Debates of Nov. 30th, 1995

Constitutional Amendments Act

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

That is not true. He resigned after Meech Lake.

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Hamilton East, ON]

It is true. Pardon me but he resigned one month before the Meech Lake failure. To refer to history, you have to at least know it. I know it, I lived through it, I was here and the one who jumped ship before the end was Lucien Bouchard.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Madam Speaker, the veto seems to be falling back on the old premise that Quebec supports the concept of two founding nations.

Would the hon. member who just gave such a heart rending emotional speech care to comment on the La Presse Gallup poll released this morning? It stated that 42 per cent of Quebecers polled support the 10 equal provinces scenario while only 37 per cent polled actually believe in two founding nations. The government clings to an outdated way of thinking.

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Hamilton East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I tried to point out that if we are to build a future as a country we have to understand our past. We have a country that is generous. It is known around the world as being unique. We have a country where one-third of Canadians claim neither English nor French as the mother tongue. I am very proud in the riding of Hamilton East to represent them in Parliament. Why do we have this generosity of spirit?

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Order. The time has expired.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise in support of Bill C-110. If there is one overriding purpose here it is to put an end to the 30-years war.

For the last 30-35 years since the quiet revolution in Quebec the best minds in Quebec and in Ottawa have been preoccupied with a constitutional debate. It is good fun. It has brought forth an army of special constitutional carpetbaggers and others, highly paid professional lawyers, professors who are available to give opinions on either side, open line talk show hosts and journalists who have grown up in one profession. They will all be sorry to see it go but it must end.

There are more important problems today. Those are the economic problems that face us all of creating jobs, unemployment, and promoting economic growth.

Even within the narrow area of government and public administration the excessive preoccupation with a Quebec problem too narrowly defined has been at the expense of examining rationalization and modernization of the constitutional governmental system. It is time to move on. What we can call the Chrétien package is an attempt to do that on a basis which the country will accept.

It does have the two elements, the distinct society and what perhaps incorrectly has been called the constitutional veto. I was not part of the committee that drafted it, but in an open caucus where all ideas were put forward I brought together ideas that reflect those of my own constituents and the people in British Columbia who want one Canada and want Quebec to be part of it.

If distinct society is defined it should restate what historically is a matter of faith but also law, has been accepted by Canadians and is reflected in those great constitutional international acts of 1759, 1763, 1774 and onward. In so far as changes are made, they should not be formal constitutional amendments and thus be a roadblock to constitutional change in the future. That has been done. These matters are recorded in acts of Parliament and in accordance with the sovereignty of Parliament. Within the constitutional limits established by the Constitution they are capable of being re-examined and changed by ordinary legislation.

In a certain sense these are yesterday's problems. The attempt is honourably to dispose of them and to move on to the new problems, to get away from this excessive preoccupation of the last 35 years that at some times seems to occupy 85 per cent or 90 per cent of the time in Ottawa and Quebec City. That is much too much.

Since Bill C-110 is directed to the issue of constitutional change and its process, the issue of how do constitutions change has been raised. We have to recognize honestly that the constitutional amendment of 1982, chapter V, is a réforme manquée. It was an attempt to make a change, but it was not made.

Under the old conventional system that ultimately turned on an act of the British Parliament passed at the request of Canada, the Constitution had a large degree of flexibility. Today it is rigid, virtually impossible to change. In fact the only two measures put forward in the last 13 years, Meech and Charlottetown, have both failed.

So we do face the paradox that we have a rigid constitutional system and indeed any attention to this in a certain sense borders on being frustrated in the future.

Constitutions are living documents. If they are not, they fail. Constitutions do change. Large masses of our constitutional law change by constitutional convention and custom.

I would have said that the role of the Senate as a non-elected body conventionally follows that of the House of Lords. If you do not have the legitimacy of election, you do not interfere with legislation that is passed by a democratically elected lower house. I notice the Senate has been avoiding this in recent days. We may perhaps have to remind it of this.

I simply point out that constitutional conventions through executive glosses is one way of changing a constitution. Constitutions change by judicial legislation. In 1982 I and others suggested to Prime Minister Trudeau that we consider a constitutional court, as they now have virtually throughout Europe in this post-communist reform and in Germany and other countries. Even so, the constitution changes through judicial interpretation.

Lastly, a constitution changes through the exercise of constituent power. Ultimately, all constitutional power comes from the people. It is quite clear that the country has the capacity to renew itself through an act of total revision at some time. It is not defined in the Constitution, but it is the ultimate source of power.

For those who worry too much, and I think unnecessarily, on reading this law and ask if we have put ourselves into a second constitutional strait-jacket after the 1982 amendments, the answer is no. I believe this generation of Canadians and British Columbians, many of whom I have taught, the many hundreds of thousands who have communicated their desire for one Canada, all have a rendezvous with the Constitution Act, if not this year then certainly by the end of the century. I think the new plural society we are getting in Canada today makes us a very unique country, a very distinct country in relation to the rest of the world. Multiculturalism is a living example of co-operation. I think we will find people will sit down and ask for a new constitutional charter, but not now. These people still have to be integrated in the political process. But it is occurring, and it is occurring before our eyes.

In the meantime, the government is committed to pressing for constitutional change in other areas, using the fact that by executive example and discussion and negotiation-friendly relations and co-operative federalism-the system can be changed. Transfer of power, not in an abstract sense, with those battles of the 1960s and 1970s before the courts, but identifying common problems all three levels of government need to work on together, is what the government is focusing on.

We have seen this in the third element in the Chrétien package that has been brought forward. It is going to occur in many more areas, such as in the electoral system and actions on the Senate, which may require going to the Supreme Court. We cannot do it through the 1982 amending procedure. There is the role of the cities. We are responding to the new transnational societies of which Canada is a part. This is key to the 21st century. All these things are going on.

The Prime Minister has responded to the Quebec referendum vote in a way that can rally enough support throughout Canada. It has to be an all-Canadian response. However, constitutional change will go on. We will see more and more emphasis on co-operative federalism, change through give and take and discussion at all levels of government. Federalism, if it involves power sharing and common decision making, also recognizes that federalism is more, as Prime Minister Trudeau once reminded us, than a collection of shopping centres. There is a national role, national norms.

That is the challenge. The message is let us move on and bring peace to the Thirty Years War. Let us move on to the real economic and social problems. If we get that message, frankly, we have done honour to those who voted in the Quebec referendum on both sides and we have done something the people of Canada will understand and support.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on a very eloquent speech.

I had a chance to travel abroad on a trade mission and I met with many government officials in different countries. The first thing they asked me about was what is happening in Canada.

Canadians, including those in the province of Quebec, have to look at Canada from the outside. We have to leave the country for a while in order to appreciate what we have in Canada.

On an annual basis, in excess of ten million residents of other countries want to come to Canada. They believe, as do I, that this is the finest country on earth.

It is beyond me why my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois will not consider what the government is proposing and try to make it work. Give us a chance to make it work. That is the hope of many of the people in my constituency who have written to me or called my office. They have asked me to stand in the House to call on my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois to make an attempt to make this work.

I want to ask my fellow caucus member if he has heard from his constituents who have come from different parts of the world. Have some of those people shared their feelings about their love for Canada? If they have, I would like him to share that with the House.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to respond to my colleague, who is one of the most thoughtful members of our party and very much dedicated to the building of a new pluralistic Canada. We are a community of communities, in the sense Martin Buber offered. The interesting thing is that this society works.

People are co-operating. People are working together. We are integrating the new communities into the political processes.

I told the Prime Minister the other day that British Columbia is the most distinct society of all because we have more national communities integrated into the political processes and working together. The message British Columbians are sending is that this country can function as a plural society. It is doing it already.

One understands the distinctiveness of the French language and French culture in Quebec. We are prepared to respect that. However, we ask for similar respect for our distinctiveness, our culture, and the recognition that the larger Canada brings together all these elements into a new national outlook.

I believe the reason the Prime Minister is receiving these messages from all around the world is because we have succeeded. This is not Bosnia-Herzegovina. I could name many countries around the world where nationalism exists in an intransigent sense. We have found the formula, and that is the message we are trying to carry in our approach to constitutional governmental change, change in the federal system in the balance of our term.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask something of the member for Vancouver Quadra. In law, as you know, we often say that the greater includes the lesser. However, in the bill tabled this morning, it seems that they are saying that the lesser includes the greater.

I am totally confused. We rejected a lot more in the Meech Lake accord, but they are now saying that, in this proposal, they are responding to the wishes of Quebecers who voted no. Yesterday, they talked about the notion of distinct society in an insipid, dull, savourless declaration, just like we do with motions dealing with the national scouts week. Yesterday's motion had a similar effect. Today, a bill was tabled and I would like to ask the member how he can expect that we will accept something that we have already rejected in 1992 et which was a lot more than this?

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would to say to the hon. member that I worked as constitutional advisor to many Quebec premiers. I was a member of the commission on French language and language rights in Quebec. For my part, I always believed in the tremendous possibility and flexibility of the federal system, which can decide that bills such as premier Bourassa's Bill 22 and even Bill 101 can still be essential parts of the Government of Quebec as well as of our Canadian federal system.

The message in all of this is that the existing flexibility of our constitutional system will stay. We must have faith in the future. We are ready to give Quebec what we can under the existing Constitution, which is very flexible.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, here is a perfect example of why the Bloc Quebecois has its place in Ottawa. We are here to face a government that is constantly insulting the intelligence of Quebecers. It is with great reluctance that we are debating Bill C-110, which will go down in history as the last insult the federal government will have inflicted upon Quebecers.

Bill C-110 proposes a formula to amend the Constitution of Canada. It is simply a federal statute with all that it entails. It does not change in any way the amending formula since the procedures for amending the Constitution of Canada can only be modified through the procedure set out in section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982. I will come back to this later on.

This bill does nothing but restrict the federal government's discretionary power to propose resolutions authorizing constitutional amendments. All in all, the federal government, being generous as it is, is lending to the provinces its constitutional veto. This bill brought forward by the Prime Minister and his associate, the Minister of Justice, adds to the numerous amending formulas already provided for in the Constitution Act, 1982.

It will take a Ph. D. in constitutional law to be able to understand all that. Let us take a look, if we may, at the amending formulas already provided for in the Constitution of Canada. Four legal procedures for amending the Constitution are set out in sections 38 to 44, Part V, of the Constitution Act, 1982. The most demanding formula applies only to fundamental changes to the Constitution.

Amendments in this category must be authorized by resolutions of the Parliament of Canada and of the legislative assembly of each province. That is what we call the unanimity formula. There is also another amending procedure for changes in the distribution of legislative powers between the federal Parliament and the provincial legislative assemblies.

It is the same procedure that must be followed to amend most of the provisions of the charter of rights and freedoms.

The changes must be approved by Parliament and at least two-thirds of the provinces that have combined populations of at least 50 per cent of the population of all the provinces. This is what we call the seven and fifty amending formula. It provides that major amendments could be made to the Constitution without

Quebec's consent, because if Ontario were among the seven consenting provinces, the population requirement would be met.

The third formula relates to amendments concerning one or more provinces. They include changes to provincial boundaries and the use of English and French within a province.

The fourth procedure is found in section 44 of the Constitutional Act, 1982. It concerns changes to the executive branch of the Canadian government, the Senate or the House of commons.

Now the Minister of Justice is proposing a fifth amending procedure. In the future, one will have to be very clever to be able to amend the Constitution.

Not only is the bill introduced by the Minister of Justice an insult to Quebecers, it is the deathblow to the Constitution.

This minister insults us by pretending to be following up on the promises made by the Prime Minister during the referendum campaign. He takes us for turkeys and is trying to shove his right of veto down our throats. He is debasing the concept and letting four regions of Canada use the federal's right to veto.

If anyone in this House believes that Bill C-110 does more than simply lend something from the federal to the provinces, he or she is sadly mistaken.

Not satisfied with adding to the constitutional jumble, the minister is strutting around saying he has a new formula for us. But it is a rehash, déjà vu.

What the minister is serving up is a diluted version of the 1971 Victoria formula spiced to the taste of the day. Federal mandarins have not waited long before showing their true colours. The only solution found by this hypocritical government was to brush away the cobwebs from the Victoria formula of 1971 and take the right of veto out of it. A new and improved formula. What nonsense.

When the Prime Minister, through the Minister of Justice, introduces a bill proposing a regional right of veto and a motion dealing with the distinctiveness of Quebec, he adds insult to injury. He could not care less about Quebecers.

Neither the present Prime Minister nor his successors will be legally bound by the amending formula. If, God forbid, it should become a law this formula would be an ordinary act like any other act and it could be repealed any time by the federal government.

But how can we debate something we do not want to talk about any more? The Victoria formula was one of countless negotiations on constitutional reform. Those negotiations have been held ad nauseam but to no avail, except perhaps to deprive Quebec of the means it needs to develop itself in the Canadian federation.

Efforts to corner Quebec have been such that the province is stifled and can only survive by acceding to sovereignty. The justice minister is wasting his time and ours. Do you believe that after all the affronts it has been subjected to, Quebec is going to accept such a proposal? I remember. Like all Quebecers, «Je me souviens.»

Let us remember the so-called St-Laurent amendment of 1949, the 1960 Fulton formula, the 1964 Fulton-Favreau formula, Quebec's refusal of the Fulton-Favreau formula, the 1971 Victoria formula, the attempts by Pierre Elliot Trudeau in 1976, the 1978 and 1979 conferences, the Pepin-Robarts formula, the conference of September 1980, the patriation project of October 2, 1980, the infamous patriation of the Constitution in 1982, the 1987 Meech Lake Agreement, Meech II and its defeat in 1990, the Charlottetown accord and its defeat in 1992.

We will remember those 35 years of constitutional setbacks. The most recent affront sustained by Quebec is one too many. The Prime Minister of Canada, through his Minister of Justice, is today signing the death warrant of any possible constitutional reform.

The Prime Minister is swaggering about and boasting about his empty proposals. He has a short memory. He should play the recording of the address he made to the nation four days before the referendum of October 30.

I will never forget the sight of a desperate Prime Minister who did not have a clue about what promises to make next in order to win votes. A contrite and humble man.

Many believed in this Greek tragedy. Many fell for it and believed the Prime Minister's promise to make changes. Today, the Prime Minister is patting himself on the back, but there is nothing to be proud of. Bill C-110 is a big bubble that is bound to pop sooner or later. Everything has its limits.

The real purpose of the Prime Minister is to muzzle Quebec by stopping any future constitutional change. His right of veto is nothing but an illusion aimed at drowning Quebec in the Canadian sea. One people from coast to coast, with a wall to wall nationality.

This bill is a rehash of the 1971 Victoria proposal. In an article entitled "Modifying the Constitution or mummifying Quebec", in Le Devoir of May 15, 1971, Jacques-Yvan Morin had this to say about the Victoria formula: ``You do not have to be a rocket scientist or even a sociopolitical expert to see what insurmountable problems Quebec will experience as soon as it tries to gain some significant change. Not that the amending formula is bad in itself-it would be perfectly acceptable in a homogeneous English state-but it does not take into account Quebec's aspirations or rather, it does, but to quash them''.

I go on with the quote: "All in all, the anglophone provinces and the federal power are telling Quebec it can seek more powers and make as many major plans as it wishes, but it is only through them that it will achieve these goals. The new formula is the antithesis of the peoples' right to self determination. Under a benevolent exterior, federalism is in fact hiding dregs of colonialism".

Although this was written 24 years ago, it is surprisingly contemporary. This is to say that the federal government has not progressed that much since then. It is still intent on mummifying Quebec. Between the Victoria formula and the Meech Lake Accord, Quebec was taken for quite a constitutional ride in 1982.

As we remember, in 1980, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the then Prime Minister, and Jean Chrétien, his trusted lieutenant, had solemnly sworn to renew the Constitution, taking into account Quebec's interests. The Constitution forced on Quebecers in 1982 decreases Quebec's fields of exclusive jurisdiction. Moreover, Ottawa gave itself authority to amend the Constitution without Quebec's agreement. Quebec's right of veto disappeared. As a result, Quebec has had no say on constitutional amendments likely to change its political future.

The unilateral patriation of the Constitution substantially reduced Quebec's legislative powers in matters of education and language. Since the patriation of the Constitution in 1982, the federal government has had a field day. It has continually intruded on matters under Quebec's jurisdiction, especially regional development, manpower training, cable television and several cultural areas.

Then the whole constitutional process got bogged down at Meech Lake.

When we talk about Meech Lake, we talk about the accord signed in June 1987 by the eleven first ministers of Canada. It was aimed at reintegrating Quebec into the Constitution "with honour and enthusiasm". There again, the results reflected the ill will of the federal government and of the English provinces.

Quebec had offered to sign the Canadian Constitution provided five minimum conditions were granted. Namely, distinct society status for Quebec; more power in matters of immigration; limiting federal spending power in Quebec's fields of jurisdiction; Quebec's participation in the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of Canada; and finally, the right to veto constitutional amendments.

In June 1990, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Manitoba reneged on their signature, thereby sinking the accord. Despite last minute negotiations at the premier level, Manitoba and Newfoundland refused to ratify the accord.

The day after its failure, the Prime Minister, who is now pushing a bill which is not worth the paper it is written on, embraced one of the most vociferous opponent to Meech, the Premier of Newfoundland, Clyde Wells. A Canadian version of Judas' kiss. I remember quite well, Madam Speaker.

The failure of the Meech Lake Accord, which was to be the answer to the basic requirements of Quebec and bring the province back into the constitutional bosom with honour and enthusiasm, definitely proved that Canada refuses to recognize, among other things, the distinct character of Quebec. This week, the Prime Minister went so far as to reduce the distinct character to the level of a simple resolution of the House of Commons, without any legal meaning.

We can certainly congratulate the Prime Minister for his consistency. He remains as sly as he has ever been.

Let us continue our constitutional tour. In August 1992, the Charlottetown Agreement was signed by all representatives of Canada: ten provinces, two territories, four aboriginal organizations and the federal government. It was a "made in Canada" response to Quebec's legitimate requests.

That agreement was a watered down version of Meech Lake and Meech Lake number two. Among other things, it recognized Quebec as a distinct society, accepted the transfer to Quebec of all responsibilities in the cultural area and stated that the federal government would withdraw from municipal affairs, tourism, recreation, housing, mining and forestry.

On October 25, 1992, 57 per cent of Quebecers rejected the Charlottetown Agreement. They considered, with reason, that the agreement would give them only crumbs. The rest of Canada also turned down that agreement. English-speaking Canadians voted against it because they thought it gave too much to Quebec. Again another striking example of their love for Quebec.

In spite of his commitment to negotiate on a one to one basis with the federal government, Robert Bourassa agreed to negotiate with representatives of nine provinces, two territories, four aboriginal organizations and the federal government. He even approved the agreement which gave Quebec even less than the Meech Lake Accord.

For 35 years now, Quebec's requests for more power in the cultural, social and financial areas have been constantly rejected by the rest of Canada.

Again today, the federal government is laughing at Quebecers with that bill. I say this to the government: the constitutional circus is closed for good; stop acting like clowns.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spent a lot of time talking about the process and much time lecturing us on the history of the last thirty years.

Like me, millions and millions of Canadians were not here during the last thirty years.

They were not here in 1947, nor in 1911. Millions and millions of Canadians came after that. Like me, these people and the rest of Canada are interested in finding a permanent solution. We are not interested in the process, we are interested in the objective. We want to find a solution which is comfortable for the francophones in Quebec and the anglophones and allophones in the rest of Canada.

Everywhere in the world we see borders being taken down. If you take the example of the European Union, you can see that borders are disappearing fast, even in France.

With the new information technologies there are ever fewer borders between countries all over the world, whether in Asia, in Europe, in Africa or in North America.

I wonder why our colleagues do not stop being so vicious, so idiotic and so indecisive. Why do they not give us a clear picture of what they want? Do we want to built a multicultural, multi-ethnic and multi-community country for all Canadians? Or is the final object the separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada?

Indeed, we are wasting time talking about process and history. I was not here in 1841 and I am not interested in what happened in 1841, in 1857 and in 1911. What I am interested in is a modern country, because Canada is the best in the world. The best country in the world, as we were told twice by the United Nations.

I ask my colleagues to focus on the real problems of Quebecers; the real problems are the economy, the unemployment rate and the political instability that are affecting many business people who are thinking about investing in Quebec or doing business with Quebec. Thanks to my colleagues from the separatist party in this House, they are saying: we will wait until there is stability.

Let us hurry up. Let us work with the Prime Minister, with the current government, because this government is willing to find a permanent solution to this crisis. The time has come. The time has come to let go of things that happened 2,000 years, 200 years, 20 years, 30 years ago. Let us talk now about the future.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite astonished to hear a member of Parliament tell us that he is not interested in the past. I must admit seriously that this is inconceivable, when we know that analyzing the past allows us to avoid making the same mistakes.

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

The past is the key to the future.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

As my colleague just said, the past is indeed the key to the future.

That someone would have such a vision of society is really astonishing, but I do not want to insist further. I think that he just got carried away.

On the other hand, when he asks us if we intend to build a country, then obviously, we say yes. That is our goal. We want to build a sovereign Quebec, an independent Quebec.

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two comments for the hon. member opposite. First, I must point out that the purpose of the European Union is not to eliminate borders, but to preserve its member states' sovereignty while delegating, collectively and sovereignly, some of their powers to a common authority. In other words, the European Union is doing precisely what we intend to do in Canada. It is showing us the way.

My second comment concerns the best country in the world. I have had enough of hearing that Canada is the best country in the world. If Canada is so terrific, it is not because it is a federation. It is because Quebecers and Canadians are active, inventive and energetic people, but it really has nothing to do with being a federation, because many other federations exist where there is no prosperity, Russia, for example.

The system is not what makes us a good country, Canadians and Quebecers do. If the country was split in two, both halves would still have the same qualities, because, when you slice a cake, each slice is as good as the whole cake.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can only commend my colleague for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes for his excellent comments. I totally agree with his words.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely delighted to take part in this debate today.

It is very interesting that I have the opportunity to make my remarks on behalf of the people of Halifax and Nova Scotia in the wake of that impassioned intervention by my hon. colleague from the official opposition. There is no question that this is the best country in the world in which to live. I am not going to argue the whys and wherefores with the hon. member because a universal truth is a universal truth. The universal truth is that Canadians from sea to sea to sea are the most fortunate people on Earth.

I come from what is normally known as a have not part of the country. It is quite true that there are many things that we have not

in Nova Scotia. However, one of the things that we have, one of the things we opted for and one of the things we chose was Canadian citizenship. It is something we hold most dearly and most preciously.

It is not merely because we live in Nova Scotia, which I think is the best place in Canada to live, just as I know my hon. colleague, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, thinks that Toronto and its environs is the best place in Canada. I know that my hon. colleague from St. Boniface thinks that Manitoba is the best place to live and my colleague from London thinks that London is the best place. My colleague right over there from Alberta thinks Alberta is the best place to live. We all look at the rest of the country as the setting for our own particular jewels.

I want to speak today to the passion which came from my colleague from the province of Quebec. I understand that passion as I think we all understand it, but that does not need to diminish our Confederation or our country.

On Saturday I attended a meeting back in my riding. I sat next to a prominent Nova Scotia businessman. He raises money for all sorts of good causes, one of them being the Liberal Party. He told me he had been called upon by the premier and the minister of public works to help raise money to ensure that students and seniors who wanted to go to the rally in Montreal were able to go. He said that in over 20 years of being a fundraiser for various charitable causes and various political causes, he had never raised money so quickly. There was such a good response and such an absolute desire on the part of the people he called to contribute and to help because it was for our country.

In my own family, my father's two surviving brothers went to Montreal after World War II and raised their families there. It is very interesting because my cousins in Montreal are a microcosm of Canada. Some of them have Irish last names, some of them have English last names, some of them even have Italian last names, and some of them have French last names.

In my family while we may not be pure laine, we are purely Canadian. My cousins who live in the greater Montreal area will say that they are Quebecois and they are proud Quebecois. They and their children will continue to be proud Quebecois.

The whole point of this debate, the whole point of this resolution is to follow up on a promise made by the Prime Minister on the responses of Canadians right across the country to the fact that Quebec is indeed a distinct and integral part of the Canadian federation, a distinct and integral part of the Canadian identity. We could no more see Quebec leave our federation than we could as individuals cut off an arm or a leg, or lose an eye.

As we debate this here today and in subsequent days, it is terribly important for each of us to listen to each other and to understand that one region of Canada does not seek and never has sought, at least not in modern times, to defeat or humiliate the other side.

That day in Montreal when I saw 150,000 Canadians converge in that square, I knew I was part of something very special. I knew that approximately-numbers are hard to be absolutely sure about-40,000 Canadians came from the other regions of Canada. There were 150,000 people in the downtown core of Montreal. It is clear that a vast majority of the people in that downtown square were Quebecois. They were people who were saying to their fellow Canadians: "We want to stay. We want to hear from you that you understand we are different".

Whether we are from Quebec, Newfoundland or British Columbia, we do understand that there is a distinctiveness and a difference in our fellow citizens in la belle province. We know their language, although that too is shared with francophone Canadians in almost every other province and territory. We know their culture and the incredible richness that is the ongoing Quebecois culture within the Canadian mosiac is something that every Canadian benefits from, not just those within the borders of Quebec itself. We know Quebec's civil code again makes them different and distinct from the rest of us.

Every single one of us celebrates that difference. We celebrate the fact that we can share. We can build a Canada that is a better place, whether one's language is English or French, whether one's ancestral origin is western Europe, eastern Europe, Africa, the Far East, or whether one is an aboriginal Canadian. None of these things matter in the desire to make a better place for our families, our children and our communities. I do not want my friend over there to be upset or to take this the wrong way. What matters is that this country is the best place in the world to live, whether you live in Quebec or Manitoba or Nova Scotia. Yes, we have problems, problems that those of us here in the House must work together to solve.

Most of us in the Chamber have had the opportunity to go elsewhere. We have seen the Russian federation. We have seen countries of the world where people are clamouring to come to Canada, to Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. We are trying to make them clamour to come to Nova Scotia too. Some day they will find out that is a good place to live as well. They are clamouring to be part of this incredible and unique and crazy idea which is Canada.

I think we all understand the desires for recognition in the hearts and minds of our colleagues from Quebec. We are saying that there are similar desires in different areas for all Canadians. We cannot maintain this incredible and bizarre idea, this federation, this country, by standing back and hurling implications at each other. It cannot be done by being accusatory or by suggesting motives that

are less than applicable in these situations. It is done by reaching out to each other the way we reached out in Montreal on that incredible Friday and the way all Canadians, English and French and allophone continue to reach out to each other.

As many have said, this resolution is a step in that direction. It is something that the federal government, the Prime Minister and those on this side of the House sincerely believe is a response to the things the people of Canada asked us to do, including the people of Quebec.

[Laurent Lavigne, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the hon. member opposite was saying, and I would like to comment on some aspects of her speech.

For instance, she made a big thing of this reaching out to us by people from western Canada, from Vancouver and Saskatchewan and the other western provinces. I want to tell her I do not question the feelings of love and affection these people showed Quebecers, except that it was made very easy for them. For instance, air fare from Vancouver to Montreal probably costs from $2,000 to $3,000, and these people got their tickets for $150 or $200. Now what if the situation was reversed? If Quebecers wanted to go and visit Vancouver, I am not so sure people would do us a favour and offer us tickets at $150 a piece. One starts to wonder how genuine this love and affection was. It was a great opportunity to visit Montreal on the cheap.

And I also noticed in her speech that she referred to Canada as a wonderful host country for immigrants. I agree, but what difference would it make if Quebec became sovereign? Immigrants who want to go to Vancouver or Halifax, or Saskatchewan or Quebec would still be able to go there.

In our blueprint for a Quebec society, we did not say that if Quebec became sovereign, we would stop immigration. I think the civility and warmth that are typical of Quebecers would make Quebec a very good host country for immigrants. I see no problem there. Why this claim that immigration can only work within this so-called great Canada? I do not understand.

Are you implying that a sovereign Quebec would not be a good host country for its immigrants? Is that what you mean? Is this Canadian federation the one and only panacea? Is it impossible for a sovereign Quebec and English Canada to each find their own way outside this Canadian federation instead of going on as we have done for the past thirty years and wasting time, money and effort, on all this constitutional wrangling?

In Quebec, successive provincial governments from Jean Lesage to Mr. Parizeau have tried time and time again to find ways to stay in Canada, but they never succeeded. Are we going to go on for another thirty years about Meech Lake, Charlottetown and constitutional problems? We are fed up. We want to go on to other things. We have tried everything, but nothing works.

We never managed to reach an understanding. What makes you think that by continuing the constitutional debate between English Canada and Quebec, we would manage to agree? When I consider all the attempts made during the past thirty years, I see no reason to believe that continuing this useless debate will accomplish something positive. Instead of this endless bickering under the same roof, we would be much better off as good neighbours.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

That, Mr. Speaker, is unfortunate. I did not say anything about Quebec not welcoming immigrants. The province has a good immigration agreement with the federal government.

At no time did I suggest that immigrants were not welcome in the province of Quebec. I did make reference to the question of pure laine and by implication to the remarks by Mr. Parizeau. However, I do not by any means attribute those to Quebec and its history of welcoming immigrants.

It was unfortunate my colleague cast the kind of aspersions he did in his opening comments. It is clear that he looks the wrong way. He should have listened to my remarks. Perhaps he is not aware of it, but I am not from western Canada. I do not know what the situation was vis-à-vis the airlines.

I have flown to western Canada many times, to your city, Mr. Speaker, and to cities farther west. If the hon. member is not aware of it, even for $50 to get on a plane and fly from Vancouver or Calgary to Montreal, go to a rally for two hours, get back on a plane and fly back to Calgary or Vancouver is not a joy ride. It is exhausting, tiring and cramped. If it is not done out of love then there are thousands of people in western Canada who possibly need to have their heads examined for doing this.

The hon. member is really reaching when he suggests that people took advantage of cheaper air flights to have a good time in Montreal, not that Montreal is not a city where a wonderful time can be had. But I would suggest that very few people had the opportunity to do that on that Friday. Time schedules were very tight.

Second, as the hon. member heard me mention in my earlier remarks, my good friend, the fundraiser, raised all that money joyfully. People just rushed to contribute. Many people from Nova Scotia came at no cost at all because the money was raised by contributing businesses in Nova Scotia. Again, those people did not have any time to enjoy the benefits of Montreal. They went to

speak from their hearts to their love of country and their love of Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start my speech by looking at the situation in which we now find ourselves. I think that Canadians, including Quebecers, have a better understanding of the role played by the Prime Minister of Canada and his government. They understood it yesterday and they understand it even better today.

If we look at the current situation, we have on one side the Bloc Quebecois, which wants to separate. They use words like "sovereignty" but we know that it really means separation. No wonder they refuse to even look at this proposal, to review it, to consider the possibilities. No. What they want is their own country, period, no negotiations, no flexibility, no open mind, no nothing.

On the other side-as Canadians can see-is the other extreme. All they have to say about the government's proposals is, "No, no, no, they are giving too much to Quebec and Quebecers". I find this alarming. The two extremes here in this House refuse to make any efforts to consider what the government is proposing.

I mentioned in the House yesterday that I had checked Maclean's of 1989. In one edition in a specific article the leader of the third party suggested that distinct society had certain possibilities. In fact he stated quite clearly that words were not important if people really wanted to get together and work things out. That is what is said in that article.

All of a sudden, no. Why would he think that in 1989 and have no openness today? It is quite clear. From his perspective and that of his advisers there appears to be an opportunity for his particular party, his particular view of Canada, his particular set of policies. Is it Canada first? Absolutely not. It is the party first and whatever happens to Canada, so be it. I find that most unfortunate.

It is also interesting that the question of the regional veto is also one that the Reform members have supported. They want a regional veto to stop certain amendments. Did you know that, Mr. Speaker? I have found that most interesting.

All of a sudden when we propose a veto that does not make a constitutional change, which would give additional protection to the provinces, which adds and does not take anything away, do you think Reform members would explain it that way? Would they attempt to talk with Canadians and say: "Look, this is not necessarily what we wanted exactly but we have a proposal that is not terribly dissimilar to this?" Of course not. Why not? Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker. It is quite simple. Again, it is their political agenda. It is their political party that comes first, not Canada. That is unfortunate.

That is why some people see them as two sides of the same coin; that is, we have one party that clearly states-

"We want to separate from Canada. We want our own country".

-and the other party that tries everything in order to crush, to deride, to set aside, not to look at openly, the proposals that are being made by the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada.

Their policies hold a lot of contradictions. They suggest that they do not want this regional veto, but they have a regional veto on their books. They want one for B.C. but not for Alberta. The last time I checked they were pretty close in population. I guess that is what they want, I do not know. Perhaps they want one for all of the provinces. Perhaps they do not know what they want.

I now come back to the issue of distinct society. Distinct is defined as including the language, culture and institutions unique to Quebec. I find this quite commendable and acceptable. Like the vast majority of Canadians, if they made an error in judgment, they will soon find out.

What is interesting, as you know, is that we now need unanimity on a number of issues to amend the Constitution. Nothing can be changed without the provinces' unanimous consent on a number of issues, on which I will elaborate later.

There is another clause providing that no changes can be made without the consent of seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population. This bill deals mainly with the principle that the 7-50 formula cannot be implemented without the support of the four regions. These regions include Ontario, Quebec, western Canada-which means British Columbia and another province-, and the Atlantic provinces. This means two provinces representing 50 per cent of the total population.

What is really frustrating is knowing full well that the Constitution remains unchanged, that a little something extra has been given to everybody, that they already have a proposal in hand fostering this kind of veto and that they feel their party should come first, and the country second.

I would now like to use the little time remaining to answer the most commonly asked questions. "Why not table a constitutional amendment?", our constituents ask. But we know that the leader of the Parti Quebecois, the potential Premier of Quebec, has

already made it clear that he does not want any constitutional amendment. That is clear.

The purpose of this bill, on the heels of the Quebec referendum, is to show where the elected representatives of the Canadian people stand on this issue, and we will soon know it. We also know that the Constitution requires that a first ministers' conference on the amending formula for the Constitution of Canada be held by April 1997. Constitutional amendment proposals, if any, will be considered at that time. This bill would in fact bridge the gap until then.

There are other questions.

For example, what is covered and what sorts of future amendments would be blocked by this bill? The real impact will be on the amendments covered by the same seven and fifty rule, as I have mentioned, changes to the division of powers in favour of the provinces, changes to certain provisions relating to federal institutions, extensions or additions of provinces in some general amendments.

Another question that is frequently asked is how does this bill differ from what is already in the Constitution. This bill does not change the Constitution or the amending formula. They know that, but of course they are not going to say it. It simply indicates how the government will conduct itself with respect to its own veto. It is willing to loan out its veto. That is what it does.

There are significant vetoes already in the Constitution for provinces individually. For example, each province has a veto over matters requiring unanimity, such as the composition of the Supreme Court and the amending formula itself. Each province has a veto over any changes in its boundaries or the constitutional provisions specific to a province.

In addition, there is the right to opt out of amendments transferring provincial jurisdictions to Parliament and to receive reasonable compensation if the amendment pertains to education and other cultural matters. This gives another type of veto to a province.

The bill creates a regional veto, in effect, with respect to changes to national institutions such as the Senate and the Supreme Court, the creation of new provinces, and all amendments that transfer power from Parliament to the provinces.

Another question raised is whether the Constitution already provides provincial vetoes-does the bill provide for any double veto? There are all kinds of amendments whereby provinces already possess such a veto, such as changes to the composition of the Supreme Court or to the boundaries of a province. They are expressly exempted from the operation of the bill. So too are amendments from which provinces can opt out under subsection 38(3), those which derogate from provincial rights and powers expressly exempted through the operation of this bill.

Would the regional veto formula make it more difficult for Quebec to separate? One view of the constitutional amending formula as it stands now, which is a very common view, is that the consent of all provinces would be required for Quebec's separation.

How would the regional veto formula work in practice? This is a particularly important question because it is the very heart and soul of the issue. When at least six provinces, including Ontario and Quebec, two Atlantic provinces with over 50 per cent of the Atlantic population, and two western provinces with over 50 per cent of the western population have indicated their consent by resolution, referendum or government approval, et cetera, the federal government would be free to proceed with resolutions in the Senate and the House of Commons. If one or more of the regions fail to provide their requisite consent, the federal government would not proceed with resolutions, even though seven or more provinces with over 50 per cent of the population had adopted resolutions under the current amending formula to authorize the amendment.

We have talked about the kinds of combinations that would be required for western and Atlantic provinces to get a veto under the regional formula. I want to repeat this because I think it is important. In the Atlantic provinces, Nova Scotia and either New Brunswick or Newfoundland would have a veto. New Brunswick would be in the same position with either Nova Scotia or Newfoundland as would Newfoundland with either of the others. P.E.I. would not have a veto except in combination with two of the other three.

In the west, B.C. with any other province would have a veto. Alberta would have a veto with B.C. but not with either Saskatchewan or Manitoba alone. Saskatchewan and Manitoba together would not have a veto.

It is important to note that we are not dealing with a new veto. The bill only indicates how the existing veto is exercised at the federal level.

I am running out of time. That is unfortunate, because I would have had so much more to say. But I will conclude with, perhaps, one last comment.

As I pointed out at the beginning of my speech, these proposals concerning a distinct society, this bill and the right of veto are all part of an effort to build a better country, a country in which people work together and better understand each other.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Unfortunately, the hon. member's time is up. Is there unanimous consent to give the hon. member more time?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that our hon. friend from St. Boniface has said enough for now. He will have an opportunity, during questions and comments, to expand on his thoughts concerning the bill before us.

I have a comment for him. Then, I will give him the opportunity to respond to my comment.

I listened very carefully to what our colleague from St. Boniface said. More often than not, in fact I should say usually, he takes things seriously. Having held important functions in Manitoba, he is familiar with the meaning of the words and concepts we are dealing with and he can fully grasp them and deal with them. He must know what this bill we are debating means and how far-reaching it is.

Indeed, I am surprised, to put it mildly, that he is adding so much confusion to the debate. One thing is sure-he said so himself several times in his remarks, both in French and in English-the bill before us does not change anything at all. What we have here is the status quo, no change. If this bill does not change anything, why table it in this House? I will go into this further later today.

You will probably be amazed to hear what has prompted the government to put this bill forward at this point in time. But what I want to emphasize right now is the element of confusion introduced by the hon. member for St. Boniface in his remarks by insisting and suggesting that this bill will actually change something and that a lot noise of noise can now be made around Quebec's new right of veto on any future constitutional change. That is wrong.

At the same time, he says the bill does not change anything, that what we have here is the status quo, that the good people of English Canada, outside Quebec, have nothing to worry about, because there will be no change. Supposedly, all they are doing, the only impact this bill will have will be to give the federal government a new set of rules to go by, under which it will try to determine if the changes it contemplates would garner the support of a number of provinces or certain regions of Quebec and Canada. That is what he is telling us, but basically what he is saying is that there will be no change.

I would personally like the hon. member for St. Boniface to tell us which part of his remarks we are to believe. Which part should we give credence to? The part where he tells Quebecers: "You will have your veto"? Or the one intended for people outside Quebec, which says: "Nothing will change"?

Could the hon. member clarify?

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the hon. member's question.

It was certainly not my intention to add to the confusion, and I apologize if I did. I thought I was clear when I said that, for example, provinces currently have a veto. All the provinces have a veto over certain issues. I also said that, as regards other issues, the support of seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the country's overall population was required. I added that this bill would be used to see if we could activate that 7-50 formula.

The member who just accused me of adding to the confusion is fully aware of the situation. This is what is annoying and, if it were not also funny, I would really be upset.

The member is the one adding to the confusion, because he claims that what I said is inaccurate. I invite him to check my notes, to look at Hansard and to rise in this House to publicly refute my comments if he thinks they are contradictory. There is no contradiction. It is the constitutional status quo. There is a new mechanism to ensure that some elements of the Constitution are used in a certain way. It is wrong to claim that this will not increase the power of Quebec, Ontario and the other provinces. The member knows that.

I also want to point out that he did not allude to the distinct society concept. I suppose he will again accuse me of adding to the confusion. There is no confusion. We recognize Quebec as a distinct society, because of its language, culture, and unique institutions. There is nothing complicated in that and it is absolutely fair.

If the member is willing to co-operate, I am prepared to do the same and to clarify our terms. It is unfair and wrong to use a term such as English Canada. There is no such thing as an English Canada. We live in a country called Canada, which includes a number of provinces and territories, and the member knows that as well as I do.

In making such a comment, he tries to put in the minds of Quebecers the notion that French is spoken in only one part of the country. I, for one, am proud to speak French. Some people back home, and west of it, speak it better than I do. There are quite a few of them. As the hon. member knows, there is also quite a large number of people in Atlantic Canada who speak French and who are proud to do so.

It is misleading to use the expression English Canada, as the hon. member did, because it is both inaccurate and wrong. I must say that he is not the only one to do so. I would appreciate it if he and his colleagues made a commitment to stop using that expression.