Debates of Dec. 8th, 1994

Crtc

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, as the member indicates, a number of groups have appealed the decision of the CRTC-9419. They petitioned the governor in council to review that decision.

It is under consideration by me. I will be making recommendations to cabinet in due course with full consciousness of the implications involved and the time that the decision will take effect.

Ethics

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

The minister has still not seen fit to speak to the Director of the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs following the interventions of his official with some members of Parliament. Acting as a lobbyist for some pharmaceutical companies, Mr. Ritter still has access to the Health Canada office and the minister has not yet responded to that.

Will the minister finally admit that Mr. Ritter is indeed in conflict of interest under sections 6( a ), 6( b ), 26, 42( b ), 42( c ), and so on, of the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders, and will she immediately take the disciplinary action necessary to correct this unacceptable situation?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in the House yesterday, my officials continue to look into this question. When their investigation is complete, they will be reporting to me. I will be pleased to share the findings with the hon. member.

I want to clarify a few points. The person in question is not on leave as the director of the Bureau of Veterinary Medicine. He will not be returning to that position if and when he returns to Health Canada.

As concerns the review process for BST, scientific considerations are absolutely the only thing that will have any bearing on the approval process.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister.

Is the Prime Minister willing to do what the Minister of Health should have done a long time ago, that is to immediately apply section 33 of the Code which provides for disciplinary action, including dismissal of officials in conflict of interest, if appropriate?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I have said and I will repeat again that the officials in my department are reviewing the situation. When they have finished their review they will report to me and I will be pleased to share the findings.

The Environment

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in 1990 in Fredericton, New Brunswick, gasoline from a leaking Petro-Canada underground tank migrated under the neighbouring house of the Curtis family.

The gasoline fumes in and around the house during the past four years have caused the Curtis family to lose their home, lose their family business and most tragically of all, it has caused permanent mental and physical damage to the Curtis' seven year old daughter.

What is the environment minister prepared to do about this environmental and human disaster?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind the sensitivity of the issue and the fact that obviously the brain damaged child is in very serious condition, what I would like to do is take a look at all the circumstances and report back to the House.

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's answer.

My supplemental is for the Minister of Natural Resources. During this four-year nightmare for the Curtis' Petro-Canada has treated the family like criminals. When the spill occurred in 1990, Petro-Canada was a crown corporation and is now a company in which the government owns over 70 per cent of the shares.

Does the minister condone the bullying manner of Petro-Canada and will she intervene on the Curtis' behalf to ensure Petro-Canada is financially responsible for the additional medical treatment and care required for the Curtis' daughter?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I do not condone bullying, if that is what happened in this case. I do not know whether that is the case, but I assure the hon. member that I will take this matter under advisement. I will investigate it and report back to him and this House.

Latin American Summit

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister who tomorrow will be attending the Latin American summit in Miami.

I want to ask the Prime Minister if he will assure the House that at the summit he will raise two specific issues. First, will he raise the issue of the exclusion of Cuba from the summit and the continued illegal and immoral blockade by the United States of that country.

Second, given the very critical situation is Chiapas, Mexico will the Prime Minister urge at the summit an open dialogue and a peaceful, negotiated, non-military settlement in Chiapas?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, on the question of Mexico we have already mentioned many times to the authorities there that we want them to negotiate a settlement with the people of that province. I am informed that the dialogue is going better than it was some months ago. But I will press the issue with the newly elected president if I have the occasion.

As far as Mr. Castro and Cuba not being present are concerned, we would have had no problem seeing him there. It was decided that he was not to be invited and I was not the one inviting people to that summit.

Immigration

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of immigration.

The minister of immigration recently announced that it was the intention of the minister to increase the number of business class immigrants coming from India.

My concern is that according to a story in the Globe and Mail , this increase will come from around Bombay and will not include areas such as Punjab. This situation is of grave concern to the many constituents in my riding of Indian descent. What is the basis for the new business immigration strategy?

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the immigration plan that this government tabled on November 1, two key operative measures describe our business immigration: first, to promote it aggressively in a balanced way across the globe; second, to diversify. Seventy-five per cent of all business immigration comes from Asia and we think that is good, evidenced by the recent trip by the Prime Minister and a Canadian delegation.

However, we would also like to diversify in other areas of the world that would like to take advantage of the business immigration program. We identified such examples as western Europe, eastern Europe and the Middle East.

With respect to India, we all know that the majority of immigrants are coming from the Punjab through the New Delhi office. Other countries of the world are also in southern India.

It is not a question of simply excluding individuals, it is also being present in southern Indian where I think the recent trip of the minister of trade showed that Canada could reap some tremendous economic benefits and also continue to have the programs through New Delhi servicing Indians who wish to make Canada their home.

Business Of The House

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with the customary question for Thursday. Would the government House leader tell us what the order of business will be until the end of this session?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, today we are going to continue with the Bloc opposition day and there will be votes on supply at 5.30 this afternoon.

Tomorrow we are going to call third reading of Bill C-51, the grain bill, and Bill C-56, the Environmental Assessment Act amendments, followed if possible by report stage of Bill C-52, the Department of Public Works and Government Services reorganization.

On Monday we will take up where we left off on Friday and follow this business with report stage of Bill C-44 with respect to immigration. On Monday as well we expect to introduce legislation regarding employment equity. We intend to propose that this bill be referred to committee before second reading pursuant to Standing Order 73(1).

This will both meet the legislative requirement for a parliamentary review of existing legislation and provide the House with the most broad possible opportunities for updating the law on this matter. Subject to progress on other legislation, we would like to add this matter to the business for Tuesday.

On Wednesday we intend to deal with report stage of Bill C-53, the Canadian Heritage reorganization bill. On Thursday we will deal with third reading of that bill.

That completes my weekly business statement.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to reply to the member for Québec-Est who questioned my remarks just before Question Period.

The hon. member said that he and the Quebecois people were insulted by my remarks which attacked the Parizeau proposals as undemocratic.

I want to make it very clear that I made no attack on the people of Quebec, whom I respect. My remarks were directed at the Government of Quebec and the Bloc Quebecois. Neither the Parti Quebecois nor the Bloc Quebecois is one and the same as the people of Quebec, although sometimes those members believe they are.

I said that the Parizeau proposals were not democratic because first, they were putting the law on independence before the National Assembly first and they were going to consult and have the referendum afterward. Second, they had no mandate from the electorate because they only received 44 per cent of the vote.

Third, their regional commissions were structured to favour the independence option and were not neutral. Fourth, the proposals were fuzzed, unclear and misleading.

As to my use of French in this House, when I speak in Parliament I usually use my mother tongue which is English, which is my right.

When I talk with my constituents, I use their language, whether French or English, and that is my right also.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order! We were of the opinion that the hon. member had a minute left when he was interrupted for question period. At that time, the Bloc Quebecois member had the floor and the Chair said he would let him finish and allow an answer from the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. But you went directly to the answer, without giving the minute to our party.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The clerk will correct me if I am wrong, but I had understood that there was one minute left for the answer of the government member. I will give the minute left to the hon. member for Québec-Est.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to what I said earlier about the statement made by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce because I find it insulting for all members of this House when he says the Quebec referendum was unethical.

How can he, who was a member of the Trudeau cabinet, say that a process such as this one was unethical? In 1980, Mr. Trudeau came to the Paul Sauvé Arena and promised Quebecers he would amend the Constitution. Then he deceived Quebec by limiting its powers and creating the problems we have now.

Not only that, and I will conclude with this, the hon. member was also part of the Trudeau cabinet in 1970 when-

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Madam Speaker, not only was I not in the Trudeau cabinet at that time, but I voted against the Constitution of 1982.

[Judy Bethel, Liberal, Edmonton East, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am sure that many Canadians watching the events of the past two days must be experiencing a deep and visceral reaction as the new Government of Quebec and its separatist allies in this Chamber finally launched their desperate push to realize their dreams and tear Quebec out of Canada.

Some Canadians must be feeling a sense of concern and anxiety about the future of a country we cherish. Some Canadians must be feeling a sense of dismay, of déjà vu. Are we ever going to put these issues behind us or are we condemned to regular flare-ups of a national unity crisis like a bad toothache?

Some must be feeling deep frustration, a sense of wanting to get involved, to have a say, to make a difference. The frustration comes from seeing the separatist politicians trying to hijack a great and successful country. The frustration comes from having to hear the kind of nonsense spouted by the separatists, nonsense about how simple and easy separation would be, nonsense about how Canada does not work and especially nonsense about how Canadians in other provinces feel about Quebec.

The separatists are already presenting us with a wide array of distortions. Their rhetoric will get louder and louder and more and more extreme as they draw closer to their day of reckoning. They will be trying to tell Quebecers there is no place for them in Canada, no recognition, no accommodation. They will be telling Quebecers other Canadians want them to leave or no longer care one way or the other.

They will ignore the nearly 1 million francophone Canadians who live outside the boundaries of Quebec, whom they intend to cast overboard, to sink or swim.

They will be telling Quebecers our partnership has reached a stage of irreconcilable differences, that it is time to divvy up the assets and to get on with our separate lives. They will be telling Quebecers it would be a painless breakup, while telling the rest of Canada that we cannot get along anymore, but by the way, we will still need the use of your dollar and open access to your markets.

It is hard to know how to react, to laugh at the absurdity and the contradictions of the separatist project, to cry at the tragedy of so much talent, time and energy being wasted chasing a totally unnecessary leap into the unknown, or to get angry at the dishonesty and the contempt that permeate the separatist arguments.

There is so much that is absurd, the prospect of soldiers in the new Quebec army lining up to be paid in Canadian dollars, the idea that Quebec needs independence to choose its own immigrants side by side with promises by the PQ of unrestricted mobility of labour with the rest of Canada.

It is strange to hear the lamenting about how there is no room for Quebec in Canada when we can look around this city and see Quebecers occupying the highest offices this country has to offer. It is strange to hear Mr. Parizeau vaunt the accomplishments of Quebec at every opportunity, waxing eloquent and quite rightly so about the social, economic and cultural progress Quebec has made these past 30 years.

He does not even blush and acknowledge that all of that progress took place inside Canada. It came through hard work and partnership between Quebecers and other Canadians and through partnership between two levels of government. It is strange to hear the separatists denounce the rigidities of a system that gave Quebec so many tools and the French language and culture a secure home.

There is much that would be saddening if the separatists ever had their way, the dismembering and discarding of a model of governance that points the way to the world of the future. The future does not belong to microstates, it belongs to partnerships of communities sharing their sovereignty to pursue a better life for their citizens.

It is sad to see the separatists' headlong race back into the past. There is much to provoke anger. The separatists will denigrate and belittle accomplishments of Canada. They will play fast and loose with the truth. They will show contempt for anyone who does not share their vision or their zeal.

To laugh, to cry, to get angry, I urge my fellow Canadians not to give in to an emotional reaction, to realize what is going on here. This is the beginning of an increasingly desperate and panicky assault by the separatist movement. They have one shot at making the case to break up Canada. They know deep down they carry an enormous burden of proof and it is starting to rattle their nerves. As they get more and more rattled, they are desperately trying to put their opponents on the defensive and it is not going to work.

There is an overwhelming consensus that it is time for Quebecers to make a decision. In 1995 we will come to a fork in the road and we will take one path or the other. It is that simple. The stark clarity makes some people uncomfortable. That is understandable, but there is no longer any use denying that the fork in the road is here in front of us.

I share in the consensus that the time has come for a decision, but I want that decision to last and to be accepted gracefully by the separatists. For the decision to stick it must be seen by Quebecers and by Canadians in every other province as a clear result on a clear question after a fair and full debate. It should come at the end of the process used twice before, the Quebec referendum law. That is what the Parti Quebecois promised in order to get elected, albeit by the narrowest of margins. That is what it is morally and politically obliged to deliver now.

The resolution is misleading because it ignores the reality that Quebec's future is Canada's future, that after two centuries of partnership, of building a political, social and economic union together, Canadians in other parts of the federation would be indifferent or unaffected by a decision by one-quarter of its members to leave.

Other Canadians have a right to talk with Quebecers about that decision, about the options they have. We want Quebec to stay. We want to get back to what all of us Canadians do best, working out practical solutions to real problems, innovating and adapting, bending and compromising, adjusting and changing. We have always found the ways to live together, to work together, to build together. We have found ways to acknowledge and indeed to cherish our differences and at the same time realize how much we share. We have had a successful federation in this country for 127 years. We have woven together an economic union, a sharing social community and a democratic political union so well that too many of us have forgotten what we have to lose.

Why federalism? It is disarmingly simple. Federations allow communities to come together under peaceful and democratic political structures to share the benefit of social and economic co-operation while retaining the very high degree of local control over issues that matter most to local communities. It is a simple idea like most great ideas. It is an idea that has worked in societies that are on the surface relatively uniform, societies like Germany, Australia, and the United States.

It is a particularly important idea in societies where communities based on language, religion or ethnicity live side by side, societies like Switzerland, India and, yes, Canada. It is a great idea but it is constantly under attack. All over the world there are politicians who promote difference, who offer people false hope

that their lives would suddenly improve if walls went up with other communities.

Some of them sit in this Chamber. Federalism gives local communities the scope to exercise control over many aspects of their lives, especially in matters close to the cultural vitality and the social development of the community.

Federalism enables communities to co-operate with their neighbours and to work together in pursuit of common goals. Federalism is a way to pool resources, talent and energy in pursuit of these goals. Federalism provides a framework of peace, order and security and allows communities and individuals to live side by side.

Federalism creates a common identity and a purpose that can transcend differences without replacing local identities and local communities. Federalism provides the structures of an economic union but places them under the control of a democratic legislature. Federalism provides the basis for a sharing community, for a redistribution of wealth from richer to poorer regions and from richer to poorer citizens.

Federalism allows minority groups to exercise democratic control over their communities and to tailor laws and government services to meet their own needs and preferences while at the same time exercising a powerful voice in the legislature and executive that serves the community as a whole.

It is true that some of these benefits can be realized by partnership between small and independent nation states. Around the world there are military alliances, trade agreements, various forms of co-operation and mutual assistance but a closer look shows there is a common striving in many parts of the world to move beyond security pacts and free trade.

The extra element to the sharing community and democratic control over matters of common interest are the bonds that are the most difficult to forge and the most vulnerable to being cut. A successful federation is a whole that is much stronger than the sum of its parts.

It involves at least two or maybe three strong levels of government and a natural tension between them. It involves disagreements and compromises. Running a federal system of government is a noisy, sometimes messy, affair. Sometimes it is frustrating, especially to those who seek quick fixes and bold dramatic gestures.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry. The hon. member's time is up.

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC]

Madam Speaker, the debate that is taking place here today is historic and I expected a higher level of debate from the other side. I see that our colleagues opposite consistently select for their statements examples and quotes that support their position, while omitting examples and quotes that are unfavourable to it.

For example, this morning, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs went through newspapers from coast to coast, he said to show how editorial writers were all against the sovereignist solution that we are advocating. Except that one article in Le Devoir , which is also somewhere between those two coasts, as far as I know, and on the front page, which is hard to forget-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Order. The hon. member must respond to the comments of the member for Edmonton East.