Debates of Nov. 25th, 1997

Supply

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

It's all one family.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

So it is. We were criticized for the same thing earlier, but we can see that there is a family quarrel of much greater magnitude in that corner of the House.

Before putting a question to the Reform Party member, I would first like to explain to him that, when Quebeckers see his leader, whose campaign advertising blamed Quebec's leaders, with everything we know about his leader, when we see him, Jean Chrétien, and Stéphane Dion hand in hand, this creates a lot of mistrust in Quebec. Furthermore, I can understand why Quebeckers feel this way.

I would like him to explain to me how they can teach us anything about democratic spirit, when we know that there have been three referendums in Quebec in 15 years, that various forms of consultation were held on the constitutional issue, that we engaged in the highly democratic exercise of referendums.

Why does he not share the view of his NDP colleague that the ball is clearly in the federalists' court and that they should first of all agree among themselves on what they can offer Quebeckers? The first step before any consultation of Quebeckers is to agree among themselves on what they can offer. Why does he not share the opinion of his NDP colleague on this issue?

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe in the Reform Party position on consultation. It is a grassroots position. There is more truth and intelligence coming through from the people of Canada than we have seen. I also stand to repeat that the referendum of two years ago was the result of 35 years of mismanagement by a revolving door of political parties in Ottawa which brought us to that abyss, which brought us and national unity to rock bottom. That was management by federal parties.

I totally believe in the Reform Party's support for the process which involves consultation with the people of Canada across this great land. That is where we will have real initiative and real movement on Canadian unity.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate on the resolution. We in the Chamber are talking about something that is a priority or should be a priority to the House of Commons, the unity of our country.

I listened to members of the Bloc, the separatists. I have listed to Liberal members. I have listened to members of the Tory party. One thing became very clear to me. There is a tremendous difference in the approach and the definition the Reform Party gives to the word unity and the approach and the definition the Tories, the Liberals and the separatists give to the word unity. For the three parties, the Tories, the Liberals and the separatists, the word unity is all about politics and political power.

The difference between them and us is that the word unity means bringing our country together, a united Canada, where the people of Canada have a say in the future of this country. It is not about politics. It is not about the Tory politics where under the regime of Brian Mulroney he brought separatists into his party simply for political power. It is not about the politics of the Bloc members who have, through their snake oil salesmen, convinced so many people in Quebec that there is some sort of a nirvana out there if they can form their own nation. It is not about the politics of the Liberal Party seeking to re-establish its political roots it lost in Quebec.

To us it is about unity and uniting this country, uniting the grassroots of this country into a belief that this country can be better strengthened by the unity of all peoples under one flag, one nation, one people. That is the difference.

I laugh at the suggestions of the Tory party. I laugh at the suggestions of the Bloc and the Liberal Party. Their arguments are just beyond belief because we know the agenda behind their arguments.

Unity should be the number one priority of this Parliament. We in the Reform Party do endorse the initiatives that have come out of the Calgary declaration. In particular, we endorse the philosophy and belief in that Calgary declaration process that the most important people and the most important factor in this whole unity debate is the input that comes from the ordinary Canadian citizens who love this country. That is one of the things that has been left out of this discussion for over 30 years. The Liberals have left it out and the Tories have left it out. They prefer to make their master plan for this country in the backrooms with their political strategists. That is what is wrong and why the Meech Lake accord failed and the Charlottetown accord failed. They never went to the people and consulted them.

That is the difference between what the Calgary declaration is attempting to do and the failed attempts of the Mulroney Tories and the failed attempts of the Liberals who joined together under the Charlottetown accord saying this was a great plan for our country. That is why it has failed. The NDP also supported that. It failed because they did not go to the people first and find out what the people thought.

There is an idea that this idea by the Reform Party of bringing the people of Canada into this debate is nonsense, this idea from the Tories, the Liberals and the Bloc. I shudder to think that if we left it up to the old line parties to come up with a master plan the people once more would not be invited to participate.

We are seeking to develop a plan that has some credibility and that can only be accomplished when we go to the people. The political parties that sat in this House in the past have no credibility when it comes to designing a unity plan. We have seen this over the last 30 years. They have failed. They prefer to carry on the family fight between Quebec Liberals and separatists and the Tories and the separatists for political power within the province of Quebec, seeing who can outdo each other, not caring one whit for the unity of this country but more for the political power they could get out of the appeasement policies.

The important thing about the Calgary declaration that we want to establish in this debate is that it was initiated outside of Ottawa. It was initiated by the premiers and the territorial leaders. It was a plan that would involve the people of Canada and bring them into this consensus gathering as to how we are going to get this country together. It is time for Canadians to show the politicians how Canada should work, not the politicians to tell the Canadian people how this unity thing should work.

I call on all Canadians in this debate, as we will today, to make their opinions known, to attend the unity meetings across the country. This is something the Tories did not allow under Brian Mulroney, something they did not allow under the Charlottetown accord and something the separatists would never even consider.

They would prefer to have their slick talking leaders carry on this dream of a wonderful nation that can survive and exist without the rest of Canada, which they know is a lie.

The Calgary declaration is not a done deal. It is merely a start of a process that can possibly lead to a solution to our unity crisis. Therefore there are important interests that we want to consider.

First of all, we want to consider the fundamental policy, the fundamental belief that all Canadians are equal. No one should have special status in this country. Why? This just creates problems. It has created problems for 30 years and we see it in the House today, as the Quebec Liberals and the separatists banter back and forth.

We see it as the Tories join in the conversation. They do not recognize equality in this country. While all province may be diverse in their characteristics, they should have equal status in this country.

We cannot have one province holding a position that is higher than the other provinces. I do not care which province they are talking about, whether it is my home province of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan or Quebec. No status that is not equal, it cannot happen.

Equality is the cornerstone of getting to this position of unity in this country. No one wants to live in a second class province. No Canadian should have rights that are not enjoyed by other Canadians and no equality simply increases regional resentment and national division.

Without equality we cannot have a collective, united feeling about our country. While the Tories, the Liberals and the separatists would prefer to talk about what is best on a regional type basis, the Reform Party wants to talk about equality where all regions in the country, all provinces and all people live together on an equal basis under that wonderful Canadian flag that adorns this House.

Equality also means an end to domineering federalism. We in the Reform Party have talked about devolution of powers, getting rid of this big central government which dictates to the provinces in areas where it should not even be involved.

Yes, we talk about passing powers down to the province of Quebec that it should handle itself. At the same time, we talk about passing those same powers down to the other provinces.

I cannot believe that the separatists here, when we are talking about the transfer of powers into areas the federal government should not be in, on to their province, would not be in favour of that. Yet they are not because it does not fit with the big lie that they have been telling the people of Quebec.

I would ask that all parliamentarians in this House forget about the politics they have been playing for the last 30 years. Forget about that and start thinking about what is best for this country.

The Liberal members opposite laugh when we talk about unity. It does not fit into their philosophy. They are more interested in politics, as I stated earlier. I ask the members to support this resolution and let us begin another step toward the unity of this country.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it was really ironic to hear the member talk about unity so many times and yet the Conservatives are not to be trusted, the Bloc Quebecois is not to be trusted, the NDP is not to be trusted, the Liberals are back peddling. No one is to be trusted except the Reform Party which, by some sort of magic, has the perfect formula for unity.

He accuses us, in his own words, of not caring one whit about Canadian unity. I find this very offensive.

I find it extremely offensive that we get told by the Reform Party that all of us here do not care one whit for Canadian unity, as if they have the golden message, the true faith, they are the people who have the answers for everything else and everybody else is wrong. The hon. member accuses the Liberal Party of not having carried out consultations during Charlottetown. I do not think he knows his dossier very well. We were not the government party so we could not have carried out consultations. He had better check his files.

I really think the Reform Party in trying to push its motion, which has a lot of good in it, should really try to involve all of us if it really cares for unity, rather than just saying “we have the perfect message and all of you, a curse on your houses”. I think that is a very sad message coming from the Reform Party.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had been listening I pointed out that given the dismal failure of the Liberals and the Tories and the NDP who joined with them over the last 30 years in trying to bring this country together, and they have failed, they have lost the trust of Canadians and they have to start to earn that again.

That first step starts with involving the people of Canada in this process which they have never done in the past.

I would point out that during the failed Charlottetown accord the Liberal joined with the Tories and the NDP to try to sell that Charlottetown accord to the Canadian people, a process getting to that accord that did not involve the Canadian people. Sure, there was a dog and pony show going across the country with hand selected witnesses to give their input, but the average Canadian was left out and that is why they voted against the Charlottetown accord.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find that the debate between the Reform member for Surrey, if I am not mistaken, and the member from the La Salle Blues Band across the way exemplifies the kind of situation we are facing in Canada because we have two opposite views. On the one hand, the hon. member from the Reform Party, who does not speak French and may not even have bothered to come to Quebec to enquire about the real demands Quebec has been making for 30 years, but is nevertheless trying to preach the virtues of unity based on some kind of Anglo-Canadian supremacy that would basically drown out Quebec's demands.

On the other hand, there is the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis, who is presenting the other side of the national unity issue, one that seems to reflect a clear understanding of Quebec's demands, because we are well aware that he once was a minister in the Quebec National Assembly. Yet, the end result is exactly the same. In fact, it would not make any difference if they were members of the Conservative Party or the NDP; the bottom line is that they argue, but they all agree on one thing: to put forward proposal like the Calgary declaration, in which there is nothing but empty words, that has no political weight whatsoever and ignores the legitimate and justifiable demands Quebec has been making for 30 years.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I make no apologies to stand in this House and say that I am unable to speak French. I make no apology for that. I am a Canadian and I love this country. If anyone should apologize it should be this separatist member who sits there and refuses to acknowledge that Canadian flag, refuses to sing the national anthem of this country in this House and day after day preaches the breaking up of this country. If anyone should apologize it should be that separatist member there.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Secretary of State (Science]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate today, but before I begin, I wish to inform you of something.

I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Waterloo—Wellington.

It is really quite tempting to raise a number of the issues that were addressed by the last speaker from the Reform Party.

I am extremely surprised and disappointed at the comments that were made. There was a comment that Quebec could not make it alone. What a wonderful way to start a dialogue. There were comments such as “a dog and pony show” that ridiculed the efforts of Canadians and their elected representatives to try to understand and to find solutions. There were other comments too numerous to mention.

I am tempted to talk about issues such as what was mentioned in the last campaign, that no Quebecker should ever again be prime minister. I am tempted—I am looking for some divine help—to talk about double talk, the comment about Stornoway and what happened, but I shall resist temptation.

I want to address the Reform member's proposal, which I find pretty reasonable, perfectly reasonable in fact. Perhaps this is due to the fact that he is new and others around him have not had the chance to socialize with him so far. He came up with a perfectly reasonable proposal, as far as I am concerned, and he wants to promote consultation with Canadians across the country. I applaud this approach. He wants to get Canadians involved. He seems to want to go beyond partisanship and I support that.

But I think he should speak to his colleagues. One of them has just stated that there was nothing accomplished over the last 30 years. Another claims that his party is the only one that can make a contribution. Still another has made comments that are unworthy of this House.

Nevertheless, the proposal we are discussing today should be supported. It should be supported because it refers to consultations with Canadians across the country. What I would like very much to know is the position of this political party and also of each political party on the Calgary declaration. Is it to early to decide on this issue? It is not too early however to tell others what they should be doing. I would like to say a few words on this today.

So obviously, our political parties differ, even if we agree more or less on the proposal that we are discussing today. There are a great number of differences on immigration, the role of aboriginal peoples in Canada, bilingualism and many other things. I could talk a lot longer on this, but the point to remember is that there are great differences, in all areas, and these will never disappear.

The meeting of Canada's premiers called for public consultations. This declaration is a good starting point for creating understanding about our country, about the needs of each region, and, of course, about the needs of Quebeckers. The Calgary declaration has the support of a great number of people throughout the country. It is true that there are people who are completely against it, and that is understandable. But many responsible people endorse this declaration.

It is important that the public discuss this proposal and talk about Canada, and that people gain a greater understanding of each province and territory, and, of course, of Quebec, which is often not well understood. Consultations are necessary because they might go beyond that in terms of creating a greater of understanding of who we are as a community. I am speaking about all the communities within the country. I believe they can promote pride.

We may come to realize that we must work more closely together to be stronger and more receptive to our various needs as citizens of a specific province, or as members of a specific linguistic, religious or cultural group.

I will now talk about certain principles. I will begin with equality. Let me share with you what a Canadian citizen told me. He said “This is a principle with which we cannot disagree, a principle recognized in section 15 of the 1982 Constitution Act. It is clearly stated that all Canadians are equal, regardless of sex, race, religion, social status or wealth. To state such a principle is in itself sufficient to demonstrate its validity”.

Some political parties—and, as I said earlier, I will try to restrain myself—will use something like the principle of equality to make other claims. The fact is that it has been in Canadian law for a very long time. The question is whether the principle is always applied fairly. We could probably find examples where it was not the case, but let us look at the big picture.

Let us look at the equality of provinces. There is but one legal status for the provinces. There are not six. A province is a province. None can pull rank on the others. We know that. Though equal they are nonetheless different, with their own economic, social, cultural and historical characteristics. Though equal the provinces are nevertheless differentiated from one another.

That is what some people misunderstand. They misunderstand it profoundly and they exploit it. They exploit it to their political advantage. As they do so they tear up the country. They are guilty of tearing up this country.

This country, which has supposedly done nothing for the last 30, 40, 50 years, is the envy of the world. It is number one on virtually everyone's list. Millions of people have come to it as quickly as they could.

Let us talk about other principles. Let us talk about diversity, tolerance, compassion and equal opportunities. Let us talk about how we could meet the needs of Aboriginal people, about how we could get them more involved. Let us not forget multiculturalism, which is an undeniable reality.

As stated in the declaration, respect for diversity and equality underlies unity. However, equality does not mean uniformity.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

This is what is not understood by a number of political parties, including the members who are yelling.

Again, the declaration states that respect for diversity and equality underlies unity, but equality does not mean uniformity. To reconcile the principle of equality with the great value of diversity, Canada can count on a political system which, thanks to its flexibility, promotes the enrichment of our collective heritage. No other example better illustrates this reality than the recognition of Quebec's unique character.

But what is this unique character?

[An hon. member]

These are just words.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

I heard someone say that these are just words. It is unfortunate that the member cannot read and understand the declaration. This is the problem. He did not take time to read the declaration or to understand it.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec East, QC]

Explain that.

[An hon. member]

Mike Harris?

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Yes, one person only. Let us take one person in one province only and let us pretend he knows the truth.

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

The Premier of Ontario.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Oh, what an effort you are making to understand.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Give us details.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

What an effort you are making to show how openminded you are, dear colleague.

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

The premier in Toronto understood.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

But allow me to continue. “In Canada's federal system”—and I will end on that point—“where respect for diversity and equality underlies unity, the unique character of Quebec society, including its French-speaking majority, its culture and its tradition of civil law, is fundamental to the well-being of Canada”.

I could go on, but unfortunately I am being interrupted. How undemocratic, don't you think?

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. Before going to questions and comments, I wish to inform the House that I have considered the amendment moved by the hon. member for Edmonton East, and I declare that it is in order.

Debate is on the amendment, therefore. The hon. member for Chicoutimi, for a comment or a question.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I think this debate clearly shows that as politicians we all have a professional interest in constitutional matters. We have not always made a very positive contribution. On the contrary, past failures can rarely be blamed on the citizens we represent, while, in many instances, politicians displayed a lack of responsibility for which we are still paying.

I am very surprised. I hope that the Liberal Party of Canada is in caucus, because its position is rather hard to understand: to accept and support a motion moved by a party with a not so glorious past, asking that we communicate with Quebeckers and consult them on something that is really incomplete. That is perfectly normal. We are in a phase where a process was put in motion and it is perfectly normal to take some precautions before getting everyone involved, before consulting a people, namely the people of Quebec, who were sorely disappointed in the Canadian federal system in the past.

While realizing that it is not good to dwell on the past, opportunities must always be sought to give people a chance to change their minds. But when we read what Preston Manning has written—the man who once said in passing, at the time of the Meech Lake failure: “I wish one of the western premiers would deliver the deathblow to the accord”—it is hard to conceive that he could change his position so quickly.

Given all the recent negative publicity about politicians in Quebec, it is asking a lot to support today's motion, which urges the government to consult Quebeckers.

The Liberal Party endorses a motion which is pure provocation for all our fellow citizens in Quebec and for all French-Canadians.

I wonder if my hon. colleague from the Liberal Party would support the withdrawal of the Reform Party motion out of respect for all Quebeckers and all French-Canadians, until such time as, hopefully, a proposal can be put forward that is substantial, takes into account Quebec's historical demands and stands a chance of gaining wide support.

If my hon. colleague could kindly tell us what he thinks of this idea, because the course we are on today is a collision course, which, far from helping the debate, is making it worse. Once again, it would be irresponsible for us as politicians to fast track something without being properly informed.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think everyone, including my colleagues from Quebec, know that I have enormous respect for Quebec. I always have. I speak French. I wear my culture with pride. I always have. I did not convert after I entered political life. It is not a matter of respect. Both I and my colleagues have respect.

What is happening today? It is true that the party that moved this motion does not have a glorious past on this issue. But there are members of this party who are trying. Trying to do what? To consult. To have Canadians understand what this is about. So, obviously I will support such a process. Why not? Why not give a chance to this new member, who could perhaps enlighten some of his colleagues who are not so enlightened, if we are to judge by the speeches today. We are talking about consultations.

I also asked this party about its position on the Calgary declaration. Ours is very clear. We support the consultation and we support Quebec's unique character. This is the party that introduced the motion we voted on in support of Quebec's distinct nature. Have people forgotten that? This is the party that did so.