Lost his last election, in 2008, with 16% of the vote.
Division No. 48 December 2nd, 1997
moved:
That the following new section be added to page 7 of Bill C-24, after line 23:
“21. Once the Bill comes into force, the union and its representatives are required to:
a) consult its members to achieve consensus on a new process of negotiation and ratification of the collective agreement; and
b) on the first anniversary of the Bill coming into force, the union and its leaders must present their consensus to the responsible minister”.
Division No. 48 December 2nd, 1997
Mr. Chairman, I think you now have at hand the three amendments put forward by the Conservative Party. We cannot pass 21, because there is an amendment to this motion. I think the government House leader would agree with me. If we were to pass Motion No. 21, the changes to the amendments would automatically fall through.
Supply November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I just have a brief comment. I hope our Liberal friends across the way have understood, following what Reform members said this morning, that they had better vote against the motion from the Reform Party if they want to keep some credibility in the constitutional debate.
My question is for the Reform member. He gave a poignant, perhaps interesting speech. About francophones, he said “Who cares?” I would like to answer that question. Reform certainly does not care, judging by its anti-francophone campaign during the last federal election. But I would like to ask him how he reconciles the fact he wants to abolish the Official Languages Act with the defence of francophones in Canada.
Supply November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, yes, I am in agreement with my leader. I campaigned with my leader because that is what I believed in. This letter basically repeats what was in our election platform.
The Calgary process is one that will hopefully evolve. As for the statements the Bloc Quebecois member attributed to my leader, yes, I am in agreement. If we could implement the points the member has quoted from the letter by the member for Sherbrooke, I think the country would perhaps be in better shape. The Bloc member knows very well that the position of my leader, the position of the Conservative Party in Quebec, is one of the most popular positions and one which has the potential to rally all Quebeckers. This is something the Bloc member knows, and that is why they do not want us to gain too much power in Quebec because they know that the next time they will be out the door.
Supply November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, what is surprising today, is that we have a motion from the Reform Party, at a time when there is a process under way that seems to be going well, but it is not making headlines, and Reform is once again stirring up trouble on this issue.
When a process starts to work well, the Reform Party has to stir up trouble. Now, we have learned that the government side will join them, and also the New Democrats.
We of the Conservative Party will be voting against this motion for several reasons. It harbours negative sentiments. It comes from the Reform Party, and in the House they make themselves look good, and so on, but when we discuss with them outside the House, we realize that they want nothing to do with Quebec and francophones. My colleague from Brandon—Souris will be speaking shortly on the real stance of the Reform Party on constitutional matters. They are skillful in political and parliamentary manoeuvring in the House, but outside of the House, over a coffee or other refreshments, we get to see the other side of the Reform Party, and now people will know what the Reform really stands for.
We cannot agree with this. The leader of a party cannot take on a new image within six months. During the election campaign, we saw what the Reform Party stood for. That same outlook is still here today, and the party structure is the same.
We are against this motion. It is not the time for such a motion. The process got under way in Calgary. For us, in any case, there are other ways to make this country work rather than with constitutional changes, with plans B, C, D, E or F. We proposed something different in our platform, a Canadian pact. In fact, the government will most likely borrow from this position during coming meetings.
We do not agree with this either and we are very surprised that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the minister who creates havoc each time the Constitution is mentioned, supports this proposal. He and his counterpart in Quebec are firing off letters to each other. They are writing an essay on federal-provincial non-relations, on how to ensure that these relations will not work. Now we are getting ready to go to the supreme court for a real bout of legal and constitutional squabbling.
Could we not come back to the basic principle of dialogue and action? We want a federalism that is efficient and sensitive. Other solutions can be found. We are ready to share these and to discuss them. Let us not attempt however to go to Quebec to talk about the Calgary process. Quebeckers are capable of reading and understanding what it is about.
I would like the Bloc Quebecois member who spoke earlier about the national commissions on Quebec's future to know that I was a commissioner. On constitutional matters, such as the Calgary declaration or the Meech Lake accord, ask Quebeckers to name the five conditions of the Meech Lake accord and few could do so. What they understand is that an attempt was made to keep the country together. So, we can let the Calgary process take its course.
In the meantime, let us try to give this country some real solutions. We are prepared to share our ideas, as I said earlier, including the Canadian pact. What is it? It involves—and the people in the Bloc Quebecois will be happy and we agree with them—respect for individual jurisdictions and an end to overlap and duplication. Our government is a centralizing government forever shoving its nose in others' business. The Reform Party now wants municipalities to come under the federal government. This is a real mess.
What we are saying is that, without a constitutional amendment—as our leader often points out—we can talk, meet others' standards and respect their jurisdictions, come to mutual agreements and, under the British parliamentary system, establish traditions that go on to become law. So let us try to get back to the real priorities.
The Reform Party tabled a motion this morning because they want to screw the whole thing up. They want to stop it from working. That is where the problem lies. Talk to Reformers, talk to certain MPs and their staff outside the House, and they will tell you that, for them, Canada means no Quebec, no francophones, no multiculturalism, no official languages. That is what the Reform Party is all about. Just look at their web site. The Reform web site is not even bilingual. Close to 50% of them are bilingual, and they want to be a national party. Forget it, it just will not work.
What we are proposing is to sit down together, respect jurisdictions, and make the country work on an administrative basis. Let us get back to bread and butter issues. People will not be able to explain what the Calgary declaration is, or what Meech Lake is, if they have no bread on the table.
Now I will give the floor over to my colleague from Brandon—Souris.
Supply November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, before beginning and with your leave, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to share my time with the hon. member for Brandon—Souris.
Supply November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, having myself been a mayor for 10 years, I have much in common with the hon. member, who spoke about the importance of municipalities. However, he mentioned in his speech that municipalities were the first order of government. I would remind him that, in the Constitution, the federal government, and not the municipalities, is the first order of government. However, I agree with him that it is the order of government closest to the people.
I would like to ask the hon. member if, in his opinion, constitutional changes indicating whether municipalities should come under provincial or federal jurisdiction are required. Does the hon. member think changes are required?
Smelting Industry November 5th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, earlier in the week, Magnola, a smelting company and a subsidiary of Noranda, announced the construction of a $720 million magnesium smelter in Asbestos. This project will create 1,000 jobs during the construction phase and 350 once the smelter is in operation.
As a result of this announcement, Quebec and Canada will become the second largest magnesium producer in the world.
Having held the office of mayor of Asbestos until June 2, I hasten to congratulate the people at Magnola, as well as all the players in the social and economic development of Asbestos.
This very good news does credit to the people of my hometown of Asbestos, my riding, my province, Quebec, and the country as a whole.
Customs Tariff October 24th, 1997
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Markham for allowing me to share his time.
The Conservative Party in fact is very proud to support Bill C-11. We are delighted that Liberals are today behaving like the Conservatives of yesterday. Nevertheless, we are surprised that the New Democrats of today are behaving like the Liberals of 1993. We hope that the miracle will continue and the people will understand that isolation is passé.
We do agree with this bill. For over ten years now the Conservative Party has been working on a process, and we must not forget that NAFTA was only part of it, to globalize Canada's trade. Quebec and, in large measure, Ontario most strongly supported the debate and the treaty in the 1980s, so that today, all provinces may enjoy increased trade through the free trade agreement.
However, as my colleague pointed out, the problem we have with people opposite is that there is no planning. Businesses are told to get ready because, in January, things will be made simpler. However, in fact, as my hon. colleague pointed out, the thickness of the document would indicate that people will not be ready by January 1.
As my colleague also pointed out, we are asking the government to be patient. This is a bit surprising for the Conservative Party, but we are asking the government to perhaps pay attention to the bill's wording. Even though we support the bill, we honestly believe that it should have been introduced much earlier in the previous legislature so that people could prepare for it. People in private industry in Canada, big and small business, are not aware of the government's position and are still waiting, with a bit of surprise, for the bill to fall on their heads.
So, as I was saying, NAFTA was good for the country and for Quebec. Now there are more treaties with other countries. That is why the Conservative Party will always support any bill that means that Canada and Quebec will not be isolated in the international marketplace, but will assume their rightful place.
I would also like to point out that it would be a good thing in this House if the government were to start being much more conservative, in the good sense of the word. I think that the gods must be smiling on us, because yesterday the Prime Minister said that the GST was a good thing. A tax is always heavily criticized, but in the end it was a good thing. It is now recognized that NAFTA was a good thing. However, there can be no doubt that the election of the Liberals in 1993 was a bad thing. But this will surely get sorted out with time.
As for Bill C-11, it is extremely complex. It is, however, a step in the right direction. We hope that it will benefit all import businesses in Canada.
We must not be afraid of isolating ourselves. Our New Democratic friends worry about this. The hon. member of the NDP gave the example of western forests. Western forests were being cut down and the logs sent outside the country, only to come back in as finished products. I would like to explain to my hon. colleague that Quebec imports wood from the United States, processes it and sells it back to the Americans. International treaties must therefore be examined as a whole and international trade looked at much more globally.
Nor should it be said that only large corporations have benefited from NAFTA. Ten years ago, there were fears that textile companies, in Quebec for example, would take a terrible beating. They had to adapt quickly, and today Quebec's textile companies are among the province's largest exporters.
What we are saying, therefore, is that the tens of millions of dollars that will be saved will result in our being much more competitive. Here again, the government has a problem. They are helping companies save money, using the argument that the economy has to make a better recovery, that we must help our businesses. However, this is just one point of view, the issue of imports. What we are saying is that there are also other ways of helping businesses. We are prepared to support Bill C-11, but we are also prepared to support, and have always supported, a reduction in employment insurance contributions, among other things.
So, if all these objectives could be combined, Canadians and Quebeckers as a whole could benefit. Slowly but surely, this government is learning, and we hope that will continue to be the case.
We are proud to support Bill C-11 and any bill, as I was saying earlier, that means that Quebec and Canadian businesses can benefit from the globalization of markets.
Rcmp Investigations October 20th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, thanks to the efforts of the Conservative opposition, a public statement was made on October 1, confirming that an investigation into allegations of influence peddling was indeed under way.
Last week, charges were laid by the RCMP—a very serious business. Unfortunately, there is a missing link in all this: Who gave the information to the person who was charged? The missing link could be sitting across the way.
In order to preserve the integrity of this government and this House, I would ask the President of the Treasury Board whether he can confirm before this House that no employee of his Montreal office was interrogated by the RCMP or directly linked to the investigation.