Paul Devillers

[Petitions, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present pursuant to Standing Order 36.

The first two petitions, containing 43 signatures each, request that the House adopt the private members' bill to provide in Canadian law that no criminal profits from committing a crime.

[Referendums, June 5th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, Motion No. 206 proposes that in the opinion of the House the government should establish conditions for secession.

The government has been persuaded that the hon. member introduced this motion with the best of intentions. The prospect of Quebec's separation, while not imminent, is certainly real. However, when he refers to the concept of distinct society as special privileges and refers to violence we fear that he shows the Reform Party's lack of understanding of the issue.

This past October 30, a majority of Quebecers said "no" to separation. Some of us hope that Canadians will not be confronted with the spectre of the secession of Quebec. Unfortunately, the Bloc Quebecois and its secessionist allies are the ones who refuse to recognize Quebecers' wishes.

Last month, Premier Bouchard stated in the National Assembly: "If Canada rejects our outstretched hand, if Canada wants to impose vetoes on us, wants to keep us within Confederation against our will, we will withdraw by proclaiming sovereignty unilaterally. We have the right to do so, and we are going to exercise that right". Premier Bouchard did us a favour when he made that statement because he made his true intentions very clear. We must take Mr.

Bouchard at his word. The Government of Quebec has matched this statement with legal action.

Premier Bouchard did us all a favour when he made that statement because he made his true intentions very clear. We must take Mr. Bouchard at his word. The Government of Quebec has matched those words with legal action.

Quebecer Guy Bertrand is a founding member of the PQ. Mr. Bertrand says he became convinced of the tolerance of Canada and the benefits for Quebecers within Confederation when he realized Canada would allow a separatist party to sit in the House as the loyal opposition. So convinced was he that he decided to take the Government of Quebec to court.

Mr. Bertrand hopes to force the provincial government to explain to Quebecers how Quebec could be taken out of Canada with only a magic wand and to expose this charade for what it is. The Government of Quebec is trying to have Mr. Bertrand's case dismissed.

The provincial government told the Quebec Superior Court that the Constitution of Canada would not apply if Quebec seceded. Canadian courts would have no jurisdiction. That is an extraordinary statement coming from the government of a Canadian province.

Consequently the government understands some of the thinking and shares some of the concerns expressed on these issues in the House and elsewhere. It understands why the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca drafted the motion we are debating today.

However, while the federal government understands and is facing these challenges it is at the same time committed to acting in the best interests of all Canadians.

The Government of Canada has made its position very clear. In the throne speech in February, we renewed before Parliament our commitment to rise to the challenge of Quebec secession resolutely and with renewed energy and commitment.

First and foremost, the government has put into place a true program of reform, a program that will be ongoing. Certain measures have, in fact, already been presented by the government and debated in this House, including the distinct society resolution, the regional veto, and the transfer of manpower training to the provinces.

However, given the long term objectives of Premier Bouchard, the federal government also promised that: "-as long as the prospect of another Quebec referendum exists, the Government will exercise its responsibility to ensure that the debate is conducted with all the facts on the table, that the rules of the process are fair, that the consequences are clear, and Canadians, no matter where they live, will have their say in the future of their country".

The federal government has shown its resolve in response to a reply to the motion filed by the PQ government in the Bertrand case.

Let me restate what the federal position is not. The federal government does not agree with Mr. Bertrand on many things. The federal government does not wish to interfere with the capacity of the provincial Government of Quebec to call a consultative referendum on any subject, including separation. The Minister of Justice and other have been very clear on this matter before the House and Canadians.

However, before the results of any referendum were used by a secessionist government as a political mandate to leave Canada, at a minimum the federal government would insist the question be clear and the consequences explained to voters. All participants in the debate among Quebecers would have to understand the fundamental consequences of their actions.

Were this mandate ever achieved, Quebec would not have a right to secede unilaterally. There is simply no legal foundation for this under either Canadian or international law. This is not new or a surprise. Quebec's own commissions and inquiries have been consistently told the same thing many times.

Some would argue so what, how can the law keep people in Canada? If the people speak, if the people choose, what is the law if not the will of the people? Would not a law seeking to deny people this fundamental right somehow be anti-democratic? That line of reasoning is deeply flawed. The rule of law is not an obstacle to change but provides a framework for change.

The rule of law would allow secession to take place in an orderly fashion and to preserve important protections for all. If we begin as governments or citizens to discard the rule of law what remains would be chaos where we make up the rules as we go along, where we set aside protections in the law, where at best we would enter into an unknown, and that is not what Canadians want and not action the federal government, any federal government, would ever support.

Canada cannot remain united if some of us say clearly, in response to a clear and fair question, that we want to leave Canada. After all, Canada is built on values of compromise and tolerance promoting our national identity.

Since 1867, we have shared the burdens and the joys of nationhood. We have gathered together the fruits of this country, which many describe as the best in the world.

In this same vein of tolerance and compromise, however, Canadians would insist that any secession would have to be by negotiation and not unilateral. This is the objection of the federal government and many Canadians to the route chosen to date by Mr. Bouchard and other secessionists.

Canada can be divided. It is certainly no prison. No one is forced to remain a Canadian or in Canada, but, at the same time, no one should have their rights denied arbitrarily, without due process of law. If Quebec were ever to secede, 30 million Canadians would expect, and no one would demand, that the governments would move beyond their differences, find a common ground and continue to create an environment favourable to all.

The hon. member's motion touches on some of these themes. It may even use the federal government's statements to date as inspiration, but Reform would go further and faster than the federal government chooses. The federal government has made its approach clear and it stands by those decisions.

[Ludwig Strah, June 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Ludwig Strah, a resident in my riding of Simcoe North, for his work as a volunteer with Canadian Executive Services Organization.

CESO is a non-profit, volunteer based organization which transfers Canadian expertise to businesses, communities and organizations in Canada and abroad.

As a volunteer with CESO International Services, Mr. Strah has put forth great efforts in Romania, helping a company which manufactures water treatment equipment, and in Ghana working with mining equipment.

Speaking on behalf of all Canadians, I commend Mr. Strah on is selfless efforts, helping the citizens of Romania and Ghana in rebuilding their countries.

[The Senate, June 3rd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, Motion No. 221, brought forward by the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, proposes that in the opinion of the House the government should abolish the Senate.

I am somewhat puzzled by the timing of the motion. Only a few weeks ago the hon. Leader of the Opposition was accusing the government of wasting its time and energy on issues not related to the concerns of citizens. Today we are asked to debate a motion for which there is little evidence, if any, indicating that Canadians wish to reopen this debate at this time.

Therefore, I do not see how such a radical reform could be contemplated without public participation. Various groups will argue that other issues are more pressing and should take precedence over the abolition of the Senate.

The areas of real concern for Canadians are economic growth, job creation, fairness, social justice, collective security and national reconciliation. This was made very clear in the Quebec referendum last October.

While the opposition party is putting forward such a proposal at the most inappropriate of times, we, on this side of the House, are concentrating on fulfilling our commitments. We have undertaken to build on our achievements and to focus on priorities such as employment, economic growth, the safety of Canadians and the renewal of the federation to strengthen national unity.

To achieve these goals the government has put forward a plan of action set out in the speech from the throne. The government intends to honour each commitment it made to the Canadian people in order to make our country work more efficiently and more harmoniously. It is obvious that the Bloc Quebecois has no interest in working for national unity and seeing our country work for the betterment of all its citizens, including Quebecers.

The motion brought forward today by the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup clearly demonstrates that building on the existing strengths of Canada and trying to find positive answers to concrete problems is not a priority for that party.

As my hon. colleague is well aware, there are four main areas in addition to other reforms to the working of government that are central to the government's plan of action and to national unity. The government intends to stick to its agenda for change as proposed in the throne speech. The upcoming first ministers' meeting will be an important opportunity to consider the priority issues with which Canadians want us to deal. Let me reiterate that the abolishing of the Senate is not a priority for Canadians.

Let me summarize for the benefit of the hon. member from the opposition the initiatives on which the government intends to focus and on which we will build at the first ministers' meeting.

First, the federal government has voluntarily limited its spending power in areas of provincial jurisdiction. We have announced that we have no intention of creating cofunded programs in areas of provincial jurisdiction without the provinces' co-operation.

This is something the provinces had been requesting for a long time. It is the first time in the history of our country that the federal government has limited its spending power outside the formal setting of constitutional negotiations. Our government is also responding to a need clearly expressed by our provincial partners.

Second, the government has undertaken to find new ways of co-operating with the provinces to maintain, regarding social programs, national standards with no strings attached and the guarantee not to implement them unilaterally. Once again, we will be acting on the basis of mutual consent. By operating this way, we will be fulfilling our obligation to maintain solidarity while at the same time respecting the provinces' autonomy.

Third, we will reduce duplication and overlap by withdrawing from areas where other stakeholders, be it the provinces, the municipalities, private corporations or non governmental organizations, are better able to take on the responsibility.

Again, this is an issue it has been working on with the provinces and this is why the federal government will withdraw from activities that are more appropriately the responsibility of the provinces, municipalities and other stakeholders.

The announcement made last Thursday by the hon. Minister of Human Resources Development is a concrete example of a priority issue to which the government was committed and which was delivered to the satisfaction of all parties involved. The minister sent all provinces and territories a labour market proposal offering them responsibility for all active employment measures funded through the employment insurance fund.

The provinces will be able to have their own employment programs including wage subsidies, income supplements, job creation partnerships as well as labour services like employment counselling and job placement. This is an example of practical and flexible federalism at work.

We are acting on our commitment of solidarity with the unemployed from coast to coast, while at the same time respecting the principle of local autonomy, whereby each province can develop local programs to meet local needs.

Finally, the federal government is committed to exercising a leadership role to strengthen Canada's economic union, promoting greater labour mobility and interprovincial free trade and, with the support of the provinces, building stronger institutions such as a single Canadian securities commission. These initiatives and other reforms are practical incremental changes that will enable us to make our federation more harmonious, more efficient, more adapted to the challenges we face in the 21st century.

Again, the first ministers meeting will be an important opportunity to consider ways to clarify the roles of government and to better promote our social and economic union. The government recognizes the need to take action to restore public confidence in institutions by getting government right.

Getting government right means modernizing federal programs and services to meet the needs of Canadians today and in the future. It means clarifying federal roles and responsibilities. It means strengthening the economy and economic union. It means enhancing social solidarity. It means pooling national resources to achieve common goals efficiently and effectively. It means protecting and promoting Canadian values and identity while celebrating Canada's diversity.

This is what Canadians want their governments to achieve by working together. Therefore the motion we are debating today is one that does not reflect the concerns of ordinary Canadians. Besides, the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup does not take into consideration the fact that for many Canadians the federal decision making process does not sufficiently take into account regional diversity and needs.

We know that regional representation is the basic structure of the Senate. Abolishing the Senate would not resolve the issue of regional representation.

We could debate the Senate issue for days and weeks without ever reaching a consensus. Again, this is the wrong time to raise this issue. Canadians have other concerns and priorities. As members of this House, we are responsible for seeing that their needs are met. That is why I think this motion should be voted down.

[Referendums, May 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to the acceptance of a 50 per cent plus one vote. A referendum is a consultation process and two have already been held in Quebec in the last 15 years. We accepted the results. The idea is definitely not to set a specific number. It is clear that the rights of 30 million citizens are at stake and that Canada will never be broken up by a 50 per cent plus one result.

[Referendums, May 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the government is very clear on these issues. Our plan is to promote reconciliation. We are trying to avoid another referendum.

Any discussion on what will happen if another referendum is held is purely academic. The government said in its speech from the throne that, as long as the prospect of another Quebec referendum exists, the government will exercise its responsibility to ensure that the debate is conducted with all the facts on the table, that the rules of the process are fair, that the consequences are clear, and that Canadians, no matter where they live, will have their say in the future of their country.

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to take the matter up with the parliamentary secretary and get back to the hon. member as early as next week.

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Transport, May 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) and in accordance with subsection 13(3) of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the annual report of the investigation board for the 1995 calendar year.

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), this report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.

[Government Response To Petitions, May 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present the government's response to several petitions.