Debates of Oct. 24th, 1995

Chéticamp Community Radio

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

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, I took part in the official opening of CKJM, the new community radio station that has just gone on the air in Chéticamp and the Cape Breton Highlands.

This is the conclusion of five years' work by Normand Poirier, Angus Lefort and Daniel Aucoin and many other volunteers, who wanted to give Acadians in the area their own community radio as a means of local development. Their efforts were backed by the Government of Canada and strongly supported by the 5,000 or so listeners in the station's coverage area.

The opening ceremony was followed by a show featuring a variety of local musical talent. The show proved the point, if proof is required, that French language and culture are very much alive in Chéticamp, Grand-Étang, Saint-Joseph-du-Moine and many other places in Nova Scotia.

The Acadian people here have roots, language and culture in common with the francophones of Quebec. They fervently hope they will continue to have a country in common after October 30.

Free Trade

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Claude Cheysson, former French minister of foreign affairs and former commissioner of the European Community confirmed yesterday that the European Union could sign a free trade agreement with a sovereign Quebec. Mr. Cheysson thus recognized Quebec's special position between North America and Europe.

Free trade agreements will soon be signed between the European Union and Mexico and Tunisia. The idea of strengthening Quebec's position as a special European partner in North America is particularly attractive.

So, as Quebec enjoys special ties with its North American and Latin American partners, could it be that Canada alone has yet to comprehend the virtues of partnership? The Government of Canada has been trying unsuccessfully for some time now to sell the idea of

a free trade agreement between NAFTA and the European Union. Perhaps a sovereign Quebec will succeed where Canada has failed.

Canadian Unity

[Herb Grubel, Reform, Capilano—Howe Sound, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last weekend my wife and I visited Montreal, where her family lives and where she grew up as a francophone and raised her own children.

When we crossed the bridge back into Ontario her heart was heavy and the tears flowed. She is Canadian and Quebecois. She does not want to be anything else.

As a Canadian by choice myself, I do not want to lose my country. For goodness' sake, Quebecers, say no to the song of the separatist sirens. Your hopes for a strong and powerful Quebec may be met within Canada.

We Reformers in the west know what they want. We want the same. We want a smaller, less intrusive federal government. Together we can have it. Together we can get rid of the arrogant centralists with their failed visions. Together we will build a new Canada.

Canadian Citizenship

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the honours and advantages Canadian citizenship confers upon Canadians are too numerous to list. Our country is a model for the international community and the envy of hundreds of millions of people.

Canada could not have become the great country it is without the will and determination of the women and men, in Quebec and in the other provinces, who have worked unceasingly to attain the common goal of constructing a country in our image.

The wonderful thing about Canada is that it allows all of us to be proud of our status as Canadians, while not preventing us from being proud at the same time to be francophones, anglophones, and Quebecers.

This coming October 30, the people of Quebec will renew with pride their confidence in, and attachment to, Canada by voting no.

Quebec

[Réginald Bélair, Liberal, Cochrane—Superior, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec is now one of the world's most modern and most industrialized societies. Quebec's expertise is widely recognized in a number of sectors and its products are increasingly sought after throughout the world. The people of Quebec enjoy a considerable standard of living, education is universal, and health care is one of the jewels in our crown.

The Quebec of today owes its success to the quality, ingenuity and determination of generation after generation of Quebecers. All of these accomplishments, all of this progress by Quebec, have taken place within the Canadian federation.

This coming October 30, Quebecers will refuse to compromise what it has taken them centuries to build. They will choose Canada; they will vote no.

Financial Markets

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is feeding the uncertainty on financial markets by claiming that sovereignists do not want a sovereign Quebec to continue using the Canadian dollar. However, there is absolutely no doubt that a sovereign Quebec will continue to use the Canadian dollar and that it is in the interests of both Canada and Quebec to maintain a currency union.

A sovereign Quebec will continue to use the Canadian dollar and, as the Minister of Finance himself pointed out, it cannot be prevented from doing so. A sovereign Quebec will also assume its fair share of the federal debt. If the Yes side wins, Quebec and Canada will be well-advised to start negotiations immediately on the sharing of the debt and federal assets.

The finance minister of Canada has a responsibility to contribute to the stability of the markets and to refrain from spreading doubt and uncertainty the way he is doing now.

United Nations Organization

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada is proud to join all other nations in celebrating the 50th anniversary of the birth of the United Nations Organization.

We take particular pride in marking this anniversary, since Canada was directly involved in the founding of the UN. To Canada, the UN is an example of co-operation and openness.

It is no easy task to bring together daily some 200 countries with widely divergent interests and ask them to work on finding and developing ways to improve the lives of the people of this planet. Like the UN, Canada has always appreciated the advantages and potential of a relationship built on tolerance and the acceptance of diversity.

Today, Canadians are gathered together to wish a long life to the UN and to a united Canada.

Referendum Campaign

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, during the referendum campaign, I had the opportunity to travel to Quebec, where sovereignist posters showing possibilities through symbols are everywhere.

I do not understand these ads.

One poster, for example, seems to convey the message that, if Quebecers vote Yes, peace becomes possible. But we already have peace. Vote No and it becomes a certainty.

The posters say that a Yes vote would make the Canadian dollar a possibility. Vote No and it becomes a certainty.

Vote Yes and the economic union becomes a possibility. Vote No and it becomes a certainty.

Vote Yes and NAFTA becomes a possibility. Vote No and it becomes a certainty.

Why trade certainties for possibilities? It will be up to Quebecers to decide, and to live with the consequences.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are only a few days away from the referendum. Quebecers will soon have to decide whether or not they want to leave Canada.

Before making a decision, they should know that Canadians from the other provinces do not want Quebec to separate. Quebec is more than just one province among others. It is the very source of our history, our culture, our identity.

Through its politicians, its thinkers, its reporters, its artists, its athletes, its entrepreneurs, its trade unionists, Quebec has always been closely linked to Canada's development.

On October 30, Quebec will say No to Canada's break-up and decide to carry on its exciting adventure with its Canadian partners and to continue to shape this society, which is the envy of all the people in the world.

Quebec Sovereignty

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, on the American television network CNN, French president Jacques Chirac reiterated his country's intention to recognize Quebec as a new state, if the Yes side wins next Monday's referendum.

This statement by the French president fully supports the comments he made on January 26, when he was a presidential candidate, namely that: "Should Quebecers decide to achieve sovereignty, France should certainly be among the first to tell Quebec that we are on its side".

There is no doubt that if Quebecers vote yes on October 30, the international community, headed by France, will take note and recognize Quebec. That recognition will take place as soon as the National Assembly proclaims Quebec's sovereignty, after formally proposing, in good faith, a new partnership to Canada.

Quebec Referendum

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

Mr. Speaker, with the referendum coming very soon, I want to quote a statement which, in my opinion, reflects what a majority of Quebecers think of Canada.

The quote is as follows: "I am among those who believe that Canada is not exclusively about failures. We did not live together for 125 years only to make mistakes. One of the great Canadian achievements is that we have cared about the poor and that we have tried to share our wealth. We set up social programs which are among the best in the world, and that must be preserved".

That very pro-federalist statement was made by none other than the Bloc Quebecois leader, on June 18, 1993.

Quebecers are well aware of the merits and benefits of Canada. On October 30, they will choose to remain a part of that country by voting no.

Referendum Campaign

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Premier Clyde Wells of Newfoundland has entered the referendum campaign to set the record straight for the No side. It is out of the question that Quebec's status as a distinct society should be recognized constitutionally. Meanwhile, the Minister of Finance declared this morning that the distinct society clause should be enshrined in the Constitution.

Of course my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Could he tell us the government's position on the issue of distinct society? Is it the position he, as the finance minister, took this morning or is it the one taken yesterday by Mr. Clyde Wells, whose position is known to be very close to the Prime Minister's?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House our position is quite clear. We have always said, in fact the Prime Minister himself has said that he supported the concept of distinct society in the past, he supports

it today and is prepared to support it tomorrow. The Prime Minister of Canada himself made that statement in this House. Is that not clear enough?

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Labour was gracious enough to answer the question, I will ask her another one.

When the Minister of Labour says before this House and before all Quebecers who are listening that the Prime Minister is prepared to include in the Constitution the principle of a distinct society, is she referring-and this is my question-to the Charlottetown version preferred by the Prime Minister, in other words, a meaningless concept subordinate to the equality of the provinces and rejected by all Quebecers, or is she referring to the distinct society concept in the Meech Lake Accord, which the Prime Minister opposed? Which version is it, Madam Minister?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, which distinct society is the hon. member for Roberval talking about? Is he talking about the distinct society of Meech Lake, which Mr. Parizeau said at the time was an empty shell? Is he talking about the distinct society of Charlottetown, which the hon. member and the Bloc Quebecois refused to endorse?

Is he talking about that distinct society? Is he talking about the distinct society Mr. Parizeau referred to last week, when he said: "To hell with distinct society, I want the separation of Quebec"? What is he talking about? We on this side are willing to state quite clearly that Quebecers are a distinct society in Canada.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today, this is a very serious question, a question to which I would appreciate an answer, not this beating around the bush by the Minister of Labour in full view of the whole province of Quebec.

My question-I will give her a second chance, and I would appreciate an answer-is this: Would the Minister of Labour be so gracious and so kind as to tell Quebecers who are listening, when she says she supports a distinct society, does she support a distinct society as defined in Charlottetown, which was rejected by all Quebecers, or does she support the distinct society defined in the Meech Lake Accord? Which one is the Minister of Labour, as a minister of this government, referring to when she says she supports this concept? We would like to know.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have a very serious decision to make. It is serious because on October 30, we decide whether or not we will break up Canada. That is what we are all going to do on October 30.

When I hear the hon. member for Roberval, it sounds like he is saying: "Madam Minister, put the distinct society in the Constitution and we will forget about our referendum". I do not think that is what he meant. But the fact is that between now and October 30, we want Quebecers to think carefully. We know we have a distinct society in Quebec, and we are proud of it. We are also proud to be Canadians, and that is why we will say no on October 30.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the premier of Newfoundland, Clyde Wells, said he considered that Quebec was indeed a distinct society but that there was no question of its having any particular status or real powers. These words killed the hopes of the no side, and especially of Daniel Johnson and Pierre Paradis, who are still begging the Prime Minister of Canada to commit himself to including this concept of a distinct society in the constitution.

Will the Minister of Labour admit that the government of Canada could not include the notion of a distinct society in the constitution, even if it wanted to, because there will always be the likes of Clyde Wells, Frank McKenna and Roy Romanow there to tell us to forget about any ideas of a distinct society?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I have never heard a worse example of twisting someone else's words. Never.

Clyde Wells has acknowledged that Quebec is a distinct society. Mike Harris has acknowledged that Quebec is a distinct society. Why twist these facts on the eve of such a serious choice, a choice that concerns all of us, Quebecers and other Canadians both? What is going on? What is going on with the yes side? Are they running short of arguments for selling us on their option of Quebec's separation?

This week is a week of great significance and we must reflect upon the meaning of this vote, and not allow Quebecers to think that they will still wake up Canadian the next morning. This is where the importance of the October 30 vote lies. I would like to see the yes side at least have the courage to tell Quebecers openly what their option is on October 30.

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

Mr. Speaker, at least now we know that the Minister of Labour shares Clyde Wells' definition of a distinct society, as does the Prime Minister. Fine then. It goes over very well here in the House, but far less well in Quebec, as the minister is aware.

The people who are getting worried at this point are Daniel Johnson and Pierre Paradis, not those in the yes camp. Those in the same camp as her, her former colleagues if she can still remember.

Would the Minister of Labour have the courage to be frank with her friends in the yes group, her former colleagues, telling them that should there be a no vote on the referendum the predictable outcome of the 1977 constitutional negotiations will again be a resounding failure, as the good buddy of the Prime Minister, and

the new-found buddy of the Minister of Labour, the ineffable Clyde Wells, has clearly stated?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, should there be a no vote in the referendum, you will see this country continue the transformation it began 30 or more years ago. And judging by how the people of Quebec have fared within this country over the past 30 years, we have every right to be proud of who and what we Quebecers are. This has been accomplished within the Canadian federation. We have always played a lead role in that federation. And after the no, we shall still be there, continuing to transform this country.

[English]

The Economy

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in the past two days the value of the Canadian dollar has dropped by a cent and a half, interest rates have jumped alarmingly-the bank rate went up by 1 per cent today-and Canadian stock markets have witnessed the worst times they have had in eight years. The separatists are getting a foretaste of the economic consequences of their position.

Would the finance minister tell Canadians in plain terms what a vote against federalism on October 30 would mean for their bank accounts, their mortgages, their jobs and their economic future?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, there is a direct correlation between lower interest rates and a higher quality of life. Lower interest rates mean higher retail sales, therefore a stronger domestic market. It means more construction. It means more job creation. It means heavily indebted governments will have more money to spend on the needed social programs.

Markets react very negatively to political uncertainty. I cannot think of greater political uncertainty than arises out of those who would threaten to break up a country.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

To answer the member's question, it will lead directly to higher mortgage rates, lower job creation rates, lower retail sales and less money available to governments. In the case of the people of Quebec it also means tremendous uncertainty over the fate of the economic union and over the fate of their creating relationships with the United States.

The fact is that a country cannot be destroyed without grave consequences for its people and their lifestyle. Those who deny the consequences of separation deny the truth.