Steven Blaney

[Business of Supply, November 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the convoluted history lessons given by my hon. colleague opposite. Of course, we are talking about health today and about playing catch-up because the past 13 years were very hard, especially on the provinces. Health is an area of provincial jurisdiction that the previous government deprived of federal subsidies. Yet the previous government had inherited measures from a responsible finance minister in the person of Michael Wilson, who, as hon. members will recall, brought free trade and the GST to Canada. Of course, the party opposite was opposed to these two measures. However, they restored Canada to a sound financial position like the one it enjoys today.

Unfortunately, instead of managing this money wisely and investing it in social programs as our new government is doing, the members opposite made draconian cuts in social programs, especially education and health, at the expense of the provinces and, in my riding, at the expense of the people at the hospital in Armagh. This hospital was closed because of the drastic cuts to the health sector. It was truly unacceptable. It was time Canadians woke up and did what they did in January, when they told the members of the former government, “Sit on the opposition benches for a while to take time out and gain a new perspective”.

I have a hard time understanding how someone who claims to champion social measures can be opposed to our government's recent announcement of a pilot project concerning wait times guarantees for prenatal care, as part of health services for first nations. We want to test the delivery of prenatal care using wait times guarantees as a benchmark. When wait times guarantees are not honoured, first nations women will be given access to other types of care. This is a tangible measure.

Does my colleague opposite agree with this measure? Does he agree that aboriginal women should have top-quality prenatal care and that, if they are not able to receive such care in their own community, they should be able to go elsewhere to receive care?

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my colleague’s speech in which she managed to conjure up both Elvis Gratton and Robert Bourassa in the same breath. I will remind her that Robert Bourassa is before all else a great Quebecker and he was also a great federalist leader during a particularly troubled period in Quebec. He was also a champion of sustainable development, and that is why Quebec now has a very positive environmental report card in that respect and can in fact be a model for the rest of the Canadian federation.

In her speech, my colleague talked a lot about what divides Quebeckers and Canada. My question is about something that unites them, about a fundamental issue, climate change. How can my colleague, who represents Quebeckers, not support the Clean Air Act, which is precisely meant to protect the interests of Quebec and combat climate change?

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech made by my colleague. She mentioned that certain people had deceived Quebec. Could she tell us who she is talking about? Is she talking about those who have been in Quebec City for 13 years and have not been able to restore fiscal balance? Or is she talking about those who set Quebec back on several occasions, like in 1982 with the patriation of the Constitution, at a time when the province was governed by sovereignists? Therefore, are sovereignists not setting Quebec back within the Canadian federation?

Has the presence of the Bloc Québécois in Ottawa helped Quebeckers, who form a nation, move forward? If not, what conclusions can be drawn from that?

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague for his comments. The Acadians have provided great lessons of solidarity and have behaved like a great people in the past, in order to preserve their rights and their language. In Quebec, unfortunately, we sometimes tend to be a bit inward-looking. We have forgotten that some francophone groups needed our support to continue setting themselves free.

This is also something that is involved in this motion. When we talk about open federalism, we are thinking of minorities, regardless of whether they are anglophone or francophone, as long as they can support one another. We have to broaden our horizons. This is also what we are talking about when we discuss nationalism or open federalism. This is fundamental to today’s debate, and this is the reason why I invite my colleague to support this motion. Who knows whether later on there may be other motions that we can consider for other communities since these definitions will certainly apply to others.

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that we refer to the same dictionary, because we have the same Le Petit Larousse. It is important to have the same references. We are talking about the same nation. I hope you will recognize the motion. Indeed, according to Mr. Pratte:

If they vote not to recognize Quebeckers as a nation within Canada, they will demonstrate that they are serving their own purposes rather than those of their electors. They will be betraying the interests of Quebeckers.

I invite my colleague to support the motion. We have an opportunity here in this House to unanimously recognize the fact that Quebeckers form a society within the country. I invite him to support the motion. It does not commit him to whatever follows. We would have thus unanimous support. All Quebeckers in this House will have the opportunity to support this motion.

I cordially invite him to do so.

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that you stopped your stopwatch for these few moments of interruption.

What I am basically saying is that the motion before us today is in fact intended to recognize that Quebeckers form a nation within Canada. That is basically what I am saying.

I am also saying that, as a result of my presence within this government to defend this proposal, solutions can be put forward for the advancement of this recognition.

Consider, for example, the fact that we are committed to restoring the fiscal balance, or that we are committed to introducing effective means of combating climate change. I hope that we will have the support of my colleagues in the Bloc so that Quebec and Quebeckers can have a healthier environment.

I would also like to state—and it is important for me to do so—that every time Quebec has had sovereignist parties, it has experienced setbacks. The Quebec nation, if we can call it that, has undergone setbacks when it has had sovereignist parties. We just gave the example of the environment. What has happened over the last 13 years with sovereignist representatives of Quebec here in this chamber? There have been major setbacks. An explosion of greenhouse gas emissions.

I am proud to be a Quebecker and a Canadian. It is important to say in this House that one can be a Quebecker and a Canadian at the same time, and be both in the fullest sense. I think that this is a matter of mutual respect for our differences.

Quebec has a leading role to play within the Canadian federation. It is present and active. And like all Canadians, I think that we want to work to strengthen our federation while respecting the distinctiveness of each of the regions of the country, collaborating with our partners, and restoring the fiscal balance.

More than ever, I want to continue to help ensure that the collectivity of Quebec thrives within the government, and I will be happy to respond to questions from my colleagues in the House.

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my Franco-Ontarian colleague, the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

We resume debate here today on a very important motion. It is understandable why I am so proud to show my support for the motion introduced by our Prime Minister. The motion recognizes that Quebeckers form a nation within a united Canada.

Before I go any further, I would like to clarify one thing. I must refer to a French dictionary because sometimes between French and English there are some things that are difficult to distinguish.

There are two French definitions of nation. What we are talking about today regarding this motion is that a nation is a large human community, mostly living in the same place, sharing more or less strongly historic, linguistic, cultural and economic links. This is what we are talking about today.

Of course, with respect to Quebec society.

The other nation is the one we recognize as a sovereign nation, which is Canada. Canada is a true nation in terms of a sovereign country. It is important to clarify that.

I would like to share something else with my fellow colleague. As a Québécois, when I feel respected as a Quebecker I feel even more Canadian. This is at the core, I would say, of the last 30 years of the sovereignist movement.

The aim of today's motion is deeply rooted Indeed, over the past 30 years, the sovereignist movement has grown out of disrespect for the very spirit of the Canadian federation and disrespect for Quebec's specificity. It is important to understand this. As long as we, as Quebeckers, feel respected within the Canadian federation, we will no longer necessarily feel the desire to leave.

It is not surprising that the Conservative Party is here today to properly represent and recognize Quebec's specificity. Why not? Because the Conservative Party fundamentally respects the federation, the spirit of Confederation. In other words, it recognizes that certain powers belong to the federal government and others belong to the provinces.

Often, if we really get to the bottom of things and ask sovereignists what they really want, they say they want to respect the spirit of the Canadian federation so as to ensure that the rights and privileges that belong to the provinces are respected. This includes education and various jurisdictions that are particularly vital to the protection of language.

I would also like to state that this exercise will help us to define ourselves as a Canadian nation as well. One of the fundamental characteristics of Canadian society is the distinct nature of Quebec. It is what differentiates us from Americans and other countries, for example. And it makes it possible to have a country where we can express ourselves in two languages. As a Quebecker who is also a Canadian, I am blessed by the fact that this distinct nature is recognized in the other provinces. Bilingualism is a good example of that.

Today, the motion tabled is based on a fact that I would like to highlight: Quebec's distinct nature is at the heart of the Canadian federation, and that is nothing new. It is nonetheless an important motion.

I would like to refer to the editorial in today's edition of La Presse, where Mr. Pratte writes that “the motion tabled yesterday by the Prime Minister...represents historic progress”.

Today, our Prime Minister is reaching out to all parties, including the Bloc Québécois, to obtain their support for this motion. If it is adopted, the Canadian Parliament will be giving unprecedented acknowledgement of the distinct nature of Quebec.

Today, a Conservative government has further shaped the Canadian identity by recognizing the distinct nature of Quebec.

Mr. Pratte continues:

This step forward is not an isolated step in a long series of failures, as the sovereignist version of our history portrays it. On the contrary, it is another step in an evolution that is very favourable to Quebeckers, despite a significant number of backwards steps and a great deal of frustration.

Thus, the relationship of the founding peoples is evolving and Quebeckers are finding enough space to develop and to achieve their prosperity.

Why do we have a federation here, in Canada? It is precisely to take into consideration Quebec's specificity. When we opted for that political system, back in 1867, we did not choose a unitary system. We opted for a confederal system, in which the provinces are responsible for certain jurisdictions. So, this respect for Quebec's specificity is at the core of the Canadian system.

Moreover, as we know, in Quebec we have notaries, and we use the civil law, which is based on the famous Napoleonic code. We also have school boards, and Quebec justices who sit on the Supreme Court. So, there are many examples which illustrate that Quebec is recognized and that it has its own place within the Canadian federation. This vision is fundamentally different from that of opposition colleagues, particularly Bloc Québécois members.

The Conservatives are proposing that the Quebec nation, that Quebeckers fully recognize themselves within the Canadian federation. We do not want the narrow vision of a self-centred nationalism but, rather, a federalism that is open, for example, to other francophone minorities across Canada.

I am taking this opportunity to salute the Quebec government for its initiative, for reaching out to the other francophone minorities and trying to provide support as well as a framework to these primary safeguards of the French language.

The real question today is: Does the presence of a sovereign party in this House help Quebec, does it ensure that Quebec becomes a more prosperous society? That is the real question behind today's motion. And we should ask ourselves that question.

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, what is ironic today is that a member from Quebec talks about the environment—which is a fundamental issue—but refuses to support the clean air bill that will, at last, allow us to curb climate change. What is also ironic is that today, a parliamentarian who was democratically elected by Quebeckers, refuses to support a motion that enjoys unanimous support in this House, a motion recognizing that Quebeckers form a nation. Even more ironic is the fact he is opposed to this motion and refuses to acknowledge the reality, namely that Quebec is a province within Canada. I would like the hon. member to answer yes or no to my question. Is Quebec part of Canada? If so, why does he oppose the motion?

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Victoria , for her eloquent presentation in support of one of the fundamental features of the Canadian identity, namely the recognition of Quebec's specificity. She spoke not only with words but also from the heart, and her speech was very touching.

How, in her opinion, will the recognition of Quebec's specificity and vitality help francophone communities across the country continue to develop?

How does she see the interdependence between Quebec and the francophone minorities in other regions of the country?

[Donald Vézina, November 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, during a large and moving family celebration in Saint-Michel-de-Bellechasse on November 11, I had the honour of awarding the Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medal to Donald Vézina.

Donald Vézina worked on a United Nations peacekeeping mission as a member of the 22nd Regiment. Mr. Vézina completed two tours of duty in Cyprus during Canada's 29-year mission, leaving behind his wife and children. He is the son of Léo-Dominique Vézina, a World War II aviator in the 425 Tactical Fighter Squadron, “Les Alouettes”, who gave his life for our country.

That same day, his sister, Sylvie, launched a book entitled Le dernier vol de l'Alouette in memory of their father. She was very young when her father died, and she retraced the epic story of this true Canadian hero by collecting stories from members of his family and consulting the National Archives of Canada.

Today, I would like to applaud the courage of the great Vézina family of Bellechasse that showed solidarity in the face of Canada's greatest military and humanitarian challenges and that reminds us that people from close to home gave their lives to protect our freedoms and our rights.