House of Commons Hansard #247 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was quebec.
Referendum CampaignOral Question Period
The Speaker
I want to ask the hon. member for Roberval to please change the word he used. I would appreciate it if this word were not used in the House of Commons.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Mr. Speaker, to conform to your instructions, I will change the word I used. So is this not strangely similar to what happened at a time Quebecers remember with sadness in their hearts, when they had problems with the same man, in the same way, with the same players and for the same reasons?
Lucienne Robillard LiberalMinister of Labour
Mr. Speaker, oddly enough, in this referendum campaign, the three leaders who want the break up of this country had to sign an agreement among themselves. It is the only written agreement in this referendum campaign. On the other side, we have Quebecers who do not want the break up of this country, and to share the same goal, we do not need an agreement in writing.
If there is anyone today who could not care less about the distinct society concept that we as Quebecers support, it is the leader of the Yes side who said in no uncertain terms: "To hell with a distinct society. We want a country". That is what the choice is about on October 30. It is about the break up of Canada as we know it today, and that is why it is such a serious matter.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister made the following statement, and I quote: "Any changes in constitutional jurisdiction will only be made with the consent of Quebecers". This somewhat ambiguous statement is devoid of any meaning; moreover, the Prime Minister took great care not to pronounce the words "right of veto", but rather allowed the idea to circulate without ever stating it.
Will the Minister of Labour confirm that the Prime Minister's statement does not in any way constitute a right of veto as Quebec has always understood and demanded it, but is instead a vague promise that is more or less devoid of meaning?
Lucienne Robillard LiberalMinister of Labour
Mr. Speaker, I think this is evidence of a lack of desire to properly understand what the Prime Minister of Canada said yesterday. The Prime Minister of Canada was very clear about the distinct society and said that he accepted it.
He was very clear in stating that the constitutional changes affecting Quebec will be made after consultation with Quebecers. He was very clear in stating that this country is undergoing a very great transformation in preparation for the 21st century and that it
was his heartfelt wish that Quebecers participate fully in these changes for the 21st century. That was the Prime Minister's message.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Minister is not being very clear. What she was asked involved the right to veto, changes with the consent of Quebecers, these being the words of the Prime Minister, but as usual she is not answering the question. I shall attempt another.
Can the Minister of Labour tell us what reassurance there is for Quebecers in such a statement by the Prime Minister, when in 1992 he overrode the virtually unanimous opposition of the parties represented in the Quebec National Assembly, including the Liberal Party of Quebec, of which she was not so very long ago a member, and the leader of the present Liberal Party had voted against unilateral patriation of the Constitution? This Prime Minister was therefore identifying himself as a Quebecer at the time, and Quebecers were represented at that time by 74 Liberal members in the House of Commons. How can there be any confidence in a person who has reneged on his commitment to Quebec?
Lucienne Robillard LiberalMinister of Labour
Mr. Speaker, the present Prime Minister of Canada is very aware of the whole constitutional history of this country. He is also well aware of what has happened in Quebec. He understands very well, too, the disappointment some Quebecers may have felt at certain points in the history of this country. For the past two years, however, this Prime Minister has been leading this country; let us look at what he has done in those two years to respond to the needs of all Canadians, to respond to their concerns, their needs.
When the Prime Minister of Canada speaks, I feel that we can judge him very well by the actions he has undertaken in the past two years as the Prime Minister of this country. He did not govern by "referendum" for the past two years; he has acted, and he has governed this country.
Preston Manning Reform Calgary Southwest, AB
Mr. Speaker, the separatists say that Canada cannot change and will not change but Reformers insist Canada is going to change, and without the help of constitutional lawyers and the federal-provincial wrangling they bring.
One of the real changes Quebec and every other province wants is a limit on federal spending. It is unchecked federal spending that has led to federal encroachment in areas of provincial jurisdiction, huge deficits and debt and a staggering tax burden for all Canadians. Legislation is required to limit federal spending power.
My question is for the finance minister. Is the federal government open to that kind of change, simply limiting federal spending power, a practical change that can be accomplished without constitutional wrangling?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec
Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear on this side of the House and have agreed with the position put forward by the hon. member and his party as to the need for fundamental change.
We have also said in two successive budgets that what we were doing was not simply cutting spending but redefining the role of government because that must happen in the modern age.
In that area there are items on which we may or may not agree. We have said that as far as we are concerned the best controls on spending we can have are short term targets on which the government's feet are held to the fire. That is what has enabled us to hit our targets consistently and that is what we intend to continue with.
Preston Manning Reform Calgary Southwest, AB
Mr. Speaker, the biggest problem with our current Constitution is not so much its content but its application. The federal government has used its spending power to encroach on provincial areas of jurisdiction such as natural resources, manpower training, social services, language, culture and so forth.
The answer to the separatists is a more balanced federation which can be done by re-examining and reducing the federal role in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
Is the federal government open to this type of change, a simple withdrawal from provincial areas of jurisdiction, again changes that can be made without constitutional wrangling?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec
Mr. Speaker, not only is the federal government open to that kind of change but in looking at what has happened over the course of the last two years, we have done this in a number of areas.
The hon. member should look at the great openness displayed by the Minister of Human Resources Development concerning ways he would work with the provinces. He should look at what the Minister of Natural Resources has done. Look at regional agencies. Within Quebec we have taken 43 programs down to one to concentrate on small and medium size business and the delivery of
federal government programs. In department after department we have effected that kind of change and we have done it without any constitutional discussion.
The federal government is concentrating on those areas where it can make the maximum impact and is allowing the provincial governments and municipal governments to do the same thing.
The kind of change the leader of the Reform Party calls for is in the process of happening, but it is happening without the kind of rupture and dismantlement the PQ or the Bloc would advocate. It is happening for the betterment of all Canadians.
Preston Manning Reform Calgary Southwest, AB
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are offering Quebecers change, real change; not superficial, symbolic constitutional change.
People cannot eat the Constitution. They cannot pay their mortgages with the Constitution. They cannot build their dreams on constitutional clauses.
What is needed today is a changed federal government that respects provincial powers, stops reckless spending and taxation, and gives all provinces the tools they need to develop the strengths of their own communities and economies. That is possible with a no vote.
Is the federal government open to these kinds of changes? Is the Prime Minister open to these kinds of changes? If the government is, how does it propose to demonstrate that openness in practical ways before October 30?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec
Mr. Speaker, the proof is in the pudding. If we look at what the government has done over the last two years, we see that the fundamental process of change is under way. There is only one thing that can stop the process of change and that is a yes vote, which would make the country go back to square one.
The fact is that a no vote means that the evolution of the country, along with the evolution of the nations around the world, is something that is proceeding apace.
Mr. Speaker, if you want proof that the federal government is open to change, just look at the remarkable speech the Prime Minister made last night in Verdun.
Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour.
When the Prime Minister talks about distinct society, he keeps referring to a concept that is meaningless and subordinate to the principle of equality for all the provinces, a concept that was rejected by Quebecers in the referendum on Charlottetown.
Yesterday, it was impossible to get a specific answer from the Minister of Labour, so we will ask her the same question today. Could the Minister of Labour tell us what kind of distinct society the Prime Minister wants for Quebec, the Charlottetown one, which is meaningless because it is subordinate to the equality of the provinces or the Meech Lake one, which the Prime Minister opposed so strenuously?
Lucienne Robillard LiberalMinister of Labour
Mr. Speaker, it is quite simple. I will repeat in this House what the Prime Minister had to say about the meaning of distinct society.
"A Quebec recognized in Canada as a distinct society by virtue of its language, culture and institutions. I have said it before and I say it again: I agree", the Prime Minister said.
Does the Bloc Quebecois agree with a distinct society?
Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister said in this House that Clyde Wells was in favour of a distinct society. Are we to understand that when the minister and her Prime Minister talk about distinct society, they are referring to the same definition as Clyde Wells, in other words, a definition that is completely meaningless and without any of the powers demanded by Quebec for more than 30 years?
Lucienne Robillard LiberalMinister of Labour
Mr. Speaker, it is such a surprise to see the Bloc Quebecois anxious to defend the concept of distinct society, while their present leader, the leader of the Yes side, Mr. Parizeau, says he does not want to hear about distinct society; he says to hell with distinct society. He is just not interested. He is interested in destroying Canada, to make a new country. That is the big difference between the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of Quebec.
We want to keep this country called Canada, and we want to remain proud and distinct in Quebec.
Stephen Harper Reform Calgary West, AB
Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the Prime Minister's speech last night and other discussion of possible constitutional changes.
Before the Charlottetown accord the Reform Party and the Liberal Party had made commitments that all major constitutional amendments should be done only through national referendum. Is it still the commitment of the Liberal Party that any constitutional changes being planned must be submitted and approved by the people in a national referendum?
Lucienne Robillard LiberalMinister of Labour
Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister said yesterday, very clearly, is that any changes in constitutional jurisdictions will only be made with the consent of Quebecers. It seems to me that, as a statement of position by the government, this is very clear.
Stephen Harper Reform Calgary West, AB
Mr. Speaker, I think that is a wise commitment and I hope the Prime Minister is prepared to make it to all Canadians.
After the last referendum in 1980 we entered into constitutional discussions with a PQ government in Quebec. That proved to be very problematic for the country as a whole and particularly problematic for Quebec.
Does the government believe that the PQ government would be a willing, open and constructive participant in constitutional negotiations?
Lucienne Robillard LiberalMinister of Labour
Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that after this referendum, in which we hope with all of our hearts that this country will remain united, the premier of Quebec will still be Mr. Parizeau. Since Mr. Parizeau's sole dream and sole obsession has always been to create a separate country, it would perhaps be a little surprising if he were to sit down at a constitutional conference table. May I express the hope that the premier of Quebec will bow to the democratic vote of Quebecers?
Pierrette Venne Bloc Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.
Clearly, English Canada categorically rejects any possibility of constitutional change in Quebec's favour. This is why the leader of the Reform Party said there was no market for a distinct society, that it was old hat.
Will the Minister of Labour acknowledge that, although the Prime Minister has been saying he wants to enshrine the principle of a distinct society in the constitution, he will be unable to because of the steadfast opposition of English Canada as expressed yesterday by the premiers of British Columbia, Newfoundland and Manitoba?
Lucienne Robillard LiberalMinister of Labour
Mr. Speaker, I think the words of the Canada's principal leaders are once again being twisted.
What a number of premiers said is that they recognize the principle of a distinct society for Quebec, but wonder whether it was a priority here in Canada at the moment to sit down and change the country's constitution.
This is what the premiers of the other provinces said. Quebecers are saying exactly the same thing. When asked what the priority should be for their provincial government, how do they respond? Over 80 per cent say it should be the economy, employment, health services or education. Only 8 per cent mention Quebec's political status. So, if we are going to respond to the priorities expressed by our fellow citizens, we must look to the problems before us first and foremost. This is what the premiers confirmed in the other provinces.
Pierrette Venne Bloc Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, are we to understand the reason the premiers of English Canada are so steadfastly blocking constitutional change is once again because of the bargaining that went on before the start of the referendum campaign between them and the Prime Minister of Canada in which they promised there would be no constitutional change for Quebec, as the editorial in the Daily Gleaner indicates?
Fernand Robichaud Liberal Beauséjour, NB
That is disgusting, what she is saying.