Debates of Nov. 29th, 1995

Renewal Of Canadian Federalism

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one would certainly think in listening to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs that he has become a Pollyanna, since he is the only one pleased at this time with the situation in which he has placed himself and his government.

In the rush of reactions to the Prime Minister's announcement of his initiatives, the premiers of British Columbia, Alberta, even

Manitoba have had some very harsh words to say about both the initiatives and the Prime Minister's attitude. All of the reactions triggered by the Prime Minister's proposals paint a picture of an increasingly divided Canada.

Is the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs aware that the reactions to the Prime Minister's proposals clearly demonstrate that the proposals are in serious jeopardy, even now as we speak, and that his government is headed for a constitutional impasse?

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

On the contrary, Mr. Speaker. In connection with the distinct society, you have seen a large number of Canadian premiers, including those from the west, Mr. Filmon in particular, expressing their agreement. The Prime Minister has indicated that we would start with a House of Commons resolution on these questions, since we can do no more from the constitutional point of view at present, but that it was our wish to enshrine it in the Constitution.

What is happening with the distinct society question will also happen with the veto. The Prime Minister had promised during the closing week of the campaign that he would take steps to reinstate the Quebec veto lost by René Lévesque. We are going to reinstate it; this is the way to resolve the problems that exist in Canada. We have a committee looking at the other problems of the federation at this time, and it will be coming out with some conclusions.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs not agree that his proposals, his government's proposals, not only are dividing his own committee, the phoney committee, but also the cabinet and the caucus, as well as deeply dividing all of Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would recommend that the official opposition come to grips with the fact that there was also divided opinion on the yes in Quebec, and that the yes side lost. When there is talk of divided opinions, the main place there is any division at this time is in Quebec, but it is also clear that the no side did win and that Quebecers-and this is a decision that you must accept because it is a democratic one-have clearly indicated that they want major changes, but within Canada.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the most obvious lessons from the past is that unity proposals are divisive if their only goal is to appease one province or one group in Canadian society.

After the referendum vote, Canadians demanded fresh thinking on national unity and there was a widespread demand from all Canadians to reshape our federation.

The Prime Minister has responded to this demand, not by bringing a broad forward looking Canada package to the House but rather by bringing a narrow backward looking Quebec package.

My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. When will the government bring a national unity package to Parliament that addresses the legitimate concerns and aspirations of Canadians outside Quebec as well as inside Quebec?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians from all regions of the country have said they want to keep Canada united.

When Canadians from all parts of the country went to Montreal to express their views, they were representing views from all over Canada, from British Columbia to Alberta to Ontario to the maritimes. Canadians are united on that goal to keep Canada together. They want the federal government to find the ways to solve existing problems.

It is normal that many views would be offered, some of which are contradictory, on the means by which Canada can be kept together. However in the present instance there is no doubt that we have the support of Canadians for the measures the Prime Minister has introduced.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, during the referendum campaign the Prime Minister and the federal government showed that they were dangerously out of touch with the aspirations of Quebecers. Now with this half baked Quebec package, with nothing more than constitutional vetoes and distinct society, the government is showing that it is dangerously out of touch with the rest of the country.

There is nothing in these unity packages that addresses the concerns of the west, the north, Ontario or Atlantic Canada. In fact that absence of content merely alienates the millions of Canadians who are tired of this 30-year old federal two step to appease Quebec separatists.

When will the government change direction, abandon the status quo and develop a truly Canadian package for nation building, one that addresses the concerns and aspirations of Canadians outside Quebec as well as inside Quebec?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, first, I ask the hon. member to recognize and acknowledge that the steps announced this week by the Prime Minister represent only the first steps in a strategy in the

months to come that will make it clear that the government has a national vision for the future of the country.

Second, I invite the attention of the hon. member to the terms of the veto proposal the Prime Minister has put on the table reflecting the very approach taken by the Reform Party in its purported vision for the future. It requires regional consensus before any constitutional change could take place in the country. I would think the Reform Party as a regional party would support that approach and I expect it will.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in the government's remarks, no matter which minister addresses it, that indicates there is even an interest in the constitutional and systemic demands for change in other parts of the country.

For example, I have been in the House for two years and I have never yet-

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Nobody noticed.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Recall.

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, York West, ON]

What are you, a cowboy?

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Calgary Southwest is about to put his question.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in that period we have never yet seen the government give any priority whatsoever to the concerns and aspirations of British Columbia, the third most populous province in the country. B.C. is not even represented on the unity committee. It is not recognized by the government as a region in its own right.

The government is prepared to recognize Quebec as a distinct society. When is the federal government prepared to recognize British Columbia as an important province of Canada?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third party emphasizes impressions. He wants to leave the impression that the British Columbia perspective is not reflected in these proposals, but the reality is quite different.

The hon. member should know, if he does not, that the constitutional amending formula already in the Constitution Act, 1982, requires unanimous consent of the provinces to any change falling within section 41 of the Constitution, an important list of changes.

British Columbia has a veto over any such change. British Columbia, with the other provinces, has a veto over any proposed change in section 43 of the Constitution, involving the interests of British Columbia or any adjacent province.

British Columbia can opt out, like any other province, of any change approved under section 38. The veto we will introduce this week will make it possible for British Columbia and any other western province to veto any other proposed constitutional change.

In that context how can the leader of the third party possibly suggest the western and the British Columbia perspective is not reflected in the Constitution?

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs was totally serious yesterday when he announced that the phoney committee he chairs, which is divided, as the minister has indicated, will continue its deliberations despite the initiatives announced by the Prime Minister. It will even submit recommendations to the Prime Minister by Christmas.

Are we to understand that the phoney committee is continuing its work because it plans to offer Quebec more than the Prime Minister did barely two days ago?

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

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition is obviously obsessed with the word "phoney", which it must surely get from its own use of the word or from the example it provided with the regional commissions in Quebec, which were really phoney commissions.

The Bloc's questions are also becoming increasingly phoney, because the answer has been provided three times. The committee plans to submit its recommendations to the Prime Minister by Christmas. A few weeks are not going to bother us. However, in our report, we will clearly have to consider other options for solving the federation's current problems in connection with programs, activities, roles and jurisdictions.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the word "phoney" bothers the minister because it reflects the truth.

Does the minister not believe, rather, that the initiatives announced by the Prime Minister sound the death knell for the work of his committee, thus confirming beyond a doubt that the committee is phoney and was set up simply to create the illusion that Ottawa was preparing to offer changes to Quebec? This is the fact of the matter.

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

Mr. Speaker, we had an example of phoney studies with the Le Hir reports, need I remind you. So, if the opposition and the Parti Quebecois need a refresher on good examples of bad studies, they have the very thing right in their own bailiwick.

As for our committee, we will continue to examine ways to resolve the federation's problems, because our goal is not to destroy Canada, but to build it. This is what the majority of Canadians and Quebecers have asked us to do, and, because we believe in democracy, we will continue to try to build Canada.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is proposing a package of change that reminds some of us of the Charlottetown accord, an accord which we emphatically rejected three years ago. He should not be surprised when British Columbia and Alberta, the two most populous and the two wealthiest provinces in the west, have rejected his offer.

How can the Prime Minister justify cobbling together a package which supposedly addresses the concerns of Quebec but which is seen as a slap in the face to Alberta and British Columbia?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the proposal which is reflected in the veto bill, to be tabled later today, comes very close to what was known as the Victoria formula of 1971, an approach favoured by the province of British Columbia.

Under the Constitution at present, in the absence of the legislation we will table today, it will be possible for constitutional change to take place under Section 38 of the Constitution Act, notwithstanding that it was opposed by British Columbia and two other western provinces, even if they comprised more than 50 per cent of the population of the west.

This bill will make it impossible for that to occur.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the justice minister talks about the 1971 reality. I would ask him to leap forward if he could to the 1995 reality.

He ignores the fact that Canada is changing and that in a generation British Columbia will have as many people in it as Quebec. He ignores the fact that the concerns of the west can no longer be ignored. If he does not know that, he should go out west and he would know that.

Why is the Prime Minister proposing veto provisions for central Canada when he must know that British Columbians will never approve of this package?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we should assume for a moment that the hon. member speaks for the people of British Columbia.

I thought it was the Reform Party which proposed that we should change the situation so that there is regional consensus required before constitutional change takes place, which is exactly what this bill does.

I ask the hon. member, since he derives from a riding in British Columbia, whether he has the agreement of his colleagues from Alberta for the proposition that B.C. should itself and alone have a veto on constitutional change.

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Given the last minute commitment made by the Prime Minister a few days before the referendum with a view to swaying Quebecers, followed by the striking of a phoney committee with a foggy mandate, and by the hasty announcement on Monday of his proposals, it appears increasingly obvious that the Prime Minister is improvising on his own.

Given the general outcry in response to the Prime Minister's proposals across Canada, will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs admit that the Prime Minister, faced with a profoundly divided Liberal Party, is acting alone on this issue to save his skin?

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

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. Quebec has been demanding a distinct society clause for a long time, for years, for decades. It has been doing so to achieve a very important objective: to provide Quebecers with the security afforded by the recognition, by the federal government and the Constitution, of the distinctiveness of the language spoken by the majority of them, which is different from the language used in the rest of Canada, the uniqueness of their culture, and the particular traditions of their civil code.

The Prime Minister's motion finally gives Quebec what it has been demanding for years, that is recognition by Canada as a whole, since Parliament is the only place which represents all Canadians from every region. The Canadian Parliament has been asked by the Prime Minister to pass this resolution giving Quebec the recognition it has been demanding for years.

The fact that most premiers are now in agreement with respect to the distinct society shows once again that Canadians are now-