Debates of Oct. 27th, 1995

Quebec Referendum

[The Speaker]

I am sorry for interrupting. The hon. member for Shefford.

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

Mr. Speaker, just four days before the vote is held, the Prime Minister of Canada is still beating around the bush about recognizing the referendum results.

If 51 per cent of the population vote no, that is a good result, but if 51 per cent vote yes, that is a different story. The Prime Minister of Canada is out full time on the referendum campaign trail, and he will be voting on Monday. He is taking part in the referendum, yet he still refuses to commit to recognizing a yes victory.

There is nothing more democratic than a referendum in our society, and Quebecers will not tolerate having their choice put down.

On Monday, the majority of Quebecers will vote yes. This strong yes will show that they are united and stand as one. It will ensure that, as a sovereign people, their laws and values will be respected.

[Marlene Cowling, Liberal, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to add my voice to the chorus of voices ringing from coast to coast to coast calling for a united Canada.

Yesterday three 16-year old high school students from Russell, Manitoba landed in my office en route to Montreal for the no rally, hungry and tired. They had driven all night to get to Winnipeg to catch a plane to Montreal. They were spending their hard earned money to demonstrate how important their country is to them, how their country Canada includes Quebec.

The courage and commitment of these young people is a shining example of the belief western Canada has that a strong Canada is a united Canada. They represent the sentiments of thousands of Manitobans who could not make the journey but whose hearts are in Montreal today for their love of the greatest country in the world. Vive le Canada.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Mr. Speaker, separatists and traditional federalists say that it will be either black or white with the referendum, that is independence or status quo.

By contrast, the Reform Party pledged to renovate the Canadian home. You do not burn down a nice house just to get rid of a few cockroaches. You simply clean it.

Millions of Canadians, including many outside Quebec, have felt frustrated and threatened by the centralizing governments which have dominated our confederation by taking advantage of regional splits and claim that they were acting in the national interest.

A no vote in the referendum will open the door to a new decentralized Canada, patterned on the model proposed by the Reform Party, which is designed to give greater autonomy to the provinces.

The Environment

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at this important time in our history, we must remember that environmental issues know no political boundaries.

Federal initiatives such as the Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act protect public health and all Canadians. For example, those who live close to the St. Lawrence River benefit a great deal from these laws. Indeed, since 1990, the federal government has spent millions of dollars to clean up the St. Lawrence River.

Moreover, the international agreements negotiated by Ottawa on acid rain have benefited all Quebecers. Consequently, those who take the environment seriously should reflect on the positive aspects of Canadian federalism, before casting their vote on October 30. Let us not forget these major federal initiatives.

Referendum Campaign

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, Mr. Bob White, said that Canadian workers should continue to maintain close ties with workers in Quebec the day after a yes vote and that negotiations with Quebec should start without delay.

Politicians in the rest of Canada should do likewise to ensure the stability of Canada and Quebec the day after a yes vote. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that 50 per cent plus one was enough if it was a no but not if it was a yes.

My question is directed to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. How can the Prime Minister of Canada question the validity and outcome of this democratic exercise and go so far as to say that 50 per cent plus one is all right for a no but not for a yes?

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

Mr. Speaker, we should recall that a few months ago, the Leader of the Opposition said clearly: "If it is yes, it is sovereignty; if it is no, we will do it again".

The Official Opposition should not be surprised if we say: "We expect it to be no". That would be the right answer, for Canadians who are now in Montreal to show their solidarity to Quebecers and for Quebecers who have gained so much from Confederation.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on this last sitting day of the House of Commons before the referendum, I think it would be appropriate for the minister to be accurate and direct in his answers to my questions.

He knows perfectly well that the Leader of the Opposition and all the people on the yes side have always said, on every occasion, that they would respect the verdict of the people, the outcome of this democratic process.

My question, and I would appreciate a straight answer, is this: Why, when it is about their side, does the Prime Minister seem unwilling to commit himself to respecting the democratic process, going so far as to say: "If those are the results for the no side, we agree, but if the same figures turn up for the yes side, we do not"? Let him explain that instead of trying to skirt the issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Roberval implies he has the right to make preambles in which he says things that are inaccurate, makes statements that do not correspond with the facts and indulges in innuendo directed at those involved in the campaign, as he just did in my case.

He seems to think we will be less than democratic as we explain our position. He should know better, considering his experience in the House.

We made it quite clear that we believe the no side will win and that Monday Quebecers will realize that separation is not the way to go, and that is why we are clearly indicating that with a no, we will be able to continue to implement reforms in Canada.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but the minister will not get off that easily. I am entitled to three questions, and so for the third time I will ask him to make his position clear to Quebecers, to set aside his customary arrogance we have seen enough of and give a clear answer to Quebecers.

Can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who is speaking on behalf of the government today, explain clearly, honestly and frankly how the Prime Minister of Canada can say: "Fifty per cent plus one for the no is fine. I can go along with that. Fifty per cent plus one for the yes, I am not sure". What explanation does he have for an attitude that is so obviously unacceptable? I would like an answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, this day and the next few days are too important for us to waste our time responding to invective from the opposition. Their attitude is not very parliamentary.

On the fundamental issue, we have always said that we recognize the democratic right of Quebecers to vote in a referendum, but we have also clearly indicated our position and the fact that we believe the no side will win.

The Leader of the Opposition has indicated that if it is a no, he would not accept the outcome, so why does the hon. member for Roberval not talk to his own leader and tell him that his answer is not democratic because he does not accept the answer given by the people, while we believe our position is democratic, especially considering that 32 per cent of Quebecers have indicated that a yes vote means they very properly want the province of Quebec to remain a part of Canada.

[The Speaker]

Dear colleagues, I am sure that today, like all other days, we will always show respect in speaking to each other here in the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, let us make things perfectly clear. The Leader of the Opposition has said that he would respect the decision of the men and women of Quebec, which does not prevent our continuing to battle for our ideals as in 1980. René Lévesque kept his word, which the Prime Minister of Canada did not, and once again will not. If the minister cannot see the difference between continuing to fight for one's ideals and implementing a legal decision, he has a big problem, and it is not from the neck down.

The Prime Minister, who is seeing the choice of Quebecers being increasingly confirmed, has been quick to abandon the attitude of openmindedness and understanding adopted in his message to the nation, an attitude that is unusual for him, and has reverted to his true nature, menacing and vengeful toward Quebec.

My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Does the Prime Minister's attitude augur well for the day after the referendum, when we already see him threatening not to respect the result, the referendum verdict, showing his true colours as a non-respecter of democracy, allowing the Quebec referendum act to be violated with impunity, non-respecter of democracy that he is?

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe that history speaks for itself and that our Prime Minster has shown over his thirty years in politics that he is a democrat. He has expressed his opinions clearly, expressed his options clearly, and has never backtracked; he has never changed political affiliations during his career; he continues to believe in the values in which he believed in the past; he has always defended both Quebec and Canada, and continues to do so.

The arguments of the Bloc and the PQ will not do anything to change reality. The reality is that our Prime Minister has defended both Quebec and Canada well, and will continue to do so. A no is a no, one which will again work in favour of Quebecers, and Quebecers will come to see that it is in their interests to continue to make the reforms and changes they want within the federation, as they did during the first quiet revolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister has said two things that are true. First, the Prime Minister has not changed his opinion; he continues to mock Quebecers and to do things behind their backs. He has not changed. Second, when the minister tells us there will be a second quiet revolution, he is right and that revolution will start with a yes on Monday.

I am asking the minister how Quebecers can trust the Prime Minister when he engages in doubts and threats to force them to choose Canada, rather than admitting that the days following the yes vote have already been anticipated by the government, which will have to adopt a responsible attitude toward the international financial market for once, as Quebec certainly will?

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

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I think that no one will accuse our Prime Minister of not having made his thoughts clear, and of not having changed his way of thinking as he went along.

But I have a quote to offer to you, Mr. Speaker, and it is as follows:

"I am a Canadian. Who will doubt that? I was born a Canadian and we have been Canadians since 1636 in Quebec. I am very proud to be a Canadian."

In English, the quote is: "I am a Canadian. Who will doubt that? I was born a Canadian and we have been Canadians since 1636 in Quebec. I am very proud to be a Canadian". Who said this? Lucien Bouchard.

[The Speaker]

Once again I ask you not to refer to hon. members by their names but by their titles in the House. I know you will respect that.

Quebec Referendum

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, throughout the Quebec referendum campaign Reformers have made every effort to show Quebecers that Canada is open to real change, change that is not founded in the exaggerated promises of the separatists and change that is not found in symbolic constitutional amendments.

We want a no vote on Monday to mean a mandate for a new Confederation, a decentralization of power and the reform of federal institutions. Reformers and provincial governments are going to work for those changes. The tens of thousands of Canadians who are going to Montreal will work for those changes.

On the eve of the Quebec vote, does the federal government have anything more substantive and constructive to say on its agenda for change, something that would persuade a soft sovereignist or a discontented federalist to vote no on October 30?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister has indicated on a number of occasions this week that he is ready to continue to implement change and to consider further change.

What he has said about the distinct society and the right of veto are important announcements in terms of constitutional change. What is as important is that a number of provinces, including Newfoundland, have now passed resolutions on distinct society to indicate their respect for the province of Quebec and their desire that they continue to work in a strong and united Canada.

In terms of non-constitutional change, which is as important, we have indicated in the budget that we are ready to revise programs and jurisdictions in order to let the level of government which is most efficient do the work. We intend to continue in that direction.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thought the minister might have said that one of the most important changes the government could initiate the morning after a no vote would be to start real reform of this institution, the House of Commons.

Canadians inside and outside Quebec want their priorities and their concerns to be better represented in the Chamber. That can be achieved through a simple government commitment to freer voting in the House and the exercise of less party discipline by the governing party. Are these the sort of practical and positive changes the government would be willing to vigorously pursue after a no vote on October 30?

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the leader of the third party that we have to increase the amount of change we are making in this country.

I remind him again that we did program review and the budget downsized the government by 20 per cent. We started to reform the various programs in order to make the federal government more efficient. We indicated very clearly that we want to change and we want to listen to what Canadians tell us.

In terms of the House, I only have to indicate the reforms which have taken place to reduce its costs and increase its efficiency. We hope to continue in that direction.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the most compelling reason for making changes in the Chamber have been provided by the Quebec referendum debate itself.

Here we have a debate on the future of federalism and the country itself, but where has it occurred? Not directly, not forcefully, not thoroughly on the floor of the Chamber, but everywhere else. While the number one priority of the agenda of the people has been the future of their country, formal debate in the Chamber has focused on manganese as an additive to gasoline and the national horse act. That is why the House must change if the federal government is ever to lead change in the country.

Is the government open to changes in this institution so that the agenda of the people and the country becomes the agenda of the House?

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

Mr. Speaker, the debate about the referendum has taken place mostly in Quebec because it is a Quebec referendum.

I certainly agree with the leader of the third party that all Canadians feel personally involved. I am especially happy to see that desire for involvement has finally been met by the huge rally which is presently taking place in Montreal. It shows that all Canadians from every part of the country consider that the choice being made in Quebec is the choice of their own country. That choice affects them personally and is one in which they want to have a voice.

I am proud so many people have found it possible to go to Montreal. They are expressing not only their love for Quebec and their desire to stay together but also their view that Quebecers and the rest of the Canadian population will be able to go through problems in the future much better if they stand together, which is what we hope will happen, than if they divide.

Referendum Campaign

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs earlier quoted Lucien Bouchard as saying he was proud to be a Canadian. He neglected, however, to add that this statement was made before Meech Lake, that is, before the hon. Jean Chrétien's fancy tactics to sabotage the accord.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.