Mr. Speaker, our party will be voting in favour of this motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Lost his last election, in 2006, with 29% of the vote.
Telecommunications Act November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, our party will be voting in favour of this motion.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 30 November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, our party will be voting against this motion.
Division No. 30 November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, we will be voting against this motion.
(Motion No. 1 agreed to)
Division No. 29 November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, we will be voting against this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 28 November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, we will be voting against this motion.
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Division No. 27 November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, members of our party will vote no on this motion.
Supply November 25th, 1997
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.
Distinct Society November 7th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the citizens of my region for having chosen to send me to represent them here in the Canadian Parliament.
I come from a proud region that has always asserted its nationalism. It is a region where nationalism has also developed in a rather sustained manner because we have always had to fight to be recognized by both the major levels of government, the one in Quebec and the one in Ottawa.
On every issue, whether it be large infrastructures, social matters or regional development plans, I can tell you that great effort is always necessary to be recognized and to be able to have a fair share of the benefits to which we are entitled.
As for the resolution by my colleague from the Reform Party, I know that it is an issue where it is quite easy to slip into inflated rhetoric. I will try to avoid this, knowing that you are a member of that party, although I think that you are capable of showing understanding and objectivity in an issue that is of interest in fact to the whole country and that can at some point involve the security of the population.
Speaking of the Reform Party, I must admit that the perception I had from the exterior when that party was first created was that it was perfect in all areas, from social issues to fiscal matters. Gradually, however, I realized that this is not exactly the case. When moving a party leader into a house costs the population $115,000, I must say that since these figures were published in the public accounts, in my region and through all my colleagues, I can assure you that the party has lost a lot of credibility in its consideration of both fiscal matters and constitutional matters.
We also remember its campaign, especially during the last two weeks when conciliatory advances were made to us after we had been excluded as Quebeckers during two full weeks, after the door had been shut completely on us as partners who are acceptable, who can make a rather comprehensive contribution to the future of our country.
In short, I think the Reform Party has a long hill to climb to return to its pristine state of old. They are realizing that as they wear out it is hard to put forward proposals for national reconciliation. This seems blatantly obvious to me.
Let us take a normal family, an ordinary family. Clearly we are all equal, but we are not all identical. What is true for a family is true for a country like ours. Certain collective rights must be defended. Our language, culture and legal system are collectively different from those of the rest of Canada. It is in the interest of Canadians to do everything possible to promote the protection and development of this unique, distinct culture and of this people, which should be allowed to continue as co-owner of Canada.
We are not asking for privileges. We are co-owners of this country. We will do everything to remain so.
I was listening to my colleague from the government. The problem in this case is that grandstanding is so easy that irresponsible politicians in this country have succeeded in spoiling the social climate.
Mr. Speaker, you are a reasonable man. Do you remember the Meech Lake accord in 1990? Our government was in power and Mr. Mulroney was the Prime Minister. God knows he cannot be blamed for working toward reconciliation.
At that time, 90% of Canadians were in favour of the accord. What was the result of interventions by certain former Liberal prime ministers and premiers, Clyde Wells and two or three others? A deterioration in our social climate, and a party like the Reform accentuates that negativity.
What has led to the degeneration of our social climate in this country is the irresponsibility of certain politicians and certain political parties; instead of working constructively, working in the best interest of all Canadians and the best interest of all Quebecers, they have preferred to stoop to partisan politics. I believe this is the situation in which we find ourselves at the moment.
It is such a bad situation that, should a committee be struck, I am not sure politicians should sit on it. Like everyone else in this House, I talk to ordinary people who must work every day to earn a living. I talk to cab drivers. I talk to my barber. I think these people, who are people like us outside the House of Commons, would very quickly find a solution.
What divides and separates us is very minor. A solution could be found very quickly. Unfortunately, when politicians decide to deal with this issue, they do so for partisan motives and I am convinced this is the problem in the constitutional debate.
Yesterday, I talked to people from the education community. They told me “Mr. Harvey, will they ever leave us alone? Will some people take their responsibilities and find a reasonable solution in a country where everyone deserves a chance to have his or her place in the sun”?
Over the last 30 years, considerable effort and money has been spent on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I am convinced—and you and I have discussed this on a few occasions—that we should not try to take advantage of a situation and not always think in terms of regional interests.
I ask Reformers to adopt a more comprehensive view of things. It is not true that their plan would succeed garner support from the 20 million people in eastern Canada, if it does not recognize the collective rights demanded by all Quebeckers and by the vast majority of Canadians. This issue deserves to be settled.
Our fellow citizens are asking politicians across the country to cool down and deal with real problems by using the right words. The worst enemies of the kind of partnership everyone wants are the extremists. The people in my riding in Quebec and elsewhere come to us with real issues, economic issues, social issues; they talk about roads. They want their politicians to improve their quality of live in a real, concrete way, without arguing endlessly about minor details.
It is not true that, as I heard someone say earlier, Quebeckers believe all Canadians are against them. It is not true that Manitoba farmers wake up at night thinking about their counterparts in Lac-Saint-Jean because they hate them so much. I do not believe that. This is a highly emotional debate fuelled by irresponsible politicians with regional interests. This is the great challenge facing Canada.
I repeat, if a committee were formed to help us, as Canadians, get back on track, I wonder whether members of Parliament would be the best candidates. I would rather see it composed of ordinary folks, people familiar with the real needs of Canadians. They would find a quick solution to this problem.
It has been my pleasure, on this Friday afternoon, to make my humble contribution to this debate about an issue of concern to the whole country.
Criminal Code November 7th, 1997
Madam Speaker, with all due respect for the office you hold, I would like to point out that it is absolutely impossible to reverse a ruling made by the Chair.
Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park Act November 4th, 1997
Madam Speaker, I would like to point out—I think I mentioned it—that several provincial and federal ministers worked on this project in succession and that they all did a very good job.
From 1985 to 1988, federal minister McMillan worked very hard on this project in cooperation with Mr. Lincoln, who was then Quebec's Minister of the Environment. Out of this came out the St. Lawrence action plan and the first millions of dollars to be invested in the national marine park project. Mr. Bouchard worked on the project in 1990, followed by Mr. Charest.
I think that today, we must pay homage to our Minister of Canadian Heritage. At the risk of infringing on our rules, I will use her name, Sheila Copps. She put the final touches on the bill. Those are the words she used this morning to officially confirm that the project is now official.
Many people worked very hard on that project and I am glad to be back in the House, if only to vote in favor of this great bill.