Debates of Dec. 8th, 1994

Supply

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. You are quite right and I conclude by saying that I am convinced that after a clear, vigorous debate, Quebecers will make a historic decision with clear minds.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Portneuf made a speech on the costs of federalism, but he forgot that all the costs always entail benefits as well. His colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe, who sits on the finance committee, himself estimated the costs of overlap and duplication at $3 billion. Even Mr. Le Hir, the PQ minister, estimated the costs of overlap at $3 billion.

But in the magic formula, they always tend to forget one thing: Quebec receives $4 billion in equalization payments and Quebecers collect $1.2 billion in unemployment insurance.

In their bill, will they say that Quebecers must cover 25 per cent of the national debt, as the member just said, which amounts to $550 billion and the costs that it will entail? Will they tell them that milk producers will lose their protection and that it will cost all milk producers millions, if not billions, of dollars?

By chance, the member's calculations overlooked that Mr. Parizeau himself had said that all federal civil servants would keep their job and would be protected. Add that to the calculations and we get into the real debate on the costs of federalism versus the costs of separatism.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am glad that the member opposite is giving me a chance to set the record straight. First of all, Quebec has 18 per cent of federal civil servants and we pay 25 per cent, so we save 7 per cent there. We must look the figures in the face.

Looking at the balance between what Quebec pays and what it gets, we see that Quebec pays roughly $28 billion to this federal government here in Ottawa and gets about $28 billion back. That seems fair and equitable, but there is a very big difference. While Ontarians get their money back in federal contracts, research and development and other ways, we Quebecers get our money back partly as unemployment insurance and that is unacceptable.

The cost of duplication and overlap may be $3 billion but that is only a small part of it. The real cost is the opportunity cost; while things are happening under our noses, nothing is being done. Opportunities are slipping away from us and they could amount to tens of billions of dollars. With an ability to act responsibly, debt problems would disappear.

I have been told many times that the Government of Quebec will not be a better manager than the federal government. Totally false! For example, it costs the federal government $170 a year to process an employee's pay while it costs the provincial government $70. Here alone, it costs us about 40 per cent of what it costs the federal government. I am not the one saying that; it is the Auditor General. Yes, we are more efficient and I am really eager to be able to prove it to the whole world.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Speaker, I have two quick questions. The hon. member spoke of overlap and duplication. After one year, 60 or so programs no longer seem to overlap or duplicates one another. Was he aware of that? Is that not the direction in which we should be heading? I think that could be a solution.

I wish to mention something else. For the sake of honesty, would it not have been much easier to simply ask Quebecers what they wanted: to stay in Canada or to separate? Honestly, it would have been much better to do this than to use such a vague, fuzzy, imprecise word as «sovereignty».

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Madam Speaker, a glass is either half empty or half full. We prefer to say that the glass is half full. And we will start by filling it. As for instances of overlap, you know as well as I do that sovereignty is the best way to eliminate them all.

[Anna Terrana, Liberal, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Official Opposition and the government of Mr. Parizeau are trying to convince Quebecers and Canadians that Quebec's separation is unavoidable, that federalism adversely affects development in that province, and that the consultation process recently announced is eminently democratic. At a time when countries want to unite together, including European nations, Quebec wants to separate.

I wish to take this opportunity to correct certain facts and denounce some exaggerations and overstatement by those in favour of separation.

Is Canadian federalism really an obstacle to Quebec's development? I usually do not agree with Mr. Parizeau's views.

However, I must say that I think he is absolutely right when he says that Quebec has achieved a lot over the last 30 years.

In his speech, Mr. Parizeau mentioned, among others things, that in the 1960s Quebec was a modern state with a dynamic cultural life, that in the 1970s it had become a leader in democratization and education, and that in the 1980s Quebecers

had taken the reins of economic power and greatly increased their international presence.

Mr. Parizeau is absolutely right when he says that Quebecers should be proud of these exceptional achievements.

But where I do not agree with him and those who support separation in general is when they say that Canadian federalism is hampering Quebec's development. How can they make such a claim when the facts show unequivocally that Quebec made tremendous progress over the last 30 years, while being a part of Canada?

Indeed, it is within the Canadian federation that Quebec's quiet revolution got started and that companies such as Bombardier and Cascades were able to penetrate world markets. It is also within the Canadian federation that the work and talent of Céline Dion and the Cirque du soleil gained international recognition.

Make no mistake. I am not trying to tell you that Quebecers became so successful strictly because of Canadian federalism. What I am saying is that it is wrong to claim that federalism has impeded Quebec's development.

Is Canada really unable to recognize Quebec's specificity?

In his speech, Mr. Parizeau said that the failure of the Meech Lake Accord indicated English Canada's refusal to recognize, even symbolically, that specificity. This statement does not seem fair to me.

The Canadian federation recognized even before Meech and continues to recognize Quebec's specificity and to preserve the French fact, and not just symbolically. Let me give you some examples.

Even in 1867, the Constitution Act guaranteed the use of French in Parliament and in courts. The Constitution Act of 1982 reinforced this guarantee and made French one of the two official languages of Canada by recognizing its use in all institutions of Parliament and the government of Canada. Also, the Canadian Constitution allowed Quebec to pass language laws to promote French in Quebec.

Under the Canadian Constitution, Quebec has jurisdiction over education and has a justice system based on the Civil Code, the only one of its kind in North America. Control over these two areas is crucial to preserve and enhance Quebec's specificity.

Three out of the nine judges appointed to the Supreme Court must come from Quebec. None of the other provinces has such a guarantee.

For any issue relating to education and culture, Quebec can opt out of any Constitutional amendment to transfer provincial powers to the federal government and get full financial compensation.

Four consecutive immigration agreements have progressively increased the role Quebec plays in this area and let the province choose its immigrants and facilitate their integration into Quebec society. The Leader of the Official Opposition himself publicly recognized the merits of these federal-provincial agreements on immigration. Let me remind members that the other provinces do not have the same rights as Quebec does in the immigration area.

According to the economic development agreement reached by Prime Minister Pearson and Mr. Lesage, then Premier of Quebec, during the 1960s, Quebec was able to create its own pension plan and set up its own deposit and investment fund.

At the international level, Ottawa-Quebec framework agreements allow Quebec to sign agreements directly with France and Belgium and, pursuant to yet another agreement, Quebec has its own seat at the Francophone Summit, something other provinces do not have.

All these examples show how biased and full of half-truths the separatists' rhetoric is.

Canadian federalism is not so centralized or centralizing that it negates or irons out regional and provincial differences. In fact, Canada is one of the least centralized countries in the whole world. Canadian federalism is not against promoting the French fact. On the contrary, it contributes to the French influence in North America.

To conclude, I want to say that the PQ option troubles me a lot as it does most Canadians, especially francophones outside Quebec.

In British Columbia, most francophones are not only troubled but sad. Like me, they feel betrayed. In 1980, I fought with petitions and letters, etc, from Vancouver, to keep Quebec inside Canada. On the night of the referendum, I was extremely happy and, the next day, I gave the wives of eight Quebec police officers visiting Vancouver a rose and a note of thanks.

I hope to be able to do the same next year, on the night of the referendum. This time, if Quebecers say no, I will give roses to my colleagues, the women of the Bloc Quebecois.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the federalist members of the House and it is as if they were trying to win the championship for overstatement. They call the process proposed by the government of Quebec a fraud, immoral, illegitimate and illegal. They call it a farce. We are criticized for not asking a clear question. Yet, as my colleague from Portneuf said, the question seems perfectly clear to me: "Are you in favour of the Act passed by the

National Assembly declaring the sovereignty of Quebec?" I think that is crystal clear: "the sovereignty of Quebec".

In fact, they are criticizing us for referring to a bill in which Quebec's sovereignty is defined. If you recall, Madam Speaker, in 1980, we were criticized for not defining our project. Now that we define it, we are criticized for it. We even go further by asking Quebec's population to participate in defining the sovereignty project. We asked Quebecers to help define the project. But still, we are told: How can you ask federalists to participate in writing a declaration of independence?

I would say that our federalist colleagues are afflicted by two diseases: schizophrenia and amnesia. Schizophrenia because they have not yet realized that there is no federalist government in Quebec City any more, but a sovereignist government, and that the majority of members representing Quebec ridings in this House are also sovereignists. They are hit by amnesia because they refuse to acknowledge that when the Parti Quebecois formed the Official Opposition in the National Assembly, in spite of its political option, it recognized that a federalist party was in power and took part in the various initiatives introduced by that government.

Members will remember that the Parti Quebecois spent hundreds of hours studying the Meech Lake Accord in the National Assembly and in committee, that it took part in the parliamentary committee which studied the federal government's offers that led to the Charlottetown Accord. Members will also remember that sovereignists participated in the Bélanger-Campeau Commission which proposed two alternatives, not ten but two: sovereignty and a last chance for renewed federalism. That last chance failed; it was the Charlottetown Accord. It failed miserably.

So, in keeping with the conclusions contained in the Bélanger-Campeau Commission report, which was signed by the Liberal Party in Quebec and the present Minister of Foreign Affairs, we are now moving toward the second alternative, which is sovereignty, since the first one failed.

It is now our turn to ask our federalist colleagues to take part in the process. Why are we doing this? For two simple reasons: first, because the question will be submitted to Quebecers for approval very shortly and, if the answer is yes, federalists should help define what a sovereign Quebec should be.

Second, the draft bill refers to an economic association with Canada; our federalist colleagues claim it is not possible. We want to keep the same currency; our colleagues claim it is not possible. We want to keep our citizenship; our colleagues claim it is not possible. We want to conclude international agreements; our colleagues claim it is not possible. We want them to explain to us why it is not possible, and that is exactly why we are asking them to take part in the work of these commissions.

In conclusion, I would invite the people of my riding of Verchères to attend the hearings of these commissions and also the people of the beautiful region where I live when I come to work here, the Outaouais region, who are particularly concerned about the consequences of the debate that will take place.

[Anna Terrana, Liberal, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do not think there is a question. Still, I would like to say something about the Charlottetown Accord. This agreement was rejected not only because of Quebec but also for a lot of other reasons, because the agreement proposed to Canadians was too vast, too complicated, and even people conversant with the issue could not understand the whole package in the Charlottetown Accord.

I think that is why it was rejected, because Native people say the same thing, everybody says the same thing, namely that the Charlottetown Accord was rejected because of its complexity. I am talking about separation, not sovereignty. In British Columbia, everybody talks about separation. I am sorry, but I found Quebec in Canada on my arrival here; I think it is a great country and that we should stay together, especially since Quebecers have contributed much to Canada and because Quebec provides a dimension that Canada needs.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, neither the Act of Union of 1842 nor the British North America Act of 1867 nor the Constitution Act of 1982 defines an orderly breakup of our great country. In the face of this fact, the reality is that all the many viewpoints put forth by the separatist forces in the absence of precedent are in many cases inaccurate projections about the way things will be in a sovereign and separate Quebec.

I believe Canada will accept separatism if it is the result of a clearly worded referendum on the issue and reflects the will of the majority of Quebecers. But whoever said outside of Quebec that sovereignty association was a negotiable option? A new and better Canada requires four strong foundations. It needs four principles to stick to.

First is responsible spending. Irresponsible government spending by this Liberal government, the massive debt it continues to add to and excessive taxation it proposes to put forward have weakened the financial foundation of the old Canada. We need to rebuild the new national home on the principle of financial responsibility. The federal government must balance its budget and keep taxes in check.

Second is the equality of provinces and citizens. Our old Canadian home is built on the fault line which separates French and English rather than on the solid ground of what all Canadians have in common. It is undermined by the linguistic,

cultural and constitutional policies that do more to divide us than to unite us. We need to rebuild our national home on the principles that all Canadians will be treated equally regardless of race, gender, language, culture, creed and that all provinces have the same powers and responsibilities over their own destinies.

Third is democracy. Our old Canadian home is built on a system that serves the political elite and only allows your input at election time. We need to rebuild our new national home on the principle that you will have more say in how the national household is run. Elected officials will be accountable all of the time, not just at election time.

Finally, a criminal justice system is the fourth principle, that is more effective, leaving less interpreted for judges, that recognizes victim rights over criminal rights.

The reality of the consequences of Quebec separation will in many ways be very costly for all Canadians. Bloc Quebecois members claim that federalism has not, cannot and will not work. They point to the failures of the Constitution Act, and the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords as sufficient proof. While I agree that these constitutional efforts represent failure, they failed everyone, not just Quebecers because the wrong people were negotiating the right things the wrong way, top down.

What the premier of the province of Quebec is presently doing by first introducing a draft bill, passing it in the legislature of Quebec first and then going to the Quebec people is making the very same mistake. It is a top down approach. It is something that may not be accepted by the rest of Canadians in Canada. Therefore, it is imperative that when Quebecers and the provincial Government of Quebec look at this issue that they address it on the basis that the simpler the question the better.

If Bloc Quebecois members are questioning why the federal government is refusing to participate in the discussions that will go across the province, it is because it has no solution. It is waiting for other people to step forward and the Reform Party is trying to fill that gap.

I believe that in the province of Quebec the voters should be asked first, then a bill drafted and negotiated. Then the people of Quebec will have the legitimacy to begin negotiations with the rest of Canada.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

It being 5.15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the Business of Supply, pursuant to Standing Order 81(17).

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I declare the motion negatived.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Madam Speaker, we have just had a very important vote, historically and for the unity of Canada and Quebec. Where is Jean Charest?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

moved:

That supplementary estimates (b) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1995, laid upon the table Wednesday, November 2, 1994, be concurred in.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent that all members who have voted on the previous vote, plus I understand some who will indicate so in a moment, be deemed to have voted on the question now before the House in the following manner: Liberal members voting yea.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bloc members will vote nay.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, members of the Reform Party present this evening will vote nay, unless there are those who wish to vote otherwise.

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to indicate on behalf of the New Democratic Party members present, the member for Burnaby-Kingsway and myself, that we would vote nay on this motion.