Debates of Dec. 12th, 1995

Constitutional Amendments Act

[An hon. member]

That will not wash.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

The debate we are having in this honourable House on this motion is a very unique opportunity. It is an opportunity to lay the groundwork and to send a signal to Quebecers and all Canadians for 1997. It is a signal to the official opposition. It is a signal to the Reform Party to save face and to show solidarity, to work together, to create a climate for economic prosperity.

Working Canadians are happy Canadians. This agenda is about getting Canadians back to work, bringing some dignity into the household.

We must make this Canada the nation that it deserves to be, second to none. I am proud to support this legislation. Yes, I will have to answer to the people of Canada come election time and so will all members. God bless Canada.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am standing today to oppose Bill C-110 for a number of reasons.

I find this bill extremely divisive. After listening to the hon. member from the other side who just spoke I find it even more divisive. Here is a government that had its opportunity during the referendum in Quebec. The Prime Minister said: "Don't worry, be happy. We are happy. Canada has no reason for concern over what might happen in Quebec".

Government members told us and all of Canada that it was only a small movement in Quebec that was looking for separatism, and the Canadian people believed them. The Reform Party never believed them. We told them there were all kinds of warning signs that this was a stronger movement than government members were telling the Canadian people. The Prime Minister likes to play like an ostrich and bury his head in the sand, unfortunately. We almost lost that province through acts such as this. This great government decided to tell the people. It tells them anything but the truth.

Now we stand here today, the day after the vote on distinct society, on which closure was invoked. We stand here today discussing the veto. No matter how we look at this we see a government that has gone on its hands and knees begging a separatist government to please on board. In order to do this it is willing to sell out the rest of Canada. When government members start talking about veto powers to certain provinces, when they start telling people that because of the regions they live in they will have more power than other people in different regions, they are asking for trouble.

When I was brought up and in school I was taught the number one law in Canada is equality of all of its citizens, not a select few, not for the few who sit here in government, but for all citizens of Canada. The bills we have seen in the last few days absolutely contradict everything we have been taught about Canada. The government has decided that because of our ethnic backgrounds some of us can no longer be classified as Canadians; they will be distinct Canadians. What does it think this does to the rest of the people in Canada?

We hear from hon. members on the other side that there are two founding nations. That went out over a hundred years ago. There are many Canadian citizens and they want to be called Canadian citizens, not on the basis of their ethnic backgrounds. They came here to be Canadians and yet bills such as this cut that all apart.

The government will create a backlash that will see once again in all probability the ugly head of western separatism rise. Yet the government has no fear of that. It does not worry about that. Its members say: "We gave B.C. the veto. Shouldn't you be happy?"

The Prime Minister was led kicking and screaming to give B.C. the veto. I remind the government there is no way he wanted to give B.C. the veto. It is not so much that B.C. wanted that veto; it was to appease the rest of Canada. It is backfiring.

We heard another member say the Reform Party was in favour of the five regions. Let us set the record straight. We put 20 questions out to be discussed by the people of Canada, not by some high and mighty, so-called little tin god the government thinks it is.

If there are concerns about any part of these 20 questions, please come back to the Reform Party and address these problems. We stand by taking it to the people and letting the people decide what our policy should be. Not one of these becomes policy until passed by our members, not by the elite few like the government members with their policies.

Let us look at what we give up. Under this veto power there will be no change. The status quo will go on forever. One region may decide it is against its best interest or another region will decide it is against its best interest. Therefore nothing will change except the fostering of greater discontent from the Canadian taxpayer's not being able to see change made.

We will not see a centralized government which is what the government is trying to pull here. If anything, it will be torn further apart. We will see the people finally rising up and saying they have had enough of this dictatorial state from a one person government. We will find that people will look at this as a return to the Charlottetown accord, soundly defeated across Canada. Because the accord was defeated, the government will find those back doors

to open this up, bring it forward and pass it into law. It will pay no attention to how that vote went.

The government does nothing to listen to the people. It has no intention of ever listening to the people of Canada. Its members' only intention is to make sure their plates are full of whatever they need to eat, that they are warm, safe and cuddly while their pay cheques comes in on time. That is the only concern I can see that the Liberal government has ever thought about in the last two years.

Look at their vision. The Liberals say they have a great vision, a vision of a united Canada. All Canadians have that vision. It might come as a shock to the government, but it does not really have to go out and sell that. It has to be honest to the Canadian people. It must tell them exactly what it is giving to the separatist government in Quebec. People will understand. The government is selling them out. It is selling out the Canadian public and making a poor job of it.

These proposals will do nothing to promote national unity. We sit here every day and listen to the sell, sell, sell idea from the government. I have to admit, some members over there could sell snow in Alaska. They practice very well. They study this: "Be happy, it will not hurt". However, every time one of these things is implemented it hurts. The Liberals will come back in about six months and say: "We did not realize there was any concern. Nobody told us there was any concern". That is their standard answer on anything they do.

We came back here thinking we still lived in a democratic country. No, we do not. When governments can put time closure it is no longer a democracy.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate on the debate on Bill C-110.

I will outline some of the salient features of what I consider a sound, innovative piece of legislation. The bill on the regional veto will require the consent of Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia and the Atlantic and the prairie regions before any constitutional amendments can be proposed in Parliament by the Government of Canada. Currently only the House of Commons has an absolute veto over any constitutional amendment.

The bill guarantees Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, the Atlantic region and the prairie region a general veto over any constitutional amendment in areas where they do not already have an absolute veto or right of withdrawl. This veto will apply to changes to national institutions such as the Senate, the creation of new provinces and any amendments regarding the distribution of powers.

Under the bill a constitutional amendment will have to receive the consent of at least six provinces, including Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, two provinces from the Atlantic region representing more than 50 per cent of the region's population, and two provinces in the prairie region representing more than 50 per cent of the prairie's population, before it can proceed to Parliament.

The federal government could not proceed to table an amendment if one of the regions refused to give its consent, even if seven provinces or more representing 50 per cent of Canada's population passed resolutions in favour of the amendment. The consent of the provinces and the regions will be expressed in various forms: by direct notice, a vote in the legislative assemblies or by a referendum.

The bill does not amend the Canadian Constitution. Nevertheless, an act of the federal Parliament is a serious measure. This law will become part of Canada's consolidated statutes and will be binding on the current government and on succeeding governments.

In tabling the bill, the Government of Canada is keeping its commitment to Quebecers and ensuring them increased protection within the Canadian federation in a way that should not offend its sister provinces. Moreover, the Government of Canada has recognized that the constitutional amendment process is of interest to all parts of the country. That is why the federal government is lending its veto to the five regions of the country, treating all regions fairly and equitably.

Now is not the time to hold a series of constitutional discussions. The Government of Quebec and its premier in waiting are unequivocally devoted to their secessionist option. If future conditions were to change where Quebec and the other regions were to agree the veto proposed by the bill could be incorporated into the Constitution. This will be for future discussion and future debate; this after due consideration and with the contribution and input from our constituents, the citizens of Canada.

In the past attempts to accommodate Quebec within the Constitution have failed. When the citizens of the country voted against the Charlottetown accord in 1992 they rejected a complex package of changes to the Constitution, including an elected Senate, which I agree with, aboriginal self-government, a veto for each province on changes to the composition of the Senate, the House of Commons and the Supreme Court, and the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society.

The Prime Minister's new, much simpler proposal is easily understood and should be judged on its merits.

In the past in attempts to accommodate Quebec within the Constitution Canadians outside of Quebec were united on one key point, and I agree wholeheartedly with them, that Quebec not be given powers which would make Quebecers more equal than their fellow Canadians. A veto for Quebec alone, even if it applied only

to language, culture and civil law, would have meant very special status, which the majority of Canadians oppose. My constituents would oppose special status for any region.

On the other hand, a veto for all 10 provinces would have enabled situations to exist; for example, the claim that Prince Edward Island, with a population 130,000, could thwart Ontario's democratically expressed aspirations. A provincial veto would be easier to champion if every provinces had the same number of citizens. They obviously do not.

Some are not thrilled with having their province lumped in with others in a geographical region. If they are honest with themselves they will realize the regional veto recognizes the reality of the country and its population.

The government's regional veto is a logical attempt to balance fairly equal blocs of population so that aspirations of several million people are not thwarted by several hundred thousand. Is this not fair and equitable?

If every province had a veto a national compromise would prove more difficult to negotiate than all of our combined frustrating constitutional negotiations of the recent past.

It is important to point out that until 1982 Quebec had a de facto veto, if not a constitutionally entrenched one, over fundamental constitutional change. The proposed change restores the principle which was done away with by René Levesque in the final negotiations of the 1982 Canada Act.

Despite difficulties, Canada grew and prospered for 125 years with a Quebec veto. We should ask ourselves now how long it could last without one. Canadians now realize that we cannot continue to build a strong, unified federation by trying to force Quebecers to accept a Constitution that is definitely not acceptable to them.

Canadians from all parts of the country began the crusade for Canada at the Montreal rally. We have a responsibility to take up the mantle and seek the final victory. I further point out that we are dealing with an act of Parliament which can be amended and repealed, rather than a binding constitutional change. Let us give it a try. We should think of what we might lose if we do not.

The legislation is a welcome attempt to wrest debate on Canada's future out of the hands of separatists. All Canadians want and are entitled to a say on the issue. It is an offer of a tangible, substantial change that even the Leader of the Opposition and his cohorts have found difficult to discredit. It is one with which the rest of Canada can live, albeit with some reservations.

It was interesting to see how the Leader of the Opposition and his cohorts explained to Quebecers why they were not interested in accepting an offer that Quebec felt it required. The Leader of the Opposition and his cohorts say that no federal offer to Quebec would ever be acceptable. Their sights and their egos are set on an independent country. They fail to appreciate that in the most recent referendum Quebecers again rejected sovereignty. Yet these separatists continue to contradict the people who elected them and strive for the goal the majority of Quebecers have rejected. They are democratic when the people agree with them and autocratic when they do not.

The proposals send a clear message to Quebecers that the Reform Party's shrill cries do not reflect the views of the rest of Canada. There is a willingness in the nation to make some reasonable accommodation for Quebec. The Bloc Quebecois does not have the appropriate answer. I remind Reform members that western Canadians wish for Canada to stay in one piece. Life will not end if Alberta loses the provincial veto it never had. There is no dishonour in losing a minor disagreement to keep a wonderful treasure: Canada. It is a small price to pay for a united country. The obligation to compromise is not really that difficult or that horrible.

Canada is weary of the Quebec issue, but at the same time it is very concerned about the Quebec issue. Many Canadians will admit to nights of fitful sleep leading to the referendum on October 30 and a collective sigh of relief when the majority of Quebecers rejected separation.

Bill C-110 is a welcome step forward. It is not the end or even the beginning of the end of our constitutional malaise. The separatists who deem it unacceptable should ask their constituents for their opinion and then be honest with themselves and with us, as it gives much of what Quebecers want. At the same time the constitutional veto powers to Quebec, Ontario, the Atlantic provinces, the prairie provinces and British Columbia should alleviate concerns that Quebec would have regional powers the rest of the country would not. Have we not struck a reasonable compromise, a compromise with which we can all truly live?

The government has acted in good faith. Although these proposals lack constitutional clout, they could very well represent the best and perhaps the only hope to keep our country strong and united. I urge members of the House to put aside petty regional jealousies and partisan politics. These proposals deserve the support of all who would keep this great country together.

Give unity a chance. Give Canada a chance.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great interest and a sense of conviction that I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-110 introduced by the government, a bill that would add to our constitutional jargon one more formula to amend a Constitution that the Quebec nation rejected when it refused to sign in 1982.

I rise in the House today with a sense of conviction because since yesterday, when the Prime Minister was again heard to deny the very meaning of these meagre proposals for change, I feel I have an even better case for attacking this government's indecent show of irresponsibility on a subject as fundamental as an agreement concluded in the past by two founding peoples.

Yes, like millions of fellow Quebecers, I heard the Prime Minister yesterday renege on his referendum commitments and put on the back burner all good intentions he served up in a panic to Quebecers towards the end of the referendum campaign.

Those who believed the Prime Minister was sincere, when he promised sweeping changes after the referendum, realized yesterday how thoroughly and rudely they had been tricked.

In an interview on the CBC, I heard the Prime Minister explain the thinking behind the changes he is proposing. I heard the Prime Minister say that he had promised Quebec three little things, and those are his words.

So, if we are to believe the statement the Prime Minister made yesterday to the nation, the government is inviting us to debate one of the three little things-Bill C-110.

What of this little thing for Quebec? Really, it is not much at all. We knew as much, even though, until yesterday, the government members were doing their best to sell this provision to Quebecers like it was the find of the century. In a gesture of magnanimous imperialism, the federal government is trying to show its generosity towards Quebec in lending it a veto.

In fact, the federal government is dangling a veto in front of Quebec, which does not come under the province's jurisdiction, but rather that of the federal government. At any time, the government may circumvent the opinion and the jurisdiction of the National Assembly by imposing its own rules on the use of this bogus veto.

What the federal government claims to be giving with one hand, it is already preparing to take away with the other. In Quebec, we have got used to this sort of double cross in the course of the various attempts at constitutional reform. Never, however, has the affront reached the level of being written into a bill. Never throughout the fruitless constitutional negotiations of the past has anyone thought of serving up such insignificance to Quebec.

In this regard, federalist utterances are fairly paradoxical. To the Quebecers, the return of the veto is being heralded. To English Canada, with the Prime Minister having to justify his poor referendum performance, the bill is being touted as nothing at all. Just enough to cobble together a few sad promises that they already regret have made, while appearing to formally resolve the big issue of national unity.

This bill must be rejected because it became obvious as soon as it was introduced that it was thrown together hastily. Originally designed, according to the government, to meet one of Quebec's historical demands, it is now so watered down that every province would also get a veto at the same time, including those who have never demanded one.

Let us acknowledge right off the bat that the federal offer to give Quebec its veto back is based on false premises. The government accuses Quebec's sovereignist leaders, René Lévesque first of all, of losing Quebec's veto after giving up on it. That is a false premise, as federal mandarins and the Minister of Justice know full well. In 1982, the Supreme Court ruled that Quebec did not have a veto and never had one. In a second ruling following the irreparable patriation of the Constitution led by today's Prime Minister, the Supreme Court concluded that Quebec never had a veto.

It is clear that neither this government nor English Canada want a real veto for Quebec, as demonstrated by the fact that this bill provides for not one but four vetoes, with a fifth one that recently surfaced. Since they do not really have anything to give, they are generous: they are willing to give everything to everyone. Yet, when the time comes to give Quebec what it has rightfully demanded for decades, they only respond with pettiness, narrow-mindedness, and a total disregard for the hope for major changes expressed by Quebecers in the last referendum.

It only took a short 40 days for all the solemn promises and demonstrations of love and affection to boil down to three meaningless proposals. First, a distinct society motion of no legal significance, that has already been disavowed by the Prime Minister who denies the very existence of a Quebec culture. Second, a veto granted, or rather imposed on everyone, a veto no sooner granted than it is taken back, given that the federal government is the only one with fiduciary rights. And finally, a travesty of transfer of jurisdiction over manpower training, an area in which the government takes pleasure in shifting responsibility without the related financial authority.

Indeed, the interpretation the Prime Minister gave yesterday is accurate: these are three small things that he is giving the people of Quebec to fulfil his promises and meet the expectations of those who voted no in the referendum, confident that the change promised were coming.

But a great people makes great things. It refuses to let imperialism impose small things on it. That is what we call pride.

And I will proudly vote against this bill.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Mr. Speaker, I deem it an opportunity to speak to Bill C-110 which gives a regional veto and to the amendment which changes the number of divisions from four to five.

The question I ask today in rising to speak on report stage of Bill C-110 is why we are here in this situation. Why are we here at this time? What has led us to this discussion?

If we look back to the beginning of this parliamentary session in October 1993 and the spring of 1994 we had certain expectations. I had an expectation of the Liberal government. For nine years it sat in opposition. The rules are clearly set out in Beauchesne's. Any group that sits in the place of official opposition is there to prepare to take over government and to be ready to take on the responsibility.

I asked a question early in this session that I ask again today. Was that Liberal opposition ready to be the Government of Canada? Clearly it was not, for in the first session of the spring of 1994 the government did not move on its fiscal policy. There was no plan to reduce the deficit of the country. There were complaints about what the Conservatives did previously but nothing in terms of a plan to deal with the deficit of the country and on a long term basis to bring the deficit of the country to zero and balance the budget. That was it.

In other areas, for example social policy, pension issues and justice issues, there was a whole string of committee reports, sittings and studies done. The House leader for the Liberal Party mentioned over and over again that he had to study something. It became an item of humour in the current House, in the 35th session, that things were being studied and no decisions were being made. That is what happened and things have been allowed to drift because of it.

It has been a do nothing time since 1994. A huge social policy review has now come forward and produced nothing. There is still a white paper on pension reform that is 20 months overdue. That is the setting in which the discussion on Bill C-110 is placed.

The government made it up as it went along. It has resulted in ill conceived policies that do not work, for example the policies of the human resources minister on employment insurance. The question is: Will it really get anyone back to employment? We question that.

They are hollow, symbolic policies that do not attack the real problems which have been presented to us. The best example of that in this current House is the justice minister's gun control bill which is supposed to stop crime when a gun is registered. As we have said over and over again, that is the most foolish thing we have ever heard.

If we look at the current piece of legislation in that context, we again find that even the Prime Minister's referendum strategy that occurred before October 30, 1995 was a fly by the seat of your pants stewardship. There was no plan for any renewed federalism, only more of the status quo. There was no effort to dispel the separatist myth of a painless divorce, only silence. There was no concept of a referendum strategy, only a hope that if nobody said anything it would turn out all right. We know that the vote was very close. It almost cost us the country of Canada because of the Liberal government being ill prepared and only knee jerk reacting to every one of its responsibilities.

We look at this legislation and the Prime Minister has done it again. Having made a desperate promise in the last week of the campaign that Daniel Johnson would not let him forget, the Prime Minister and three or four of his advisers huddled on the third floor of centre block and came to the conclusion of providing a unity package. They put that proposal before us to study.

The unity package is going to do more to divide Canada than to bring it together. Looking at it within Quebec, what has it done within Quebec? Has it brought Quebec into Canada? No, it has not. The potential new premier of Quebec has said in this House regarding the proposal: Is this all that Canada has to offer?

The federalist cupboards are bare. It has not satisfied that seemingly unquenchable thirst in Quebec at all. It has caused more division. Other Canadians are asking: "Why do you keep giving it things when you are not treating the rest of Canada in an equal way?"

Is this package any better than the Meech Lake or Charlottetown proposals? Many of us have called it Charlottetown light because it promises less to Quebec. As such, how is it ever going to do more for the federalist cause in Quebec?

Outside of Quebec what is it doing? Outside of Quebec we feel this legislation and the distinct society resolution will only divide Canadians, rather than unite them. For example, with this regional veto proposal, even after the government amendments which are being proposed here to change the divisions from four to five, British Columbia and Alberta are still opposing the bill. There must be something drastically wrong when the regions do not accept it, even after they have had a little more say in the outcome of the veto. Through its own actions, the Liberal government is creating what we think are first and second class provinces. This is more of the old style traditional politics of tired old federalists.

Over the course of a week or two the Prime Minister and his cronies cooked up a Quebec package. Now they are trying to shove it down the throats of not only Parliament, but of all Canadians. We

must remember that we each stand in our place as representatives of all Canadians.

We have to recognize that the provinces were not consulted. The people were not consulted. Not even all the members of the Liberal caucus were consulted in terms of the process in reaching a final conclusion or proposals that were presented to the House of Commons.

As my final point, I raise the matter that there has been some confusion over Reform's own proposal on constitutional ratification. Some people have misunderstood the regional aspect of it and have asked about the difference between the government's proposal and Reform's proposal. The difference is that we believe there should not-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry, your time has expired.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When I rose on debate it was 10 after the hour and it is now 17.5 minutes after the hour. I have been standing for 7.5 minutes. I would appreciate it if you would check your clock.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I have 1.13 p.m. I will give you another minute and a half. Sorry.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

You have cut me off on other occasions. I do not accept what you have just done.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

You may have the extra minute and a half. I was not in the Chair and I do not intentionally cut off any member of this House.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the change in the course of events. I have a final point I want to make within the minute I have.

It is very clear what we are attempting to do in this House of Commons is to make an amendment to section 38(1)(a) of the current Constitution Act of Canada. This amendment allows the provinces and their legislatures to make a vote with regard to this matter. The Reform Party clearly wants to have the people of Canada by referendum vote in the regions to determine what constitutional changes come about. That is the distinct difference that we believe in.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I would like to correct the hon. member. You started at 1.09 p.m. and the clerks have you down as being 11 minutes and not 10.

Business Of The House

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent for a couple of motions. I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, immediately after the disposal of the report stage of Bill C-110 this day, the House shall consider the third reading stage of Bill C-108, followed by the third reading stage of Bill C-99, followed by consideration of Private Members' Business, followed by adjournment proceedings;

That, during the consideration of Bill C-108, no member may speak for more than 10 minutes, not more than one member of the Liberal Party, two members of the Bloc Quebecois and one member of the Reform Party may speak, and at the completion of the debate, the question shall be deemed to have been put and a division thereon demanded and deferred until 5.15 p.m. on December 13, 1995;

That, during consideration of Bill C-99, no member may speak for more than 10 minutes, not more than one member of each recognized party may speak, and at the completion of the debate, the question shall be deemed to have been put and carried.

I should also advise there will be no questions or comments following any of the speeches indicated in the motion I have just read to the House. I seek consent of the House for adoption of this motion.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I move:

That, during the consideration of the motion of the Secretary of State for Parliamentary Affairs concerning the report of the Standing Committee on Finance tabled this day, on Thursday, December 14, 1995, no dilatory motions shall be received and no quorum calls shall be entertained;

That, after the the conclusion of Private Members' Business on Thursday, December 14, 1995, the House shall continue to sit for two hours and thirty minutes for the purpose of considering the aforementioned motion and shall then adjourn, provided that the House may, by unanimous consent, order the sitting further extended for a specified period for the purpose of considering the said motion; and

That the House shall not sit on Friday, December 15, 1995, provided that, for the purposes of Standing Order 28, it shall be deemed to have sat and adjourned on that day.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-110, an act respecting constitutional amendments, as reported (without amendment) from the committee; and Motions Nos. 1 and 2.

Constitutional Amendments Act

[Jon Gerrard, Liberal, Secretary of State (Science]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-110, the bill which provides for a regional veto over changes to our Canadian Constitution.

The bill provides for a historic recognition that the people of Quebec should have input into and a veto over constitutional change which affects national institutions such as the Senate, and any amendments which might affect the distribution of powers. At the same time with our amendment to recognize British Columbia as a region we are giving historic recognition to the regional make-up of Canada in which our 10 provinces are within five regions.

The bill clearly recognizes the fact that British Columbia by itself represents an identifiable region. This recognition is consistent with the unique geographic situation of British Columbia, the rapidly growing population of British Columbia and the emergence of the Asia-Pacific trading region in which Canada and particularly British Columbia have a major role.

In making this amendment we are also recognizing in law the importance of the prairie region of Canada representing the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta as a region. As the representative from Portage-Interlake in Manitoba, having roots and family in Saskatchewan and having many friends and having visited frequently in Alberta, this seems to me to be a particularly timely and appropriate recognition.

The bill we are discussing today represents one part of a package we are bringing forward in the follow-up to the recent referendum. It has measures which are designed to strengthen and to promote the unity of Canada and the ability of Canadians to be full participants in our planet's global village. In this context I will comment briefly on the place of this bill as part of the whole package of changes which we are bringing forward.

The recognition of Quebec as a distinct society is appropriate and timely. It provides within the framework of our country Canada a vision of the make-up of our component parts. Quebec is distinctive in having a system of civil law which is based upon the Napoleonic tradition. This is different from the rest of Canada which has civil law based on the English common law tradition. Quebec is also distinctive linguistically and has its own distinctive cultural traditions.

I would liken the development of this historic recognition to the historic recognition and evolution of English and French as official languages in Canada. The recognition of French and English as official languages provides a recognition of the fundamental nature of our country, Canada. The recognition does not give rights to other languages: Ukrainian, German, Italian, Chinese, aboriginal languages and so on. However it has sent a signal that individuals' historic languages and cultures are important.

That signal has been fundamental to the evolution of Canada as a country which is very different from the nature of the United States south of our border. Instead of the United States model of a melting pot, we have a pluralistic community in Canada, a country which clearly recognizes and thrives on diversity, a country in which the different regions of Canada can take pride in aspects in which each is distinct.

I will argue that the tolerant diverse country we have built in Canada is ideally prepared for participation in the future of our planet. With multiple global languages around the world, with multiple global cultures in which it is increasingly important that we work together and trade together for our common benefit, our background as a diverse and tolerant society is particularly fitting.

It is in the context of this changing world that we have presented a new employment insurance program to decentralize training in Canada. Individuals will have better access, more freedom of choice and more opportunity to learn as they would desire to learn for their own benefit and for the benefit of Canada.

We are entering the knowledge age, a time when the information highway will dramatically change opportunities for learning, opportunities for work and opportunities for self-expression.

We are moving to a model which people have called a client service model in which individuals will have more choices, more options and more opportunities. Therefore the government in many respects is changing its own role dramatically; changing from the old world in which government tried to do things alone to provide solutions, to a new world in which the government is a facilitator and a catalyst, helping Canadians from coast to coast find their own solutions.

The role of Canada in the world has similarly changed. The Canadian people, a people of diverse backgrounds, are an example to the rest of the world of how to achieve a very high quality of life which we have here, an example of how to work and to co-operate together for our mutual benefit, an example of the benefits of our linguistic, cultural, economic, scientific and technological strengths in Canada, benefits which enable us to reach out to help and to trade with the rest of the world.

In providing in products and services an understanding based on our diversity and our tolerance to others in the world, we can help others improve their quality of life even as we improve our own. Through increasing our exports of products, services and knowledge, Canadians can derive economic benefit and improved quality of life even as we help others to improve their own circumstances.

The tolerance and the diversity, the cultural sensitivity and the linguistic abilities of Canadians provide us with a unique position in the world which we should recognize and celebrate. It is the Canadian paradigm that we have diversity and tolerance even as we have unity and co-operation.

In this bill we celebrate one further step being taken today: our gradual evolution as a Canadian people and a strong and unified country.

[Maurice Dumas, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise in this House to speak to Bill C-110 respecting constitutional amendments. It seems obvious to me that, by its very substance, Bill C-100 cannot meet the demands of the people of Quebec and Canada.

Quebecers have always asked for a real constitutional veto for Quebec, not a mere legislative promise. This veto granted to Quebec through Bill C-100 is reminiscent of the 1982 constitutional amending process. If they disagree, the federal Parliament may overrule Quebec's veto.

Under Bill C-110, it is up to the federal government to determine the criteria governing a province's approval. There are at least seven different ways of doing that: through a resolution from the provincial legislature; through an order in council, which means a simple notice from the government; through a notice signed by the premier of a province; through a notice signed by the lieutenant governor of a province; through a provincial referendum held by a province; through a federal referendum held in the province or in a number of provinces; and, finally, as a last resort, through a vote by the MPs representing the province concerned.

The Constitution Act, 1982 includes specific provisions regarding the amending formula, but the government did not see fit to include them in Bill C-110. There is a strong consensus in Quebec regarding the need, for the province, to have a veto, and Quebec's interpretation of that right is totally different from that of the rest of Canada.

Quebecers always felt that Confederation was a pact between the four original provinces and basically an agreement between the two founding nations. Former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau supported that view in 1967, when he said that the BNA Act of 1867, which was proclaimed by the imperial Parliament, was based on an agreement reached by two parties.

Thus, any constitutional amendment requires Quebec's approval, as one of the two founding nations. The Constitution was patriated with a new formula, in spite of the opposition of Quebec, which was not granted a veto over future constitutional amendments.

In his memoirs, former Quebec premier René Lévesque explained why he accepted the right of withdrawal with compensation, instead of the traditional veto power. He felt that a veto could impede development, and that if Quebec got it, Ontario, and perhaps other provinces, would demand it. His view of things was right, since British Columbia in fact claimed a veto and recently got it.

As my colleague for Joliette said earlier, the Prime Minister opened his veto drawer, pulled out a copy and handed it to British Columbia.

The government of Robert Bourassa, premier of Quebec at the time-and this was before the failure of the Meech Lake accord-then wanted to back both horses on the Quebec veto issue. He claimed for Quebec both the constitutional right to oppose changes to federal institutions and the creation of new provinces and the right to withdraw with financial compensation.

The constitutional question was always at the heart of the debate in Canada and, until 1982, no constitutional change affecting the legislative powers of the Quebec National Assembly was adopted in Canada.

The fact that Jean Lesage's Liberal government dropped the Fulton-Favreau amending formula in 1966 and Robert Bourassa's Liberal government rejected the Victoria charter in 1971 indicated that Quebec, the other provinces and the federal government considered Quebec had a veto on constitutional amendments.

However, the Supreme Court of Canada reminded us in 1982 that Quebec had never had a constitutional veto and thus confirmed that the federal government could, with the support of the Supreme Court, circumvent the opinion of the people of Quebec.

And now for a bit of history, let us go back to the time of Honoré Mercier, who has gone down in history as a great 19th century premier of Quebec. From 1887 to 1891 his concerns were the Constitution, education, the public debt, regional economic development and the challenge of industrial change.

His great idea was to redefine the Constitution Act, 1867 by totally affirming the principle of provincial autonomy, particularly for Quebec. He said, "Our cause is the cause of our nation, the cause of provincial autonomy. It is the cause for which our fathers fought, the cause of patriots throughout history, the cause of those who do not want the province of Quebec to be a province in bondage, who want it to be self-governing in accordance with the wishes of its inhabitants. We do not want to hear our province referred to with disdain any longer. We wish to be masters of our destiny; we wish the voice of the majority to be heard and respected by all".

I should point out that premier Honoré Mercier governed with a two-party government, the Conservatives plus the Liberals, in a national unity government.

In 1887, 20 years after Confederation, premier Honoré Mercier called a provincial conference in Quebec City .Although Sir John A. Macdonald, the Prime Minister of the day, refused to send a representative, the Quebec conference was a success. Twenty ministers, five premiers among them, affirmed the principle of the autonomy of the provinces making up our confederation. They

protested against the centralist approach of the government in Ottawa and that government's tendency to abuse its power of disallowance, as it still does today.

The conference was a milestone in Canada's political history in that it confirmed the political and constitutional rights of the provinces, thus reminding the central government of what should be the very essence of a confederation's constitution.

Today, as the year 1995 draws to a close, what was said by Honoré Mercier, Premier of Quebec from 1887 to 1891, seems as topical as it was at the time.

Bill C-110 takes us back to the sad realization that there are truly two solitudes, two peoples, two cultures, each with a completely different vision of Canada's future.

On November 30, the Leader of the Opposition reminded the House of the disastrous impact of this bill, and I quote: "This leads me to believe and shows us that Bill C-110, in fact, has a pernicious effect in that, since the Canadian Constitution is so complex and twisted in certain respects, this bill, and that is a paradox, will in no way solve the current problems, but will make it even more difficult to transfer the powers that the federal government might be willing to give to Quebec".

Quebec's demands for more powers have persisted since the beginning of Confederation. The post-referendum of promises the federal government appear in this bill, and this veto is just a lot of smoke and mirrors. A real veto should be in the Constitution and be binding on all parties concerned.

The federal justice minister claimed that Bill C-110 was valid federal legislation, and I quote: "Let me express my sincere conviction that Bill C-110 is valid federal legislation. It does not amend the Constitution in any way. Indeed, it is complementary to the constitutional amending provisions".

In its content, the bill remains silent about the manner in which the provinces will be able to express their position.

This bill, which covers a scant two pages, merely indicates what the federal government means by a majority of the provinces. To the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and to most Quebecers, this proposal is a step backward, a proposal that offers far less than Meech Lake or even Charlottetown, which was rejected by Quebec. There has been a succession of offers from Ottawa, but the substance of those offers keep shrinking all the time so that in the end it is just a joke, according to the Leader of the Opposition.

And what about the criticisms from the Reform Party? Reformers are against this bill because it would give a constitutional veto to Quebec's sovereignist government, which should soon be led by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois. Which brings us back to square one, in that it is impossible to satisfy both English Canada and Quebecers.

This vision of Canada compels us to stop these endless demands and deal with the real problems.

Quebec sovereignty will bring about a new climate allowing us to negotiate as equals with the people of Canada. I submit to you that the people of Quebec cannot support Bill C-110. We are still waiting for real, valid offers from the Prime Minister of Canada, in keeping with the promises he made before the October 30 referendum.

I have been a sovereignist for over 30 years and I cannot be happy with a veto that is a mere legislative promise and a total improvisation. That is why I will vote against Bill C-110.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Chair, it was less than two months ago, on October 30, when 50.6 per cent of Quebecers said no to separation and yes to Canada. The Canada votes would have been higher were it not for the fraudulent question, the fraudulent campaign and the questionable counting.

The leader of the Canada campaign was Daniel Johnson and the leader of the separatist campaign was originally Jacques Parizeau. The leader of the Bloc Quebecois displaced Mr. Parizeau as the leader of the separatists and proceeded to conduct a campaign of deceit and mistruths.

A week before the referendum the Canada side was 7 per cent behind in the polls, and the Prime Minister became highly active in the campaign. On October 24, to counter the winning campaign of the separatists, the Prime Minister promised at a rally in Verdun that changes would be made to recognize Quebec as a distinct society and to ensure that future constitutional change would require Quebec's approval. The Prime Minister's nationally televised address to the nation on October 25 helped mobilize Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

On October 27, more than 150,000 Canadians gathered in Montreal to express their love for Canada, a Canada that includes the province of Quebec. Among those at the rally, close to 600 were from my community. Had there been more buses available there would have been 2,000 people there. People from my community boarded buses at midnight on Thursday and did not get back home until midnight on Friday. They put their lives on hold for a day to go to Montreal to express their love for a Canada that includes Quebec.

The 150,000 Canadians at the Montreal rally supported the Prime Minister's promise for change. They will be the guardians of that promise.

On October 30, in spite of a fraudulent question, in spite of a fraudulent campaign, Canada won. The Prime Minister was instrumental in taking the pro-Canada side from a deficit of 7 per cent a week before the referendum to victory on referendum night.

The separatists blamed their loss on money and ethnics, ignoring the 40 per cent of French Quebec that voted yes to Canada and no to separation. The leader of the Bloc Quebecois and future premier of Quebec has stated that he is not in favour of constitutional change. He wants a Quebec that is separate from Canada.

The Prime Minister introduced a regional veto and distinct society clause through federal legislation, the only way he could keep his promise that there would be no constitutional change without Quebec's support. We approved the distinct society clause on Monday and will approve regional vetoes tomorrow.

The Prime Minister has delivered on his promises. On Monday evening the House of Commons approved the distinct society clause. The Bloc Quebecois voted against it saying that it gave nothing to Quebec. The Reform Party voted against it saying it gave too much to Quebec. The leader of the Bloc Quebecois and the separatists have been historically consistent in opposing distinct society for Quebec as they worked for the failure of Meech Lake and the Charlottetown accord.

The leader of the Reform Party and his followers have also opposed accommodating Quebec in Canada. While the Bloc Quebecois is trying to pull Quebec out of Canada, Reformers are trying to push Quebec out. The Reform Party aided and abetted the separatists before the referendum and is doing the same now.

Reformers would be revisionist historians who would deny the Quebec Act of 1774 where the British Parliament recognized the French language, civil code and the distinct culture of Quebec. The reality is that the formation of Canada was a miracle based on the coming together of two of Europe's leading peoples, the French and the English, with the accommodation of the First Nations. Without this coming together we would likely be part of the United States.

Our willingness to embrace a bilingual society is welcoming to new Canadians. We have evolved as a compassionate, humane and understanding country. Together we have built a country that the United Nations has judged on a number of occasions as the best country in the world in which to live. Canada is the country of choice of millions of would-be immigrants.

When we examine the demographics of Canada, 22.8 per cent of Canadians are of French origin; 20.8 per cent are of British origin; 1.7 per cent aboriginal and the remaining 54.7 per cent have roots in other countries, with half of those having multiple origins.

Canada represents a beacon of hope in a troubled world. We have built a country that has its make-up from the rest of the world. Canada is an example of civility and compassion, caring and sharing, tolerance and understanding.

Canada welcomed my family after the Hungarian revolution in 1957. We were refugees and Canada offered us refuge. My wife is a sixth generation Canadian whose roots go back to Ireland. My daughter is nine years old and all three of us are fiercely proud Canadians.

When my family first arrived in Canada we lived for the first five years in Vancouver, B.C. I am acutely aware that B.C. looks on itself as a distinct region of Canada. The fact that the regional veto was extended to B.C. shows the flexibility of the government's approach.

In the past 39 years I have had the opportunity to travel this country from coast to coast. I have watched the sunrise on Signal Hill St. John's, Newfoundland and have seen the sunset in Tofino on Vancouver Island. I have viewed the majesty of the Rockies and the vastness of the prairies, the wilds of northern Ontario and the beauty of the Great Lakes. For me the Gatineau hills, the St. Lawrence seaway, Isle d'Orleans, old Montreal, the Quebec winter festival give meaning to la belle province. I have enjoyed the quaintness of Prince Edward Island, the beauty of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I have much more to see and I am awestruck at the beauty of my country.

Early this past October, a delegation from Waterloo, Quebec, visited Waterloo, Ontario, for a twinning ceremony. Bernard Provencher, mayor of Waterloo, Quebec, informed the people at the twinning ceremony: "If by some magical way we could have all Quebecers experience the hospitality that we have experienced these last few days and do it in reverse and have Canadians outside Quebec visit Quebec then we would not even have this referendum on what we already own".

The two mayors a couple of weeks later exchanged their flags in the Prime Minister's office and stated that they would fly the flags at their respective city halls in the hope that Canada would remain united. The two Waterloos are an example of how communities from across the country need to foster exchanges to promote goodwill and understanding among Canadians. Canada is a miracle we cannot take for granted. We must nurture it, build it and strengthen it.

The distinct society recognition for Quebec which was passed by the House on Monday and the regional veto clause which will be passed tomorrow are federal laws, not constitutional amendments. Constitutional review must take place in 1997. It will be then that the federal government will review the Constitution with the provinces.

Historically, constitutional change has been a point of division among Canadians. It was for this reason that the fathers of Confederation could not agree on a constitutional amending

formula when Canada was founded in 1867. Constitutional amendments tend to bring out regional grievances that test our mettle as a nation. It is easy for opposition members to criticize, as they can attack everything and be responsible for nothing.

In putting forward the distinct society resolution and the regional veto we did not expect the separatists across the aisle to support it. They want to separate. They want to tear up Canada. Their leader, the Quebec premier in waiting, has already made it abundantly clear that no constitutional amendments will be acceptable to his government.

The neo-separatist Reform Party does not want to support the government's initiative. The Reformers lust after official opposition status. They dream of forming a government in a Canada without Quebec. The Reformers helped the Bloc Quebecois before the referendum and they are helping them now.

We believe the majority of Quebecers and the majority of Canadians will support the government's initiatives. Distinct society and the regional veto are issues that have to be dealt with quickly so the government can focus its attention on the economy and getting people back to work.

Last week the media reported on a CROP poll conducted in Quebec. When Quebecers were asked directly whether the government should focus its attention on the economy or the Constitution, 86 per cent said the economy and only 10 per cent the Constitution. Four per cent had no response. Clearly, Canadians from Quebec and Canadians from the rest of Canada have a lot in common.

In July 1982 Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau succeeded in giving Canadians their Constitution. He was assisted in his efforts by the present Prime Minister who was then the justice minister. They were both attacked for their accomplishments by the separatists who would tear Canada apart. Mr. Trudeau and the current Prime Minister are distinguished Quebecers who, during the quiet revolution, helped transform Quebec from a society dominated by Duplessis and the church into a modern society, but the separatists questioned their Quebec roots.

The situation reminded me of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, our first French Canadian Prime Minister, who during the election of 1911 set out the frustrations that beset him as he tried to follow the middle path in politics: "I am branded in Quebec as a traitor of the French, and in Ontario as a traitor of the English. In Quebec I am branded as a jingo, and in Ontario as a separatist. In Quebec I am attacked as an imperialist, and Ontario as an anti-imperialist. I am neither. I am a Canadian".

Canada is an example to the world. It is made up of peoples from around the world who have together built a country which is the best in the world.

Vive le Québec. Vive le Canada. Vive le Canada uni.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of the people of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt and oppose Bill C-110, an act respecting constitutional amendments.

My constituents are proud and eager to have me rise on their behalf to express the anger, outrage and fury over the insult which the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party of Canada have hurled at the Canadian people. The anger, outrage and fury is over the fact that Canadians do not think the federal government's power to veto constitutional changes should be delegated to provincial legislatures. The power to reject or ratify changes to the country's Constitution should be given to only one body, and that body should be the people of Canada. Over and over we on this side of the House and in the ranks of the Bloc Quebecois heard the members of Parliament from western Canada and Quebec yelling at the Liberals to listen to the people. The Liberals just do not listen.

The people of British Columbia, where I come from, are insulted by the antics of the Liberal Party under the dictatorship of the Prime Minister. One morning we wake up and find out that B.C. has not been given the power of veto like the other provinces by the Liberal Prime Minister. This comes right out of the blue. My constituency telephone was ringing off the wall. The mail and fax machine were working overtime and the people were asking what was going on.

Then the Liberals start talking about four regions versus five regions. They are trying to convince Canadians how great a thing a veto is. The Liberals hope Canadians would not understand and the Liberals could hide the fact that they were not giving the people of Canada anything, nothing, zero.

The Liberal Prime Minister became afraid of the people of B.C. like he is afraid of the people of Quebec and so another morning comes along. My constituents wake up and discover the Liberal Prime Minister from Quebec has given B.C. a veto. But it is too late. The people of B.C. saw what the Prime Minister did. He thinks so little of the people from western Canada and he thinks about Quebec, so he inadvertently insulted western Canadians and Canada's most western province.

The people of western Canada know that in the Liberal's proposal under Bill C-110 and under the command of the Prime Minister the federal government is giving the leader of the Bloc Quebecois a consultation prize-no, it is not really a consultation because there was no consultation. It is a consolation prize for losing the Quebec referendum, a veto.

The Prime Minister could be called the Bob Barker of Canada. Quebec spun the wheel and lost but the Prime Minister turned to his deputy and said: "Sheila, tell them what they've won".

It is unacceptable. The people in western Canada know that this is typical of Ottawa and the Prime Minister. Liberal prime minister or Tory prime minister, prime ministers from Quebec make it a habit to give things to Quebec: the CF-18s, military bases, the environmental secretariat, distinct society, all kinds of things. Western Canadians are used to this.

The Prime Minister, because of his lack of understanding of what the people of Quebec want and are saying, brought the nation to the brink of disaster. Single-handedly he nearly smashed Canada to smithereens.

Before the referendum in Quebec the Liberals were told to sit on their ham hands until further notice: "Don't even talk about the referendum". After months the Prime Minister allowed his caucus to discuss the Quebec referendum but only at the very last minute, within days of the people of Quebec taking their trip to the ballot box.

Then the big mistake happens. The people of British Columbia are watching a pathetic speech by the Prime Minister in Verdun, Quebec one night. Verdun is a very cool place, especially for young people. As a matter of fact Montreal boasts the best night life anywhere in Canada. Unfortunately the Prime Minister got carried away. He forgot himself and he forgot his speech. He started to promise Quebec everything.

I am sure the leader of the Bloc Quebecois was very upset. The Prime Minister on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada started spewing forth a litany of gifts to the political elite, the rulers of Quebec, win, lose or draw. The people of British Columbia changed the channel on the television set because they could not watch it any more. They were insulted.

The next day the people of B.C. got together and commenced a long journey. They have to remind the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister that they exist in British Columbia. They must not be angry or hurt. They have to be diplomatic. We tell the Liberals: "Don't give a veto to the provinces, territories, groups of provinces, premiers, separatist governments, foreign nations, the Ayatollah or anyone else. Give a veto to the Canadian people". The people of Canada deserve a veto. The Liberals do not listen to Canadians.

On behalf of the good people of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, I am proud to stand here today and oppose Bill C-110.

[The Speaker]

It being almost two o'clock we will now proceed to Statements by Members.