Debates of May 16th, 1996

Supply

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

Answer the question.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

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.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

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?

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

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.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

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.

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

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.

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.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

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.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

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 isLook at Canadian history through francophones' eyes''. The subtitle read: ``Would you feel cheated?'' The author then asks English Canadians to

pretend they are French Canadians and to reread the history of Canada.

At the end, he says:

"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.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

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.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Against Quebec.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

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.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

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.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

No, he does not come from Quebec.

[An hon. member]

He is not far away.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

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.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Newfoundland voted twice.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

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.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

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.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

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.

Since the elected representatives of provinces other than Quebec do not seem to understand at all, for the last time I am asking the

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.