Stephen Harper

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada, May 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve and I thank him and his party for their participation in this debate.

I have observed two positions in the discourse of members of the Bloc Quebecois. The first is support for the results of referendums, particularly in this case, and the second is almost unconditional support for the rights of francophones outside Quebec. I must examine both these positions.

If there is a referendum outside Quebec on the status of French or the rights of francophones, and the result is in favour of change, will the Bloc Quebecois accept the results of this referendum or will it say that referendums affect only the rights of others and not those of francophones?

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada, May 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as the Reform Party's critic for intergovernmental affairs it is my responsibility to respond to the government's request to pass a constitutional resolution on Term 17 of Newfoundland's terms of union in Confederation.

The terms of union were established when Newfoundland entered Confederation in 1949. Generally, the provision of the terms covered a wide range of issues, including education, social rograms and such things as the margarine trade, which were of vital importance to the new province at the time of Confederation.

Specifically, Term 17 guaranteed powers to various religious denominations for the administering of education in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. There was, prior to Confederation, a long tradition of denominational education in the province.

There have been some changes to the system over the years. In 1969, on their own, several Protestant denominations consolidated their efforts by creating what is known as the integrated school board. In 1987 Parliament and the Newfoundland legislature specifically amended Term 17 to grant to another denominational group, the Pentecostal Assemblies, the same rights and privileges that were in the original terms of union that we are debating today.

Nevertheless, in spite of these changes, today there remains a large number of school systems and school boards in the province of Newfoundland. There are no fewer than four school systems and twenty-seven school boards throughout what is one of our smaller provinces.

In 1992 the province of Newfoundland and Labrador appointed a royal commission to look into education issues. It recommended changes to the structure of the current system. For several years deliberations have been ongoing between the denominational school boards and the provincial government to negotiate changes. Unfortunately a final agreement on all matters has not been reached.

The motion before us will allow the Government of Newfoundland to proceed to make some changes without additional lengthy, difficult and possibly fruitless discussions. Nevertheless I want to add that as parliamentarians representing other provinces we regret that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has not been able to resolve this matter and bring it to a satisfactory conclusion among all the parties.

Section 43 is being invoked to pass this amendment. The House will know that section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982 requires constitutional amendments affecting only a particular province to be passed by the assembly of that province, in this case the Newfoundland Assembly, and also the federal Parliament, both the House of Commons and the Senate, although the Senate's power over this is only of a suspensive nature.

As parliamentarians representing not Newfoundland in this case but other parts of the country, the Reform Party takes the role of Parliament in the section 43 amendment procedure very seriously. It is not in our view our job to merely rubber stamp constitutional change because it comes from one particular province. We are entrusted with a job to examine the impacts of the changes and decide what course of action is best from the federal perspective. In

so doing, the Reform Party caucus has examined the wide range of issues and interests involved in this question.

It is not our intention, nor is it our desire, to see the federal government or federal political parties run the education system in Newfoundland and Labrador or in any other province, particularly when we all know that the administering of these systems are and will require in the future very difficult decisions to be made locally.

Instead, as parliamentarians, we have focused our attention on two issues. First, was sufficient effort made by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to obtain democratic consent for the changes that are being proposed today? Second, are the questions of rights protection and minority rights-we are talking about denominational or faith based education-being done in a way that would be broadly consistent with or acceptable to other parts of the country?

These are difficult questions, all the more so for those of us who believe very strongly in the importance of separate and religious education in Canada and who recognize the central and important role, and I think very beneficial role, that is made up education today by Catholic schools and Catholic education in particular across the country.

As Reformers we have been very serious about the fact that governments, in particular when it involves constitutional change, should make broader efforts to encourage democratic participation and consensus in major government constitutional decisions. We believe this is important to increase the legitimacy and acceptance of our foundation constitutional documents but also that broad participation of the public in such decisions improves the quality of those decisions.

It should be pointed out that under section 43 of the Constitution Act, the Newfoundland government was not required to go beyond a mere vote of the legislature in order to resolve this issue or to present it to this Parliament. All that was required was a resolution of the Newfoundland House of Assembly. In fact, the Newfoundland House of Assembly has held at least two votes. It held a vote on the main resolution we are presented with today, a vote in which the major parties allowed freedom of expression and in which there were dissenters in each of the major political parties. Nevertheless the vote passed in the legislature by a clear majority. As well, there has recently been a unanimous resolution asking the governments of Newfoundland and Canada to proceed with these changes.

Although it was not required by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador by constitutional law, the government did hold a referendum on the issue of constitutional change with respect to term 17. That referendum was held on September 5 of last year. At that time the people of Newfoundland voted in favour of revising term 17 along the lines proposed by the government by a majority of 54.7 per cent, although admittedly the turn out for that referendum was low.

Newfoundlanders are familiar with referendums. A referendum got them into Confederation in the first place. There were two referendums, one on June 3, the other on July 22 of 1948, in which Newfoundlanders were asked to determine their future. This led to an eventual decision to join Canada. The eventual decision was also by a narrow margin.

In our examination of the procedures followed in Newfoundland the majority of our caucus is satisfied that Newfoundland held the referendum in good faith in accordance with normal electoral law and referendum practice that would be acceptable in other parts of the country.

With regard to the use of referendums and the position of the Bloc Quebecois, I have one comment to make. Some separatists believe that the willingness of the Canadian government to accept the result of the Newfoundland referendum means that the same should apply to Quebec after a future referendum on sovereignty. I must point out that the premier of Newfoundland and his government have abided by the legal process and recognized the specific role of the Canadian Parliament in this matter. We expect the same from the Quebec government and its premier. So far, it has been exactly the reverse, they have been acting unilaterally, even illegally.

The Reform Party will not accept this constitutional amendment and the referendum result as a precedent, unless the Quebec government is willing to accept the rule of the law and the constitutional process, the role of the Canadian government and other legislatures and, in so doing, the rights of all Canadians, as did the Newfoundland government.

It is a totally different situation, particularly in the attitudes of two governments, in the attitude of the Government of Newfoundland compared with the Government of Quebec on its own constitutional agenda.

I turn to the second consideration, denominational education, in particular whether what the Government of Newfoundland is proposing is consistent with national standards and the rights of practices across the country.

Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 established basic protection for minority religious education, at that time largely Catholic education in the three English speaking provinces and Protestant education in the province of Quebec. As various provinces have been admitted to Confederation there have been, in most cases, equivalent terms established in the Constitution Act for

section 93 in all of the provinces. There are terms established for Alberta under the Alberta Act.

Across the country there are over five million students enrolled in full time elementary and secondary schools. They are served by over 15,000 schools according to figures from 1990-91. The Constitution Act, 1867 placed education exclusively under the control of each provincial legislature. This was later confirmed by the Constitution Act, 1982.

Canada therefore has 10 provincial education systems plus those of the territories. There are considerable differences among them and there are some similarities. In particular, there is the broad rights protection provided under section 93.

Funding required by school boards for provincial or territorial coffers varies widely. For example, as a percentage of total school board revenues the portion provided by a province varies from a low of 40 per cent in Ontario to a high of 100 per cent in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.

Several provinces provide tax support to school boards organized on a denominational basis. School acts in Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Northwest Territories give such support for elementary and secondary education in both public and separate, or in the case of Quebec dissentient, school boards.

A non-sectarian public education system operates in Manitoba, British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Price Edward Island. I note the British Columbia government does provide some funding to religious schools and denominational education does exist. In Yukon both public and Roman Catholic schools receive tax support.

In the view of the majority of the Reform caucus the revisions to term 17 do not destroy the rights to religious education in Newfoundland and Labrador. As I just mentioned, in comparison with other provinces and territories, the changes to term 17 will not create a situation out of line with the other provinces. That is very generous considering the practices in some provinces.

From section (a) of the new term 17, let me quote: "That except as provided for in the new administrative structure, schools established, maintained and operated with public funds shall be denominational schools, and any class having rights under this term as it read on January 1, 1995 shall continue to have the right to provide for religious education, activities and observances for the children of that class in those schools, and the group of classes that form when integrated schools system by agreement in 1969 may exercise the same rights under this term as a single class of persons".

Section (b) of the proposed term allows for the establishment of new schools on both a non-denominational and a denominational basis and the provision of these schools to receive public funds.

Section (c) provides for the right to religious education in all aspects of denominational schools, including not only religious education but a say in the religious element of the curriculum in other aspects of the program and control over teaching staff in these areas.

Section (d) provides for non-discriminatory allocation of public funds among denominational groups on a non discriminatory basis.

Section (e) allows that on the new school boards to be established by the government, two-thirds of the representatives will be denominational representatives or representatives elected to represent specific classes of persons, although the overall school board will be organized on a multi-denominational basis or on a uni-confessional basis.

Where does the new term 17 differ enough from the practices that went on before? From all indications Newfoundland and Labrador will continue to have denominational schools; broadly speaking, a denominational school system within the larger framework. The right to religious education is in no way removed.

The doubts about these changes happening to term 17 occur where the wording states "subject to provincial legislation that is uniformly applicable to all schools specifying conditions for establishment or continued operation of schools".

Education in every province and territory is subject to provincial legislation. This clause does not make the issue exceptional but instead makes it rather ordinary in terms of the practices of other provinces.

I reiterate the official position of my party on these two questions, both the democratic consent and the process by which Newfoundland adopted this position and also the general standards of rights and freedoms to denominational education as we know it across the country. In evaluating those two positions the clear majority of the Reform caucus is in support of this amendment and is supported as the official position of the Reform caucus.

As this is a sensitive and controversial issue that involves a wide range of conflicting interests, interpretation of specifics and questions of conscience, the Reform leader has made it clear this will be subject to a free vote when it is voted on in Parliament. On ordinary business of Parliament Reform MPs enjoy substantial and unprecedented latitude in expressing and voting their political views and those of their constituents.

I am glad to see that in both Newfoundland and in the position taken by the Liberal government, the government is finally showing some movement in this direction not only toward free voting in the House but toward accepting the practice of consulting the people and having referendums on constitutional change.

[Goods And Services Tax, May 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is trying to take credit for some economic growth and trying to pretend that there is not one set of arrangements for some provinces and one for others.

This ill-conceived plan for harmonizing the GST has at least managed to bring about some national unity. We have had the uniting of the premiers of Ontario and Quebec, not to mention the Governments of Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan in opposition to the federal government.

Premiers Harris and Bouchard, who are not finance ministers, they are premiers, want the issue of GST harmonization, compensation and reduction on the table at the upcoming first ministers' conference. Will the GST be on the agenda of the first ministers at their meetings in June?

[Goods And Services Tax, May 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as has been pointed out, the premiers of the two largest provinces have said that they are opposed to the new Liberal GST.

They are looking for a 1.5 per cent reduction in taxes in Ontario and Quebec to compensate for the $1 billion payoff to Liberal premiers in Atlantic Canada. They believe that Quebec deserves compensation for harmonizing its provincial sales tax in 1992. Alberta has made similar requests.

Will the government be acting on these requests? Will it continue to have one policy for its friends, the Liberal premiers of Atlantic Canada, and another policy for the other provinces?

[Financial Administration Act, May 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak to the motion put forward by the hon. member for St. Albert, a member of the public accounts committee. He has gone to some considerable work since his election to bring forth a series of bills and motions to improve the process of accountability with respect to money in government, specifically accountability of government departments and agencies to the House of Commons. This is one example.

Last year I had the pleasure to debate another rejected idea he put out, to have a more established system of program evaluation. I will read the motion before the House today:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should introduce amendments to the Financial Administration Act requiring all departments and agencies to table in the House of Commons a specific response to the auditor general's report on their activities, including time frames within which corrective action will be taken regarding any shortcomings or failures of administration identified by the auditor general; and such reports should be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and to any other relevant standing committees.

This sounds like something we would want to endorse. The auditor general is an officer of the House of Commons. He must report annually to the House on improper money management, improper records maintenance, non-approved expenditure and program inefficiency.

Every year we spend $50 million so the auditor general can fulfil this mandate. However, when the report of the auditor general is tabled in the House, every chapter is automatically referred to the public accounts committee. If the public accounts committee cannot pursue the matter specifically the chapter is often overlooked.

As has already been pointed out, in the 1994 report of the auditor general there were 34 chapters, but only 4 received a response from the government in last year's budget. This year, of 27 chapters in the auditor general's report, only 1 was addressed in annex 1 of the budget plan. It would seem there is some reasonable need to assure this process is being followed and followed up.

We all suffer our various purgatories here. The hon. member for St. Albert's is to be a Scotsman and an accountant, a deadly combination at the best of times but particularly deadly when dealing with issues of Canadian politics and government spending. Obviously that combination goes in an entirely different direction.

When I listened to the debate today it is one of those days where I wonder why we are here, specifically what I am doing here. Before I spoke today I looked at the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board on this motion, who is normally a very competent and genial member of Parliament representing the constituency of Bruce-Grey where most of my maternal relatives reside.

He made the following observations. I quote selectively from his speech because I think it summarizes the position of various government members:

I do not need to remind my fellow members that the auditor general himself follows up every two years on the progress and recommendations. I am positive that all members would agree the office of the auditor general must be diligent in reporting on the efficiency of the Canadian government operations. Do we want to undermine the efforts of his office by attempting to duplicate this work?

During this time of fiscal restraint, while we are trying to achieve maximum efficiency with a modicum of resources, we should consider as we debate this motion whether it will be cost effective.

It does not matter whether it is the government, a business, a municipal government or any organization that handles funds, it is the way in which one does business. It is the efficient way in which one does business and not the amount of paper and the reporting that makes the business function or makes it efficient.

In other words, we have this process, we know what it is, we have heard some descriptions today. The auditor general makes a report on inefficiency. The public accounts committee can study it and return its report to the auditor general or to the House. The auditor general will follow his own recommendations.

We can bring it up in question period when we get these erudite explanations of government management and administration. We are to believe that all this is getting directly to the government department itself, which is the one thing left out of all this process I am describing. It was called by the previous Liberal speaker the circle of accountability, whether we want to put more elements in the circle.

Is it a circle of accountability or is it the run around? Is it the non-circle or is it the circle of non-accountability and never getting any answers?

I know hon. members come in and read canned speeches the government provides them, all with the same lines but with some different quotes to justify non-action.

One hon. member said the auditor general's report must be fully followed and must be given all the legitimacy it requires because after all we do spend $50 million; the very fact we spend money must mean we are spending right.

In going on with these canned speeches, the hon. member said that worrying about these kinds of details and worrying about whether or not the departments actually have a report and have taken action themselves that they can demonstrate, we are really unable to see the forest for the trees.

Since we are all in the habit of making silly quotes for the sake of making a point, let me make one which brings together the whole issue of the forest and the trees: "It looks more like a sycamore to me". That is a quote about the forests and the trees. It comes from Yogi Bear who said that as the sycamore fell on his head. The reason I raise that is if we want to talk about losing the forests for the trees and we want to talk about too much paper, maybe there is too much paper in some of these canned speeches.

More important, there is too much paper out there as we float $450 billion in federal government bonds in international and national bond markets. That is the too much paper we should be worrying about around here; $450 billion which we are now only increasing at the rate of $25 billion to $30 billion a year in paper, enough to cut down several of Yogi's forests without any doubt. That is $25 billion to $30 billion a year plus, I will add just so nobody thinks that I am understating the problem, the other $100 billion in various specified purpose account liabilities, plus another $500 billion in the unfunded liability of the Canada pension plan, which the hon. member for St. Albert has tried unsuccessfully to get the government to account for in its formal document.

I hear comments that they are trying to get a specific answer to a specific problem; that they are trying to get a report; that the agency affected is to report directly on what it did wrong; and that they are trying to add that element of accountability. I hear the comment that it is adding too much bureaucracy. This reminds me of several instances in life.

It is the same as taking my car into the mechanic because it is not running properly. The mechanic gives me a report stating what is wrong. I ask him exactly what it is he will do to fix it and how much it will cost and he tells me not to bother him with all that bureaucracy.

It is the same as if I were to tell a doctor that I think I have some terrible illness. My arm, my leg or whatever hurts. I ask him to tell me what is wrong. The doctor runs all kinds of tests. I ask him what he is going to do and he tells me not to bother him with all that bureaucracy.

We are suggesting that there is a purpose here. We are not suggesting that there be reports for the sake of having reports. We have already spent $50 million to find out what is wrong, now let us find out if anything was done about it. That is the point we are trying to make. I will add a couple of topical illustrations where this would help.

Various changes are needed in Revenue Canada to capital gains legislation relating to family trusts. In the last few days in this House there have been discussions that some prominent Canadians have managed to shift billions of dollars out of the country in their family trusts. In other words they have avoided taxes and specifically capital gains taxes. There were lots of questions on whether that was fair in the way it was done.

We were told by the minister of revenue, who seems terribly flustered by all this, that the government will act quickly on the auditor general's recommendations but it really all occurred under the previous government. The problems were known for years but the government was never actually sure whether anything was done about them. That is precisely why the member for St. Albert is proposing this motion.

Another example is that in the past the auditor general has specifically called for discussions not just on deficit targets, as the government has no long term deficit targets, but that there be discussions on debt levels and appropriate debt to GDP ratios and what can be sustained in the medium and long term. This happens to be one of the few areas where I do have some expertise. This is a very important question. It is the critical question in terms of the long term financial health of the country. However, the last budget contained virtually no mention whatsoever of our enormous debt levels, let alone long term and medium term debt targets.

I say all these things to point out that there is a need for it. There is a need to add this additional reporting requirement to ensure that the $50 million we spend on the auditor general office is followed up and that we know specifically what has happened.

I would also point out, in spite of my frustration and sarcasm today, that this is a non-partisan motion. It does not aim at any specific government department or agency. It is something every member should be supporting. I hope the government members will put away their canned speeches, send them back to Yogi in the forest, so that we can get on with having some accountability for government money.

[Supply, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this is not an easy question. We suggested reforms to the federal system and I note two things. The Prime Minister made commitments for reform during the referendum campaign but he did not have a mandate from the rest of Canada to do so. Moreover, do not forget that it was Lucien Bouchard himself who spoke about a partnership with the rest of Canada. This was his basic platform during the last referendum campaign.

To have a partnership you need partners. A partnership is negotiated among partners. It is impossible even for the sovereignist movement to go on with its own plan without negotiating or getting the consent of the rest of Canada.

[Supply, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as a federalist reformer, I have said several times that we do recognize the need to overhaul the federal system.

That, by itself, cannot explain the influence of the sovereignty movement, because there is also dissatisfaction with the federal system in Western Canada, although there is no sovereignty movement. Of course, the situation is different over there.

I agree that the message the Prime Minister sent during the referendum campaign was a factor in the increased support for sovereignty. What I am saying is that if Quebecers had voted No, they would have obtained nothing. It would have meant the status quo, of course, the end of everything, but no reform and no promises.

In his speech in Verdun, the Prime Minister said that if Quebecers were to vote No, they would get some constitutional concessions, and that a Yes vote would not be dangerous since separation would never occur.

With messages such as these, we can easily explain, I think, why the undecided voted Yes. I hope we can change things around, but it will not be easy. We will try to convince Quebecers of two things: first, that the federal system can be significantly changed for all Canadians, and second, that sovereignty will not change the important stuff and will not be in the best interest of the province of Quebec.

[Supply, May 16th, 1996]

But the same thing holds true for Quebec. Even if separatists are applauding, it is just the same for Quebec. If a large proportion, if millions of Quebecers vote no, that political reality cannot be ignored in the separation process, and that is why there is a partitionist movement. That is a reality.

I am surprised the member finds this shocking. Of course Canadians want to keep their country together. They do so on the assumption that all Canadians want to be a part of this country. We have been told for years, and I think the majority of Canadians believe it, that in spite of the separatist movement and its power the majority of Quebecers want to remain Canadians.

However, if the majority of Quebecers express themselves in a democratic referendum and make it absolutely clear they do not want to be Canadian, it will change the attitudes in the rest of the country.

If we have intelligent leadership that cares about the interests of the rest of the country, we will then negotiate sovereignty in a way that is quick, peaceful and in the best interests hopefully on both sides but particularly in the best interests of Canada.

We will not go to the barricades and have civil strife and unrest so that we can keep a bunch of Liberals sitting in power in Ottawa.

[Supply, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this position is in no way different from the one I have expressed in the past, even on national television. I am saying that we have to abide by the rule of law and the democratic will. If a majority of Quebecers vote for separation, it will be impossible to ignore that reality.

[Supply, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to begin my speech by noting that the government has passed up its own first slot in terms of speaking in this debate. Obviously it wants to gauge what all the parties are going to do before it has a position. This is fairly typical of the government and on this particular question it is totally irresponsible. Let me make that absolutely clear.

The motion states that the House recognize or adopt as its own the statement by the Prime Minister in 1985: "If we do not win, I will respect the wishes of Quebecers and let them separate". I draw the attention of the House to the French version which reads "will accept separation".

I am rising today on behalf of my party to oppose this motion. However I do want to thank the official opposition for bringing this motion before the House for a couple of reasons. It will allow some frank discussion of what is an important subject. There should be a clear communication between Quebecers and other Canadians on this. I also thank the official opposition for drawing the attention of the House to the inconsistencies of many Quebec federalists on these matters, particularly the inconsistencies of the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister's position on these kinds of issues over the year has been an absolute mishmash of confusion. During the referendum itself he said, as has been pointed out, that the referendum result would be irreversible and that it would lead to separation. Then he also insisted that separation could never actually happen. He even suggested it would never be tolerated.

The Prime Minister has said recently that he opposes a unilateral declaration of independence. Then of course there is the aforementioned quote and others which suggest he would be open to accepting it. There is a pattern by the Prime Minister in particular of very dangerous vagueness, of a lack of clarity and outright contradiction on a subject that probably more than any other subject before the House requires absolute precision.

Instead, over the years, when it comes to relations between Quebec and the rest of Canada, between English Canadians and French Canadians, we have seen from many traditional federalists dishonesty, vagueness and the outright manipulation of political and ethnic symbols. Probably the best example of that is the entire debate on the distinct society clause, which I hope to address in my remarks today.

The history of contradiction and mixed messages reached a dangerous crescendo in the last referendum. The Prime Minister was asked by the leader of the Reform Party at the beginning of the campaign whether he would take the results of the referendum seriously, whether he would recognize that the vote would be either yes or no, one way or the other. The term was 50 per cent plus one. The leader of the Reform Party also asked if the Prime Minister would recognize that the vote had important and lasting consequences.

The Prime Minister, who only days before had said the vote was irreversible, in a sudden about face refused to give a straight answer to that question. Instead he attacked the leader of the Reform Party saying that it would be irresponsible to break up the country on a single vote, et cetera. He went on to suggest that he would not even recognize a vote to separate under any circumstances, although of course he was vague on that.

That was a very interesting response. It set the tone for the entire referendum campaign. It is so typical of the way the Quebec Liberals have handled this debate. In making that kind of an answer he was, as he always is, deliberately sending mixed messages to an English speaking audience and to a French speaking audience.

In English speaking Canada he was taking the position that the country was indivisible, that it was certainly not divisible by this tiny vote and that he would stand up against it. He would stand up against the Bloc and the Reform Party to ensure that the country stayed together. However, in French Canada he sent a very different message. The message was that voting for separation really would have no consequences. It was a message that undermined the entire federalist campaign. As we know, every street corner in Montreal had a sign that said "separation". All of a sudden they could vote yes and there would not be separation.

It ultimately led to the Prime Minister's complete about face at the end of the campaign. Far from waging a campaign simply against separation in Verdun, he began to make all kinds of promises about constitutional and other changes. Actually, he did

not promise constitutional change, as he has pointed out. He sort of hinted at it. He was actually just promising change, but he wanted people to think it was constitutional change. Then he tried to get out of that after the referendum. That is his pattern of behaviour.

More important and something the Prime Minister still does not seem to realize is that he sent a mixed message on both sides of the question. It is impossible for him to get up and say that he does not recognize 50 per cent plus one, without sending the message that he does not recognize it either way. When in the end, the result was a very small victory for the no side, the Prime Minister's message that small votes do not count meant that he had snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. It is not surprising that no one accepts the result of the referendum as final. He himself said it was not, especially when it was by a small majority.

The contradictions do not end there. Since the last referendum the Prime Minister has made a statement to the Government of Quebec which does reflect the views of Canadians both inside Quebec and outside Quebec. He said that the Government of Quebec should forget about sovereignty, get on with the economy and respect the results of two referendums which have rejected sovereignty. I would agree with that.

However, the Prime Minister himself insists on resurrecting elements of his own constitutional agenda which have been twice rejected. The distinct society clause was rejected in Quebec and outside of Quebec in a national referendum on the Charlottetown accord. In the case of the Meech Lake accord, it was rejected without a referendum vote because nobody in the Conservative government would even dare put that to a referendum. It is important to note it was rejected in the Liberal leadership race by the Prime Minister himself who ran against it and got elected by being against it. He now wants to resurrect it. It is absolutely incredible. And we wonder why there is mistrust among Canadians on subjects like this one.

The government has intervened in the Bertrand decision, the case that brought this matter to the fore. My party and I have said that we support the intervention on the narrow issue that the Minister of Justice is intervening on. That is the issue that the Constitution and Canadian law must be respected and do have a role to play in any process of secession by a province. Even here there are contradictions.

I asked the Minister of Justice, what is the precise role laid out by the Constitution? What is the process of separation which they are defending? He said that he did not know. Experts have different opinions, the government has none. There is a role for the Constitution although we do not know what it is.

It is even more contradictory than that. I asked the government this very question in October 1994. I posed questions to the then Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who is now President of the Treasury Board, on October 17, 1994. On October 19, 1994 during the adjournment debate, I received an answer from the then parliamentary secretary which contained this statement: "The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, for whom I am answering, believes that the Constitution acts do not provide any rules or procedures for secession of one of the provinces".

In other words, the government then had a position which was almost identical to the position of the Government of Quebec: that the Constitution is silent on these matters, and it is a political question. If we read the rest of the answer that is precisely what the government stated, although now it has changed its position. It has changed its position to the correct position, nevertheless it has changed its position once again.

Yesterday the leader of the Reform Party moved a motion in the House to assert that this House will not recognize a unilateral declaration of independence. Unbelievably, I was asked by members of the press why we would possibly want this motion moved and voted on. It is for the simple reason that this government and the Prime Minister cannot stick to a line on this issue for more than a month. That is why. Let us get it on the record.

My view reflects the fact that I believe there is a serious split in cabinet on the entire issue. It is not a split only between soft liners and hard liners. It is a split between certain ministers from Quebec and certain ministers from the rest of Canada who I will not name.

It is a dangerous game. We have had this problem from the Quebec Liberals, not only federally but provincially, for some years. They want to take a position that is federalist and pan-Canadian, but only from Quebec's perspective. It is the dangerous game of being very unsure whether we defend the rights of Canada as a country and as a nation.

That is why we have, as we see once again this week, Mr. Johnson in Quebec City and the Quebec Liberal Party constantly being led into position where they are parroting the constitutional framework of the Parti Quebec, the framework of self-determination.

This has led particularly to the Quebec Liberals and traditional federalists in Quebec putting all their eggs in the basket of the distinct society clause. This in itself is a perfect example of why we have misunderstanding and distrust in this country.

It is a nationalist slogan. What would be the purpose of putting the distinct society clause in the Constitution? The purposes are unspecified. When we say it means special status, the government

says it does not mean special status. When we amend it to make it clear that it does not mean special status, the government says it would have no legal weight. We ask would it unify the country. Yes, but it would be a first step. A first step to what?

The basic reality is, as we have seen so many times with this issue, that when we are speaking in French in Quebec, the distinct society clause means everything. When we are speaking in English outside Quebec, the distinct society clause means nothing.

In the process Quebec federalists repeat in effect the very assertions of the separatist movement that Quebec's language, culture and civil code have never been recognized in Canada. That is absolute nonsense. Nevertheless it is the very basis on which the proposal for the distinct society clause is made.

Let me move to our position. It is clear. As Reformers, we would not accept simple separation on a simple majority vote. We voted on this issue in the House in December 1994 when we voted on the concept of self-determination. Only a few months ago we had a debate on whether Quebecers constituted a people under international law and therefore possessed the right to self-determination.

In both cases we took the position that Quebec does not have a unilateral right to separate on its own terms. This has always been our position. We took that position consistently.

At that time the government in those votes and debates also took that position. It is important for English Canadians to understand that the Progressive Conservative Party has not taken that position. It has taken the opposite position. It has consistently skipped debates and votes whenever that issue has arisen.

Although we do not accept a referendum result in Quebec as a mandate to separate, we accept it as a mandate to negotiate separation. We would expect the federal government to respond in good faith. We would go farther. Canadians, including Quebecers, are fooling themselves if they believe a yes vote would lead to anything other than separation.

It would begin an inexorable path that would lead to separation in one form or another. We would maintain one probably not satisfactory to either Quebec or to the rest of Canada. It would probably damage our interest. Nevertheless it would lead in that direction.

We have also made clear that we would accept majority rule as the basis for that mandate to negotiate. No other position will really be tenable as a practical political matter.

Let me make some reference to the last referendum. I would qualify it to this degree. In the last referendum the Government of Quebec was measuring 50 per cent plus one. It was measuring a majority as a majority of the valid votes cast.

We say a majority should be measured as a majority of all votes cast. In other words, a majority cannot be attained through the elimination of ballots or through invalidating ballots. That must never be allowed to happen. The majority must be absolutely clear in the sense that it must be a majority of all votes.

Let us recognize the political realities. We know the demographics in the province of Quebec. The majority of votes cast for a sovereignty mandate should be the majority of the population, which represents not only the majority of the people and the majority of the Government of Quebec but a majority of the ridings and, I know this is heresy, a majority of the ethnic base of the francophone Quebec voter.

Not that I consider that any more legitimate than anybody else's vote, but we have to face facts here. No matter what the Bloc Quebecois says, we are dealing with an ethnic nationalist movement and it is seeking an ethnic nationalist mandate. That is a political reality.

I also point out for those federalists who accuse me or the Reform Party of being weak on Canada by accepting a majority vote, it is not Canada which suffers from this position. It is the government and the people of Quebec who suffer from this position, as I pointed out during the referendum debate.

If the Government of Quebec chooses to go into a negotiation in which it has 51 per cent or 52 per cent support, it puts itself into an extremely weak bargaining position with the rest of the country. The rest of the country does not want separation. Many people, if not most, are extremely hostile to Quebec's separation. Therefore Quebec will face the rest of Canada which is united. It will bring Quebec to the table in a position where Quebecers are extremely weak and divided.

The final deal would have to be ratified by all partners to the Constitution. Our preference is that it would be through a referendum. However, let me be clear this is not to stop Quebec from leaving. It is my opinion that if Quebec ever voted to leave the rest of Canada would want Quebec gone. That would be the attitude that would take hold after a few weeks.

What the rest of Canada would insist on is a settlement that respected its interests. The rest of Canada has lots of bargaining chips if it would choose to go to the table and would receive a settlement that would reflect its interests. Ultimately Quebec would be in a far worse position than it would be if it simply stayed in Canada and negotiated a renewed federalism.

Canadians and Quebecers should back away from extreme positions on this. One extreme position is that we can respect

democracy without respecting the rule of law. Some sovereignists say that. Some federalists say we can respect the rule of law and somehow work around the democratic will. That is also a dangerous position and the thinking of some Liberals.

The only position if we ever get into this secession thing deeper is to proceed by respecting both. Even Mr. Lévesque in 1980 insisted there had to be a mandate to negotiate and there would have to be a second referendum. I ask the sovereignists to look at their own history on this matter.