Debates of Oct. 26th, 1995

Kid Brother Campaign

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to share the thoughts in a letter sent to me from Tom Arnbas of the Kid Brother Campaign.

On behalf of my family and the 300,000 Canadians who signed our Kid Brother Campaign petition, please accept my deepest thanks. With your support and the understanding of people such as you, I am sure we will be able to get the changes we want to this ridiculous Young Offenders Act.

Mr. Thompson, when you speak with the justice minister, please make sure he knows Canadians believe our government provides very little justice for victims of serious crime.

If the minister personally experiences the pain my family is going through, I am sure he'd want the criminals to be punished.

The minister's staff tells people I am putting on a theatrical performance, but you know nothing could be further from the truth. We are real people, my brother was really murdered and it seems our justice system doesn't care.

My family wants to know, what we can do to make Mr. Rock understand.

That is the same question every Canadian is asking.

Post Office

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, a trucking company in Winnipeg which carries Canadian mail is planning to reroute a significant amount of its traffic between Montreal and Winnipeg and Toronto and Winnipeg through the United States. Test trips are soon to begin with exact locations for refuelling laid out in detail to take advantage of savings in fuel costs.

This raises a number of issues. There is the issue of the higher than necessary cost of gasoline in the country and the government's refusal to lean on the gas companies to take less of a profit. It also shows how the free trade mentality has changed our ways, eliminating borders in our minds as well as on paper.

In a week when we are properly talking about our love for Canada, what are we to say of the fact that Canadian mail addressed from one part of Canada to another is being rerouted through the United States, thus eroding the tax and economic base that funds things like medicare?

If we want to be a country we should start acting like a country.

National Unity

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on September 27, the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton affirmed through a unanimous resolution its pride in its bilingual character, going back to pre-Confederation time.

The citizens of the National Capital area are proud of the fact that their communities on both sides of the river reflect the duality of this great country of ours. Populated for more than a 170 years by the two founding peoples, the capital is the symbol of what the Prime Minister was saying last night, that citizens of different tongues, cultures and origins can live together in harmony.

Like the Ottawa-Carleton region message to Quebecers, I truly hope that they vote no on October 30. I urge them, like the Prime Minister yesterday, not to break our bonds of friendship and understanding, our bonds of mutual trust.

Quebec Referendum

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last night, two very important messages were delivered to the people of Canada. On the one hand, they heard the Prime Minister of Canada calmly but seriously describe the country's situation as the referendum date approaches and what major impact a Yes victory would have.

On the other hand, they saw the separatist leader of the Bloc Quebecois revile another Quebecer, one who stands up for a strong Quebec within a united Canada. The Prime Minister talked about understanding, openness and positive changes, while all his opponent talked about was resentment, bitterness and revenge.

On October 30, Quebecers will dismiss this message of destruction and vote No.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Quebec must understand that a Yes victory in the October 30 referendum will take away forever all the benefits associated with belonging to the Canadian family.

If Quebec separates, this means that never again will Quebecers be called Canadians. Never again will they benefit from the international recognition and respect that go with the Canadian passport. Never again will they be able to move as freely in Canada as their brothers and sisters from the other provinces and to trade as freely as they used to with them.

A victory for the Yes side will have untold but deeply felt consequences for Quebecers. On October 30, the Canadian dream must be kept alive by saying No to separation.

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a Canadian. It is my wish that Quebec remain a part of Canada. To Quebecers I say this is their home. We are a nation from sea to sea to sea. The very ideals they search for are to be found within these borders, not beyond. However the upcoming referendum to be held on October 30 will decide whether Canada is 10 equal provinces or two nations.

All provinces should have certain rights. Reformers believe the federal government should withdraw from provincial areas such as natural resources, manpower training, language and culture, housing, et cetera. As an equal province Quebec can work within our country for a new federalism which will address its needs for change.

Quebecers are not the only ones looking for change. People in other parts of Canada are looking for change as well. I hope on October 30 that Quebecers will vote to stay in Canada.

We are a family with many strong differences like all families. Surely members of a family of goodwill can sit down and be imaginative. There is a federalism to redefine and a good nation to save.

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Carleton—Gloucester, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the polls indicate that a number of people are set to vote Yes in the October 30 referendum thinking-can you imagine-that this will lead to the renewal of Canadian federalism.

Nothing could be further from the truth. A Yes vote in the referendum will not bring constitutional changes. Instead, it would bring change and development to an end. It would spell the end of Canada.

On October 30, those who want to remain Canadians and who want Quebec to remain a part of a modern and prosperous Canada will vote No.

Change will come from the No side; this option is the only one allowing Quebec to remain in Canada. The Yes side has nothing to offer, except breaking up our country and tearing it apart, and Quebecers do not want that to happen.

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in his address to the nation, the Prime Minister said that the vote on Monday will determine the future not only of Quebec but also of Canada as a whole, adding that the consequences of this decision cannot be foreseen or measured.

This is a very serious warning. It clearly shows what is really at stake in the referendum. On Monday, the people of Quebec will not be voting on some way of renewing federalism or on a vague offer of partnership. They will have to decide whether or not they want Quebec to break away from Canada and become a foreign country. They will have to decide if they are prepared to abandon their history and heritage.

The people of Quebec must know that by voting Yes on October 30, they will become strangers in their own land.

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

Mr. Speaker, having reviewed his position, Laurent Beaudoin now says that Bombardier will stay in Quebec whatever the results of the referendum on Monday. After trying to influence Quebecers' decision, Mr. Beaudoin, faced with the imminence of a Yes vote on October 30, changed his mind.

Laurent Beaudoin did not behave as a responsible businessman by using scare tactics to try to influence the decision of his employees and of all Quebecers. Bombardier will stay in Quebec because it is doing well there.

The prophets of doom were taught a lesson in maturity by Pierre Péladeau, who said yesterday: "I think that we as business leaders have no right to try to influence our people- Fear will not solve anything; we will not solve anything by trying to scare people". That is why Quebecers will vote Yes with confidence next Monday.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on October 30, Quebecers will find themselves at a crossroads, having to make a decision on their future.

If they go right, they will vote against separation. It will be a vote against the status quo, a vote for the decentralization of federal powers and the end of the strongly undemocratic system in which we are living. This vote will put the provinces in control of their cultural and linguistic destiny.

If they go left, they will choose separation, thus causing a mass exodus of businesses, skyrocketing unemployment, and economic disaster.

I urge Quebecers to think about the future of their children and to join forces with all other Canadians in fulfilling our legitimate destiny, being the best country in the world to live in. Long live Canada, a united country.

[The Speaker]

With all respect I urge members not to use any props in the House of Commons.

Referendum Campaign

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, one of the separatist leaders took the Prime Minister of Canada up on his offer to address all Canadians. But unlike the Prime Minister, who delivered the same speech to Canadians in both official languages, the Bloc leader had two different messages for Canadians.

In his French language speech, the separatist leader was content to put the past on trial and to accuse the Canadian government of all the problems in the world. In his English language speech, he chose to speak from the other side of his mouth. He portrayed himself as a good, mollifying neighbour hoping for open co-operation in the future.

Quebecers have wised up to the separatists' subterfuge designed to deceive them. On October 30, Quebec will say No to this vision, which comes in different French and English versions.

Quebec Referendum

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said this yesterday: "As you found out this week, political instability exacts a very heavy cost".

The past few weeks of the referendum campaign, and the past few days in particular, have clearly demonstrated how dramatically our economy can be affected by uncertainty and nervousness on the financial markets, in the business community and among small investors.

Canada offers stability, social peace and an ideal haven to anyone who wants to build and develop. By saying No to Quebec's proposed separation, the people of Quebec will vote for success, prosperity and security.

Canada is the only side that offers change while at the same time preserving stability and protecting what has been gained. That is why the people of Quebec will say no to separation.

Premier Of New Brunswick

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, New Brunswick dropped a bombshell yesterday, when the legislative assembly led by Premier McKenna agreed to recognize Quebec's distinctive character.

It was Premier McKenna who, at the current Prime Minister's instigation, led the attack that resulted in the failure of the Meech Lake accord in the spring of 1990, going back without hesitation on the promise made by his predecessor. The very man responsible for the failure of Meech Lake would now have us believe that he recognizes Quebec's distinctive character. Just what does he take Quebecers for?

Quebecers will not again be deceived by this man who has lost any credibility he may have had. It is obvious that those who wanted to crush the side promoting change are panicking now.

Referendum Campaign

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

Mr. Speaker, in his address to the nation yesterday, the Prime Minister of Canada reiterated his commitment to bring about the changes Quebecers want.

He said, and I quote: "We must recognize that Quebec's language, its culture and institutions make it a distinct society. And no constitutional change that affects the powers of Quebec should ever be made without the consent of Quebecers".

This commitment by the Prime Minister of Canada is consistent with the No side's desire to be open and to effect change. This is a serious commitment, which opens up the most challenging prospects for Quebec and Canada the day after a No vote.

National Unity

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am addressing you today as a Canadian of British origin, who remembers the commitments made to the French in the Quebec Act, and as a Liberal, who is proud of the contributions made by Laurier, St-Laurent, Trudeau and Chrétien.

I am speaking as a Canadian from Upper Canada, who remembers how Papineau, Brown, Lafontaine and Baldwin made it possible for two nations to build a common future.

I am speaking as a Canadian who is afraid to see her country destroyed by a spell cast through fabrication, deceit and personal attacks.

If only I could just snap my fingers and free Quebecers from this spell before it is too late. We have shared too much to just drop everything.

Je me souviens. Indeed, I remember.

Quebec Referendum

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, two years ago yesterday over two million Canadians voted overwhelmingly for change by electing 52 Reformers. We have a vision for a new, revitalized country based on more effective democratic accountability, fiscal sanity, a justice system that works, and a decentralized federation that responds more effectively to regional and personal needs.

Today many Quebecers are considering giving up on Canada. I urge them not to. I urge them to vote no on Monday, to stay together as a country and join with Reformers in all provinces to build a new confederation and a new Canada.

We believe in a strong country, a strong federation of equal people and equal provinces and less interference in our lives by a heavy-handed, intrusive federal government. We believe that power should be closer to the people. We believe profoundly that we need to build on our strengths, the highest of which is a deep commitment to understand and care for each other. Things do not need to stay the same.

Referendum Campaign

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in his speech to the nation, the Prime Minister wanted to reach out to Quebecers by telling them, and I quote: "I have also heard, and I understand, that the disappointments of the past are still very much alive".

Could the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, on the basis of what we heard last night, tell us whether the Prime Minister, like the Minister of Labour yesterday afternoon in this House, hopes that before they vote in the referendum, Quebecers will forget what he did in the course of his career and consider only what he has done in the past two years which, in our opinion, is not any more reassuring?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, our government has accomplished a great deal since it came to power. Between 1984 and 1993 we were not there, unfortunately, but in the February 1995 budget we announced a major shift toward decentralization. Through our program review, we have to restrict the role of the federal government in the various areas for which it is responsible.

Furthermore, in addition to offering the provinces a mechanism for reducing duplication, we signed 64 agreements to that end within the past 18 months, including a dozen agreements with Quebec.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs can go ahead and repeat his set speech which is meaningless to Quebecers. That is his privilege. He decides how to answer the question.

I would like to ask him this: Even assuming that Quebecers forget the Prime Minister's past, as he asked them to do, and consider only the last two years of his mandate, do the minister and his colleagues realize that every time the Prime Minister referred to the Quebec referendum question, he said it was not in the cards, he did not want any of it and even that we would get a drubbing?

Does the minister think this is the sort of thing that would make Quebecers trust him?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition should be very careful when it attacks the past of a man who has dedicated more than 30 years of his life to politics and by whom the interests of Quebec and Canada were well served.

The people in the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois and their separatist leaders have made a habit of attacking the person of the Prime Minister instead of sticking to the issues. They obviously have no more arguments of substance to prove that separation would be a good thing, so now they attack personalities. There is no doubt that the federation has evolved in a positive way in recent years.

The hon. member for Roberval says it is meaningless. Is it meaningless to acknowledge that the quiet revolution took place in Quebec within the federation, within Canada?

Is it meaningless to acknowledge that Quebec's language rights were asserted, protected and augmented in recent years within Quebec and Canada? Is it meaningless to point out that Quebec industrialists have managed to win back Quebec's economy and play a far more important role than they did 20, 25 or 30 years ago, in Quebec and Canada?

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the man who is responsible for closing the Collège de Saint-Jean without justification has a tendency to talk about issues for which he is not responsible. Since he mentioned the Prime Minister's career and said the Prime Minister served Quebec well, allow me to quote the Prime Minister who said in April 1992, and I will quote him verbatim: "It is pretty obvious what happened. We did not try to shaft Quebec, but we did outsmart them".

Considering these comments about Quebec, does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs think Quebecers should trust the man whom the minister is defending and who represents the status quo for tomorrow, if Quebecers were to say no in the referendum?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I may remind the hon. member for Roberval that Saint-Jean was one occasion when the ministers of the Parti Quebecois failed to deal with the problem. When the Péquistes could not agree, we made arrangements with the Conseil économique du Haut-Richelieu to keep the Collège de Saint-Jean open. That is the honest truth.

Second, the hon. member quoted what the Prime Minister of Canada said a few years ago. Perhaps we should ask the Leader of the Opposition what he said when he was a Conservative, or what he said when he was with the Union nationale, because he changed his position several times. What matters is the truth of what he said, not his position at the time.

As far as truth is concerned, I would really like to know why, when Mr. Bouchard, the Leader of the Opposition, spoke to the people of this country last night, what he said in English was so different from what he said in French?

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

Mr. Speaker, most of the quotes attributed this week to the Prime Minister have come from his book, an interesting book worth reading.

In Le Droit on April 8, 1982, the present Prime Minister, Minister of Justice at that time, was quoted as saying he was not in the least surprised and was very pleased that the Quebec appeal court judges had been unanimous in rejecting Quebec's claim of entitlement to a veto.

My question is directed to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. How could Quebecers today trust a Prime Minister who says that no constitutional change affecting Quebec's powers will be made without the consent of the people of Quebec, when that same man stated in 1982 that he was not in the least surprised and was very pleased that the Quebec appeal court judges had been unanimous in rejecting Quebec's claim of entitlement to a veto?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I see that the opposition is unfortunately resorting to personalities and is attempting to assassinate the character of the Prime Minister. I feel this is a deplorable tactic. It is a tactic which lessens the credibility of the opposition when it is trying to convince people it has the ability to govern a country.

Because we have proven our ability to govern a country, proven our ability to make it fiscally responsible, something the PQ has so far refused to do. We have proven our ability to downsize government as was necessary, something the PQ government has not done. We have proven our ability to support the interests of Quebecers within Quebec, while the Official Opposition, Messrs. Parizeau and Bouchard, have no reality to offer, just promises.