Debates of Nov. 30th, 1995

Immigration

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to compassion and how we treat Canadians from various ethnocultural backgrounds, we need no lectures, no lessons from that side of the House.

No one suggested we would take her out of the hospital and deport her. There were rumours suggesting that we were going to deport part of the family and leave the other part in Canada.

Members of Parliament from our side made representations to the ministry and officials with respect to a compassionate deportation. We have shown that compassion. We have not forced anyone from a hospital bed. To make such allegations is simply a reflection of the manipulation for which his party is well known.

Hiv-Aids

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, when we toured the Saskatchewan penitentiary in Prince Albert the guards expressed concern that neither the guards nor the prisoners were aware of inmates who were HIV positive. They did not even know which inmates had AIDS.

Can the Solicitor General of Canada tell us when he will protect the lives of guards and prisoners by making HIV-AIDS testing mandatory for all prisoners?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, a year ago there was a report of an expert committee on this matter.

The correctional service is moving to implement almost all the recommendations of the committee designed to control the spread of AIDS in federal prison institutions and have a safer atmosphere for inmates generally.

There is an increased use of testing but mandatory testing raises important legal and constitutional issues which are still being considered. We are working to deal with the issue in the spirit and light of the recommendations of the expert committee.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it logically follows then if the solicitor general is not willing to make HIV and AIDS testing compulsory, that the government and the minister will be liable for damages when other prisoners and guards contract HIV or AIDS while under his care.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the Correctional Service of Canada has been moving for over a year to implement the recommendations of the expert committee on AIDS. This includes a greater degree of HIV testing as well as a number of other measures to control, limit and lessen the spread of AIDS.

I would think that if the hon. member is concerned, he would read the report of the committee and support us in implementing its recommendations.

Canadian Wheat Board

[Vic Althouse, NDP, Mackenzie, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of the wheat board.

In the 1970s, farmers bought hopper cars through the wheat board and governments bought hopper cars because railways refused to supply cars for shipping grain.

Recently the minister's SEO committee recommended that farmers pay $1 per tonne for the purchase of the government's 13,000 hopper cars. Although farmers would pay for them, ownership would revert to the railways.

Since the deregulated U.S. style system this government is emulating has one abiding rule, if you want rail service, you had better own rail cars, why does he not instead allow the wheat board to own the cars on behalf of farmers?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is referring to a report that has been received by the government from a group of senior executive officers in the grains industry, including a number of farmers, which has come forward with some ideas about how to deal with hopper car ownership and rail car allocation issues.

That report is presently being discussed among farm organizations in western Canada. As yet the government has taken no decision with respect to our response to that report.

One point is important to note. The report represents a consensus among a widely divergent range of interests. It is not entirely fair to the situation to single out one recommendation relating to car ownership and not also observe that another recommendation from the SEO's group to balance that recommendation was referred to by the hon. gentlemen. Another recommendation from that same group was to maintain a maximum limitation on freight rates for a period of one full decade.

Airline Safety

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

Considering that pilot safety is one of the most serious issues facing the Canadian airline industry today, can the minister tell us when he will implement the flight duty regulations introduced this summer?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the whole question of how the pilots and the attendants spend their time, how many hours they are allowed to work, has to be taken into account as a result of extensive consultation with the industry. We have also looked at what happens in other countries. We have tried to strike as fair a balance as we can.

I am pleased to advise the hon. member that we will be introducing and implementing those new regulations late next spring.

[The Speaker]

This brings to a close the question period.

Business Of The House

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it would be appreciated if the Government House Leader would announce the business of this House for next week.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, today and tomorrow the House will consider second reading of Bill C-110, the bill on the regional veto. If this is completed, we will

call Bill C-108, the housing legislation, followed by Bill C-99, the small business loans bill.

On Monday the House will deal with the motion now on notice in the name of the Minister of National Defence regarding the Bosnia peace process. Tuesday shall be an opposition day. On Wednesday we will return to the resolution concerning a distinct society. Next Thursday and Friday shall be opposition days.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-110, an act respecting constitutional amendments, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Constitutional Amendments Act

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on this particular matter today, especially in light of some of the comments that were made earlier today by different members, in particular from the Reform Party.

In discussing this piece of legislation we have to look at what has already taken place and the rules that are presently in place. We have to look at the existing rule, the seven, ten, and fifty rule, requiring seven provinces out of ten to agree, with fifty per cent of the population. Under this particular rule, the Atlantic provinces, if they all agree on not supporting an amendment, have a veto. Ontario has a veto simply by virtue of population. The western provinces, if four of them get together, effectively have a veto as well. The only region of Canada that does not have a veto under the rule is Quebec.

It is not a matter of fairness when one region of Canada does not have a veto when three regions already can effectively veto legislation. We have to look at rectifying this situation.

Under Bill C-110 there are four regions, which have been referred to many times. One has to read Bill C-110 closely to determine that it does not deal with vetoes; it simply deals with the consent that is required to effect a constitutional amendment. Under the bill the consent of Ontario is required, the consent of Quebec is required, and two or more of the Atlantic provinces that have a combined population of at least 50 per cent of the population of all the Atlantic provinces, as well as two or more of the western provinces that have a combined population of at least 50 per cent. The rules change somewhat when moving to the second step.

I would suggest that the people of Saskatchewan now are better off. Under the previous rules it was quite difficult for Saskatchewan to stop legislation. It was difficult for Saskatchewan to deal with legislation because to exercise the veto all four western provinces had to agree. Under this rule, however, Saskatchewan along with B.C. or Saskatchewan along with three of the western provinces can stop legislation. It is much more effective for the province of Saskatchewan than in the past.

For a small province like Saskatchewan this is most helpful. The population of Saskatchewan is small, but it is being treated very well by Bill C-110. Saskatchewan's position has improved, but it has not improved at the cost of any other province.

I have listened to the speeches of Reform members. They indicated that there should be five regions, with B.C. having a veto, or even six regions, with B.C. and Alberta having vetoes. It appears that they are willing to cut loose Saskatchewan and Manitoba because there should not be two provinces in one region having a veto with such a small population. I find it interesting that the Reform Party would cut loose those two prairie provinces by having vetoes for the two most westerly provinces. It would cut them loose and they would not have a say in constitutional amendments. Are the occupants of these two provinces simply chopped liver?

The federal government has considered all the regions of the country and all the provinces, no matter how small the population. Saskatchewan was considered, Manitoba was considered, and provinces such as P.E.I. were considered.

To hear Reformers speak, it certainly appears that the Reform Party is willing to abandon Saskatchewan. The Reform Party has not proposed anything for Saskatchewan and Manitoba. It has not proposed anything because the Reform Party has abandoned us. Let me remind the Reform Party that in the next election the people of Saskatchewan will not forget what Reform has done.

The suggestion has been made that British Columbia may reach 50 per cent of the population in western Canada. That is a possibility. If any more people from Saskatchewan move to British Columbia, it should reach that sooner than we may think. That has certainly happened in the past. However, Saskatchewan can hold its own and may attract a few people back to Saskatchewan from British Columbia and may hold its own for the next number of years.

If British Columbia reaches the level of having 50 per cent of the population, some of the speeches made today by the Reform Party indicate that in effect British Columbia would have a veto and none of the other provinces in the west would have any effect. This is absolutely not true.

Two or more provinces with 50 per cent of the population in the west must consent to a constitutional amendment. Yes, British Columbia may get a veto if it has 50 per cent of the population, but even if British Columbia wants to consent to legislation, the other

three prairie provinces can stop that legislation even though they do not have 50 per cent of the population. In effect, both areas have a veto. British Columbia has the veto and the prairie provinces have a veto.

Again, it appears this is a little too much for some members of the Reform Party to indicate in the House. They want to show that we have not given any consideration to the prairie provinces, which is absolutely false. All areas of Canada have been considered by the Liberal Party. In particular, all small provinces have been considered, whether they are in the prairies or elsewhere.

The Reform Party has complained that B.C. does not have a veto now, and then says that if it does the prairies will not have any say. As I have indicated, this is not only wrong, it is false and a misrepresentation of what is in Bill C-110.

It certainly would help if the members of the Reform Party, before they start speaking in the House on a bill like Bill C-110, read the legislation. It is very short; it is one paragraph and two subsections. It is not very difficult to go through. It would maybe take a minute if they concentrated on it, half a minute if they went through it quickly, five minutes if they wanted to reread it. Simply going through it in that manner, they could and would determine that both areas have a veto built in. British Columbia, when it reaches 50 per cent of the population, would have the equivalent of a veto. The three prairie provinces together would also be able to stop legislation, because consent requires two provinces in the west.

We have accomplished what the Reform Party has been talking about. Unfortunately the Reform Party has not seen this today.

That is a perspective from a small province in western Canada, the province of Saskatchewan, which is benefiting from Bill C-110, as do many other regions of Canada. And it is benefiting not at the expense of any other province.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to hear a member from the province of Saskatchewan oozing around this question of what the legislation will do for or to the small provinces. I am glad he has cleared this up, because we know that Saskatchewan has not been relegated to fourth class status but only to third class status. This is progress. I really do appreciate the hon. member's words.

When he goes home to Saskatchewan and is able to present his case before his electors, I am sure they will be thrilled beyond measure by this. If the name of a certain Norwegian during the last war, which Beauchesne will not let me mention, is ever raised at one of his meetings, he will know what they are talking about.

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to hear comments from a member when he refers to oozing around this. Unfortunately I do not know what he means by the term oozing. The reference that we are not relegated to fourth class but to third class is absolutely false and shows a complete misunderstanding of what is in Bill C-110.

Under the existing constitutional formula the province of Saskatchewan could only stop a constitutional amendment with three other provinces. That would require all four provinces in the west to stop a constitutional amendment. Under this legislation, Saskatchewan with three of the smaller provinces in western Canada could stop the legislation or Saskatchewan and British Columbia could stop an amendment.

This is a tremendous improvement for the province of Saskatchewan. I simply ask that the member perhaps look at the legislation first.

[John Murphy, Liberal, Annapolis Valley—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to participate in this important debate. Bill C-110 may be one of the smaller bills we will debate in the House. Although it is only comprised of one clause it is certainly one of the most important.

This past Monday the Prime Minister announced three key initiatives: first, to recognize that Quebec forms a distinct society within Canada; second, to undertake changes to bring government services and decision making closer to citizens; and, third, to ensure that we do not make any constitutional changes that affect Quebec without the consent of the Quebec people.

Bill C-110 is an important component of our commitment to a united Canada. It is also proof of our government's willingness to make positive and substantial changes to the way Canada works. As the Prime Minister and the government have proven time and time again, when we make a promise we keep it.

Liberal governments in the past have offered strong support for regional vetoes. The action we are taking now transforms the principle we have long supported into reality.

I will take a few moments to go through some of the specifics of the bill. As it currently stands in Canada's Constitution, only the federal government has the specific veto over constitutional change. This legislation will change that.

By implementing Bill C-110 we will now require consent of all Canada's regions, Quebec, Ontario, Atlantic Canada and the west, before any constitutional amendments that affect them can be proposed in Parliament. In the case of Atlantic Canada and the west, consensus much be reached by two or more of the affected

provinces representing more than 50 per cent of the region as a whole.

In tabling the bill our government is keeping a commitment we made to the people of Quebec. We also recognize that the constitutional amendment process is of interest to all parts of the country. That is why we are lending our veto to Canada's four regions.

The one clear message we heard on October 30 was that the status quo was no longer acceptable. I have also heard this message from my constituents in Annapolis Valley-Hants. During the referendum campaign and in recent weeks I have spoken with many people on the issue. I have received numerous telephone calls and letters from constituents who have offered many valuable ideas and suggestions. I have moved those suggestions on to the appropriate people.

In Annapolis Valley-Hants people have said clearly that they want Quebec to stay. They have also clearly expressed their desire to be heard on any future constitutional issues. The implementation of a regional veto will achieve both these goals.

It responds to the concerns of Quebecers. For many years Quebec has called for a veto on amendments to the Canadian Constitution. By implementing Bill C-110 we are saying that we want Quebec to be an active participant in the evolution of the Canadian Constitution.

The bill will also protect Quebec against amendments that could diminish its powers, rights and privileges. The government recognizes the legitimacy of Quebec's concerns. Bill C-110 offers strong recognition of the fact that as the nation evolves we must work to ensure constitutional changes are acceptable to all Canada's regions. We also recognize that constitutional change cannot and should not be made if a substantial portion of Canada's population does not approve.

In the final days leading up to the no vote the nationwide grassroots outpouring of public sentiment was a significant factor in the no victory. The giant 150,000-person pro-Canada rally in Montreal was an emotional watershed in Canadian history. Tens of thousands of Quebecers came out and declared their desire to remain in Canada. Canadians from every province came to Quebec to say loud and clear: "We want you to stay".

I was fortunate, along with other members, to have the opportunity to be at that rally. That morning I was in Dorval airport waiting for the unity plane to arrive from Halifax to join with my fellow Nova Scotians and Atlantic Canadians in delivering a message of unity. It gave me the opportunity to share their deep affection for the country. I never felt more proud to be a Canadian.

Some people say that Canadians do not wear their flag on their sleeves and do not show their national pride. When the chips are down Canadians are the proudest people of any nation on earth. Now is the time for us to repay the confidence the people of Quebec have shown in us. It is time to prove to Quebecers that their trust is not misplaced.

It is true the initiatives we are now debating will not satisfy leaders of the separatist government in Quebec or separatist members in the House. Quebec leaders have been very vocal in their refusal to negotiate with the federal government. However in so doing they are doing a disservice to their constituents. The people of Quebec are more reasonable than the extremist leaders of the yes camp. These changes will help to restore their faith in Canada.

I support the bill because it addresses the concerns in Quebec and the desire of citizens in all Canada's regions to be heard on constitutional issues. This initiative shows that we have listened to the call for change. We have listened to the people of Quebec and we have listened to our constituents. Now is the time to move forward.

Canada is a continuously changing and evolving federation. By supporting Bill C-110 we can be sure future change will be beneficial to Quebec and all other Canadian regions.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I advise the House that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster.

It gives me pleasure as a loyal Canadian to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-110. It is a privilege to stand in the Chamber to outline the reasons I oppose the bill. As someone who was not present as a member of the House when the previous Parliament debated the Meech and Charlottetown initiatives, I nonetheless have an eerie feeling of déjà vu. If the legislation were some grade B horror movie they could very well have called it "Son of Meech".

I must preface my opposition to the bill by noting an old saying I have heard several times in the House: those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past are destined to repeat them. History, or so it would appear, is not a subject with which the framers of the legislation are even remotely acquainted. Those historical remarks come very close to describing the thoughts of all Canadians on the bill.

I listened to the Prime Minister yesterday and I looked at the bill before the House today. I cannot help but ask myself if the Liberal government has not learned anything in 30 years of constitutional wrangling. The answer would clearly appear to be a resounding no. This would be much the same response Canadians everywhere would give to this package if, and it is a big if, they could be given a say in its acceptance or rejection.

The bill does not give the power of veto to the people. It is the very worst kind of top down decision making because it gives the final say to politicians. To this I ask again if hon. members on the other side have learned nothing. Worse yet, this initiative along with the motion tabled in the House yesterday is an action born out of desperation. It is the worst example of so-called leadership we have seen in recent memory.

Without consulting his caucus, the unity committee, the premiers or the Canadian people, Mr. Chrétien has unilaterally offered further appeasement to Quebec separatists.

[The Speaker]

Order. I know it was probably a slip but we refer to other members by their titles and not by their names.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Forgive me, Mr. Speaker. It was an oversight. I meant the Prime Minister.

In any event I ask the Prime Minister and the government if they have not learned anything from the past. It is clear that the Prime Minister has not. He is determined to allow history to repeat itself. Following his speech yesterday on the other half of this initiative, the hon. member for Beaver River was moved to say it was like listening to former Prime Minister Mulroney defend the Charlottetown accord.

In addition to telling the past, history also affords us the ability to gaze tentatively into the future. That is why when I look at the bill I see past failures along exactly the same lines as those being proposed here.

The bill seeks to implement an amending formula similar to that contained in the Victoria charter of 1971. However, just as insulting to Canadians, the formula was rejected at the time by provincial premiers. The initiative before us does not take into account the realities of today's Canada, that the people of the country want a final say in how their Constitution is amended through referendum. They do not want the process controlled from beginning to end by the political elites of the country. That much should have been learned by the government following the Charlottetown accord.

The bill would certainly place a constitutional straitjacket on any certain constitutional changes, no matter how desirous they might be. The bill would allow the federal government to withdraw its support for any proposed change if either the premier of Ontario or the premier of Quebec did not like it.

In addition, as this bill would not be part of Canada's Constitution so far, the old amending formula would apply as well. The combined effect of this situation means some bizarre form of double jeopardy would apply to proposed constitutional amendments. That is not good.

Beyond that, this bill would not be acceptable to many Canadians because it gives the separatist Government of Quebec a veto over the Canadian Constitution. I ask that the members on the government side think about the consequences of that action for a moment. A separatist government would now be handed a de facto veto over the Constitution of a country it has decided to break apart. Has the Prime Minister thought about the consequences of such an action?

From a personal perspective as a representative from the province of British Columbia, I am offended by this bill. Implicit in it is the notion that British Columbians are relegated to second class status in Confederation. I would also remind members across the way that along with Alberta and Ontario, B.C. is one of the three net contributors to Confederation. All that this legislation serves to do is perpetuate the mindset within the federal government that B.C. and the west is a colony.

When I was a boy in Vancouver some 50 or 60 years ago, I was conscious of a separatist movement within British Columbia at that time. It came about because it was resentful of the treatment accorded the west by central Canadian interests. It seems to me that precious little has changed since then, despite the fact that B.C. is now the third most populous province.

I have a warning for the government across the way. Proposals such as Bill C-110 before us are sure to rekindle the separatist fire in the west. That is something we do not want to have happen.

In concluding, I tell members now and inform the House that as a loyal Canadian, I will be voting against this bill every step of the way.

I further encourage members opposite to join with me and do the same if they think about the constitutional consequences of this bill for Canada, if they believe in their heart of hearts that the people of this country, not the governments, are the ones who know what is in their best interests. If they understand the lessons that 30 years of constitutional bickering have taught us, if they truly understand all those things, then they must vote against this bill. To do otherwise is an affront to all Canadians.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Winnipeg—St. James, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from Cowichan and the Islands misunderstands the intent of Bill C-110. He claims that the people would like to have the final say in constitutional matters. Bill C-110 does exactly that. Let me explain to the hon. member.

If his great province of British Columbia, a province in which I resided at one time, would like to cast a veto and would like to borrow the federal veto but before doing that it wants to go to the people of British Columbia in a referendum to sanction that action, that is allowed for in Bill C-110.

Bill C-110 in no way stops the people of British Columbia from taking a decision on a constitutional matter. That includes the veto. If the member wants the veto of the province of British Columbia

sanctioned by the people, for heaven's sake go right ahead and do it.

I can assure the member that under this legislation, if the province of British Columbia comes to us along with another province in the western region and says, we want a veto cast because we have held a referendum and the people in our province have asked for the veto, it will be respected under this law. There can be no other interpretation. You can respond to that if you like.

[The Speaker]

Order. I would encourage all hon. members to address the Chair instead of speaking to one another.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The previous speaker kept referring to something other than the motion before the House.

[The Speaker]

We are going to have an answer here from the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan if he cares to have the floor for a minute or two.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the main response I would have for the hon. member is that the intent of this bill is not directed at British Columbia or the west. The intent of the bill is another sop to the separatists of Quebec. That is its total intent. In effect, the west is disregarded, as it has been, as I tried to point out, for the last 50, 60, 70 years. It is a continuation of the same old thing.

Anything the member might say about what wonderful things this will do for the west I reject as nonsense.