try to save it. Whether that worked or
not is still open for debate. It may have hurt the cause. However we
did make a contribution toward keeping the country united by
running those ads.
In the 11th hour when the government realized the status quo or
good government was not going to carry the day, we did see the
government agree to change and what did it come up with? Distinct
society and veto. Both already had been rejected by the Canadian
people and the government was now going to bring them in the
back door. Never mind what the people of Canada said, the
government was going to bring them in whether Canadians liked it
or not. That is a major problem here in Ottawa which has to change.
Imagine giving a veto to a separatist government. How was the
Liberal government able to justify that? How could it give a veto to
a separatist government whose mandate is to break up our country?
Unbelievable, but it was done by the government.
(1555 )
We are facing one more battle. The separatists said on the night
of October 30 that they will be back, that they have one more battle
to fight and it will be the final battle. We had better be better
prepared for that one than we were for the October 30 referendum
or we will lose it. If anything good is going to come out of this
debate, it is that we are talking about this threat because while it is
coming, we just do not know how much time we have to prepare for
it.
It has been seven months since that vote on October 30 and the
Liberal government has yet to come up with a plan to deal with the
separatists. Day to day it has been going from policy to policy and
has nothing yet to put before the Canadian people.
Our party came up with a plan that we have had published and
out for months. It is our 20-20 plan, a vision for a new
Confederation. In producing this document we took a twin track
approach to dealing with the separatist threat.
2903
One track is the 20 positive proposals for change that we could
make to keep Quebec in Canada. There are two common elements
to those 20 positive proposals for change. One is that they have
broad acceptance both inside and outside of Quebec. These are
changes that all of the provinces are looking for, British Columbia,
Ontario, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, as well as Quebec.
They are changes which are going to happen whether we like it
or not. I say that because these changes mainly involve eliminating
the duplication and overlap which are taking place between the
federal government and the provinces. It is going to happen
because of the fiscal crisis this country is in. We are going to have
to find a better way of doing a better job with fewer dollars which
means eliminating a lot of the overlap and duplication.
In our 20 positive proposals for change we see a win-win
situation for keeping the country united. We are going to be dealing
in a major way with the deficit and debt. The other common
element is that the changes do not require opening up the
Constitution. These changes can all be made by a willing
government. While we have high unemployment and a fiscal crisis,
we certainly have to look after both of those problems before
dealing with the Constitution.
We have been talking to people about our plan. As I said, it is a
twin track approach. There is the positive side and the other track
has the realities of any province leaving this great country of ours.
That was not on the table prior to the referendum but it certainly
should have been. Had it been, the separatists would have been
rejected resoundingly on October 30. Again the government's do
not worry, be happy, stick its head in the sand attitude resulted in
our not facing the fact that change was being demanded by the
Canadian people.
What are the realities of breaking up a country? It is important
that the people in Quebec understand the consequences of their
vote. All Canadians must understand the consequences of a vote to
break up the country because it would be painful for all Canadians.
In holding my town hall meetings to talk about unity and how to
keep Canada united, there are those who ask: ``Why are we talking
about it? Just let Quebec go. Who needs all this discussion?'' I say
to those people to listen to and read about the consequences of the
action they are suggesting. It is not just the people of Quebec who
are going to be affected. All Canadians would be affected if we
were to break up this great country of ours.
These things have to be understood. We certainly have to have
that debate now. In no way do we want the people in Quebec voting
in the next referendum without a clear understanding of the
consequences of that vote. How could we do anything less and look
at ourselves? How could we not do that and expect the people in
Quebec to make an informed decision on such a vital and important
question?
We have outlined our plan and as I have said, it has been out for
months. We have been going across Canada talking to Canadians
about it and inviting their input: Do you agree or disagree? Is there
something that we have missed?
(1600 )
The difference between the government and ourselves is it does
not have a plan. The government is critical of us and it is within its
right to question us. However, I ask the government, where is your
plan? Sadly it is not there.
Canadians are demanding some clarity to this question.
Canadians are looking at a government that has no plan. Its plan is
made up on the run. When we are dealing with such an important
question, when we are dealing with Canada's future, it just is not
good enough.
The people inside and outside of Quebec are demanding that this
government start acting in a responsible way and show some
leadership.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to my colleague,
and, do you know, I understand his federalist reactions when he
criticizes the position of the Liberals, who lately, to our great
delight, seem to be committing one mistake after another, to the
detriment of their cause. I am speaking, for example, of their
intransigence that even the federalist premier of Alberta has just
criticized, saying that he does not understand their stubborn
insistence on interfering in the fields of education and health in
particular, as these are provincial jurisdictions, and that it is
harming the cause of federalism.
Before that, there were the blunders about the distinct society
that was not, and the right of veto that seemed equally imaginary. I
therefore understand very well the position of my hon. colleague,
who is a federalist and who sees the other federalist party
stubbornly blundering on and harming the cause of federalism. I
have only one explanation to give him, and it is this: Whom God
would destroy He first sends mad.
Now, I have a question to ask. Newfoundland was mentioned
earlier. Newfoundland became a province of Canada as a result of a
referendum won by a close margin. First of all, I would like my
colleague to enlighten me on a constitutional point. Back then, did
the Constitution provide for the arrival of a new member in
Canada? And if not, why is it constitutional that Newfoundland is a
member? Would it not be in order to throw it out by force of arms,
as it has no business being in Canada, having entered it
unconstitutionally? That is my first question.
I have a second question. At the time-I was not yet in Canada
unfortunately-was the opinion of the nine provinces already there
sought, because the Prime Minister is telling us that there is no
question of allowing Quebec to separate without the consent of
2904
nine other provinces? Was the consent of the nine other provinces
sought before Newfoundland was allowed into Canada?
[English]
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
comments of the hon. member. He started out agreeing with the
Reform position and with the fact that the government is standing
pat, still sticking its head in the sand and believing that the status
quo will carry the day. That is wrong and we agree with the hon.
member on that.
Where we disagree is that if we work together we can bring
about the change needed to keep Canada united. Quebec does not
need to leave, as the Bloc is suggesting. The problems can be dealt
with and Canada can remain united.
Distinct society and the veto are not what will keep this country
united. We are going to go into the next century as one country of
10 equal provinces. That is the way we will face the future.
The hon. member asks about a province joining Canada, such as
when Newfoundland joined Canada. I brought Newfoundland up
because I was talking about the fact that all provinces are looking
for the positive changes that we have outlined in our proposals.
They want more control over areas under our Constitution for
which they have responsibility.
I do not have the background on the mechanics used to allow the
province of Newfoundland to come into Canada. I would suggest it
is a different scenario when an existing country is enlarged and
when a country is destroyed or broken up. If I am correct, the basis
of the hon. member's question is if it is 50 per cent plus 1 to bring a
province in, why would the same formula not apply to a province
that wants to leave? My party and I have not taken a position on
what the percentage should be, on whether it should be 50 per cent
plus 1, 55 per cent or 60 per cent. The point we are making is that in
breaking up a country, those rules should be clearly identified now,
in advance of the referendum. That is not the sort of debate to get
into once the referendum has been called.
(1605)
The rules must be clearly identified so that the voters understand
going in if it is going to be 50 per cent plus 1 or 60 per cent. They
also must have put before them an honest, straightforward question
about whether they want to stay as part of Canada or leave. Those
are the two points that I want to make.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
tell the hon. member that the first parliamentary institution in
Quebec dates back to 1792, which means that there has been a
Quebec Parliament for 204 years. It predates Confederation by 75
years. It must, therefore, be acknowledged that the people of
Quebec have been in existence as an entity for a very long time.
The day that certain people in Quebec decided to join Upper
Canada, there was no referendum held. There was no referendum at
all. A little group of people in Quebec and Ontario decided to
create Confederation by joining together the two peoples.
Today, they are trying to sell us on the idea that the people of
Quebec are not a people, whereas they have existed as a people for
204 years. We are not merely an ethnic group, we are a people who
have been in existence for at least 204 years, with a parliamentary
institution. We are one of the first peoples in North America to
have our own parliamentary institution. All that seems to be getting
forgotten.
So now, trying to make us swallow the idea that the people of
Quebec are not entitled to get out of the Canadian Confederation
with 51 per cent, that is 50 per cent plus 1, is like considering that
this people no longer has its powers as a people, whereas we are the
oldest people in North America. Before that, there were the native
people, but they were made up of a number of smaller peoples,
whom the French Canadians of the time respected, while the
English Canadians hated them. They were always at war with the
English, but they always got along well with the French. We have
always dealt freely with them.
This is the big issue. If the agreement between Upper Canada
and Lower Canada and the two founding peoples had been
respected, and if it was still respected nowadays, perhaps we would
not be holding this debate in the House at this time. Over time,
particularly after the last world war, the federal government started
to levy taxes, impose its legislation, meddle in the areas of
education, unemployment insurance, health and so on, all of which
were areas of jurisdiction of the people of Quebec.
When I listen to the speech of the hon. member for Simcoe
Centre, it does not hold together. He is off topic. That is not the
subject for today, it is whether the people of Quebec are entitled or
not to separate with 50 per cent plus one.
[English]
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his question. Certainly no one in our party has
suggested that the people of Quebec are not a people. What the
numbers should be to take a province out of Canada is a matter for
debate.
Personally, I do not believe it should be 50 per cent plus 1.
Whatever it is going to be, it has to be outlined in advance of the
question. We cannot go into a referendum with that question up in
the air.
2905
As to the right of Quebecers to leave Canada, Quebec does not
belong only to Quebecers. Quebec is part of Canada. It belongs
to all Canadians. When the hon. member talks about taking
Quebec out of Canada, Canadians are incensed that someone wants
to destroy their country. When it was suggested that Quebec may
be divisible, the argument heard from the Bloc was that it was
not divisible. It cannot be both ways. If Canada is divisible in your
eyes, then by the same argument Quebec must be divisible.
(1610)
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Nunatsiaq.
I welcome the opportunity to remind the House of the great
strength and flexibility of Canada's constitutional structure and
justice system, and the primacy of the rule of law, of democracy in
this great country of ours. Too often in the debate about the future
of Canada, the constitutional and legal foundations of our country
are characterized as irrelevant, ineffective or to be discarded.
This country's Constitution and justice system form the bedrock
of our society. They are powerful vehicles for preserving the values
that underlie life in a democratic society. They are in large part
what makes Canada the much admired country that it is. They were
built by generations of Canadians, including Quebecers. Our
Constitution and justice system are not without their legitimate
critics, but we should consider the motivation of those proposing
this motion.
Too often we hear criticisms of a system that has served
Canadians well for over a century and a quarter, a system that has
made Canada's justice system among the most admired in the
world. Too often we hear the defamation of a constitutional
framework and a modus vivendi within that framework that has
made us the envy of the world.
We must not be seduced by too clever rhetoric, surreal
perceptions of this country. We must not ignore the reality of how
well this country does, in fact, work. We must not ignore how well
this country has served Quebecers, whose interests the Bloc
Quebecois professes to represent.
It is essential for all Canadians, those in every province and
territory, to appreciate the strength of the values that underlie our
Constitution and justice system.
Have Canadians from whatever corner of this land done so badly
by our constitutional principles, by our justice system, by our
commitment to freedom and the rule of law and by our much
admired ability to compromise to serve the interests of all
Canadians? The answer in every case is clearly no.
Canadians are the beneficiaries of one of the most egalitarian
justice systems in the world, and all this in a country that is among
the most prosperous and peaceful in the world. In a world beset by
economic turmoil and violence, should we not consider ourselves
among the very fortunate, despite the musings of the members of
the official opposition?
Our political structure and justice system have not been imposed
on Canadians. They are a product of continual debate and
well-intentioned compromise. Decades of effort by Canadians
from all walks of life, be they elected representatives, public
servants, members of interest groups or ordinary Canadians, have
produced a confederation that serves Canada well today and will
continue to do so in the future.
Those who participated in this process of building the
underpinnings of Canadian society have strived to make our
systems workable and flexible. All have fought to establish the
democratic freedoms and human rights that we now take for
granted. Quebecers have been at the fore of the many legal and
political advances that have shaped this country. They too have
built this country and its institutions. Now members of the
opposition would have us believe that these institutions, the
development of which so strongly was influenced by the minds and
souls of Quebecers, come from outside or do not serve them.
Canada is populated by diverse cultures, by diverse groups, yet
our Constitution serves them all. It is not a prison preventing the
realization of the aspirations of Canadians. It is our home. Our
Constitution is a flexible vehicle that permits the goals of all
Canadians to be accommodated. It is a vehicle that allows the
values so important to the many cultures within Canada to be
respected and maintained.
What are the underlying values in Canada's Constitution and its
justice system? Certainly, foremost among these values is the
preservation of freedom and respect for human dignity. Those who
created Canada shared a fundamental commitment to freedom,
representative democracy and the rule of law. This commitment not
only laid the basis for the Constitution of 1867, but set the direction
for its continuing evolution.
Canada is also a peaceable society. Surely this is one of our most
enduring characteristics. Canada was built out of accommodation,
not revolution. It endures through the same process today.
(1615)
Our legal system is built on the foundation of the rule of law. We
have a strong an independent judiciary, one that reflects the
character of our nation. Three of the nine judges of the Supreme
Court of Canada come from Quebec. No other province has such a
guarantee. As the President of the Treasury Board said so
eloquently in the House in December 1994, the soul of Quebec will
2906
continue to influence and define Canada as a country for a long
time to come through its impact on the Supreme Court of Canada.
Thus Quebec not only continues to influence the direction of the
supreme court, but our highest court itself is the product of a
society based on the rule of law and respect for individual rights.
We are blessed by a trusted judiciary that permits us to resolve our
disputes in a civilized, lawful manner. All this we accomplish
under the fundamental notion of the rule of law.
As I stated earlier, Canada's governments and its justice system
must conform to the fundamental requirements of the charter of
rights, another reflection of our respect for the rule of law. Our
charter provides fundamental freedoms, the right to freedom of
expression, freedom of peaceable assembly and freedom of
association among them. It asserts the democratic rights of all our
citizens. It protects accused persons in their interactions with the
state through safeguards on arrest, detention and interrogation. It
ensures that criminal proceedings are carried out in a manner which
respects the rights of the accused.
The charter provides equality before and under the law and
affirms French and English as the official languages of the country.
Never forget the Supreme Court of Canada required Manitoba to
ensure its laws were written in both official languages in
accordance with the Constitution. New Brunswick has enshrined
similar rights. Let us not forget the Canadian model of federalism
which has brought such strength to the country.
Let us remember Canada's federalism creates a common identity
and purpose that can transcend differences without replacing joint
local identities and local communities. Federalism provides the
structure of an economic union but places it under control of a
democratic legislature.
Federalism allows minority groups to exercise democratic
control over their communities and to tailor laws and government
services to meet their own needs and goals. Federalism allows
Canada to care for all its people. It allows different communities
within Canada to resolve various issues while at the same time
offering their elected representatives the chance to be part of
national policy making.
Canadian federalism today is very different from that of the time
of Confederation. Contrary to the rhetoric of the official
opposition, federalism is flexible.
Federalism is capable of listening and responding to the needs
and goals of its members. It can adapt and evolve to serve the
changing needs of Canadians, but federalism must always serve to
reinforce the many sided character of Canada: a home for many
peoples, a land of two linguistic majorities, a free and democratic
society, a strong economic community, a community that provides
equal opportunity and economic security, and an important player
on the international stage.
Amidst all these democratic institutions as an integral part of
Canadian federalism, under a legal system premised on respect for
individuals and the rule of law, Quebecers have prospered. They
have shared in the creation and evolution of these democratic
institutions. They have shared in the progress that has brought
Quebecers to the highest offices of the country, to unsurpassed
success in education and culture, and to the heads of many of
Canada's largest and most productive corporations. All this they
did within Canada, within the present democratic, constitutional
and legal framework.
Has Quebec done so badly under this system, as members of the
opposition would like Quebecers to believe? The answer is clearly
no. Canada is a country of freedom, tolerance and compassion.
Quebecers, like their fellow citizens across this great country, have
benefited from a governmental system that serves their historical
cultural interests within the community of cultures that constitutes
Canada.
The government's vision for Canada is one that builds on its
finest traditions and grows to serve all Canadians and all of Canada
in its wonderful diversity.
I assure the House the government will continue to abide by the
true principles of democracy and by the rule of law in its dealings
with the many issues facing the country, including those brought
forth by the members of the opposition.
(1620 )
We intend to follow the principles that have made this country
strong, democratic and tolerant as we deal with those who wish to
tear us asunder. We will not stoop to measures that would do a
disservice to the principles on which our country was founded.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to direct a question to my
colleague from Prince-Albert-Churchill River, but first I would
like to make a comment, because, on a number of occasions in his
speech he referred to the primacy of law, to the rule of law, to
justify his government's intervention in the celebrated case of the
person we can now identify as Mr. ``B'', in reference to plan ``B'',
that is the Bertrand plan.
I am well aware that the member for Prince-Albert-Churchill
River is himself a lawyer. He is the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Justice. I have not taken law myself, but I believe the
first thing we learn when we study law is the principle of the
separation of powers. There is a very clear distinction to be made
between the political and the judiciary.
The member for Prince-Albert, a lawyer and a politician, can
make this distinction, I am sure. He is well aware that, in the
2907
present debate, the Bertrand case is essentially a political matter.
All the commentators in Canada agree that it is a political case.
This is my comment. Perhaps he could react to it. Since the rule
of law is so important to him, I would like to hear his comments on
the reaction of his colleague, the government whip, and of the
premier of Newfoundland, Mr. Tobin, his former colleague, when
they say they could not care less about the Quebec referendum act
and that they did not respect it in the past and will not in the future.
What does the rule of law mean in such a case?
[English]
Mr. Kirkby: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. As I indicated many times in my speech, it is the
government's stated intention and we will carry through with that
intention in all times, in all places and in all circumstances to obey
and adhere to the rule of law.
The hon. member referred to a court case. The actions of the
federal government with respect to that court case were simply in
response to the actions taken by the Government of Quebec, taking
what has been viewed as a rather extraordinary position that the
rule of law, the Constitution of Canada, the courts of the nation do
not have any say or any impact on the unilateral declaration of
independence.
It is out of a desire to provide information to the court, to assist
the court and in response to the actions taken by the Government of
Quebec that the federal government is involved at all in this
litigation.
Why do we always talk about things that drive us apart and
emphasize differences? When we look across this great nation what
are the things that tie us together? Right across the nation we
believe in tolerance. Right across the nation we believe in working
together. Right across the nation we believe in generosity and
helping those who cannot help themselves. These are the
fundamental principles that underlie our Canadian heritage, our
Canadian citizenship. These are the values that unite us.
(1625 )
Let us talk about the things that unite us and bring us together
instead of that which divides and we will find that when we can
truly bring to the fore these values in a concrete fashion not only
will it be good for the country in human terms, it will be good for
the country in economic terms as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my colleague from Prince-Albert-Churchill River told
us that this country has been good to Quebecers. So why has
sovereignty made so much progress?
I have been an independentist for more than 35 years. At the
beginning, in the 1960s, we were seen as crackpots. In the 1966
provincial election, the Rassemblement pour l'indépendance
nationale or RIN, which was led by Pierre Bourgault, garnered
nearly 8 per cent of the vote. In 1970, 23 per cent of the people
voted for the PQ. In 1973, the PQ received 30 per cent of the vote
and, in 1976, it came to power.
Did the hon. member for Prince-Albert-Churchill River ask
himself why there are so-called ``separatists''-although we prefer
to use the term ``sovereignist''-in Quebec?
[English]
Mr. Kirkby: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member would be
better placed to answer that question. As I have indicated, we on
this side of the House place our faith in democracy, democratic
principles, the rule of law and the application of our courts. We are
sure we will be able to convince all people they should stay in
Canada and that ultimately we will win.
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq, Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, whenever I hear about the two founding nations I
think of Christopher Columbus stumbling on to America by
mistake thinking he was somewhere else and finding out there were
already people here in 1492. Therefore when I hear about the two
founding nations I think of the Inuit and the Indian people of North
America.
However, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on the
Bloc motion regarding Quebec separation and the wishes of
Quebecers. I ask the Bloc today to respect the wishes of Quebecers,
who have twice voted to remain in Canada, and to continue the
development of the Quebec society within Canada.
The right to choose one's political destiny is not an exclusive
solitary right. It cannot be exercised in isolation from its
surrounding framework. The right to choose one's destiny does not
belong to only one part of the population. The right to choose
belongs to all of the population. Just as the population of Quebec
has the right to express its views on its political future, so too the
people of Canada have the right to express their opinion on their
political future.
We are all in this together. Our past, our present and our future
are shared and our destinies are intertwined.
Canadians, including a majority of Quebecers, have made it
abundantly clear they want their political leaders to work together
to make positive changes to improve our collective future. Yet the
separatists refuse to accept and recognize this expression of the
collective will. They do not respect the wishes of those in Quebec
who voted against separation and for a renewed Canada.
2908
I focus today on the wishes and the rights of the aboriginal
peoples of Canada who live in Quebec. They maintain strongly
they have the right to choose to remain affiliated with Canada.
What does the Bloc Quebecois say about aboriginal people's right
to choose? Does the Bloc Quebecois believe the Inuit, the Cree,
the Montagnais and the Mohawk have the right to choose their
own destiny? Does the Parti Quebecois believe in the right of
aboriginal peoples in Quebec to choose? The actions and the words
of the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois on this issue are
somewhat contradictory and illogical.
(1630)
I remind the Bloc Quebecois of the words written in 1992 by
Daniel Turp, who by the way was the Bloc candidate in the recent
federal byelection in Papineau-St. Michel. Mr. Turp wrote a
chapter in a book of essays on secession. He made some interesting
statements about the right of aboriginal peoples within Quebec to
choose their destiny:
In exercising their right to self-determination, the native nations may, like
Quebec, use consultation mechanisms to freely determine their political status,
which could include exercising their right to democratic secession. If Quebec
were to object to sovereignty measures democratically approved by the native
nations, these nations could undoubtedly claim that their democratic right to
self-determination and to secession had been violated.
For the right of self-determination, it is up to the majority population of a
given territory to determine its political status. Where members of the
Quebecois are in the majority, the future of such territories would likely be
determined more by these individuals than by the native nations. On the other
hand, where members of native nations are in the majority, the status of these
territories would be freely determined by the majority of the individuals living
there.
If the Quebecois and the native nations were to claim the same land, as may
well happen, arbitration would be necessary to ensure that all people living in
the territory of Quebec were able to exercise the right of self-determination as
established by international law.
Yet despite these pronouncements of one of their own, time after
time throughout the last referendum, before and after it, other
representatives of the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois have
denied the right of aboriginal peoples in Quebec to choose.
Last fall, the House will recall, the Inuit of northern Quebec, the
Cree of northern Quebec and the Montagnais held their own
referendums and voted massively in support of choosing to remain
in Canada. The Montagnais leader, Guy Bellfleur, said: ``The
message is clear. We will refuse the forcible inclusion of our people
and traditional lands in an independent Quebec state''.
Northern Quebec Inuit leader Zebedee Nungak stated: ``We will
not follow you in any journey toward Quebec sovereignty. We are
one people, determined not to be bandied about from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction. We believe very firmly that our rights are protected
in a way that cannot be snipped by a pair of scissors called Quebec
sovereignty''.
In response the Parti Quebecois said it would not respect the
aboriginal no votes and denied that the aboriginal peoples could
remain attached to Canada in the event of Quebec's secession.
Earlier this year northern Quebec Cree Grand Chief Matthew
Cooncome stated clearly his peoples' view on the secessionist
proposal: ``Quebec would be separated from Canada and from the
Cree. In that situation our lands would still be ours and we have the
right to choose to remain with them, and the resources they contain,
in Canada''.
This past March at the annual general meeting of the Makivik
Corporation in Inukjuak Zebedee Nungak reaffirmed the right of
northern Quebec Inuit to decide their own destiny. At that meeting
Quebec's native affairs minister, Guy Chevrette, outlined the limits
of his government's position: ``The continuation of future
negotiations will be based on principles that our government has
always advocated, including the respect of the authority of the
National Assembly and the integrity of Quebec's territory''.
Respect needs to be given in order to be gained. The separatists
cannot continue to deny and ignore those whose views do not
coincide with their own. Reality must be accepted. Aboriginal
peoples in Quebec, as in the rest of Canada, have real rights that are
constitutionally recognized and affirmed. A relationship exists
between the aboriginal peoples of Canada and the Government of
Canada. That is real and cannot be wished away.
(1635)
Canada is a real country from sea to sea to sea. It is filled with
real people, aboriginal and others, who care deeply about it and
about making it work for the benefit of all. Just as one person's
junk is someone else's treasure, so one person's prison is someone
else's beloved homeland.
For these reasons the Government of Canada rejects the
opposition motion as amended. The opposition motion has taken
the Prime Minister's words out of context. The quote properly
reads: ``We will put our faith in democracy. We will convince the
people they should stay in Canada and we will win''. The
opposition motion does not reflect the government's positive action
to renew the federation.
We need to stop antagonizing and offending one another with
sharp words and fabricated political crises. Let us work together in
mutual respect, recognizing we all have a stake in what happens.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
2909
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. colleague's comments
as he address the specific part of the country's problem with which
he is certainly very familiar.
It occurred to me this really points to some of the problems and
some of the reasons the separatists in Quebec feel it is their God
given right to divide the country. The Liberal government has seen
fit to enter into agreements with Indians and Inuit to set up separate
governments across the nation.
We are setting up small self-governments in various parts of the
country based on race. Is it any wonder the people in Quebec would
be led to believe they should be accorded this same right to divide
the country and to have their separate government as well? Where
does it eventually lead?
I wonder if the hon. member would address that. By its very
actions the Liberal government is creating and fostering this
environment across the nation of separateness, of divisiveness.
Since we are talking about the possibility of another referendum
to decide the future of Quebec in Confederation, what percentage
would be acceptable? Since his leader said 50 per cent plus one is
not an acceptable level to recognize the right of Quebec to secede,
what would it be, 70 per cent, 80 per cent?
Mr. Anawak:
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of percentages that needs to be
determined today. It will be determined over the next number of
months if necessary. We do not need to get into percentages today.
What we will have to determine is what will happen over the course
of the coming months or years if there is another referendum.
On the first question, obviously the hon. member has property
that as far as he is concerned is his by right. If he does not, I would
be surprised.
Let us say he has a property, a farm or a house with a back yard, a
front lawn and what not. I am bigger than he is and I come along
and say: ``we are taking three-quarters of your land but in the
corner you will have a little area to live on''. I would bet the first
thing the member would do is say he owns that land legally and
lawfully.
(1640)
We are dealing with the law and legalities and maybe we cannot
really say that is exactly what happened in the past. We did not
have legalities for land and we had a poor immigration system. In
1492 we allowed in all sorts of people.
Three-quarters is a conservative figure. If 75 per cent to 80 per
cent of his land were taken away from him, I am sure the hon.
member would object very strongly and would cry foul. If
somebody did that to him I am sure he would know exactly how the
aboriginal people in Canada feel.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member is leading us to the issue of territorial integrity, which
is indeed a very important issue. With the right to
self-determination also comes the right of a people to live within
clearly defined boundaries.
The Canadian Constitution currently guarantees our right to
clearly defined boundaries. The boundaries of each province
cannot be altered without the consent of the provincial legislature
concerned, and not the consent of a municipality, or of the people
who live on a specific part of the territory governed by this
legislature. If the legislature wants to consult with the people
before making a final decision, so much the better.
On the day after a yes vote, our borders will be clearly defined. If
there are suggestions that people living near the Quebec border,
either in New Brunswick or in Ontario, should apply to join other
entities, it is not the people of Quebec who will be the
troublemakers but those acting as agents provocateurs. It is
therefore in no one's interest to raise these Swiss cheese theories to
partition Quebec. The dispute over raw-milk cheese has been
resolved, so let us quit while we are ahead.
[English]
Mr. Anawak: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke of the
security of borders. Should we not apply that to Canada? The hon.
member and his party say the boundaries of Quebec are indivisible.
If the hon. member thinks the boundaries of Canada are divisible,
surely democratically the boundaries of Quebec should be divisible
as well. Otherwise that is being hypocritical and discriminatory
against one or two groups of people that would like to remain part
of Canada should Quebec ever decide to separate, which I think
will not be the case ever.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, since the October 30 referendum, the true face of this
government has emerged. It does not care about the legitimate
aspirations of Quebec as a people. In fact, all the federalist parties
represented in this House have been trying to do is bring Quebec in
line by changing the basic rules of democracy. If we take a look
back on the constitutional issue these past few years, we notice that
never before has the federalist camp dared to challenge the 50 per
cent plus one rule, a rule universally recognized in the democratic
world.
During the 1980 referendum campaign, the current Prime
Minister was a more than enthusiastic player on the no side,
recognizing ipso facto both the validity and legitimacy of the
referendum
2910
process. In 1985, in his book entitled Straight from the Heart, the
Prime Minister wrote, referring to an eventual referendum on
Quebec's sovereignty, and I quote: ``If we don't win, I'll respect the
wishes of Quebeckers and let them separate''.
(1645)
Again in 1990, he made remarks along the same line before the
Bélanger-Campeau Commission, when he said: ``I am a democrat
and I said so repeatedly in 1980, in many speeches to this effect.
Had we not recognized that Quebec could decide to separate, we
would have acted differently''.
As we can see from such statements, as well as from the massive
involvement of federalist forces in the referendum campaigns, the
Prime Minister believes in democracy, that is to say the process by
which citizens participate in deciding their collective future and in
whatever comes of it, or at least he did at the time when he made
these statements. If the whole exercise had been illegal, do you
think the Prime Minister of Canada and the federalist parties would
have participated in it with such determination?
No. During the last referendum campaign, the federal
government kept repeating that a victory for the yes side would
trigger an irreversible process. In the famous speech he made in
Verdun a few days before the referendum, the Prime Minister said
that a victory for the no side would mean three things: first, the
recognition of Quebec as a distinct society; second, a veto power
for Quebec over any constitutional amendment; third, a
decentralization of federal powers.
Six months later, what happened to these promises and to the
government's democratic attitude? In December, the government
pretended to recognize Quebec as a distinct society by passing a
resolution in this House. This concept does not recognize that
Quebecers form a people. It has no constitutional value. It is
merely a statement of principle. It is wishful thinking. The same
goes for the veto power, which is not included in the Constitution.
As for decentralization, this government simply continues to
interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction, with measures such as
the establishment of a securities commission. The promises made
in Verdun had the same value as those made regarding the GST.
The government certainly shows a great deal of consistency in this
respect.
However, the same cannot be said regarding Quebec's right to
self-determination. Given the Liberal government's decision to
support Mr. B's appeal, it is obvious that those in favour of plan B,
led by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, now have the
upper hand over the democrats in the Liberal Party and the
government.
When he was the Prime Minister's adviser, the current Minister
of Intergovernmental Affairs said, on March 17, 1995 that, should
the yes side win the referendum, the federal government should
make Quebec suffer as much as possible. This same minister
endorses threats to partition Quebec and claims that Quebec has no
right to decide its future, even through a democratic process
recognized by all, except by him and his confederates. Who calls
the shots in this government? Is it the Prime Minister, who claims
to be democratic, or the member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville,
who is denying Quebecers the right to decide their own future.
It is important that this House adopt the motion presented by the
Bloc Quebecois this morning. There must be a clear signal that the
Liberal Party is prepared to respect the decision of the people of
Quebec about their future. If there is not, it would be a spiteful way
to conduct the debate, an irresponsible way of governing.
It is, in fact, worrisome to see this government getting into bed
with Mr. ``B'', Guy Bertrand, in a legal manoeuvre designed to
prevent democratic debate. It is just as worrisome to hear the Prime
Minister call into question the very ground rules of our democratic
system as it is to see him interfere in Quebec's move toward
sovereignty.
(1650)
It is even more alarming to see this government sit quietly by
and listen to threats of partitioning Quebec, in the event of a yes
vote. The government's actions leave no room for doubt. It will
support those who oppose sovereignty duly obtained through a
democratic process.
Sovereignists respected the verdict last October 30. The
Government of Quebec did not declare sovereign the regions in
which a majority voted yes. This would have been anti-democratic.
As for the federal government, its promises were so much hot
air. For it, what the sovereignists are doing is illegal. It
unequivocally gives its support to the partitionists and those who
oppose a democratic verdict. It is completely irresponsible. Either
this government does not know what it is doing and is the
sorcerer's apprentice of democracy, or it knows very well what it is
up to with its plan B, and has no intention of observing the most
elementary rules of democracy. This government is therefore either
blind or just plain irresponsible. Clearly, Canada must be very
worried.
This motion thus gives the Prime Minister and his colleagues an
opportunity to reaffirm the democratic values that guide their
actions. Once and for all, they must stop calling into question the
democratic rules known to us all. What we are asking is that
democracy be allowed to operate freely. The sovereignty of Quebec
is a political debate in which the people of Quebec have
participated and will participate, under the terms of the
Referendum Act.
2911
The national question will be resolved in this manner, not in a
court of law by a handful of jurists.
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must say that, listening
to the Bloc Quebecois member-
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): You were impressed.
Mr. Discepola: No, Mr. Speaker, I was not impressed at all.
The member says that they are the protectors of democracy, that
they accept the democratic decision made by Quebecers on October
30. Yet, that same evening, then Quebec premier Parizeau clearly
said ``See you next time'', while the current premier threatened us
again just recently.
I promised a constituent of mine that I would ask a question on
his behalf. The question is: If Bloc Quebecois members truly
respect democracy, why have there been two referendums, in which
Quebecers expressed their will to remain Canadians? How could
separation be achieved with only one yes win in a referendum?
The question was asked by a wise nine year old, my son Marco.
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Very good
question.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for Vaudreuil-
Mr. Discepola: You should thank my son.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, could I please thank
whom I want and in the manner that I wish to?
I thank the hon. member for Vaudreuil. I know the riding very
well, since I grew up there. Children in Vaudreuil are indeed bright
kids.
(1655)
It is true that two referendums were held, one in 1980 and one in
1995. These two referendums did not result in Quebecers choosing
to form a country. Quebecers voted no because they were fooled, in
1980 and in 1995, by federal politicians who promised them a
Garden of Eden. Fifteen years after the first referendum, it had
become obvious that the Garden of Eden was still a thing to come.
Therefore, a second referendum was held. Again, promises were
made.
Someone may tell Quebecers: ``Vote no and Quebec will really
be recognized as a true society. You will have a veto power; you
will really be in heaven''. However, if that does not happen, what is
the logical thing to do? The logical thing to do is to say to
Quebecers: ``Choose to become a state. You will be able to pass
your own laws, and to pay your taxes to your elected government''.
Mr. Discepola: Answer the question.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: The hon. member is truly adorable.
This is extraordinary. Democracy is based on respect, and respect
implies that promises are kept. When a government such as the one
to which the hon. member belongs does not keep its promises, it is
like a slap in the face. The next time, Quebecers will say yes, and
they will do so loud and clear.
I hope that answers Marco's question.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is really
unbelievable that the hon. member claims to have answered the
question. I think the question was very clear. My colleague wanted
to know, because her child asked her, how come Quebecers have
voted twice to stay in Canada and yet separatists continue to ask the
same question again and again.
If Quebecers were to vote yes, can the hon. member tell us
whether they will have a chance to vote again, or will this be the
last time?
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I can say that it is clear that the day Quebecers choose to
be a country, they will be one, with everything that entails. What I
mean is, the promises to be a country, we will keep them
collectively. It will not be like the federal government's story of
unkept promises, which is their reality.
The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order
38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the
time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-Employment Equity Act; the hon.
member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury-public service of
Canada.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am both delighted and privileged to rise on this motion
by the official opposition and to debate with some of my
colleagues.
I hope people will pay particular attention to what I say here. I
would like to try to clarify, once and for all, the famous question
the Prime Minister has been harping on in response to our
questions and the question our eminent colleague has just asked my
colleague for Laval-Centre.
There were indeed two referendums in Quebec, and they were
both democratic. They followed the principles of democracy. In
1976, the Lévesque government was elected on its promise to hold
a referendum in its first term of office, a promise the Lévesque
government kept.
During the election campaign, Mr. Trudeau and 74 of 75 of his
followers came to Quebec and put their head on the block.
(1700)
I even remember Mr. Trudeau saying: ``Hark ye well, Canada.
We are not going to ask Quebec to vote no and then drop it. You
2912
will look after it afterwards. You will find a solution for Quebec.
You will be asked to meet Quebec's needs''. This is what your Mr.
Trudeau came to tell us in Montreal, at the Paul-Sauvé arena. Since
then, they have demolished the arena, so ashamed were they of Mr.
Trudeau's unkept promises. Because of this, they demolished the
Paul-Sauvé arena afterwards. The promises were not kept.
Then another government came along. It said: ``The federal
government had promised to do certain things. Look what it has
done''. During the night of the long knives, they repatriated a
Constitution we never signed and which might even be illegal
because it has not been translated into French. That is what we just
found out. This is a Constitution they wanted to impose on us.
So, we said: ``Look, this does not work. Elect us-that is taking
place in 1994-and we promise to hold a new referendum, given
that the Liberals did not keep their word. They did not keep their
word and, as a result, we are no further ahead as a people''. That is
how Mr. Parizeau's government came to be voted in office, and this
government kept its word and held a referendum within more or
less the first year of its mandate.
Moving to the events in Verdun now. Verdun-what a
coincidence-you probably recall what happened in Verdun back
in 1914. In Verdun, the Prime Minister made a number of promises.
``Vote no and you can be sure things will change'', he said. More of
the same hogwash. They still think we can be fooled. Do we look
like fools? Think again. We will not be taken in again. We are not
fools. This time again, we were promised the world, but the Prime
Minister is proving unable to deliver the merchandise.
It is quite obvious that there will be a third referendum. Three is
a magic number, they say. Between the first and the second one, we
gained only ten points. We are just four or five tenths short of a
victory. You crow about winning the referendum with 50.4 per cent
of the votes. This means that we would need as little as that to win a
future referendum and our victory would be as valid as yours.
We have given the Prime Minister two chances. This is the same
Prime Minister. We have given him two chances and he failed both
times. The reason why we respect democracy is that we live in
Canada and we pay our taxes-we have not started boycotting our
taxes; the day may come, but we are not there yet-we pay our
taxes and we are still in Canada because even though 49.6 per cent
of Quebecers want to leave, that was still not enough. Every day
since we were elected to this House, we find more reasons to leave.
They closed the Tokamak facility and gave the money to Triumph
in British Columbia. They wash off their hands of what is
happening at the Montreal airport, saying it is none of our business.
Every day, we could look at more issues and find new reasons to
leave. There are more than enough reasons.
The most recent one is unemployment insurance. My colleague
across the way who is always interrupting me should take a good
look at his seat because it may be the last time he sees it. New
Brunswick is fed up with your policies. They would have us believe
that Canada is the greatest country in the world. The Prime
Minister keeps bragging about it. But when he gives out our
statistics, the Prime Minister is deceiving the UN. They forget to
mention our illiteracy rate. If they gave the real number of illiterate
Canadians-not functional illiterates, but real illiterates-we
would come in fourth place. We would not be No. 1 but No. 4. Stop
lying to the people. They are fed up with your tactics.
(1705)
Furthermore, the reason why Canada is prosperous is not
because we have a federal system of government, but because
Canadians and Quebecers work hard day after day. It is not the
federal government's doing; that, too, is a lie.
Mr. Harb: Mr. Speaker, I note that the hon. member said that
someone had lied in the House. I hope things will not deteriorate.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair did not hear any such
comment. I might point out that the debate is pretty turbulent.
There is a lot of noise on one side of the House, while someone
from the other side has the floor.
Mrs. Tremblay: It is Canadians and Quebecers who are
responsible for the country's prosperity. They are the ones who
show creativity. They even have develop survival skills, given that
the federal government keeps targeting the poor.
Mr. Speaker, think of this as a delicious chocolate cake. If you
split a very good chocolate cake in two equal parts, it is still as
good as it was before. It is not any less appetizing because it has
been split. If Canada is such a great country, it will have no
problem surviving a separation. Come on. There is nothing to it.
There are countries, such as the former U.S.S.R., which are
federations. However, the U.S.S.R. was not a prosperous country.
Living in a federal system does not ensure the country's prosperity.
It has nothing to do with it. There is no connection. None at all.
However, a country can choose to go it alone, such as Norway,
which refused, through a democratic referendum, to join the
European community. Incidentally, the yes and no sides in that
referendum were led by two women. Why did Norwegians make
that decision? Because they did not think it would be a good thing
for their country. It is possible for a small country to be open to the
whole world and to survive. Of course there will be a next time.
Last night, I was very impressed by an article that members
opposite should definitely read. I will give them the exact
reference, so they can learn something and finally understand. The
article, entitled ``What does Quebec want?'', was published by the
Financial Post, and was written by Gord Sinclair. There is a
column called ``Inside Quebec''. The title is ``Look at Canadian
history through francophones' eyes''. The subtitle read: ``Would
you feel cheated?'' The author then asks English Canadians to
2913
pretend they are French Canadians and to reread the history of
Canada.
At the end, he says:
[English]
``As I have said before, what French Quebec needs to hear are
the words ``keep Quebec in Canada''. It is respect. Francophone
Quebecers need to feel that Quebec can be different but accepted as
equal and never to be cheated again. If you can do that we are going
to save Canada. If not-'' which means Canada is lost forever.
(1710)
[Translation]
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think that
people who are following the debate on television must be
wondering what is going on in this House. They must wonder
whether there is a national crisis, or an international crisis. What is
going on?
They are listening and wondering what the opposition is up to,
wasting its time on things we have already dealt with many times,
over many years. We have been having the same debate for 16, 20,
30 years.
The opposition should be congratulating the government for
doing a lot more than any other Canadian government has done to
make federalism flexible. The Prime Minister should be
congratulated for doing a lot more than any other Prime Minister
for this country.
Mr. Loubier: Against Quebec.
Mr. Harb: This is flexible federalism. Instead, opposition
members rise in their seats and start attacking the rest of Canada,
talking about English Canada. There is no such thing as English
Canada and French Canada, there is one Canada. There are
Canadians who speak French, they are Canadian; there are
Canadians who speak English, they are Canadian. Canada is for all
Canadians, period.
Stop rehashing the past, it will not work. There are in Canada
over 12 million people who are neither French nor English. They
are Canadian, period. Stop all this nonsense.
Mrs. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about
nonsense. He is the one who is talking nonsense; it is obvious he
does not know what what he is talking about. He understands
absolutely nothing. And on top of that, perhaps I have been talking
loudly, which is in my nature, but I tried to be very clear on one
fundamental thing. There are two peoples in this country: yours and
mine. I will never be part of your people. I am not part of your
people. I have mine. It is not yours, you are not part of mine. To be
part of my people, you have to be in Quebec. You are not in
Quebec. Does he come from Quebec?
An hon. member: No.
Mrs. Tremblay: No, he does not come from Quebec.
An hon. member: He is not far away.
Mrs. Tremblay: There are two peoples in Canada, and the hon.
member just said there is only one. That is why we are tired of
fighting and we want to leave. It is very simple, we want to leave.
That is not complicated.
It did not work the first two times. It is not the first time the
process does not work.
Mr. Loubier: Newfoundland voted twice.
Mrs. Tremblay: Newfoundland voted twice. And apparently, if
we looked very very closely at the results-In any case, ours were
clear: 94 per cent of the people voted, and we are waiting for the
next time.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the slanderous
things and the misinformation that were mentioned about the
referendum results this afternoon, as did, I am sure, a huge segment
of the population.
I want to point out to the opposition members, to the Bloc
Quebecois, that they were elected with 48 per cent of the votes in
Quebec. We know full well that the no side, the federalist side, won
the last referendum. Since they call themselves true democrats, I
would urge them to recognize our victory and the wish of
Quebecers to remain in the Canadian federation.
I know I do not have much time, however, I want to stress the
fact that they do not speak on behalf of all Quebecers. Quebecers
are proud Canadians and, believe me, they have no lesson to
receive from the Bloc members and the opposition who maintain
that we do not protect the interests of Quebecers within the
Canadian federation.
Canada without Quebec is unthinkable, which is why we, the
Quebec members of the Liberal Party-
The Deputy Speaker: The time allotted to the member has
expired.
Mrs. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for
his comments. Unfortunately, he did not hear me well. Maybe he
was overseas when the referendum results came out. I do not know
where his figures come from but he is a past master in the art of
misinformation. It is 49.6 per cent, not 48 per cent, of Quebecers
who voted yes. Let us get our facts straight.
(1715)
Since the elected representatives of provinces other than Quebec
do not seem to understand at all, for the last time I am asking the
2914
people of Canada to try to understand what we want and to force
the government to find a solution and to let us go.
The Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately, time is up. It is my duty to
interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question
necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment to
the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which
was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 89)
YEAS
Members
Bachand
Bélisle
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Brien
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Loubier
Ménard
Mercier
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)-39
NAYS
Members
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre/Sud-Centre)
Barnes
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bertrand
Bethel
Bhaduria
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Bridgman
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Calder
Campbell
Catterall
Cauchon
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Cowling
Cullen
Cummins
DeVillers
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Godfrey
Goodale
Gouk
Graham
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harb
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Harvard
Hayes
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Ianno
Jackson
Johnston
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Silye
Simmons
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Wells
Williams
Zed-135
PAIRED MEMBERS
Bakopanos
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Collenette
de Savoye
Dingwall
Dubé
Duhamel
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Patry
Payne
Pettigrew
Plamondon
Sheridan
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Venne
Whelan
Wood
2915
(1740)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the amendment to the
amendment lost.
[English]
The next question is on the amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I request the unanimous consent of
the House to apply the results of the last vote to the amendment and
the main motion.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, the members of the
opposition will vote yea on the amendment.
[English]
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, just to confirm, there is agreement
with the government whip to apply the vote.
(1745 )
Mr. Bhaduria: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against the motion.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 89.]
The Deputy Speaker: Accordingly, I declare the amendment
and the main motion lost.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
2915
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from March 19 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-201, an act to amend the Criminal Code (operation
while impaired), be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I was very pleased to second the private member's bill
proposed by the member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley which
would provide a sentence of seven years for the offence of drunk
driving causing death.
This is a very serious issue in Canada today. Let us look at what
happened in Prince George recently. It was the scene of the murder
of a young father from Prince Rupert and his two children. The
murder weapon in this case was an automobile with an impaired
driver at the wheel.
When the offender was sentenced, the entire community, as well
as virtually everyone who heard about it in the province of British
Columbia was shocked at the extremely light sentence of three and
a half years to be paid for taking three lives.
Judges in British Columbia commonly treat lightly the offence
of using a motor vehicle as a deadly weapon. Impaired driving is a
very preventable form of death. Sad to say, it is very often our
young people who lose their lives for making the tragic mistake of
drinking and driving.
For example, in February three young women from the city of
Vernon in my riding of Okanagan-Shuswap paid that price when
they decided to drive home from an evening's entertainment at
nearby Kelowna. They made it only a few miles north of Kelowna
before they turned in front of a logging truck in the early hours of
the morning. All three paid the price. They died. Their families and
friends were devastated.
It is our duty to structure the Criminal Code in such a way that
such unnecessary deaths are prevented, along with the murder of
innocent victims by drunk drivers. We should send a much stronger
message in the sentences handed out for drunk driving offences.
(1750 )
It is not only the young people who like to party. If we could
convince them as soon as they start to drive that alcohol and
gasoline are an extremely dangerous and deadly mixture, the good
habit of not driving when they have been drinking would probably
stay with them all their lives.
A poster which hangs not far from the Parliament Buildings says
that if you are old enough to drink, you are old enough to drive:
Choose one. That is excellent advice. A very good way to
emphasize that message would be to include a minimum sentence
of seven years for drunk driving causing death.
There are many sad figures available about drunk driving. For
example, there were a total of 6,700 alcohol related accidents in
British Columbia in 1994, including 3,231 personal injury claims
and 138 fatalities. There were 3,331 accidents with property
damage and 11,379 impaired driving offences.
In my riding of Okanagan-Shuswap the total number of
impaired offences for 1994 was 406. That number only represents
the drivers who were caught by police. For every one caught, many
more manage to get away with drinking and driving until that
fateful day when a child rides his bike suddenly around the corner
or a grandmother suddenly steps into a downtown crosswalk or
another driver does something a little too fast for the delayed
reflexes of that impaired driver.
The cost of impaired driving is not limited to accidents. An
estimated $200 million is spent on enforcement, court, medical and
other costs in British Columbia as a direct result of drinking and
driving. That does not get into the terrible emotional costs to the
families. Look at that $200 million and what it could do. It could
pay nurses' salaries. It could help provide essential medical
2916
services like kidney dialysis, x-rays or CAT scans. It could be used
to provide computers for British Columbia classrooms. That $200
million thrown away because of drinking and driving represents a
great loss to the people of B.C.
The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia estimates that 21
cents of every premium dollar is spent repairing damage done by
drunk drivers. That is a very important point because most families
in British Columbia are having a very difficult time making ends
meet. Most B.C. families also own a motor vehicle. It is common
for families to spend $3 a day or more just to insure their cars, and
21 per cent of that goes to repair damage done by drunk drivers.
We could say that drunk driving increases the cost of every
family's premiums by at least 63 cents a day or $4.41 a week. That
would buy every family a couple of litres of milk and a loaf of
bread every week. Maybe that is not a big deal to the members of
Parliament whose inflated egos make them think they deserve the
gold plated pension plan they voted in for themselves. I can assure
my colleagues that is a very big deal to the grocery budgets of most
young mothers in particular.
The dollar costs of drunk driving are not just the numbers on a
sheet of paper. They represent a burden to the family income at a
time when most families have far too little income as it is. In large
measure this is due to the excessive spending and the resulting
excessive taxes imposed by Liberal, Conservative and NDP
governments, those advocates of big government.
Let us look at drunk driving causing death in a different way. Are
today's penalties doing the essential job of preventing drinking and
driving? Those penalties include the following: The punishment for
a first offence is loss of privileges and a fine of up to $2,000. The
punishment for a second offence is a mandatory jail sentence of 14
days to one year. The punishment for a charge of impaired driving
causing bodily harm is a maximum 10-year sentence and 10 years
of prohibition from driving, which means they can go into court
and bargain it away.
(1755 )
The punishment for a charge of impaired driving causing death
carries a maximum penalty which includes a 14-year jail sentence
and up to 10 years from driving. I do not know of one case that even
touches that point. We just heard about a judge who gave three and
half years for taking three lives and yet the opportunity was there
for him to give up to 10 years.
A recent tragedy involving the death of a 17-year-old youth in
my riding has reopened the question of more severe sentences for
impaired driving among the residents of Vernon and area. Because
the offender had a history of alcohol related offences, concerned
citizens of the Vernon area collected 5,000 signatures on a petition
calling for stiffer and longer sentences.
In view of the tragic damage that driving while impaired can
cause, I strongly support the requirement of much stronger
sentences for drunk driving causing death.
Some people may object, especially on the government side,
saying that to impose these kinds of penalties is too harsh. Is it too
harsh for taking the lives of a mother, father or children, because
the excuse will be: ``I was drunk when it happened''.
The truth is that most offenders who are guilty of driving while
impaired have committed one or more previous alcohol related
offences. In other words, for those on the other side who are having
trouble with this, in most cases it is not the first time they have
been charged. In most cases it is not the first time they had been in
an accident. Of course, we have no idea of how many times they
also drove while impaired and got away with it. We will never
know.
I have always believed that the first responsibility of any
government is to protect the innocent and law-abiding citizens to
the best of its ability. For far too long we have seen that
governments have not lived up to that and it is time we started. I
strongly urge that we take the first step by supporting this bill.
Having a stiffer penalty may be just the kind of tough love we hear
talked about all the time that could save lives. In fact, I strongly
believe that if such a penalty had been in effect, maybe we could
have saved those three women I talked about earlier.
In conclusion, I would like to remind all hon. members in the
House that when they stand to address this bill, they have to face
the public. They have to go back and look their constituents in the
eye. Believe me, there is not one in this House in our term that will
not have a case of death caused by impaired driving before them in
their own constituency. I hope they all remember that when the
time comes.
Mr. Derek Wells (South Shore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on Bill C-201, introduced by the hon. member for
Prince George-Bulkley Valley. This bill would increase the
minimum sentence for impaired driving causing death to seven
years.
I share the member's concern about the serious problem of
impaired driving. Indeed, all Canadians share this concern. I would
readily lend my support to any measures which would be truly
effective in deterring impaired driving. The challenge is finding
measures which are effective.
A seven-year sentence can be a reasonable sentence in some
circumstances. In some circumstances it may not be enough and in
other circumstances it may be too much. I cannot support the bill
because I do not believe we should limit a trial judge's discretion in
sentencing in this way. The sentence must be proportional to the
2917
gravity of the crime. This longstanding principle of the criminal
law is a fundamental principle of sentencing. The proposed
amendment would be inconsistent with that principle and for that
reason I cannot support it.
(1800)
The current law provides that the maximum punishment for
impaired driving causing death is 14 years imprisonment. In some
cases this may not be enough. Bill C-201 proposes a minimum
sentence of seven years imprisonment be added to the section.
I am aware that the public is often outraged by the sentences
imposed in individual cases, sentences that often do not appear to
reflect the severity of the crime, or do not come close to the
maximum set out in the code. This is one of the primary reasons for
including the principles and purposes of sentencing in the Criminal
Code. I am confident that these measures will ensure greater
consistency in sentencing for similar offences. The fundamental
principle as expressed in section 718.1 of the Criminal Code is: ``A
sentence must be proportional to the gravity of the offence and the
degree of responsibility of the offender''.
Imposing a minimum sentence for one particular offence in
response to public outrage over particular cases where the sentence
was considered inadequate is not a long term solution to any of the
problems caused by impaired driving. It is not how our criminal
justice system should be changed and is not in keeping with the
fundamental principles of sentencing.
The issue of minimum sentences was fully canvassed by the
government in the mid-1980s before the Criminal Code
amendments to the impaired driving provisions were passed in
1985. The 1985 amendments added two new offences, impaired
driving causing bodily harm and impaired driving causing death,
with maximum penalties of 10 and 14 years respectively. No
minimum sentences were provided because a conviction for such
offences is based on fault.
To prove the offence it must be proven beyond a reasonable
doubt that the impaired driving resulted in the death or bodily
harm. Similarly the sentence imposed must also take into account
the degree of fault of the offender. For example, if a pedestrian runs
between parked cars into the path of an impaired driver and is
killed, should the impaired driver receive the most severe
punishment permitted under the code? While his impaired driving
may have contributed to the accident because a sober driver could
perhaps have avoided the pedestrian, it may well be that even a
sober driver would not have been able to avoid the accident.
The impaired driver must of course be punished for driving
while impaired. However, I would not agree with a minimum
sentence approach that ignores the many other factors considered
by a judge when drafting a sentence, including the offender's
record which may not have included previous impaired driving
charges.
We must ask ourselves whether a minimum sentence would deter
impaired driving behaviour. I do not believe it would. Our efforts to
reduce and ideally to eliminate impaired driving have to focus on
early prevention and perhaps even a zero tolerance for drinking and
driving. Perhaps we should be considering a reduction of the .08
standard that is now part of the Criminal Code.
In addition to the law, there must be strict enforcement and
greater public awareness and education. This is the approach we
have been taking in Canada and throughout North America for the
past 15 years. This approach has been successful. It has not reduced
impaired driving to zero, but significant reduction in the number of
charges of impaired driving and impaired driving behaviour have
been experienced. We have to a large extent changed the public
perception of drinking and driving. It is no longer socially
acceptable as it once was. Through the combined efforts of federal
and provincial governments and municipalities across Canada, this
trend should continue.
Impaired driving is a unique example of where both federal and
provincial laws operate. The Criminal Code sets out a range of
offences including impaired driving; driving with a blood alcohol
content over .08; refusing to provide a breath sample; driving while
disqualified; impaired driving causing bodily harm; and impaired
driving causing death. Penalties vary with the seriousness of the
offence.
(1805 )
In addition to the federal criminal provisions, the highway safety
legislation of all provinces imposes sanctions on impaired drivers
in accordance with the provinces' responsibilities for driver and
vehicle licensing and highway safety. Even before a driver is
convicted of impaired driving, some provincial laws impose
licence suspensions for up to three months. Upon conviction for
impaired driving, a driver's licence will be suspended for a period
of six months to five years, depending on the province and the
driver's previous record.
Some provinces have legislation to impound the vehicle driven
by drivers while their licence is under suspension. The combined
effect of these provincial and federal laws has had an impact on
reducing the occurrence of impaired driving.
As my colleague has pointed out, when tragedy occurs the
inadequacy of the law is often singled out as the cause. Some
members seem to believe that so long as a law is transgressed it is
not efficient and the penalties are not high enough. I do not share
this view and I believe it is a rather naive way of seeing things.
2918
It does not necessarily mean that our laws are to blame because
they are infringed. However if our criminal law is in need of
reform, I would fully support a comprehensive reform based on
adequate research and consultation rather than on a speedy
amendment. I know we would all readily support initiatives that
could be shown to bring about further reductions in impaired
driving.
I should point out that Bill C-17, an omnibus piece of legislation
which is awaiting second reading, proposes a range of amendments
to improve the criminal law. Included in that package are a number
of amendments to improve the impaired driving provisions,
including clarification of the provisions regarding mandatory
prohibition orders and the use of evidence in blood samples. Bill
C-17 demonstrates that this government is prepared to make
changes and effective amendments, amendments which follow
from adequate research and consultation and which are consistent
with the underlying principles of the criminal law.
I do not wish to suggest that our laws are perfect. Indeed there is
always room for improvement. The incident the member referred
to in his speech during the first hour of the debate on this bill where
an individual killed three members of the same family while
driving impaired and was sentenced to three and one-half years is a
sad one. The judge had the discretion in that case to impose a
sentence of 14 years but he chose not to.
All members of this House should work together to develop
solutions that will lead to reducing impaired driving. This does not
necessarily mean changing the law. It means speaking out against
impaired driving at every opportunity, supporting community
programs, supporting groups like MADD and PRIDE, spreading
the message that Canada does not tolerate impaired drivers.
However the solution is not to take away judicial discretion. If
changes to the criminal law are needed, let us do it right and look at
the advantages and disadvantages of various options and their
effectiveness. I do not believe that Bill C-201 is the solution and I
cannot support it.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to stand in support of Bill C-201 which is sponsored by my
colleague, the member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley.
In doing so I am aware of an event which took place in this
House just 12 years ago, an event which contributed to the death of
thousands of Canadians. On April 5, 1984 Private Member's Bill
C-229 was allowed to die. With its demise approximately 23,000
Canadian lives were put at risk and many of them did die. Another
tragedy is that many of those who died were innocent children.
Why do I bring up a bill that failed to pass 12 years ago? Because
Bill C-229 is very similar to the bill we are debating this evening,
Bill C-201. Like Bill C-201 the earlier bill sought to do something
about the number of people who lay bleeding and dying on roads
and highways in ridings all across Canada.
We will hear plenty of statistics in support of this bill but we
must never forget that behind each statistic is a story. They are
stories such as that of 16-year old Crystal Nyhuis from my riding of
Simcoe Centre. During the time that has elapsed since this House
failed to pass Bill C-229 in 1984 Crystal and approximately 23,000
others have died from the deadly mixture of alcohol and
automobiles and with them have died their dreams.
(1810 )
On June 10, 1994 Crystal's dreams were snuffed out. At 10 p.m.
at the intersection of Innisfil Beach Road and the 10th Side Road a
drunken driver slammed into the car driven by her boyfriend.
Crystal's dreams died that night, her dream of marrying her high
school sweetheart and of becoming a social worker. This innocent
young teen who was such a good listener and who offered advice
that belied her young age was now silenced.
How many more Crystals must die before this House deals in a
serious way with the crime of impaired driving? As we look at the
statistics of the nearly 1,500 people who die every year in Canada
because someone insists on drinking and driving, let us remember
Crystal's needless death. Remember also the people left behind.
John and Simone Nyhuis remember their beautiful young daughter
who died too young.
Following her death, Crystal's parents placed flowers and
candles around the grade eight student's graduation picture.
Crystal's mom told a reporter that every night she lights the
candles: ``It is all I have left of her''. Summer dawned on that June
day in 1994, just as it does for us in this House today, and the
thoughts of Crystal's mom turn to her daughter. ``I miss the
sounds'', she said. ``Our home used to be packed with teenagers.
She would come through the door with five or ten of her friends. I
miss her physical presence. There are still days when I cannot
believe she is gone''.
How many other John and Simones must suffer the agony of
losing a child before this House acts to curb the needless slaughter
that occurs on Canada's roads? Every six hours across this country
a police officer knocks on a door to announce that a child, a mother
or a father will not be coming home any more. They have died
because the legislators have failed to act.
Some wrongly charge that a law will not stop the needless
slaughter on our roads and highways, but let us consider this
argument. Partly because of harsher laws enacted in the 1980s,
fewer people are dying today. In 1980 the typical sentence for
killing someone while drunk was a $500 fine and a 90-day licence
suspension. Changes to the law in 1985 which allowed blood
sampling of drivers suspected of drinking and driving, along with
the addition of new sections to the Criminal Code have all
2919
contributed to a drop in the number of people being charged with
impaired driving. But much more needs to be done.
What about the fact that 63 per cent of all people charged with
impaired driving are second time, third time and even fourth time
offenders? They refuse to listen and about 1,500 people are still
dying needlessly across this country every year. In Ontario alone,
alcohol is involved in 43 per cent of all motor vehicle fatalities.
Because of alcohol related crashes, 565 people died in the province
of Ontario in 1993.
It is true that those who murder by using vehicles face a
maximum sentence of 14 years. However, every member in this
House knows of people in their ridings who get off with sentences
of six months. This bill would establish a minimum sentence of
seven years so that those who up to now have faced a slap on the
wrist for murdering with an automobile will think twice before
drinking and driving.
Bill C-201 will deter impaired drivers while suitably punishing
those who will kill while impaired. Some will think that the use of
the word murder in connection with someone who kills with an
automobile is too harsh. I do not think so and neither do John and
Simone Nyhuis. I will quote again from the Nyhuis family. ``To me
drinking and driving is no different than taking a gun and shooting
someone'', says Simone. Her husband John agrees. He says:
``When you get behind the wheel of a car and you have been
drinking, that car becomes a lethal weapon''.
We as legislators must stop looking upon alcohol as something
many of us, including myself, treat as a social drink. While it is a
social drink to many of us, I would hope none of us would get so
drunk that we cannot speak coherently or walk a straight line and
then climb into 5,000 pounds of deadly metal. However, if we or
anyone else does and we kill an innocent person then we are guilty
of murder, just as if we had shot them with a gun.
(1815)
How many more people like Crystal will have to die before we
realize the seriousness of the crime of drinking and driving?
It is a sad reality that automobile crashes are the leading cause of
death of those under 21 years of age. More die as a result of
impaired driving related accidents than all other causes combined.
What a senseless waste of young lives. What an unforgettable
tragedy.
These deaths do not tell the whole story. The Ontario Medical
Association estimates that it costs our economy at least $100
million annually to deal with the approximately 100,000 people
injured because of impaired drivers.
Behind those injured drivers there are 100,000 stories each year.
One of those stories is about Colleen Blair. This 18-year old
Ontario girl survived the November 11, 1994 crash that killed her
18-year old friend Raeann McNeely, a victim of an impaired driver.
The crash left survivor Colleen brain damaged and unable to walk
on her own. She has difficulty controlling her emotions. She has
limited memory. Although she is now 21, she is in many ways like
a five-year-old. A family member talks about how Colleen's life
has been changed by this senseless tragedy: ``She had a right to
expect she would get married and have kids some day, but now
she's 21 and has no life''.
At the time of the accident Colleen was studying horticulture.
She loved flowers and had a collection of her most artistic
arrangements. Now she cannot even remember if she was a student.
She needs constant care and is constantly apologizing to her family
for being a burden. Because of the brain damage she does not
understand that her injuries are in no way her fault.
During the time that has elapsed since the House refused to act
on Bill C-229 in 1984, approximately one million people like
Colleen Blair have had to suffer needless pain. Approximately one
person is injured every five minutes from alcohol related crashes.
In the past 12 years since Bill C-229 was killed, our overburdened
medical system has paid out over $1 billion to care for the victims
of impaired drivers.
How much longer will police officers like Sergeant Fitz Gaylord
of the Madoc OPP have to respond to alcohol related accidents that
claim so many young lives, such as a recent accident that killed two
young men? Sergeant Gaylord described the scene: ``A twisted car
wrapped around a tree, two bodies laid out on the ground and the
ones left in the car screaming that they were going to die''.
Coroner Andy Quinn, who pronounced the young men dead on
the scene, said: ``For me, it is just immensely sad to see these
young people dying. I just hate to pull kids out of cars. It is an
incredibly hard thing to do and the whole time you are doing it, you
are just thinking of the families and the terrible loss of young
lives''.
Before the House finally acts to send a message to people that
impaired driving is unacceptable, how many more mothers and
fathers will walk by their son's or daughter's bedroom at night
knowing they will never again share the many things they had
planned to do together? How many more fathers will never get the
chance to walk their daughters down the aisle on their wedding
day? How many more mothers will suffer the pain and agony of
knowing their child will never come home again? How much
longer will we as legislators stand by and watch people die
needlessly? We need Bill C-201 to deter people from drinking and
driving.
2920
I end my thoughts on Bill C-201 with the words of Arnold
Malone, who drafted the bill that was defeated in the House 12
years ago. Mr. Malone said that to stop the carnage on our
highways we must start a war against people who drink and drive.
Mr. Malone's war analogy still rings true today. Just as the second
world war claimed 42,000 Canadians, approximately 23,000
Canadians have died since the House refused to pass Bill C-229
in 1984. Just as the second world war saw 54,000 soldiers
wounded, over one million Canadians have been injured as a result
of drunken drivers since 1984.
These are the types of figures Mr. Malone also used when he
said:
We need another war. We need a war against drunken drivers. We need a war
which will place a real deterrent against drunken driving.
More importantly, we must recognize that we all have limits. We must realize
that the laws are such that if we are inebriated, we had best seek alternative
transportation. In communities all across Canada there are growing concerns
that something must be done to curtail the extent of alcohol use while driving an
automobile.
(1820)
Although the House refused to act 12 years ago when a similar
bill was before it, we can now ensure that fewer lives are lost
because of drunken drivers by supporting Bill C-201. I urge my
fellow members to support the legislation.
* * *
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, I have the honour to inform
the House that a message has been received from the Senate
informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-7, an act to
dissolve the Nipissing and James Bay Railway Company, to which
the concurrence of this House is desired.
The bill is deemed read the first time, with second reading
scheduled for the next sitting of the House.
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-201,
an act to amend the Criminal Code (operation while impaired), be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity speak on Bill C-201,
which provides for a seven year minimum sentence for impaired
driving causing death.
I share the concerns of the hon. member who sponsored the bill
with respect to the problem of impaired driving and I also share the
concerns of my constituents of Windsor-St. Clair who see
impaired driving as a serious problem.
I see problems with this bill, one of which is its focus on
punishment rather than on more efficient and productive forms of
deterrence.
The Criminal Code was amended with respect to impaired
driving in 1985. At that time the charges of impaired driving
causing bodily harm and impaired driving causing death were
added to allow for more serious penalties in cases in which injuries
or death resulted from impaired driving.
In the case of impaired driving causing bodily harm the
maximum is 10 years, and causing death the maximum is 14 years.
At the same time other charges are available to the crown where
there is a death involving the use of a motor vehicle and alcohol or
drugs. The dangerous driving sections and the criminal negligence
causing death sections of the code carry major maximum penalties.
It is not uncommon for these sections to be used where alcohol or
drugs have been involved in a motor vehicle accident.
In the early and mid-1980s federal, provincial and territorial
governments really turned their minds to impaired driving,
acknowledging it was a serious social problem. They did this in
response to concerns in their own communities. This was because
of the cold, hard facts that people were not deterred by criminal
penalties and that people and property were being destroyed by the
activity of those who drink and drive.
The question of how to deter people from pursuing this
decidedly undesirable activity resulted in a concerted effort by
governments, non-governmental organizations and even by the
beverage alcohol industry to tackle the problem. In this case the
beverage alcohol industry should commended because, unlike the
tobacco industry which consistently denies there is any health
problem in terms of using its products, the beverage alcohol
industry recognizes there can be a downside to the use of its
products when the use is excessive or when it is combined with
other behaviours.
The focus was in part on the Criminal Code at the time. The code
was refined with increased penalties and with a range of additional
offences to make it more flexible, but also with a range of devices
to allow easier prosecution.
The provinces also took steps within their justice administrative
powers and in their highway traffic management jurisdictions to
deal with the problems. For instance, mandatory licence
suspensions are standard on conviction and in some provinces
vehicles are impounded for the period of the suspension.
Governments and non-government organizations and industrial
groups entered into public education campaigns which research has
shown had an effect on the way we view drinking and driving.
Although I am sometimes critical of other parties for using
2921
anecdotal evidence, I think it is useful here in this sense. I think we
all know examples of anecdotal evidence which support the
research I am talking about.
We all know people who today without any embarrassment
simply leave their cars at home and take a cab when they are out for
a big night on the town or who engage in negotiations with their
friends to ensure they have a designated driver.
(1825 )
This change in the attitude toward drinking and driving has been
a very effective deterrent, better than any changes in the Criminal
Code. We know this from the research that has been done.
I know, however, this has not abolished the problem and I dare
say that in spite of some people's desire for a quick fix we will not
solve the problem completely. Someone will always have an extra
drink and always think they can still drive.
I raise this point to corroborate my belief that punishment is not
the only way, indeed not the best way, to deter people and that we
are not necessarily in Canada on the wrong path. It is easy to seize
on a fixed minimum penalty as a solution to our problem.
Let us look at the other side of the coin. Does a fixed penalty
cause any problems in the process? We already know it is not the
most efficient deterrent. What we also have consider is that the
minimum sentence removes judicial discretion which is necessary
to allow courts to take into account the facts of each particular case.
I suggest minimum penalties and removing a judge's discretion
should not be handed out easily or glibly.
An hon. member: Nonsense.
Ms. Cohen: For 11 years I, unlike the member who is heckling
me, prosecuted criminal code offences for the crown attorney of the
county of Essex. During that time I prosecuted an awful lot of
impaired driving charges. I would venture a guess that in most
jurisdictions crowns, particularly that operate in provincial court,
do more impaired driving trials than almost anything else.
Every once in a while cases arose which required flexibility in
terms of sentencing. In the case of a simple impaired driving that
flexibility is not there. There are prescribed minimums and those
minimums have to be followed and in all cases of impaired driving
there are some prescribed minimums. There are cases where there
is an impairment but where there are other factors involved.
I give an example which has been much heralded in the media
which comes out of Windsor and Essex County. We recently had an
example of quite creative sentencing. I say with some pride in my
community that the criminal bench there deals in a creative way
very often with problems. It is the case of Kevin Hollinsky. Mr.
Hollinsky is a young man who was out drinking one night with his
friends. He drank, he drove and on the way home there was an
accident and both of his friends were killed.
The parents of both of these victims came to the court to support
Kevin Hollinsky and during the sentencing process the judge
decided to accede to a request by defence counsel for a long period
of probation and a community service order.
As a result, Kevin Hollinsky embarked on a remarkable
community education campaign throughout Windsor and Essex
County which members of the Windsor police force, probation
officers and others who are very experienced in this area said
resulted in a remarkable odyssey and remarkable result.
Last summer in Windsor and Essex County there were no
incidents of injury or death as a result of impaired driving among
young people. Had there been a minimum penalty of seven years
Kevin Hollinsky would have been in jail during that period of time
and one wonders how the community would have benefited from
that. Instead he has educated hundreds of young people and brought
home to them in a very serious, personal and emotional way the
disastrous results of the behaviour of drinking and driving.
It is misleading to suggest, as some members have, that judges
are flippant in their sentences, that faced with a conviction of
impaired driving causing death they routinely slap people on the
wrist; the suggestion I heard here today.
The government takes these problems very seriously. We have
taken steps to ensure sentences are more consistent across the
country. We did this in Bill C-41, which members opposite
including some who spoke today opposed on other grounds.
(1830 )
We define principles of sentencing. Sentencing is there to
denounce unlawful conduct, to deter the offender and other persons
from committing offences, to separate offenders from society
where necessary, to assist in rehabilitating offenders, to provide
reparations for harm done to victims or to the community, and to
promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and
acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and the community.
A seven-year mandatory minimum sentence does not meet those
requirements of the law. A seven-year minimum mandatory
sentence is a quick fix which is intended only to punish. I would
suggest that with the principles entrenched in the Criminal Code,
we do not need to spell out for judges the minimum that should be
imposed in particular circumstances. Instead, we have given them
the guidance to exercise their discretion.
I also believe very strongly that we cannot support ad hoc
amendments to the code. When the government proposes code
2922
amendments after comprehensive study and consultations we are
criticized for singling out certain provisions for amendment rather
than undertaking more fundamental reform. These very same
members have done that with us.
This amendment seeks to impose a minimum on a single
provision of the code, impaired driving causing death. However no
similar amendments are proposed for other offences, for example
impaired driving causing bodily harm, criminal negligence causing
death or bodily harm, dangerous driving causing death or bodily
harm. It is not a comprehensive approach. It is a quick fix. I cannot
support the proposed amendment.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure to speak to this bill tonight. Bill C-201 is designed to
bring some equity into the justice system. It is designed to bring
some certainty of sentencing into the justice system. It is designed
to make the justice system just, where someone cannot just shrug
and say: ``I am sorry. I had too many and I drove over somebody
you cared about. Please forgive me, I would like another shot at it,
another time down the road''.
This is not the only bill before the House which deals with
drinking. Another bill brought forward by a Liberal member deals
with warning labels on alcoholic beverages. It was brought forward
because of the potential and real damage that is done by people
who drink to excess, especially by people who drink and drive
which we are discussing in this debate.
When people say that this bill is a quick fix so they do not want
to support it, I am not sure exactly what line of thinking that is. I
believe at least it is a partial fix concerning what must happen, but
if it is a quick fix then why do we not try it? It may be quick, it may
be over before we know it tonight. We could pass this. If we were to
go to people who have suffered a loss because of a drunk driver we
would find agreement.
We may wonder whether people are paying attention to what we
are debating tonight. Are people in Canada listening? I have a letter
which is hot off the fax. It arrived about an hour ago and is written
to the sponsor of the bill:
I am writing to you on behalf of the board of directors of MADD Canada to
reaffirm to you our support for Bill C-201 requiring a mandatory minimum
sentence of seven years for impaired driving causing death. MADD Canada and
our volunteers and supporters are 100 per cent behind your initiative. We
clearly understand the meaning of your bill and have as one of our MADD
Canada policies that we will seek mandatory minimum sentencing.
It is my understanding that during the last hour of debate Gordon Kirkby rose in
the House of Commons and referred to a letter from MADD Canada indicating that
MADD did not support this bill. This letter was written by a member of the board of
MADD Canada and was the opinion of this person as an individual and not that of
the board. This letter was not approved by the executive committee of the board of
directors and was not approved to be sent on MADD Canada letterhead. This
individual has been advised of this and has been requested to retract his statement.
I want to once again reaffirm MADD Canada is in support of Bill C-201.
MADD Canada is fully aware and understands the content of Bill C-201.
Respectfully submitted, the President of MADD Canada, Jane Meldrum.
(1835 )
People are watching and listening to what we are talking about
tonight. I would suggest they are not too happy with some of the
arguments about not wanting to do it because it is a quick fix. They
do not want to do it because they could what, offend somebody?
What is wrong with the Liberals?
I wonder what the reaction would be if 1,500 people a year were
killed or were dying from something else. What if it were a new
type of cancer? What if 1,500 people were dying every year of
some new dreadful disease? What if it were one of the pet projects
of the special interest groups who say they need more funding,
millions of dollars, to do research into a problem or whatever?
Sometimes they are legitimate causes, but what would be the
reaction? The Liberals would say: ``Let us do it''.
Is there a way to stop 1,500 unnecessary deaths and hundreds of
thousands of ruined lives? Is there a way we can arrest that? There
is, at least partially.
We are not talking about people who have an extra drink on the
way home from work. Listen to the statistics. All drivers who are
involved in an accident are tested for the alcoholic content of their
blood. In 1993 statistics show that 63 per cent of the people tested
had not over .08 but over .15. These are not people who
miscalculated and had two beers instead of just one. They are
sloppy drunks who are driving the roads, causing accidents and
running over innocent people.
I wonder which family in Canada has not been affected by this.
The very first tragedy I can ever remember as a child is when my
two cousins were killed in a car accident. They were snuffed out by
a drunk driver who had crossed the double line and hit dead on a
carload of kids on their way home from graduation ceremonies. He
killed four kids the same age as my older brother. Cousin Dennis
and cousin Karen I never really got to know of course but I was
there for their funeral. That guy is out on the street again. In those
days the sentence was not that long, a year or so. He is still a drunk
but I do not know whether or not he has caused other deaths.
All of us have heard anecdotal stories. We have heard the
statistics here tonight. It is not just about people who say they are
sorry that they were drunk and they deserve a slap on the wrist. It is
also about people who are driving while suspended. There was a
case back home where a guy was suspended, went to court because
he was caught drinking again and was suspended some more. How
2923
can we suspend the guy some more? The guy is just waiting to
drive over somebody and cause a death.
The question is: What should we do with somebody like that? A
guy causes a death while under suspension so we suspend him
some more, tell him not to do it and give him a year in jail. It is
absolutely certain he will do it again. That is why the minimum
sentence is necessary.
Do not tell me the minimum sentence will not send a message. If
nothing else, it will keep those habitual drunks off the road. When
they do it once it is not just: ``Oh well, you have killed one person
and have ruined many, many lives''. It will be: ``You killed
somebody. In this society we still value life highly. You took an
innocent life and you are going to pay the price. If nothing else, we
are going to stop you from killing somebody for the next seven
years''.
Right now it is a revolving door. People shrug their shoulders.
They are already under suspension so what are we going to do to
them? Statistically they have driven drunk dozens of times before
they get caught. The only reason they are caught is that they are
sitting on top of a bunch of twisted metal with a dead person in
another car and finally we have the goods on them. They go to
court, everything is plea bargained right down and they get a year
in jail. It is not acceptable.
(1840)
The Mothers Against Drunk Driving who have felt the anguish,
who know what it means to suffer a loss, know that this bill is
necessary. They are not saying it is a quick fix. It is not the total
answer. They are not saying that. This bill will save lives and that is
why this bill should pass. I urge all members of the House to listen
to the people in their ridings. If they are listening they will vote in
favour of this bill.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and add my voice and
remarks to those who have already spoken in favour of Bill C-201,
a private member's bill put forward by my friend the hon. member
for Prince George-Bulkley Valley.
I am not going to get into statistics as a great many have already
been cited by my hon. colleagues from Prince George-Bulkley
Valley, Okanagan-Shuswap, Simcoe Centre and Fraser Valley
East. We could go on all night citing tragic statistics in support of
Bill C-201 which would see a mandatory minimum sentence of
seven years for impaired driving which causes death. It is
something that is certainly needed.
As did the hon. member for Fraser Valley East, I too would
question why the Liberals are speaking against this piece of
legislation. The hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair said she
cannot support this piece of legislation because it does not do this
or that. What does it do? Certainly it is not the be all and end all. No
one said it was. I believe very strongly it is a step in the right
direction and it is going to send a clear message.
The hon. member for South Shore indicated that the problem
runs so deep that this piece of legislation will not save lives. I
dispute that. I think it will save lives. It will send a very strong
message to people who get behind a wheel when they are drunk and
go on our nation's highways and streets and kill people.
It is a coincidence that in January I wrote a column for my local
paper on this very topic. I will read part of that column into the
record because it hits at exactly what we are talking about here.
Does anyone else have a problem with the light sentences constantly handed
down to drunk drivers? A comparative rap on the knuckles or slap of the wrist,
even when their offence leads to massive property damages, injuries or death of
innocent people.
I went on to say that perhaps the system might provide some
deterrence if the criminals-and these people are criminals; that is
what we are talking about here-were sent to work in a bush camp
instead of being granted a short stay in some five star hotel that we
call jails or prisons in this country today. The article went on:
You know the kind of camps: no running water or indoor toilets. You have to
chop your own firewood or you freeze. As for work, there is no shortage. For
example, with all the parkland being set aside, I am sure there is a need to clear
hiking trails.
I went on to say that the particular individual I was referring to
should have to pay back ICBC and the city for the damages
resulting from his stupidity.
Does this sound too harsh? Well I do not think so. I for one am sick of our
system mollycoddling the guilty. This is but one example of thousands
occurring across the country. Drunk drivers who take little or no moral or
financial responsibility for their actions. And most Canadians are also
beginning to question a justice system that does not seem to hold drunk drivers
accountable.
I am reminded of the recent case of David Johnson, 27, of Prince
George. My hon. colleague for Prince George-Bulkley Valley also
referred to this case. Last September while drunk, he caused an
accident that claimed the lives of Jim Ciccone, his 12-year-old son
and 3-year-old daughter. The prosecutor asked for a sentence of six
to eight years. The maximum allowable is 14 years. Judge Ramsay
decided three and one-half years would be sufficient punishment. Is
that punishment enough for taking three lives?
(1845)
Following public demonstrations, the sentence is now under
appeal. I remember 42-year-old Herman Richards who ran down
Amanda Bailey while she was flagging at mile 123 on the Alaska
highway in July 1990. Richards had been drinking prior to hitting
Amanda in the middle of the highway in the middle of the
afternoon. The sentence for Richards was three years and a life
sentence of nothing but memories for Amanda's family. The
examples could go on and on.
2924
The member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley responded to
this type of tragedy with Bill C-201. What is the attitude of the
government across the way? Members opposite say the bill does
not do this, it does not do that, so they will have to vote against
it. Do those members offer something to replace it? Hardly. They
offer criticism.
Canadians are starting to realize that what we see here is a
government gone soft on criminal behaviour. The member opposite
from Prince Albert-Churchill River said in a speech at second
reading which was mentioned in a news article in March: ``We
cannot look at this from a narrow perspective. The objective of the
law is that it ought to be reduced impaired driving and if you have
stiff penalties but no enforcement, there will be no one obeying the
laws''.
I say hogwash. Stiff penalties will deter people. If people know
they will have to face stiff penalties, as I suggested in my column,
perhaps we should be looking at more than only a jail term where
they shoot pool, lift some weights and maybe take a course at
taxpayers' expense. Maybe if they had to do some work, we would
see some real deterrence.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the consideration
of private members' business has now expired and the order is
dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order
Paper.
_____________________________________________
2924
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on April 22 I asked the Minister of Labour when he
intended to proclaim Bill C-64, the new Employment Equity Act.
Although this bill was passed by Parliament on December 15,
1995, it is still not in force. Worse still, according to the bill, it will
only come into force one year after proclamation.
I want to remind the House that in 1983, the Trudeau
government appointed the Royal Commission on Equality in
Employment under Judge Rosalie Abella. This royal commission
reported in 1984 to the new Mulroney government.
The Abella commission recommended mandatory employment
equity legislation for both the federally regulated private sector and
the federal public service sector. In response, the Conservative
government brought in the existing Employment Equity Act but it
did not accept all of Abella's recommendations. That law did not
cover the federal public service, and applied only to firms with
more than 100 employees. Worse still, the employment equity
requirements in the act were not enforceable.
The Liberal opposition at that time strongly criticized the
government on those grounds. As a result, once back in
government in 1994, the new Liberal administration, to complete
the work started 10 years before, introduced Bill C-64 to include
the public sector and to set up a practical enforcement mechanism.
After lengthy committee hearings and parliamentary debate, the
bill was finally passed December 15, 1995. Almost six months later
it is still not proclaimed.
At a recent meeting of the human rights committee on April 18,
the commissioner for human rights made a strong case for
proclaiming this bill as soon as possible. He pointed out that there
was still too much systemic discrimination and that, according to
the provisions of the bill, it would only come into application one
year after proclamation which would be at the earliest in 1997.
(1850 )
Once again I urge the government to proclaim this bill, these
important improvements to employment equity, as soon as
possible.
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, Bill C-64,
an act respecting employment equity, was adopted by this
Parliament and given royal assent at the end of the last session. The
new act clarifies existing employers' obligations and actually
reduces their administrative burden.
Employers under the act must identify and remove employment
barriers that prevent women, aboriginal peoples, persons with
disabilities and members of visible minorities from progressing in
the workplace.
I would like to assure the hon. member that the Minister of
Labour and his officials have been working in close consultation
with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Treasury Board and
the Public Service Commission to ensure that the Employment
Equity Act can be put into force in the shortest timeframe possible.
However, since the new act leaves a number of details to
regulation, we want to ensure that employers under the act have a
clear understanding of the regulatory requirements and have ample
lead time to make any changes that may be required to comply with
these regulations.
In pursuit of this commitment, HRDC officials are holding
consultations with employers, joint employer and labour
organizations and designated group representatives and
associations throughout the month of May.
2925
Given the requirements of the regulatory process, we expect that
the Employment Equity Act will come into force in mid-fall of
this year.
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to go into a little more detail
about the question which I put to the minister responsible for the
federal public service in mid-April.
I asked a question regarding the downsizing of the public service
because I believe that there is an area in this exercise where we as a
government can address a situation that would benefit those
involved. In short, I believe there are things that we can do.
First, we must recognize that during the beginning of this
three-year program the attraction to packages being offered was
easy to manage. There were many individuals who were quite
willingly accepting them. As we move closer to the end of the
exercise it must be getting more and more difficult to find workers
willing to accept the offer. I want to urge the department to invest
as much discretion as possible in local managers so that they will
have the opportunity and the flexibility which they need to treat
people in as humane a fashion as possible.
I am aware there are those who accepted packages in the initial
stages. That was done in good faith. However, we must be prepared
to reassess our own rules if we are going to continue to attract
people at the same rate as we have in the past.
We must be motivated to find the fairest possible solutions to the
many problems that may arise and the local managers are in the
best place to do that.
Also we must realize that funding for non-governmental
organizations as one possible employer has been reduced along
with many other areas where federal public servants may have
found alternate work. It is therefore incumbent on the government
to be as open as possible to alternatives suggested by local
managers on adjustments to the federal public service work week
or any other ideas which would generate more jobs. They must be
considered. I believe that is our contribution in this exercise.
In conclusion, I want the government to recognize that the public
service has participated quite graciously in this exercise and we
must be willing, as a government, to listen to them and to give the
local managers the flexibility they need to do the downsizing
properly.
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the
government will be vigilant to minimize the effects of downsizing
on the affected employees during the remainder of the program
review implementation.
The government stated at the very beginning of this process that
it was its intention to be fair to its employees.
It introduced the early retirement incentive and the early
departure incentive programs in order to facilitate the transition of
employees to retirement or to other employment outside the public
service. These programs have been successful in achieving these
ends.
As can be seen in the quarterly reports on downsizing, 4,715
employees had taken the ERI and 4,323 had taken either the EDI or
its equivalent, the civilian reduction program in the Department of
National Defence, up to the end of December of last year.
The early retirement incentive program will be available until
March 31, 1998. The EDI program will be available until June 22,
1998.
We also introduced a program which allows employees who
wish to leave the public service to switch with employees who wish
to stay. This program has been a big success in my view, since it
has permitted almost 2,000 employees to participate in such
exchanges between March 24 of last year when the program was
first introduced.
I am confident this tool will continue to be effective in
accommodating departments, managers and employee needs and
that management will strive to use this and other tools available to
ease the transition of all those who will be affected.
The Deputy Speaker: A motion to adjourn the House is now
deemed to have been adopted. The House stands adjourned until
tomorrow at 10 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 6.55 p.m.)