Stephen Harper

[The Constitution, November 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we are being reminded again today by the Bloc Quebecois that in the referendum campaign the federal Liberals made a couple of constitutional offers to Quebec. Despite the referendum loss the Government of Quebec and its future premier have already made it clear that they reject these offers and further that they would reject any offers of renewed federalism.

Will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs make it clear today for all Canadians that the Government of Canada will not make further constitutional offers to a PQ government that has no intention of accepting them and that Canadians are sick and tired of playing this game with the separatists?

[The Referendum, November 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the government's nascent constitutional agenda, it would be advised to pursue unity by pursuing those issues on which Canadians agree and not those issues on which they are divided.

Yesterday the Prime Minister said he would propose a constitutional veto not for the Government of Quebec but for the people of Quebec. I would presume that is by referendum. Now he says he does not want more referendums in Quebec.

Does he foresee further consultations of the people in Quebec and outside Quebec on their constitutional future or not?

[The Referendum, November 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, what Canadians want from this government are answers to some simple questions. They do not want to see the government defending the same kind of demagoguery we have here sometimes.

If the separatists cannot have another referendum on Quebec sovereignty, which I suspect they would be ill advised to pursue in the near future, they may try simply to seek a mandate through an election, something which would be much easier to achieve.

Does the government really think that this would be a better alternative for Canada than a referendum?

[The Referendum, November 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech last night, the Prime Minister indicated that he is not prepared to tolerate any more referendums on Quebec sovereignty.

My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. We are wondering exactly how it is that the government intends to achieve this. For example, is it considering a federal law to outlaw provincial referendums? Exactly what is it proposing?

[Private Members' Business-Motion M-473, November 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If I understand the motion correctly, it is to not debate the issue of the international laws that pertain to the recognition of Quebec's right to self-determination. As it is obvious from the statements from the Bloc that we will be debating this in the future, we in the Reform Party believe it is important that Parliament, which is representative of all of Canada, have a chance to debate this issue. Therefore we will not agree to dropping this off the Order Paper.

[The Constitution, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, based on his past experience after the referendum in 1980, does the Prime Minister really think it is wise to enter into constitutional negotiations with a PQ government which has lost its own constitutional mandate and which could well find itself isolated and weak at the bargaining table?

[The Constitution, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in recent days and again today the Prime Minister has indicated he may soon pursue some constitutional negotiations.

Is it his intention to pursue constitutional negotiations with the Parti Quebecois in Quebec. Based on past history, would he expect those to be fruitful? Would he expect to find Mr. Parizeau an open, positive and constructive participant in constitutional negotiations?

[Quebec, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the referendum result reflects two different visions of Quebec. One is that Quebec is an integral part of a united Canada. But it is more than that. Quebec is the founding province of Canada, the place where it was born, the cradle and champion of francophones across Canada.

The other is that Quebec is one of these world nations that, because of their history and destiny, must become independent, while of course recognizing its special ties with Canada.

What these two visions have in common are democratic values, tolerance, and recognition of the fact that Quebecers form the only predominantly francophone society in North America.

Quebec is now and forever a francophone society that is free and able to control its own destiny and development, as part of Canada and of the world at large.

[Referendum Campaign, October 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today, we should express our true sentiments. People know where I stand, I support a no vote on Monday. I am for a French Quebec in a united Canada.

During this referendum campaign and since my election here, I have had the opportunity to improve my ability to speak the beautiful French language. I am very grateful indeed for the patience, tolerance and friendship of federalist and sovereignist Quebecers.

I think people are fortunate to be Quebecers. They are part of a large family. In my view, this family has long been divided by this national question. I hope that, whatever the outcome, the family will be reunited Monday evening after the vote.

[The Constitution, October 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding from the answer of the unity minister yesterday is the people of Quebec would always have a voice in changes affecting their powers and institutions.

I wonder if the government would be prepared to say to other regions of the country that it recognizes they would also have a similar say in constitutional amendments.