Debates of Nov. 28th, 1995

Renewal Of Canadian Federalism

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps it would be useful to recall that the man who just spoke is the main artisan of the forced patriation of the 1982 Constitution and of the demise of Meech Lake.

We know that nearly half of Quebecers supported sovereignty in the referendum and that many others voted for a thorough overhaul of the federal system. That being the case, what makes the Prime Minister think that Quebecers will be satisfied with a mere resolution that is meaningless as far as Quebec's distinct identity is concerned?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition feels that a resolution of the House of Commons is not enough, he should tell the House that as soon as he is premier of Quebec, he will support a constitutional amendment recognizing Quebec as a distinct society. If he does, I will assume my responsibilities as Prime Minister and discuss it with the provincial governments.

I am sure that if the Leader of the Opposition wants to entrench the concept of distinct society in the Constitution, the provincial Premiers will recognize his request. I think we could have a constitutional amendment very quickly. It could be done in a matter of months.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, if I ever take on the duties referred to by the Prime Minister, I would consider it an insult to my position and to Quebecers to accept a solution that is unacceptable. Even his ally, Mr. Johnson, would refuse.

How can the Prime Minister expect Quebec to take seriously a resolution that falls far short of the proposal in the Charlottetown Accord which was rejected in no uncertain terms by Quebecers in the 1992 referendum?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I and my party are in favour of recognizing Quebec as a society that is distinct because of the French language, the culture that is specific to Quebec and the fact that in Quebec we have always had a civil code based on the Napoleonic Code. So everyone knows this is a fact that can be easily recognized in the Constitution.

However, today it seems quite clear that the Leader of the Opposition is not interested in having Canada recognize Quebec as a distinct society.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his last minute improvised announcement, the Prime Minister remained true to himself in proposing to recognize Quebec as a distinct society, purely symbolically, through a simple parliamentary motion, which will give Quebec neither special status nor additional power.

How can the Prime Minister seriously think he is satisfying Quebecers, nearly 50 per cent of whom voted for sovereignty in the last referendum, with a simple resolution of the House of Commons symbolically recognizing the distinct nature of Quebec but without any additional power? Is this not an insult to their intelligence?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I think the insult will come when the Bloc Quebecois votes in this House, based on what we see today, against the notion of distinct society for Quebec. If the Bloc Quebecois really wants it to become a constitutional proposal, they should pressure the future head of the Government of Quebec to pass a resolution in the Parliament of Quebec, and then we will see it is passed, and convince the provinces to pass it.

However, if the current Government of Quebec-or the January government-does not want Quebec to be a distinct society under the Constitution, there is nothing I can do.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect for the Prime Minister, I have strong doubts that the future Premier of Quebec will agree to something Mr. Bourassa turned down at the time.

After hastily tabling his proposal, without awaiting the report of the phoney committee headed by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and without consulting his partners in English Canada, how does the Prime Minister think he will convince Quebecers of the seriousness of his actions? Will he admit to badly playing his last card, which looks oddly like a two of spades?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I can hardly wait for the member for Roberval to rise in this House and vote against the distinct society. For the first time we have an opportunity to speak clearly, not in the context of a thousand things, but on a very clear issue-

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

It is a sham.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

-a very clear issue: Is Quebec a distinct society because of its language, its culture and its Civil Code?

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

The Napoleonic Code.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

I am not ashamed to admit I know that Quebec's Civil Code dates back to the Napoleonic Code. If it offends the Leader of the Opposition, too bad for him. It is a fact of history. I can hardly wait to rise in this House and vote for Quebec's recognition as a distinct society, and I will watch the Leader of the Opposition vote against it, with a smile on my face.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I too have reviewed the Prime Minister's November 27 statement on unity measures and find the lack of content almost unbelievable.

Canadians inside and outside Quebec want fresh thinking. They want realism, not symbolism. They want a fundamental change in the way the federation operates. Instead the Prime Minister has offered them the tired old thinking and formulas for failure that doomed the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords and almost lost the referendum on October 30.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Is this all there is, recycled amending formulas, hollow symbolism from failed accords and lip service to decentralization? Is this really the best that

the Prime Minister of Canada can offer on the subject of national unity?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I made a speech in Montreal that was very clear. It was in written form and I am pleased the leader of the third party read it. It is exactly what I promised.

I said that the Quebec people because of their language, culture and the civil code are different from the rest of Canada. I have no problem with that.

I am offering a possibility for the rest of Canada to have something to say in the evolution of Canada as proposed by the leader of the third party who talked about regions in his document called "New Confederation" and said that all regions were entitled to equal status in constitutional negotiations. That is exactly what we offered the four regions of Canada.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

We will have a lot more to say on that tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

The contents of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords were flawed because the process for developing the contents were flawed. Meech Lake and Charlottetown were top down, closed door, politician driven approaches to change which failed to carry the judgment of Canadians because Canadians were not involved.

Yet in coming up with this package the Prime Minister has not only ignored the lessons of Meech Lake and Charlottetown. He has taken a huge step backward. He involved fewer Canadians in developing this Quebec package than the Meech Lake and Charlottetown gang did in theirs.

Is the Prime Minister following any recognized process at all, or is he just making this stuff up as he goes along? If there is a process, why is there no meaningful role in the process for the provinces or the people of Canada?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I made some commitments in Montreal on behalf of the people of Canada.

Perhaps the leader of the third party does not agree with what I said. Of course it was at a time when he was offering subsidies for Quebecers to move out of Quebec. That was his solution to national unity.

We want to fulfil our commitments and get back very quickly to dealing with the real problems of the country: jobs and growth. However, because the leader of the third party cannot attack the government on the substance of the operation of the nation, he would like to discuss the Constitution around the country. That is not our intention. It is to deal with the economy and job creation and dispose of these commitments within weeks.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister ignores questions about the lack of content in his package. He ignores questions about the flawed process. Maybe he will answer a question about the strategy behind the package, which is bizarre to say the least.

The Prime Minister has apparently decided to build a case for national unity on the concept of distinct society and a constitutional veto, two areas where there is little public or provincial support. He has chosen to ignore the one area where there is a real desire for change both inside and outside Quebec, namely the realignment of federal and provincial powers.

Is the symbolic tinkering with manpower training the government's only response to Canadians' demand for a major realignment of federal-provincial powers? Is that all there is?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, in the announcement I made on manpower training yesterday there was a very big move of clarification. It is a complaint that was mentioned by all the premiers over the last two years. However, we had to wait for the Minister of Human Resources Development, who will soon be tabling his bill on the reforms to the unemployment insurance program, before suggesting any reforms in that field.

I have discussed the strategy with the premiers and with this caucus. I know the Reform Party's position on this strategy is exactly the same as that of the Bloc Quebecois.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to enlist the support of the premiers in English Canada, the Prime Minister was forced to render Quebec's recognition as a distinct society meaningless, so as not to violate the principle of equality for the provinces.

This is so true that the so-called right of veto was offered to all regions of Canada, while responsibility over manpower training, which has yet to be defined, will be offered to every province.

Will the Prime Minister recognize that he was forced to render Quebec's recognition as a distinct society both meaningless and useless, so as to make it acceptable to the rest of Canada, which is so attached to the principle of equality for the provinces?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear to the hon. member that the Prime Minister represents all Canadians, not just English-speaking Canadians.

I also want to tell him that Quebecers rejected the very ambiguous separatist proposal. Now his party must comply with the will of the people, which means it must work within Canada.

As for the regional veto proposal, it was accepted by all Canadian premiers a long time ago. It makes perfect sense to me that Ontario, with 40 per cent of the country's population, should get such a veto, as well as two provinces representing a majority in western Canada, and likewise in eastern Canada. Such a proposal does not belittle anyone.

I think that, in Canada, we must all co-operate, and this is what we are proposing to do with this offer. I can see the despondency of Bloc Quebecois members who are about to vote against a distinct society status for the province of Quebec.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Prime Minister put the whole burden of the proof on the back of the Quebec government, considering that the premiers of British Columbia, Alberta and Manitoba have serious reservations about his proposal?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the member just criticized me for trying to propose a regional veto, because some provinces would like a veto for each and every province.

What we have done was to impose on the federal government a technique to use our own veto right. If Quebec no longer has a veto right as it thought it had once, it is because the PQ government of the time opted for a formula different from the Victoria proposal and, in doing so, eliminated the veto right that Quebec was seeking.

I can understand the despair of Bloc Quebecois members, who can see that we are solving two problems at once, in that we are recognizing Quebec as a distinct society, while also taking action to prevent any constitutional change without Quebec's consent. This is a commitment that all members of this House will soon be making. It will quite something to see the Bloc member oppose a motion seeking to make it possible for Quebec to have a veto right.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in 1992 both the Liberal Party and the Reform Party fought for national referendums on constitutional change. The current Prime Minister was successful in having the Liberal Party pass a resolution that stated: "The Liberal Party of Canada stands for the principle that the Constitution belongs first to the people and that the people must have a say in how the Constitution is changed".

Why then has the Prime Minister, instead of giving the people of Canada a say through a national referendum, decided the legislative assemblies, the direct notice of government and provincial governments can have a veto over federal constitutional change?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we are not at the stage of changing the Constitution. We are saying we are changing the way we, the federal government, will use our veto powers.

The House of Commons has a veto power. We say which way we will use it. The Constitution remains the same. The amending formula is the same and there is no proposition at this time to change the Constitution.

If the Government of Quebec were to say it is willing to change the Constitution to have a distinct society, as it is written in the Constitution at this time, we must have the consent of seven provinces, representing 50 per cent of the population.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the question was not answered. Why has the federal government not given the people of Canada a say in these kinds of changes through a national referendum on its own ratification?

I point out to the Prime Minister that we asked him this question about his Verdun speech on November 1. The Prime Minister said to the leader of the Reform Party: "The hon. leader of the third party should take time to read my speech. I said it would be a veto for the people of Quebec".

Since the people of Quebec voted against separation, why has the Prime Minister turned around and instead of giving the people a veto, given a veto to the future premier of Quebec, the separatist Leader of the Opposition?