House of Commons Hansard #269 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was children.
Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 106th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs concerning the membership of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
With leave of the House, I intend to move for concurrence in this report later this day.
Lloyd Axworthy LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-111, an act respecting employment insurance in Canada.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Lloyd Axworthy LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-112, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
John Manley LiberalMinister of Industry
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-113, an act to amend the Standards Council of Canada Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move:
That the 106th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
Ronald J. Duhamel Liberal St. Boniface, MB
Mr. Speaker, this petition is from petitioners who are movers or those who are involved with that industry.
They want the government to examine very carefully its policy with regard to household goods removal services. They obviously want to ensure that there is a good deal for Canadian taxpayers. At the same time, they want a solution that will not be destabilize their industry, their involvement, their small businesses.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition that has been circulating all across Canada. This petition has been signed by a number of Canadians from Formosa, Ontario.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is
an honourable profession, which has not been recognized for its value to our society. They also state that the Income Tax Act discriminates against families that make the choice to provide care in the home to preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill and the aged.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition I wish to present, which has also been circulating across Canada. This particular petition has been signed by a number of Canadians from Sarnia, Ontario.
The petitioners would like to bring to the attention of the House that consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health problems or impair one's ability, and specifically that fetal alcohol syndrome and other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to enact legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers and others of the risk associated with alcohol consumption.
Sharon Hayes Reform Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, today I am pleased to present two petitions sponsored by Sun Hope in memory of André Castet, with over 500 signatures from the residents of British Columbia, many in my own riding of Port Moody-Coquitlam.
These Canadians express the need for substantial revisions to the Young Offenders Act and reject the tinkering and posturing of this government in legislation and its inactivity such as we see in Bill C-37.
Bill Graham Liberal Rosedale, ON
Mr. Speaker, on this World AIDS Day I am honoured to present this petition signed by over 3,200 Canadians from every region of Canada.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to consider a program of long term stabilized funding of AIDS research proportionate to the HIV population in Canada. Canada ranks third among G-7 countries in its incidence of HIV but ranks last in AIDS research funding.
I fully concur with the request of these petitioners.
Rey D. Pagtakhan Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present the petitions of 1,000 Winnipegers from my constituency of Winnipeg North and beyond, who pray that the surety bond be not imposed on applicants for immigration and as well to have the landing fee collected at the time of the issuance of the visas of applicants.
They remind members of the House that immigrants do provide a strength for our economic and social fabric.
Russell MacLellan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring forward a petition from a great number of people in southern Ontario who are opposed to the approval of synthetic bovine growth hormone, the drug injected into cows to increase milk production.
They say there have not been sufficient studies to warrant this process, that there is a great risk to the health of people, not to mention the damage to the cows themselves. Australia, New Zealand, and the European Community have refused to approve BGH.
The petitioners want Parliament to take steps to keep BGH out of Canada through legislating a moratorium or stoppage of BGH use and sale until the year 2000 and to examine the outstanding health and economic questions through an independent and transparent review.
Philip Mayfield Reform Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by 182 residents of British Columbia, forwarded to me by Mrs. Margaret Wiens of 100 Mile House.
These petitioners call upon the government to enact immediate legislation for freedom of choice in health care; that is, full integration of alternative practitioners, homoeopathic, herbal, naturopathic, et cetera, into the Canadian health care system, with full and equal coverage for visits and necessary remedies.
Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
André Caron Bloc Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to the House on Bill C-110.
I have heard in recent days the speeches of a number of our colleagues in the Liberal Party and the other opposition party. I realized that I should perhaps offer a somewhat broader criticism of the bill.
Those who spoke from the Bloc Quebecois very successfully pointed out the extremely limited nature and scope of what is being called a sort of veto power, which will be loaned to Quebec and certain regions in Canada, so we can say that the Prime Minister has begun to fulfil the promise he made to Quebecers in the final days of the campaign.
I would like to make clear that the issues of the veto, the distinct society and the transfers of jurisdiction, do not only involve constitutional change. These issues are at the heart of what we Quebecers see as Quebec's destiny.
This week a paper reported a survey. Canadians in Quebec and elsewhere were being asked about their perception of Canada, their vision of its future. Basically, they were being asked whether, in their opinion, Canada comprised two groups, was the union of two equal language groups or was the juxtaposition of 10 provinces forming a country. The results differ significantly according to whether they come from Quebec, the west, Ontario or the Atlantic provinces.
I think this survey takes us to the heart of the debate, which involves defining Canada What was it in the past? What is it now? We see that Canadians are not agreed on how they view their country. We see that 64 per cent of Canadians believe basically that Canada is the union of 10 provinces. Twenty-four per cent think it is the union of two equal language groups: anglophones and francophones.
These figures are surprising. Yet, when we look at the distribution by region and province, we see that the split is quite substantial, even dramatic. We see that 70 per cent of Ontarians, 73 per cent of Maritimers, and 76 per cent of the people in the prairies think that Canada is the union of 10 provinces. In Quebec, however, 42 per cent of the people see Canada as the union of 10 provinces, 37 per cent as the union of two equal linguistic groups, and 15 per cent as neither.
These figures-42, 37 and 15 per cent-remind me of the results of some polls conducted during the referendum campaign. Some of the polls, perhaps those taken at the beginning of the campaign, showed that 42 per cent of respondents intended to vote no and 37 per cent to vote yes, with 15 or 20 per cent undecided.
As these figures demonstrate, the heart of the problem with Canada and Quebec is that Canadians and Quebecers do not see Canada in the same way. That is why we in Quebec talk about a veto, why we see this reality as important.
If we look at the people in the rest of Canada, we realize that they do not see all this as important. I have not heard people from B.C., Ontario or the Atlantic region say that they should have a veto on constitutional changes in Canada. Only Quebec makes this demand.
Why is Quebec making this demand? Because Quebec is basically a people who want to preserve their identity, who want to continue to be themselves. That is the reason why they want to have a say in any constitutional change. That is what lies at the heart of the debate on the right of veto.
It does not matter to us if this will be done this way or that way, if B.C. will have the same veto power as Ontario, if the Atlantic provinces will have a say, if Prince Edward Island will make special demands. To us, veto power is a matter of defending our distinctive culture, of defending what makes us a people. That is why, in the 30 years I have been following politics, Quebec has always had problems with respect to the right of veto. Not because we want to make trouble for Canada, but because it touches the very essence of who we are.
As you may recall, in the 1960s, there was the proposed constitutional amending formula called the Fulton-Favreau formula; there was the Victoria formula; there were the protests by certain Quebec movements when the Constitution was patriated. We were reminded yesterday that Quebec sovereignists voted against the Meech Lake accord. Just as well, since Meech was some kind of a reorganization of Canada designed to satisfy the very minimal demands put forward by the then Premier of Quebec, and those demands did not reflect in any way what I feel Quebec's basic needs are.
On the one hand, there were those who had a blueprint for nationhood and, on the other, there were those with nothing better to offer at the time than some vague revamping of the Canadian Constitution. In that context, I think that we sovereignists had a right-we did not have a choice really-to oppose this constitutional revamping.
I am puzzled about some of the attacks on us, when I hear people say about certain Bloc members: "So and so, who was sitting at the Quebec National Assembly at the time, voted against the Meech Lake accord". It is a good thing they did, because this accord was a
way for the federalists, who do not recognize Quebec as a people, to revamp the Constitution in the hope that, slowly but surely, we would all die off and disappear.
That is why, when we Quebecers are offered amending formulas, our gut reflex is: "Watch out. Red alert. They are dealing with fundamental aspects that make us what we are". We want to remain what we are and, in the future, to develop our own identity that makes us a part, as we see it, of the world community.
That is why, whenever the concept of a distinct society, a veto or administrative transfers are brought up, we consistently oppose them, because we believe that our future is in building in North America our own sovereign country, in order to be able to establish normal state-to-state relations with other peoples: the people of Canada, the people of the United States and the people of other sovereign countries of the world. That is the crux of the matter.
I can understand why many of our colleagues, members of both the government party or the third party, are tired of hearing our arguments because they take the same view of this issue as the other Canadians who tell us that Canada is a juxtaposition of ten provinces.
I can understand that they are tired of our arguments, of listening to us. I hope that, in the years to come, an agreement can be negotiated on new terms so that, in a spirit of mutual respect, we in Quebec can remain who we are and English Canada can continue to develop as it pleases, without either of us interfering with each other's growth, as the people of Canada and the people of Quebec.
Denis Paradis Liberal Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-110, which I will refer to as the veto act. First, let us ask ourselves this basic question: Who speaks for whom, in Quebec? Let us look at that question in the context of the House of Commons.
Members of the Bloc Quebecois keep saying: "We are the ones speaking for Quebecers". I am sorry, but there are also Liberal members representing Quebec ridings. There are 20 of us here who speak for Quebec. Furthermore, an independent member, who sits next to me, as well as a Conservative member, also speak for Quebec. Therefore, Bloc members are not the only ones representing Quebec's interests in this House.
Let us not forget that Quebecers voted no in the referendum. Consequently, it is the Quebec Liberal members of this House, not the Bloc members, who won the referendum, albeit by a narrow margin. As member for Brome-Missisquoi, I can certainly speak on behalf of the majority of Quebecers who voted no.
It is true that those who voted no also expressed a strong desire for change. Not a desire to separate, but a desire for change. Even a leader of the yes side, Mr. Dumont, says so in today's issue of La Presse : ``If Quebecers had said yes, we would be in the process of implementing the plan that had been drawn up. However, this is not the case. The no side won by pledging to make changes. Let us see what they have to offer. This is not my first choice, since I was on the opposite side during the referendum campaign''.
The Leader of the Action Démocratique does not think that his party members will reject his position. He adds: "Our post-referendum strategy is simple. We must look after our economy and our public finances. As for Ottawa, it must define the changes promised during the campaign. We will let them work and, if they make a proposal, we will look at it". So, the desire for change expressed during the referendum campaign is definitely not a desire to separate.
The changes that people are asking for from their federal elected representatives are changes that affect them. They are not changes that would make Ottawa or Quebec bigger, but changes that reflect people's needs. This is what is important. Those who count are those who sent us here. We are accountable to them. But what changes do these people expect from us?
As I see it, there are two types. One year ago, I was campaigning to represent my party in Brome-Missisquoi. Then the by-election took place, followed by the referendum. In that one year, I spent more time campaigning in Quebec than I did in this House.
I talked to a lot of people during the past year. What kind of changes do people want? There are two kinds. First, a change in the way we do things and second, recognition of our way of life.
First, the way we do things. When you go out and meet people, they tell you: "We are fed up with taxes. We are being taxed out of existence. We are fed up with bureaucracy and red tape. So why not let Quebec and Ottawa get together and see whether something can be done about getting rid of all this duplication? Why not give a little more power to the private citizen?" People want to be involved.
As for recognition of our way of life, I think that is what people want, along with recognition of Quebec's language, culture, legal traditions and institutions.
A resolution was presented in this House to recognize the people of Quebec as a distinct society. A bill was introduced more or less at the same time-the bill we are debating now-that gives veto powers to Quebec and other regions in Canada. It is not perfect, but is perfection possible in this world? Is it be better to entrench this in the Constitution than to have a bill? Yes, it would be better.
Soon, in 1997, there will be a meeting of provincial premiers. Yes, it is better.
Would it be better to have more rather than fewer regions? I am not sure. But I do think the government has made a very good start by putting something on the table quickly after the referendum.
So what do we do now? What do we do? After the veto bill we are debating now is adopted, we will see if by 1997, we can reach a consensus within this country, within Canada. We will see whether we can constitutionalize, perhaps by 1997 or whenever, the concept of distinct society.
But, as I said earlier, the citizen comes first. We will have to prepare a package of changes, changes that are crucial and thorough, and we will have to do it now, but we should keep it simple: look at duplication, decentralize administrations and standardize paperwork. I think we should go for solutions that have a direct impact on the public.
We must also make the citizens of this country proud to be Canadians. And part of that is teaching Canadian history in our schools. Part of it is young people knowing the words of our national anthem. Part of it is flying our flag everywhere. Part of it is encouraging Quebecers to meet people and travel in other provinces and vice versa.
The veto powers we are discussing today are like the oil I put in the hydraulic system of my backhoe so I can raise the shovel.
It is important that all of us in this House, irrespective of our political affiliations, have only the interests of the citizen at heart.
Keith Martin Reform Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Mr. Speaker, this speech is not directed at the individuals in the House. It is directed at the people of Canada. The crisis that we face today supersedes politics. It supersedes the gamesmanship that we see in the House. It supersedes what goes on in committee. It is an issue that affects the very soul of Canada.
Never in the past 50 years has there been such a crisis in our midst, a crisis that will change the very face of the country that we know and love. Never have we needed leadership more but never have we seen such a dearth of leadership. It almost caused our country to fracture last October 30.
The current proposals in Bill C-110 are ineffective. They are meant to appease the separatists within this House and they are meant to appease the separatist leaders in Quebec. The fact of the matter is that the separatist leadership wants one thing and one thing alone: a separate, independent Quebec.
Anything the government does is going to be ineffective. Therefore the proposals the government makes must not be addressed to the separatist leadership, not to the separatist party, but to the people of Quebec. That is the intent of what we are trying to accomplish here. We are trying to keep this country together, not for politicians, not for political parties, but for the people of Canada.
The fundamental overriding principle of being Canadian is equality for everyone. If we do not have equality for all of us then we have equality for no one. It is something that Canadians have fought for in two world wars, which the brave men and women in our armed forces fight for today, peace and equality in far off lands.
To the people of Quebec I say you are afraid of losing your culture, you are afraid of losing your language. You do not wish to become like the French culture in the southern United States. But your culture is important to us, your language is important to us. It enriches each and every one of us.
In the same vein, our culture, our history and the culture and the history of the multiple ethnic groups that make up Canada must be important to you too. We in the Reform Party have proposed that culture and language be given to the provinces, all of the provinces, including Quebec. Here you can be the masters of your own cultural and linguistic destinies.
To the people of Quebec I also say, you are fed up with unnecessary duplication, you are fed up with unnecessary interventions by Ottawa. But so is the rest of the country. That is why in order to reduce waste and save taxpayers' money we have submitted proposals to decentralize various areas such as natural resources, manpower training, housing, tourism and such.
The people of Quebec are fed up with the high federal debt, but so is the rest of Canada. Understand one thing. If Quebecers leave Canada they must understand very clearly that they will walk away with their share of the national debt.
To the people of Quebec I say, you are fed up with taxes which go to Ottawa and are wasted but understand, so is the rest of Canada. The rest of Canada has the same interests that the vast majority of the people of Quebec have. It would be a shame to have the people of Quebec separate from Canada over an eventuality that will come to pass anyway. In most ways the same desires of the people of Quebec are shared by people in every province within our country. I ask them to work with everybody else in order to accomplish this.
The separatists want to secede to preserve the Quebec culture but they can only do this by preventing non-francophone people from coming into Quebec. That is why they want to control immigration. That is their intent. They want to create a pure laine population. Fantasy? Hardly. Bloc Quebecois members previous to the refer-
endum said that the only true Quebecer is one that is a member of la pure laine.
This was confirmed by racist statements made by Mr. Parizeau and Mr. Landry that blamed them for the failure of Quebec to succeed in the referendum. They put that responsibility on the shoulders of hardworking immigrant populations in Quebec. Accidental? Not at all. Why? Because they want to drive the immigrant population from Quebec to increase, relatively speaking, the yes vote for separation.
However, the people of Quebec do not want this. The people of Quebec are not xenophobes. They are not intolerant. They are not racist. Their leaders are but they are not. This is something they need remember. They would be embarrassed to know some of the things that have been said by some of their leaders.
I ask the people of Quebec why investors would want go to Quebec to start companies and create jobs in a climate of obsolete economic ideas, an enormously high debt and intolerance?
This brings me to the motivation of the separatist leadership. They warp history. They lie about economic facts. They muzzle their own people which prevents them from getting the facts. Why are they doing this? They are doing it for their own gain and the gain is power. It is power for the separatist leadership in Quebec and has nothing to do with benefiting the average citizen in Quebec.
The pursuit of the separatist leadership in Quebec has very little to do with the people of Quebec. The leadership knows its actions and activities are just going to drag down the average citizen in Quebec. Those who will be hurt the most are those who are the poorest in that province.
We agree with the people of Quebec in wanting to be the masters of their own linguistic and cultural destinies for it is their culture and their language that enriches us all. We are, after all, a part of a multi-ethnic mélange of different groups. French history is a part of our history and is a fundamental, important and integral part of Canada.
Canada needs leadership and it needs it now. It needs leadership to put this issue of Canadian unity beyond the realm and the arena of politics. If this issue is left to the politicians it will be lethal for Canadian unity. All the people of Canada must understand that.
I implore and beseech the people of this country to come together: francophones, allophones, anglophones, all the ethnic groups, all the cultures and all the languages, under the umbrella of understanding and tolerance. It is something that all Canadians are proud of. From outside Canada it is how we are seen. We are looked at as being a country that exhibits the best examples of culture and tolerance.
However, if ever there was a need for us to demonstrate this to its greatest extent it is now. We must all come together. Anglophones must travel to Quebec. Quebecers must travel into the rest of Canada to see the importance of having our cultures united, not separate.
There is no reason why the people of Quebec cannot have what they asked for in terms of preserving their culture and language in North America. The rest of Canada does not want that to be lost, it wants it to stay. It wants it to stay in the framework of equality, respect and tolerance for all Canadians.
Quite frankly, the policies that have been put forward in Bill C-110, rather than bringing people together, are actually divisive. The people in the rest of Canada see this as a way of making them second class citizens. I hope the people of Quebec understand this. They want nothing more than to be equal with Canadians and with Quebecers. They want nothing more and nothing less.
In closing, our country is the greatest country in the world. It is a land of tolerance and unity. It is made up of a mélange of different ethnic groups of which the French Canadian heritage and culture is one of the most important. I ask the people of Quebec, not the politicians, to join us in unity to build a stronger, united Canada for all people.
Sheila Finestone LiberalSecretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the Prime Minister's unity initiative. In particular, I am going to address the distinct character of Quebec, the fact that it is different which is an obvious and inevitable reality. There are four simple and straightforward truths members of Parliament must keep in mind during this debate.
The first truth is very clear and it must remain at the heart of our debate: Canada is the best country in the world in which to live. Today we are discussing our future. We are discussing evolution. Anyone can discuss whatever they want in this land because we live in the most free and democratic country in which all of us are equal citizens with equal rights.
The second truth is that the Prime Minister, the government and Parliament have a duty to preserve the unity of Canada as a nation indivisible.
The third truth must be obvious to every member of Parliament. Canadians have called for change and they have called for change based upon goodwill, change based upon reaching out, change based upon open arms, open minds and open hearts. As a member of Parliament from Montreal, I saw this reality with my own eyes, particularly during the unity rally in our city.
The fourth truth is that the Prime Minister of Canada keeps his word. The Prime Minister said he would introduce measures to declare Quebec a distinct society and to offer a constitutional veto and Canadians know that they can count on him to do exactly what he promised to do. He is a man of his word and he has done it. Now we must move forward to close the gap, to bridge the gulf that seemingly divides.
This resolution is not about every person or every province or every political party demanding to get its own way. This legislation is about Canada and Canadians finding a better way.
Gaston Leroux Bloc Richmond—Wolfe, QC
Comme en 1982.
Patrick Gagnon Liberal Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC
Oh, oh.
Gaston Leroux Bloc Richmond—Wolfe, QC
Pendant des années.
Sheila Finestone Liberal Mount Royal, QC
This resolution is about Parliament showing leadership by saying we will take another step in finding understanding. We will take another step in recognizing the reality of Canada. We will demonstrate that we are determined to keep faith-