Madam Speaker, I would like to commence my speech today on behalf of the Reform Party with regard to Bill C-110 by speaking about the attitude there seems to be on the part of people in the government.
This attitude is led by none other than the Prime Minister. People in the House have learned, they have listened and understand well. The attitude is that if there is vacuousness, in other words, nothing to talk about and nothing to offer, then attack the other person's motive.
I was deeply dismayed yesterday and I quote the Prime Minister when he said: "There has not been one day since we have been talking about this problem that he"-referring to the leader of the Reform Party-"has not been in bed with the Quebec separatists. There has not been one day he does not want to try to make life difficult for a government that is trying to save Canada. There has not been one day that he is not causing some disturbance in Canada because he has no interest in keeping the country together".
I find that kind of personal attack beneath the dignity of the person who has the title of Prime Minister of Canada. It is exceptionally unfortunate that he is setting that kind of a tone for the people in his party when he has absolutely no content, no idea of what he is doing. He is running this country from the back of an envelope. He attacks the motives of the leader of this party or anyone else who does not go along with his flavour of the day.
His flavour of the day apparently has now changed and we are going to have a veto for the province of B.C. While there are few things said by the Block Quebecois I agree with, I agree with the last speaker that this veto for the province of B.C. is nothing more than an additional piece of chewing gum to add to the chewing gum and baling wire that has been used to put together this concocted Bill C-110 in the first place.
How did we get there? Contrary to the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister who apparently has taken the comments and the direction of the Prime Minister to heart to the point of ending up in tears here in the House of Commons, contrary to her point of view and the way in which she chooses to express it, there are people in Canada, including members of the Reform Party, who are avowed federalists and believe in the concept of keeping this great nation together. The chewing gum and baling wire effort at this point is so absolutely and abjectly inadequate as to make my stomach turn.
Why do we have this bill? It is, first, because the Prime Minister panicked. Obviously the "don't worry, be happy" attitude he had when he came to British Columbia saying everything is fine, did not work. "I am really pleased that nobody in British Columbia, nobody in the west, has been panicking over the fact that we have not really been running in this referendum debate. It is really nice that you have not been running and creating any problems, therefore don't worry, be happy".
That was approximately two weeks before October 30 when the first string quarterback, Jacques Parizeau, decided to replace himself with a backup quarterback, the leader of Her Majesty's official loyal opposition as the person who was going to lead the province of Quebec out of Canada.
When that happened, the people of Quebec started to listen to the siren songs and the abject lies of the separatists. They listened to them and actually believed that by voting yes, this group to my right were talking about making a better place for Quebec in Canada. What the people of Quebec did not know at that time was that the leader, the vice-premier of Quebec, was actually at that time circulating to four embassies saying that on October 31 you will recognize us as an independent state. The people of Quebec did not know that.
The leader of Her Majesty's official loyal opposition that the Liberals want in the position of Her Majesty's official loyal opposition decided that he would continue with those lies. He obviously got away with it to the extent that 38 per cent of the people who voted yes in the referendum actually believed those lies and that they were going to be a part of Canada.
What did the Prime Minister do? He absolutely panicked. He turned around and said: "Let's see, what do I have in my grab bag of tricks? What have we tried before? Why do we not take a whack at distinct society? Hey, that is a good idea. Let's do distinct society. What about veto? Yeah, crumb, let's do veto too. That's a good idea".
That is how we are in this House today with the government having rammed distinct society down Canadians' throats and tonight ramming veto down Canadians' throats.
Why did we get here? Some of the responses from my province are indicative of the kind of rage there is not only in British Columbia but around the nation. I will read a paragraph from a letter from Jack Weisgerber who is the leader of the third party in British Columbia. It is dated November 28 and addressed to the Prime Minister. He says:
If your aim is to truly keep Canada united from coast to coast, as I certainly hope it is-
I might parenthesize that there are some people in Canada who would question the Prime Minister's motives. Because I find that act reprehensible on the part of the Prime Minister and the Liberals, I will not do it. Then he says:
-you must have the courage to articulate a vision of Canada that is consistent with the views of most Canadians in every province. From British Columbia's perspective, the only vision of Canada that is acceptable is one where all provinces and all Canadians are equal, with special status for none. Surely that should have been the lesson learned from the referendum on the Charlottetown Accord, which is being entirely ignored by your government.
It is really telling the way in which this government has chosen to bring this legislation forward with a complete ignorance of the fact that the people of Canada rejected these provisions in the Charlottetown accord. Yet it is jamming it down their throats in spite of what the people have said.
The Reform Party is very clear and unequivocal. If there is to be any change to the Constitution, the Constitution must be approved by the people of Canada, not the provincial legislatures, not this assembly, but by the people of Canada because the Canadian Constitution belongs to Canadians.
We currently have an amending formula in our constitutional law. It is called the seven and fifty formula. That is the formula where seven provinces representing a total in excess of 50 per cent of the population of Canada would be able to ratify most changes to the Constitution. For the sake of time I will not go into the detail of the exceptions to that. That is a broad enough statement.
An interesting comment was written in the column "The write stuff" by constitutional experts David Bercuson and Barry Cooper. They say in part:
First, remember that we do have a Constitution in Canada; it contains an amending formula. Mr. Chrétien surely knows that. Given his pivotal role in its adoption back in the early 1980s, he must have once believed that the current amending formula is a good thing. But now, with Saint Lucien about to become the great helmsman of the separatist cause in Quebec, the Constitution is no longer convenient.
What then, can Chrétien do except to pretend the Constitution doesn't exist? Hence his proposal of wholesale change to the structure of government without following the rules. It is a plan that, if successful, will allow Chrétien to avoid the minor inconvenience suffered by Brian Mulroney of having his proposals for constitutional change thrown back in his face.
Chrétien's proposals are, in our view, more dishonest, more divisive, and far more repellent than anything the Mulroney gang ever dreamed up.
They go on to say:
There is no such thing as a "region" in the Constitution, or anyplace else in Canadian law. So, giving a constitutional veto to a "region" isn't much different than giving a veto to all red-headed, left-handed, green-eyed women in Canada. Both entities are equally recognized in the Constitution and both have the same status as constitutional players, namely none.
These experts, in looking at these things, are very incisive in their comments. They reveal the fact that the government and indeed the whole country of Canada are currently being run by a Prime Minister and his cabinet from scribblings on the backs of used envelopes.
In a column by Joan Bryden, entitled "Veto for B.C. fuels constitutional uproar" I read:
Although B.C. will now be recognized as a fifth region with its own veto-along with Ontario, Quebec, the prairies and the Atlantic region-Premier Mike Harcourt complained the move will make it even harder to amend the Constitution in the future.
It means, effectively, that seven provinces representing at least 92 per cent of the population must approve any constitutional change before the federal government will consider giving its own stamp of approval.
That's a stiffer requirement than the seven provinces with 50 per cent of the population currently needed for most constitutional changes.
Forest Minister Andrew Petter, B.C.'s point man on the unity package, said Chrétien is putting a "straitjacket on Confederation" and accused him of making up his unity strategy "on the back of an envelope".
Truly that is exactly what the Prime Minister is doing. Yet the Liberal members, like sheep, will come to this House tonight, fall in line and vote for this straitjacket on the Canadian Constitution.
We have a situation where we are giving a veto. Perhaps I should stop for a second here and just detail my concept of what a veto is. Simply, if someone being one of many has a veto power and that person's vote was negative then that person would be able to stop the process in spite of the fact that the majority of the vote was positive. That is my understanding of the word veto.
What this Prime Minister has done is to give Canada's federal government constitutional veto over Canada's Constitution to the separatist government in Quebec. It is absolutely unbelievable. It is so unbelievable I have to repeat it: The Prime Minister is giving Canada's federal government constitutional veto over changes to Canada's Constitution to the separatist government in Quebec.
It goes beyond exasperation to think that those people would come back into this House tonight and actually vote that way simply because their Prime Minister says so. I should explain that there is a lot of embarrassment on the part of Liberals in the province of British Columbia because they have the misfortune of having the name Liberal. I will read from a column by an MLA candidate:
The federal government has made its spectacular move. In an effort to appease the disgruntled Quebec separatists, the Prime Minister is putting the true union of Canadian provinces at risk.
The thinly disguised `veto to all' will leave Quebec in the position of stopping any constitutional changes, no matter how logical they may be. British Columbia, the fastest growing and third largest province has been pushed aside once more.
I say in parenthesis that this was written immediately prior to the extra inclusion of the veto for British Columbia, but the sentiments are exactly the same. This B.C. Liberal is trying to distance himself from the crazy federal Liberals. He goes on to say:
The unity committee, as designed by the Prime Minister, has one western Canadian representative-and she is from Edmonton. This committee now should be disbanded because Chrétien's latest move has made it redundant.
The `distinct society' clause will enshrine a special status for a small section of our society and will inflame relations with Quebec for years to come.
Liberals, this is a Liberal speaking.
The Prime Minister has no inkling as to what makes Canada tick! He is completely out of touch!
The Charlottetown accord of 1992 was defeated because of the inclusion of this type of special treatment.
I wonder who the minister of western alienation is? This individual is doing a commendable job!
This was said by a B.C. Liberal candidate. But what does the B.C. Liberal leader say? When he was interviewed on December 6 the questioner asked: "You have no embarrassment though that they are Liberals and you are a Liberal in name?" The B.C. Liberal leader wanted to distance himself from these people over here because he said: "Our party is totally separate from the federal party. I am embarrassed for British Columbia that they are not standing up in Parliament and speaking up for the interests of British Columbia, which is what I believe their task is".
