Debates of Oct. 19th, 1995

Justice

[Sharon Hayes, Reform, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on Thanksgiving Sunday in Coquitlam, a grandfather, grandmother and their daughter were brutally murdered at the hands of the common law husband. This heinous crime once again illustrates the impotence of court orders in the justice system and the tragedy of marital and family breakdown.

Three white coffins stood in the very church that was the centre of this family's life and the tragic place of their death. I joined the community of Maillardville there last week and shared their pain.

It is for the sake of such communities that we in this place must find those measures that will strengthen and safeguard crucial family bonds in our society. We must work together to promote and implement measures in our justice and legal systems that make peace, not war, in the difficult separation of family structures. We must recognize that government policy does influence choice, attitude, and action, and seek out the root causes of the distemper of our times.

I wish to take this opportunity to express my sincere condolences to the grieving family and to the community. My thoughts and my prayers are with them.

Airports

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

Mr. Speaker, the federal Liberal government is proceeding with the former Conservative government's plan to privatize the operations of local airports.

This week the president of the Saskatchewan Aviation Council reminded us of the continued importance of these airports and said that the key to the financial survival of small airports in these new circumstances is the ability to attract business to the affected communities. He accurately points out that there is little communities can do about the costs of running the airports, so they must find ways to raise new operating money. That generally means that the airports need to bring in more users.

The irony of the situation is that if new money cannot be found the increased costs of operating the airports will have to be passed on to the current airport users, resulting in less, not more, use of the airports.

With this in mind, I urge the government to provide the resources and support systems necessary to ensure that municipal governments can successfully make it through this critical transition period.

Canadian Unity

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have always formed a united front to face common challenges. Once more we are challenged to work together to confront the issues of our time: jobs, economic growth, safety, good government and unity. Together we shall prevail.

Together we tilled the countryside and built cities, went to war to win peace and kept peace to prevent war. We made breakthroughs in science and pioneered technologies for all citizens. We created medicare so that all Canadians, rich or poor, have equal access to top-notch health care.

I know that Quebecers and their fellow Canadians take pride in the work we have done together to make Canada what it is today: the number one nation in the world in which to live. May this pride bring victory on October 30 to a Canada united in purpose and committed to a renewed federalism that ensures we reach our full potential in the 21st century.

Long live Canada!

[Gary Pillitteri, Liberal, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks many concerned Canadians in my riding of Niagara Falls and Niagara-on-the-Lake have been talking about the forthcoming referendum in Quebec and what it may mean for the future of our nation. Emotions are high and opinions have ranged from indignation to disbelief and even ambivalence. Many letters written from the heart call for Quebec to remain in Canada as a fundamental part of the Canadian family.

Yesterday a group of students from Niagara College wrote to the citizens of Quebec expressing their deeply held belief that it is the uniqueness of the people of Quebec that has helped Canada to become the greatest country in the world.

Let our greatness continue and our family remain united in harmony to work towards a better future for everyone.

Vive le Canada uni!

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on Thanksgiving weekend Waterloo, Ontario, hosted a Waterloo, Quebec, delegation during Oktoberfest. On Sunday evening, October 8, the two mayors signed a declaration officially twinning the two Waterloos.

Mayor Bernard Provencher told the delegates of the two Waterloos:

We are now living in the most critical period in the history of our country, with a possibility of a break up. It is quite ironic that it is in the midst of this crisis we are gathered here tonight to tell each other that if we could find a magical way of bringing all English-speaking Canadians through the Quebec province and do it in reverse the other way then we would not have to vote for what we already own on the 30th. Long live the twinning of our two cities, may they both remain forever in a united Canada.

The mayors of the two Waterloos, Bernard Provencher and Brian Turnbull, are in the House today. Their actions have helped to develop better understanding, mutual respect, and friendship among Canadians.

Vive les deux Waterloos! Vive le Canada uni!

Referendum Campaign

[Bernard St-Laurent, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the comments made yesterday by the Prime Minister in his speech before the greater Quebec City chamber of commerce are unequivocal and they clear up any misunderstanding. The federal system will not be changed in light of Quebec's legitimate aspirations.

The Prime Minister just abandoned all Quebec federalists who still believed that it would be possible to reform federalism and guarantee the respect and development of Quebec's distinctiveness. Indeed, the Prime Minister just slammed the door on those who still thought that federalism would take into account Quebec's distinct and specific character.

It is now clear that the Prime Minister has nothing to offer to Quebecers. The side which is promoting change is the only one providing a vision that will allow Quebec to develop to its full potential. Vote yes, it is the only logical choice.

Missing Children

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last May I wrote to fellow members of this House to encourage them to include a picture of missing children in their householders. The idea was to make these pictures of missing children more visible to many more people, thereby increasing the probability of their being found.

I am pleased to inform the House that this project has already been successful. I was recently informed by Child Find Canada's office in Edmonton that a missing teenager was safely located as a direct result of tips arising from the people who had seen her picture in a fellow member's householder.

Hats off to every member who is participating in Child Find and other missing children's organizations. I encourage every member to participate, because this program works.

Referendum Campaign

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the separatist dream merchants received a cold shower from the United States. The U.S. secretary of state, Warren Christopher, dispelled the separatist dream concerning the special relationship that an independent Quebec would continue to have with the United States.

Mr. Christopher said: "The fact that Canada is a united nation is an important aspect which explains our ability to get along with that country, to do business with it, and to have a successful relation".

Separatist leaders can continue to generate confusion and sell dreams wherever they go, but they will never succeed in fooling Quebecers. On October 30, Quebecers will say no to a project which would only isolate Quebec.

[Guy Arseneault, Liberal, Restigouche—Chaleur, NB]

Mr. Speaker, in a meeting with the editorial team of La Presse , the leader of the Bloc Quebecois described the sovereignty of Quebec as inevitable'' anda required step''.

This statement by the separatist leader confirms what we have long been saying: a yes in the referendum will guarantee only one thing, that Quebec will become a separate country.

The Bloc leader was not in a position to describe the partnership in such categorical terms, since he knows very well that the separatist blueprint is not realistic and he will find no one to negotiate with.

Quebecers do not wish to see Quebec separate from Canada, they do not wish to see Canada broken apart, and that is why they will vote no on October 30.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, all Quebecers are becoming increasingly aware that the separatist leaders refuse to talk about the costs of separation. The separatist leaders are attempting to cloak their plans for separation in suppositions, hoping that they can thus slip them by Quebecers.

The leader of the Bloc has even gone so far in that arrogant attitude as to state in an interview with La Presse yesterday: ``I did not say that there were no risks, I said that there were no costs''.

Members of the yes team have even refused to acknowledge the costs associated with separation. They have even refused to talk about them throughout the entire campaign.

On October 30, the people of Quebec will show them that they have not been taken in by this deception, when they vote no to separation.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said that Canadians in the rest of Canada had paid for 80 per cent of federal assets in Quebec. The minister finds it exceedingly complicated for Quebec to retain ownership of federal assets located on Quebec territory after sovereignty.

Naturally the minister neglected to add that, in fact, Quebec has paid for 23 per cent of federal assets located elsewhere in Canada or abroad. And custom and international law stipulate that federal assets located within Quebec will become the property of Quebecers ipso facto . Canada loses nothing in the transaction, as only 17.5 per cent of all federal assets are located in Quebec.

Obviously, Quebec will want to deduct this shortfall from the portion of the federal debt it will assume the day after a yes vote. Once again, the minister has attempted to bend the truth about what would happen in a sovereign Quebec the day after October 30.

Justice System

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are telling us in no uncertain terms that they want something done about our justice system.

The justice minister talks a good game and keeps throwing out feeble changes to the laws of the land, but where is the enforcement? Strangers move in and occupy land they do not own and nobody touches them. Bikers blow up property, each other, and innocent citizens. Policemen work hard to bring criminals to justice, only to see those same criminals walk out of court with a slap on their wrists and a smirk on their faces.

Law-abiding citizens are fed up. Hundreds will rally tonight with the Reform Party leader at the Civic Auditorium in Oshawa. Reform has a strong, common sense plan to deal with this situation and make public safety the number one priority of our justice system.

The justice minister can either get the message now or voters will talk to him at the ballot box.

I urge the government to listen to what Canadians will be saying tonight in Oshawa.

Referendum Campaign

[Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais, Liberal, Madawaska—Victoria, NB]

Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the referendum campaign, Canadian citizenship and the Canadian passport are issues that have been raised repeatedly by the Yes side. And almost every time, the separatists try to make us believe that all Quebecers who so wished would be able to keep their Canadian citizenship and their Canadian passport after Quebec's separation.

However, when the PQ's chief negotiator realized that his arguments were no longer convincing anyone, he started to back down, and now he says he will not negotiate the issue of citizenship for Quebecers. Furthermore, the leader of the Bloc is starting to praise the advantages of a Quebec passport. The only passport the separatist leader can guarantee is a passport to the unknown, a one way ticket to separation. On October 30, Quebecers will again confirm their ties with Canada and say no.

[Francis Leblanc, Liberal, Cape Breton Highlands—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister of Canada was in Quebec, in his own province, to deliver a very important message

to Quebecers. The Prime Minister is intent on refuting the myth dreamt up by the separatists that the rest of Canada would form a monolithic block. Not so.

No one can predict how the other Canadian provinces will react the day after a vote in favour of Quebec separation, let alone claim that they will form a single block and ask the federal government to negotiate with a separated Quebec. The Prime Minister has clearly shown that the partnership plan of the separatists is just a scam to camouflage their plans for separation. The people of Quebec know that, and on October 30, they will vote no.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, did anyone forget to tell Daniel Johnson about the political events of the past 15 years? Daniel Johnson says in the brochure of the director general of elections in Quebec that governments should continue to reduce duplication, but does he remember his own inability to negotiate a withdrawal by the federal government from manpower training as demanded by everyone in Quebec?

Daniel Johnson says that he believes no constitutional change should take place without Quebec's consent, but does he remember that he has with him on the no side the man who orchestrated the strong arm strategy of 1982? Mr. Johnson has a very poor memory indeed. Fortunately, Quebecers do remember and will vote yes on October 30.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in what should have been his most important speech in the referendum campaign, yesterday the Prime Minister simply gave Quebecers a warning by refusing to promise any sort of constitutional change to the present federal system. Once again, the Prime Minister has been the passionate defender of the status quo.

Are we to understand from the Prime Minister that he is asking Quebecers to vote no while refusing to commit to any constitutional change, even though his Quebec allies on the no side are rejecting the status quo?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I said very clearly yesterday to the people of Quebec that the referendum vote is a very serious one and what the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois are proposing is separation, pure and simple. The leader of the Bloc Quebecois said clearly yesterday that he had no interest in any sort of union with Canada, that he only wanted sovereignty. Perhaps he is in fact no longer the chief negotiator, but he certainly is the chief separator.

I have always said that Canada is evolving all the time and that there will certainly be changes-we make them everyday. But what do they want, the people of Quebec and, like them, all the people in Canada? They want an end to talk of constitutional problems. They want us to work together with the governments of Quebec and the other provinces, with business people and with all of society to create jobs and to give workers back their dignity in Quebec and elsewhere. This is why, after the voting on the referendum in ten or twelve days, we can get down to the real problems.

As far as constitutional changes are concerned, the debate today is not about that. We are answering the ambiguous question posed by the PQ and the separatists. The question is separation. If Quebecers understand well, they will understand that the issue is separation and Quebecers do not want to separate from Canada.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a surprise to hear the Prime Minister say in all seriousness that he wants to solve Canada's real problems when, during the past four weeks we have been sitting, the government has not tabled a single major piece of legislation on real issues. There are limits. We know he is keeping things until after the referendum.

The director general of election is distributing a brochure in Quebec, under the Referendum Act, which sets out the yes and the no positions. I would ask the Prime Minister whether the no side position in the brochure distributed by the director general of election accurately reflects his government's constitutional position?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we have always said that, as the federal government, we wanted to make the Canadian federation work well, and it is vital administrative arrangements be found to achieve the goals we are seeking. The brochure states clearly that we are prepared to clarify existing duplications. In fact, we have signed nine agreements with the nine other provincial governments to end much of the duplication. The only government refusing to sign an agreement to discuss the elimination of duplication is the Government of Quebec. It refused, because it had no interest in making the federation work. It wants to make use of everything to delude Quebecers into thinking they will remain in Canada when it wants to get them out of Canada.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would have appreciated an answer to my question, but, you will permit me to remind the Prime Minister that it was Daniel Johnson and the Minister of Labour, who at the time was a minister in the Johnson government, who refused to sign the cut-rate agreement he was proposing. He has a short memory. He has a very short memory,

Mr. Speaker. Since I did not get any answer from the Prime Minister, I will try for a more specific one.

In the document tabled, we read that "the Government of Quebec must-be a willing party to any change in its relationship with the federal government. This is the spirit of the federalism we believe in". This is the no position.

Does the Prime Minister agree with this statement of the no side's position, a statement which calls for a veto for Quebec? Does he agree?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, my party supported a veto for Quebec. When René Lévesque was Premier of Quebec and he met with the seven other premiers, he was the one who opted for an amending formula that gave all the provinces equal status. He rejected the Victoria formula, which provided for a veto and which was proposed by this government to combine with the others and create equality among the provinces.

It was at this point that the veto we were proposing for Quebec was dropped by the PQ, which the member belonged to at the time. Instead of criticizing us for the situation, he should do a mea culpa . For strictly partisan and short term reasons, Mr. Lévesque dropped the veto for Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, René Lévesque made a single mistake: going to Ottawa without a mandate and trusting the premiers of the other provinces and the current Prime Minister, all of whom betrayed him. Never again will we make the same mistake.

In a brochure sent to all Quebecers by the director general of elections in Quebec, the no committee clearly demands a right of veto for Quebec, and since members asked the question, I will quote from the brochure once again to give them another chance of hearing it: "The government of Quebec must-be a willing party to any change in its relationship with the federal government". This is what the no side and the Prime Minister are currently selling Quebecers.

As an eminent member of the no committee, can the Prime Minister tell us if he was consulted on the demand for a right of veto as expressed, printed and conveyed by the no side? Is this what he is saying or is he telling us stories once again?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the constitutional position of the Liberal Party of Quebec is well-known. It was developed by the Liberal Party of Quebec. For us, the question at this time is about the right of veto. We offered Quebec a right of veto before, but René Lévesque turned it down in favour of another amending formula.

When Mr. Johnson forms the new government after the next election, he will be able to make the same demand if he wants to and it will be submitted to the provinces. If the provinces agree, the amending formula will be changed.

As for myself, if I was in favour of this amending formula in 1970, I will have no difficulty in approving it again. The Parti Quebecois, however, has created a situation that will make it very difficult to find a solution because they were the ones who rejected the right of veto. It was rejected not by us but by them so they could join forces with the other provinces in opposing the proposals made by the government of which I was then a member. I have nothing to learn from them. If a mistake was made, it is the Parti Quebecois that must pay the price. They were the ones who rejected Quebec's right of veto.

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

Mr. Speaker, I say again to the Prime Minister that Lévesque's mistake was to trust the premiers of the other provinces, who betrayed him with the assistance of the current Prime Minister, an expert manipulator. We know that he has nothing to learn in the area of manipulation. He is Canada's number one manipulator.

I ask the Prime Minister to give us a straightforward answer. There is a clear statement from the no committee, of which he is a member. Until he tells us that he is no longer on the committee, he is still on it. His Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and his Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the referendum, are also on this committee. Do they agree with what is in this brochure? This is a simple question. It is not hard to answer. Could he make an effort, Mr. Speaker?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the truth hurts when we tell them that they were the ones who rejected Quebec's right of veto. They have no right to blame us at this time.

The truth is that they want to talk about something else. They do not want to talk about their plans. For five weeks and even five months they have tried telling Quebecers: "We do not want to separate, we want a partnership". They are now changing their tune at the last minute.

Their document clearly states that they want to keep their Canadian citizenship and passports. And then yesterday, with a wave of their magic wand, the Canadian passport became something else for Quebecers. They have changed their tune. We, however, are not changing our position. We want Quebec to stay in Canada and we are not flip-flopping as the Bloc members are doing because the PQ is suddenly changing its tune while still trying to hide the truth from Quebecers. These separatists do not have the courage to frankly tell Quebecers that they are indeed separatists.