House of Commons Hansard #140 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was quebecers.
Paul Mercier Bloc Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC
I am getting there, Madam Speaker, but since we are discussing generalities, it all takes time.
The hon. member gave a general defence of the federal option, and my answer was that the general arguments we have heard lack consistency. May I proceed, Madam Speaker?
Paul Mercier Bloc Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC
So I think that should interest the hon. member. In Ottawa, according to Jean Dion's article, the first salvos that were fired stressed the undemocratic nature of the Parizeau plan. It is all very convenient, now that the government is headed by Jean Chrétien, a man who does not want to talk about the Constitution, so that the federal government can no longer argue, at it did in 1980, the case for renewed federalism to accommodate that unruly province. This deals with the objections we just heard.
Next, in a reference to prosperous federations, they say: Switzerland is prosperous, but the USSR was not. Brazil is not. Russia is not. These are federations, which proves that a federal system is no guarantee of prosperity.
Third, who or what determines the quality of our lives, Madam Speaker? People, Canadians and Quebecers, not the federal system, determine our standard of living. I am told this country has the highest standard of living in the world, Madam Speaker. When you cut a cake in two, are the two halves smaller than they were before? Not as far as I know.
For instance, Norway and Sweden were one country until 1904-05, when Sweden accepted Norway's separation. Did Norway and Sweden become impoverished after they were separated? They are among the most prosperous countries mentioned.
What about the G-7? They say we will not be part of the G-7. Well, we could not care less, because you do not have to be big to be prosperous. The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, with a popula-
tion of 300,000, has an unemployment rate of 2 per cent. We would not mind that.
That being said, I remain convinced that sovereignty is the best choice for Quebec's future, and I invite the people of Blainville-Deux-Montagnes to take an active part in the debate that starts today.
Judy Bethel Liberal Edmonton East, AB
Madam Speaker, there are several aspects that I would like to respond to. I want to make it absolutely clear that we are not defending federalism. The record of federalism in this country is clear to all Canadians.
The hon. member talked about the quality of people. I think that is where federalism's greatest gift lies. It does not matter in this country which province we live in, which city, which community, which neighbourhood. This country cares for all of its people.
We have provided education, social programs and economic prosperity through good times and bad times. We do not determine that on where we live. It is available to all citizens. Those who live in the inner city of Montreal are feeling the same pain as those who live in Edmonton East inner city neighbourhood. Federalism can deal with that in a fair and equitable manner.
Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Madam Speaker, I am particularly pleased to debate this motion on the legitimacy of the consultation process on Quebec sovereignty, released this week by the Right Hon. Premier of Quebec, Mr. Jacques Parizeau.
Mr. Parizeau is known for his honesty, his candour and his humanity. He has a reputation for saying what he is doing, and exactly what he says. He is proving it this week, intelligently, skilfully and competently.
We are proud of Mr. Parizeau. We can only be proud of our Premier and glad to be associated with such an exciting process, a highly democratic process.
I have been an avid observer of the political scene from a very early age, but especially so since 1987. I followed with interest what led us to the Meech Lake Accord. This accord was the last attempt of our fellow Quebecers who still believed, then, that Quebec had a place within the Canadian Confederation.
It was also the last attempt to make up for the affront perpetrated by the present Prime Minister of Canada and his team, in 1981, during the night of the long knives, which led to the unilateral patriation of the Constitution. That was, to use some now famous words, the last attempt to make Canada whole, to have federalist Quebecers sign the Canadian Constitution with honour and enthusiasm.
I lived through the second phase, the one which led to the failure of Meech. I observed it closely, but with much sadness, especially when the report of the special committee studying the proposed companion resolution to the Meech Lake Accord, better know as the Charest Report, was published.
The Charest report, named after the member for Sherbrooke, reduced to next to nothing what was already considered as the bare minimum, the entrance door allowing Quebec to try, one last time, to take its place within the Canadian federation, a springboard for Quebec to get all the powers, all the tools it needed in the areas of social programs, the economy and also culture.
The tabling of this report burying the Meech Lake Accord sadly put an end, an emotional one for most of my fellow citizens who still believed in that country, to a saga which had started with the "beau risque" as a hopeful initiative.
Quebecers remember this report tabled by the present member for Sherbrooke who was then minister responsible for the committee which really killed the Meech Lake Accord.
Those were days of sadness, emotion, and grief for me, but I was proud of what happened after. I was very proud to see MPs from Quebec, seven of them at the time, who were eventually joined by an eighth one, the member for Saint-Hubert, resign because they disagreed with the government foiling the final attempt, putting an end to the "beau risque". They took a stand and I take this opportunity to salute them.
Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
They took a stand and all Quebecers were proud of them. They stood up against this attempt by Canadian federalists to enslave a whole people, my people. I repeat, the member for Sherbrooke was there among them, and the present Prime Minister was in the hallways with his walkman, and often with a walkie talkie, to give instructions, in order to block the approval of any distinctive status, or to put an end to any attempt to give a distinctive status to Quebec.
Among the eight who stood firm, who fought to the end for the interests of Quebecers and also to preserve their dignity and pride, there was the present Leader of the Opposition, our leader and friend-my best friend. I want to extend my affectionate greetings to him and his wife, Audrey, and his two children, Alexandre and Simon. He is the reason why, at the time, I was moved very positively by what was happening, because the Quebec people had just acquired a great leader. Quebec had just acquired a new leader, who was standing firm with six of his colleagues, and later on with a seventh one. We are proud of that.
After that, Madam Speaker, as you will recall, there was a lot of constitutional turbulence and commotion. Remember the Beaudoin-Dobbie report, the Beaudoin-Edwards report, the Spicer commission and Charlottetown. These documents were supposed to fulfill the aspirations of Quebecers, after they were betrayed by the rejection of the Meech Lake Accord.
We took part in all these debates. We are sovereignists, but we took part in all these debates. Why are Quebec federalists, the Leader of the Opposition in the Quebec legislature, including federal members from Quebec, Liberals and others, refusing to discuss ideas, to discuss federalism, while we took part in all federalist debates which led to the adoption of those reports aimed at one thing only. They were a smoke screen used to make Quebecers believe that a reform, even the slightest reform, was possible so they could have their place, a real place which they would be proud and honoured and willing to occupy.
Why do federalists refuse a process which is eminently democratic, open, allowing for the exchange of ideas, like the one announced by the Premier of Quebec? Why? Because they are afraid. They are afraid of their ideas because it is impossible to defend a rigid status quo that prevents the normal economic, social and cultural progress of the people of Quebec. During Question Period, I heard the Prime Minister say that it is within Canada that Quebecers have developed. Acutally, we have done so despite Canada.
Remember all the efforts and energy we have had to spend since 1964, the days of Jean Lesage, in order to patriate powers that we considered essential to our development. Madam Speaker, look at what we have been doing in the last seven years in particular. We have done nothing but that, try to develop, try to develop employment, to stimulate our economic growth with powers which are presently in federal hands and which Quebec is being denied. Is that what you call harmonious development within the federal system?
No. If Quebecers have become what they are today, if their businesses are so dynamic and their workers so skilled, it is because at one point in time we decided to take charge of our own affairs despite all opposition and despite the federal system that tried to paralyse us, to keep us down and even to use force to prevent us from developing our collective wealth.
Remember Bill S-31. There was the Bélanger-Campeau Commission. We also participated in the Bélanger-Campeau Commission. And if I have one reason, as an economist, to be proud of the work accomplished there, it is for one particular aspect of it: it put an end to all the economic bugbears and showed us that Canada's threat, not to allow Quebec goods and services into Canada, was empty.
With Ontario alone, the net balance of trade between Ontario and Quebec is over $3 billion; that is, Ontario sells Quebec $3 billion more of goods and services than Quebec sells Ontario. Would Ontario close its border? Bélanger-Campeau stifled this kind of nonsense. It also put an end to scare tactics like saying Quebec would lose its milk production.
When even the president of the UPA contradicts the current Leader of the Opposition in Quebec, who said "You will lose your quotas, and your share of milk production", that is something. So, I would urge you and every citizen, regardless of ethnic origin, language and political affiliation, to take part in this democratic process. I am sending out a special invitation to the English-speaking community. I would have a short paragraph to read them, if I may Madam Speaker, in their language.
"Anglophones and francophones of Quebec are still democrats and it is as democrats that I invite you today, most sincerely, to take this friendly hand we are extending to you, to help solve the question of importance to you and to join with us in building together the kind of country that we want to live in. Do not forget the future of Quebec is yours. The future and prosperity of Quebec is also in your hands. I am asking you not to remain on the sideline of your evolution and participate in the process proposed by the prime minister of Quebec".
I also send out a special invitation to the people of my riding of Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot to participate in this eminently democratic process, as well as all interested organizations and individuals throughout Montérégie.
Ben Serré Liberal Timiskaming—French-River, ON
Madam Speaker, I have been listening with interest to this play that the Bloc Quebecois has been performing for us since this morning. The problem is that I still do not know whether it is a tragedy or a comedy. It may be a tragicomedy.
The draft bill proposed by the separatists is a monumental deception. The Bloc Quebecois should be ashamed of associating with this undemocratic process.
I always felt that the leader of the Bloc Quebecois was a great democrat and I am convinced that, from his hospital bed, he must be upset by the PQ flouting the democratic process in Quebec. He must also realize that the PQ has just made a strategic mistake that will cost the separatists dearly. This bill
insults Quebecers' intelligence. It is a bomb that will explode in the separatists' faces.
I have more confidence in Quebecers' integrity and intelligence. I am convinced that they will detect Mr. Parizeau's deception through the smoke screen he has put up. This process reminds me a little of a somewhat unscrupulous insurance agent who showed up at our house. He told me that I certainly needed insurance and that he would sell me term or permanent insurance. I asked him who had told him that I needed his insurance and I threw him out the door.
The leader of the PQ shows the same attitude by telling Quebecers in his patronizing manner: "I know what is good for you. You want independence, you want separation. Now, do you want separation with or without the Canadian dollar? With or without Canadian citizenship?"
I think that Quebecers will say no, not only to the PQ's and the BQ's separatist option, but also to the separatists' deception and manipulation.
Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Madam Speaker, I have three comments to make following the hon. member's intervention. First, I want to ask him to show a little more respect for my leader and to remember that he has been involved in the referendum strategy for the last three months. Consequently, my leader certainly supports and endorses the process unveiled by Mr. Parizeau.
I also want to tell the hon. member-who was almost slanderous when he alluded to the honesty and integrity of sovereignists-that we were not afraid, as I said earlier, to participate in the debate proposed to us by the federalists. Is it because, unlike maybe 1980 or shortly before, the federalists are running out of arguments to convince us to stay in Canada are thus unable to publicly debate this issue?
We are offering you a forum: Why not use it to discuss the issue, instead of hiding behind your desk and making comments which are almost disrespectful, if not downright slanderous? I also ask the hon. member to be careful when denigrating Quebec as well as the wishes of a whole nation. My colleague, the hon. member for Témiscamingue, told me that you both represent neighbouring ridings and that yours benefits immensely from that proximity. Indeed, many people living on the Quebec side cross the border into Ontario, to shop in the member's riding. Again, the hon. member should be careful when making comments.
We have common interests, as evidenced by this activity between the two ridings. So, let us be careful. We must respect the will of people, and we must also respect an eminently democratic process. All Quebec federalists should participate in the consultation process.
If they do not want to move, then they should tell us, because the house is falling down. However, these federalists should come up with arguments to support their views. But do come to sit and talk. We are open, and we are very cool, calm and collected.
Maud Debien Bloc Laval East, QC
Madam Speaker, I am very honoured and proud to take part in today's debate on the motion put forward by the Official Opposition. As you know, this motion deals with the draft bill on Quebec's sovereignty which was introduced by the Quebec Premier on Tuesday.
How exciting it is to discuss the draft bill that was introduced by the Quebec government and that sets forth a clear and responsible process which will let Quebecers from every walk of life take part in the debate on this plan for Quebec's constitutional future. To my knowledge, this is a unique process. I do not know that many countries in the world where the people are asked to express their opinion on a draft bill. This openness may be another distinct characteristic of Quebec.
The Quebec government wants the people of Quebec to express their views on the significant issues related to sovereignty. Discussions on significant issues related to the sovereignty proposal will be held in every Quebec region. During these consultations, Quebecers will have the opportunity to say what they expect from a sovereign Quebec.
Another issue will be raised in the debate on the draft bill. I am talking about Quebec citizenship. I would like to say a few words on this. The draft bill sets conditions for becoming a citizen of sovereign Quebec. If you examine clause 5 which deals specifically with this issue, you will see how generously all Quebec citizens will be treated.
It is refreshing to see that a sovereign Quebec would not use the same approach as the Canadian government with regard to citizenship. Quebec is showing openness and generosity by saying that it will give Quebec citizenship to all Canadian citizens domiciled in Quebec, without any restrictions. That is much different from the position of the present government which refuses to do the same thing, as indicated in the report published last spring by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. The committee recommended that the new Citizenship Act stipulate that a Canadian citizen who voluntarily or officially acquires citizenship of another country, other than by marriage or in other circumstances such as adoption, shall cease to be a Canadian citizen.
In contrast, the draft bill on sovereignty stipulates that, and I quote: "Quebec citizenship may be held concurrently with citizenship of Canada or of any other country." Quebec would not be the first country to adopt such a policy. France, Great Britain, the United States, Italy and Switzerland, just to name a
few, are among the countries whose residents can have dual citizenship.
Canada and Quebec have always been known as generous and welcoming states. As a matter of fact, Canada has recognized and accepted the principle of dual citizenship for a long time. Why this change by the federal government? Why should a Canadian citizen lose his or her citizenship if he or she acquires citizenship in another country? This restrictive policy has to be denounced. By any chance would that policy be meant to deny Quebecers the right to keep their Canadian citizenship if they so wish? Madam Speaker, this is a federalist ploy.
The draft bill also proposes that once Quebecers have voted in favour of sovereignty, any citizen residing in Quebec will automatically be considered a Quebec citizen. It is nice to see there will be no distinction between Quebecers of many generations and those recently arrived. For instance, the new citizen coming from Africa or Asia will have the same rights as all old-stock Quebecers. Quebec has always been free from prejudice against new citizens from foreign countries.
I would like to quote a Quebec poet, novelist and essayist, a resident of Laval East, Fernand Ouellet. I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate him on the Ludger Duvernay award he received in November. Mr. Ouellet said: "My ancestors came from Paris, Champagne, Normandy, Poitou, Brittany and the Basque country. Very early, they were exposed to people of various ethnic groups and showed their willingness to live with others. A Norman from Bayeux would naturally marry a Basque girl from Bayonne or a Breton from Quimper. That is how our nation was born."
Quebec is a land of immigrants. Our roots are French, Anglo-Saxon, Irish, Italian, Greek, Latin American and American. Our traditions, our customs and our art were always influenced by the input of immigrants who enhanced the cultural heritage of Quebec.
In future, this openness will remain and even increase. Quebecers are people who reside in Quebec and who like to live there. Quebec citizenship will include all those who live within Quebec's borders and who wish to take part in its development.
Madam Speaker, please, I would like to continue without all the silliness and insulting remarks.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)
Order, please. I would ask the hon. member to continue.
Maud Debien Bloc Laval East, QC
Madam Speaker, the draft bill adds that when the Quebec people have voted for Quebec sovereignty, every person who was born in Quebec or who was born outside Quebec and whose father or mother held Quebec citizenship will automatically be a Quebec citizen. These provisions are totally in keeping with what is done in many countries, including Canada.
Finally, the section of the draft bill also proposes, and I quote: "Quebec citizenship may also be acquired in the manner determined by the National Assembly." As in all sovereign and normal countries, newcomers will acquire Quebec citizenship under a legal framework, with regulations, and Quebec citizenship law will be applied according to clearly defined administrative procedures.
The federal government recently decided to close up, to become more suspicious and to see plots everywhere and systematic attempts at abuse coming from other countries. Quebec is opting for a much more positive approach to newcomers who want to live in Quebec. Quebec wants to join other nations at a time when challenges in trade, openness and globalization await us.
In closing, I would like to say that this draft bill proposes a thoughtful and analytical approach in which all Quebecers are invited to participate. I hope that the people of Laval East, whatever their political affiliation and their ethnic origin, and all groups and organizations from our area will come and participate in a highly democratic process to define the future of Quebec. The sharing of ideas and the opportunity to express them is what democracy is all about.
Nick Discepola Liberal Vaudreuil, QC
Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to what my colleague from Laval East had to say. I cannot help thinking that ever since I was elected to this House, the members opposite have been criticizing us and telling us that the status quo is unacceptable. With the draft bill that is proposed, I wonder what choices Mr. Parizeau, the members of the Bloc Quebecois and the members of the Parti Quebecois really have to offer Quebecers. We are being offered the same Canadian passport. We are being offered the same Canadian dollar. We are being offered the same international treaties. As well, they say in the draft bill that they want to be a member of the most important organizations in the world such as the UN, GATT and NAFTA. Quebec and Quebecers already have those privileges. What more do they want?
Nic Leblanc Bloc Longueuil, QC
To become masters of our own destiny!
Nick Discepola Liberal Vaudreuil, QC
To become masters of their own destiny? They already have control over their own tax system and their own legislative system. They have full control over education, language, culture and immigration. They have all that within Canada.
To meet the requirements of the Referendum Act, which is the authority on which all referendums and plebiscites are held in Quebec, it is clear that there have to be two parties: a yes and a no side. Is that democracy? The so-called democracy that we are being offered in that draft bill? Where are the two parties?
Clause 1 provides that Quebec is already a sovereign country. What other choice is there for those who do not want Quebec to be sovereign? Where is the consultation process? Do they really want to know what other people think? I wonder where democracy stands when 13 members of the 15 commissions proposed are separatists and only two of them are federalists. Is that democracy?
Nick Discepola Liberal Vaudreuil, QC
Quebecers are offered an alternative. They should have the courage to ask the question correctly instead of writing 18 sections and after that asking the real question that is required by the Referendum Act, yes or no. They should find it in themselves to ask the relevant question: Do you want to separate from the most wonderful country of the world, yes or no? But do they have that kind of courage?
Maud Debien Bloc Laval East, QC
Madam Speaker, at times I have the sneaky suspicion that Liberal members have not read the bill.
Maud Debien Bloc Laval East, QC
They must have skipped some parts. This draft bill says that there will be a period of information and participation during which the bill can be improved. What does that mean? It means that we can listen to opinions, we can entertain proposals for amendment, and that is precisely what we expect from the Liberals. But they do not want to. They are stuck on the status quo.
How can they come and talk to us when they are mired in the status quo. They skip stages too. Improvements will be made, maybe even changes. Everyone is invited to take part. There will be a debate in the National Assembly and then this bill will be approved by the people in a referendum.
They forget that. They forget to acknowledge that there will be a referendum on this draft bill.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)
I am sorry, but the hon. member's time has run out. I recognize the hon. whip of the government.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Madam Speaker, I am happy to take part in the debate this afternoon. Since this morning, I have been listening to the comments of the members opposite. What are they asking us? They want the House to enjoin the government to recognize the legitimacy of the so-called democratic process initiated by the Government of Quebec to allow Quebecers to choose the political and constitutional future of Quebec.
We should ask ourselves, if this is the wish of the Bloc Quebecois, why was that motion not introduced in the Quebec National Assembly in order to ask the National Assembly to do precisely what that motion proposes, because what has been introduced in the National Assembly is certainly not, in my opinion, democratic and most of all it will not allow Quebecers to choose their political and constitutional future.
The proposal introduced in the National Assembly is a sham and the members opposite know it. Why is it a sham? Because everything has been structured and organized in such a way that almost all participants are supporters of separation, excuse me, sovereignty as the members opposite would say, because they are afraid to use the real word and they do not have the courage and the conviction to say what we all know.
But we intend to tell the truth to Canadians, those who live in Quebec and the others, about what Quebecers are being told by the Parti Quebecois or by the minor league of the Parti Quebecois in Ottawa, the farm team, the Bloc Quebecois here in town. The members of the farm team and those of the Parti Quebecois want us to believe that they are the real defenders of Quebec.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Madam Speaker, someone just said: "It is certainly not you". I was born in Quebec, I am Franco-Ontarian by adoption and I am proud to say that as a Quebecer, which I am, I can represent a riding in Ontario, in the Parliament of this country, because it is my right as it is the right of every Quebecer to be a candidate from coast to coast and to represent Canadians.
Members opposite want to deprive me of that right, they want to deprive Quebecers of that right and we should not forget that. Members opposite claim to defend not only the rights of Quebecers but those of francophones outside Quebec.
Madam Speaker, let me read an excerpt from the November 1993 issue of The Hill Times . In this article, the member for Quebec was interviewed, and she said:
"Bilingualism is only an issue in Quebec", said Ms. Gagnon. "People in Manitoba and Ontario don't really worry about speaking French, they just speak English. I don't expect to convince them to understand our position but I think we have to develop a sense of mutual respect."
My colleagues, the members for Nickel Belt, Cochrane-Superior, Timiskaming-French River and elsewhere, are well aware that Bloc members converted recently, perhaps after the member for Québec-Est, a Franco-Ontarian living in Quebec, spoke to his colleague, as I am a Quebecer living in French Ontario.
The sort of thing we see today, where a French-speaking Ontarian can represent a riding in Quebec City and a Quebecer like me represents a riding in Ontario, really reflects what Canada is all about. And I am proud to belong to this great country.
Members opposite are telling us: "We want a separate country"-sorry-"a sovereign country".