House of Commons Hansard #276 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was quebec.

Topics

Government Response To PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions.

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

Winnipeg North Centre Manitoba

Liberal

David Walker LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with its mandate under Standing Order 83(1), the committee on finance is now submitting its interim report to the House.

Tobacco Products Control ActRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

Portage—Interlake Manitoba

Liberal

Jon Gerrard Liberalfor the Minister of Health

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-117, an act to amend the Tobacco Products Control Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Is that agreed?

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Act Respecting Constitutional AmendmentsGovernment Orders

10 a.m.

Saint-Léonard Québec

Liberal

Alfonso Gagliano LiberalSecretary of State (Parliamentary Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

That in relation to Bill C-110, An Act respecting constitutional amendments, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage of the Bill, and one sitting day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said Bill; and, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Business on the day allotted to the consideration of the report stage and on the day allotted to the third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Act Respecting Constitutional AmendmentsGovernment Orders

10 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Act Respecting Constitutional AmendmentsGovernment Orders

10 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Act Respecting Constitutional AmendmentsGovernment Orders

10 a.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Act Respecting Constitutional AmendmentsGovernment Orders

10:10 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

All those in favour of the motion will play say yea.

Act Respecting Constitutional AmendmentsGovernment Orders

10:10 a.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Act Respecting Constitutional AmendmentsGovernment Orders

10:10 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Act Respecting Constitutional AmendmentsGovernment Orders

10:10 a.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Act Respecting Constitutional AmendmentsGovernment Orders

10:10 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Act Respecting Constitutional AmendmentsGovernment Orders

10:10 a.m.

Reform

Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is there a quorum?

Act Respecting Constitutional AmendmentsGovernment Orders

10:10 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Yes, there is a quorum.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Act Respecting Constitutional AmendmentsGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

I declare the motion carried.

Business Of The HouseGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or special order, on Wednesday, December 13, 1995, the end of Government Orders shall be 5.15 p.m.

There have been negotiations among all parties and I believe there would be unanimous consent for that motion.

Business Of The HouseGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent?

Business Of The HouseGovernment Orders

10:50 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Motion agreed to.

Business Of The HouseGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Liberal

Jean Payne Liberal St. John's West, NL

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I stood in my place just shortly after the vote. I would like to note that I was unavoidably late for the vote. Had I been here I would have voted with my party.

The House resumed from December 11 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 ActGovernment Orders

December 12th, 1995 / 10:55 a.m.

Liberal

Andy Scott Liberal Fredericton—York—Sunbury, NB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on the issue of Quebec's veto over amendments to the Canadian Constitution and why we in this House should finally recognize that reality.

During the referendum campaign many Canadians were concerned about a possible yes vote but recognized the right of Quebecers to determine their own destiny.

Unfortunately, some on the yes side in the campaign characterized this respect of the Quebecois right to self-determination as ambivalence. When the rhetoric about indifference on the part of the rest of Canada escalated, Canadians were pushed into proving their commitment to a united Canada, a commitment I might add, that I never believed to be in question.

This expression is part of a larger package that the Prime Minister has put forward in the form of a resolution. It is a resolution that will recognize Quebec's distinct society. It offers a veto to Quebec as well as to other regions of the country over constitutional amendments and clarifies the roles and responsibilities with respect to labour force training and to the delivery of programs.

The Prime Minister is right to make this commitment and it is timely because Canada is changing. It was changing before the referendum, it was changing during the referendum and it will continue to change. This is natural. We all need to realize that there cannot always be a sense of finality on every issue. A country lives, changes and evolves. This is natural and progressive, if sometimes inconvenient.

In this case it is not wise to look for a specific date when this debate will be resolved. It will not, nor should it be. It is a healthy, modern and necessary progression that will continue over time.

This perspective is markedly different from those of the official opposition and the third party. Their obvious political agenda is to continue to raise the stakes and make demands within confining time frames to advance their own interests at the expense of our country. This disappoints me.

We on this side are driven by a genuine concern for Canada. I believe that it is testimony to our strength as a nation that we can move forward with the determination that we do in the face of these two parties, one that wants out of Canada and one that is ambivalent about our united country.

As part of the larger package, formal recognition of Quebec's distinct society is long overdue. We are expressing a characteristic of Canada that is on the positive side of the ledger as well as a historical fact. Canada is unique internationally in its multicultural nature, historic recognition of our aboriginal underpinnings and of our more recent two founding nations. We also have the capacity to constantly evolve through the different phases of these relationships.

Quebec's right to a veto has long been supported by this party. We have gone even further in offering a similar veto to the Atlantic region, Ontario, the west, and have recently offered a veto to the province of B.C. These regional vetoes are a reflection of this government's commitment to reach a broad consensus on issues concerning the Constitution.

In offering B.C. a veto, the Prime Minister has taken a leadership role in promoting flexibility and accountability in government. Since it was clear that B.C. was feeling misunderstood and unappreciated, the Prime Minister acted quickly and listened to its concerns. This is an important step in our evolution in recognizing this right as a fact just as Quebec's distinct society is a fact.

The leader of the third party on the other hand did not take advantage of an opportunity to propose a veto in committee. He did not even once in the House call for a veto for British Columbia. Those who view the third party as representatives of the west's interests may want to look at this obvious neglect to perhaps recognize that it is the governing party and our caucus that is listening and responding to every region in the country. I would like to congratulate my colleagues from B.C. who effectively represented their constituents and enabled this important amendment to be made to the original proposal.

There are some who say that the government has not gone far enough in passing a resolution. What they fail to point out is the very real impact several resolutions have had in the past, such as the official languages resolution of 1968, the resolution reaffirming linguistic duality in 1973, and the resolution regarding the language of work in the federal public service.

Coming from New Brunswick I am very aware of the impact of all these resolutions, not only on the country but also on how the country operates inside my province. Those that would have us believe that Ottawa is simply throwing Quebec a bone but avoiding dealing with the issue with any degree of seriousness have questionable motives themselves.

Of course the Bloc members will not accept the seriousness of the resolution because in admitting that Canada can work they make themselves redundant. It is all too easy to point a finger at Ottawa for not doing enough when in fact it is offering exactly those changes that Quebec has rightfully sought in the past.

Is the attitude of Bloc members one that really takes Quebec's interest to heart, the interests of all Quebecers regardless of what language they speak? I think we know the answer to that question.

Canada is not made up only of Ottawa and Quebec. In looking beyond Quebec there are a number of different realities that must be reconciled. In the eastern provinces we find loyal strongholds in regions rich with history. In the western provinces we find many new Canadians with rich multicultural influences and traditions. The ability to bring these regions together is the challenge, a challenge to which I am certain we will be able to rise.

For all of those who are narrowly defining regional interests I ask simply: What region will be better off with a fractured country? There is no region in Canada that will benefit from the secession of Quebec. It is obvious which political party will benefit and that is what disappoints me.

This debate must continue. The Prime Minister has opened the door for Canadians to speak to and of their country, not in a highly structured and regimented way but to simply open the door to opportunity much in the same way as the rally did on October 27.

We must recognize that we need to move forward and not become mired in the past. Canada building should be our focus, not tearing Canada apart. This debate is about values, the values of fairness and acceptance that are integral to the successful resolution of the question.

I would like to mention a forum that was held in my riding two Sundays ago. The topic of discussion was Canadian unity. Many individuals took the time to come and express their views on the subject. I want to commend everyone who helped make it happen and mention a few of their suggestions.

The idea of generating more dialogue among Canadians inside and outside Quebec was brought out often, as well as having our educational system teach more about each other's histories and traditions. One individual felt that information is too filtered by the media and by politicians and someone else mentioned the need for everyone to better appreciate our economic interdependence.

I would like to thank the member for Brome-Missisquoi who took the time to visit Fredericton and participate in this public forum. His insights were very useful to the debate and to our understanding. This forum was a logical progression from the rally that was held in Montreal, a rally that was attended by hundreds of constituents from my riding who were willing to drive in a bus for 10 hours each way to express their desire that Quebec stay in Canada.

When I was asked to speak in the House in the first week on this issue I felt that I should hear from my constituents on that weekend first before attempting to express their views. I appreciate their participation and hope I have been able to transmit to the House the level of their commitment to Canada.

Finally, I would like to take a moment to commend the Prime Minister on his integrity and his broad Canadian vision. I am not surprised that he has acted quickly on this issue. I support him fully. I feel more Canadian because we have expressed a reality that makes Canada a great country. It is my great pleasure to support the resolution and I close by paraphrasing Lord Acton: "A state which is incompetent to satisfy difference condemns itself". It is not our intention to condemn but to construct.

Constitutional Amendments ActGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Bloc

René Laurin Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is one of the steps the government is taking to keep the promises the Prime Minister made at the meeting of the no side in Verdun. The promises were made in the dying moments of the referendum campaign, when, for the previous two years, the government had systematically refused to discuss any constitutional matter.

Only the phenomenal advance of the yes side forced the Prime Minister out of his constitutional lethargy and into giving Quebecers the hope of reform and satisfaction of their traditional claims.

Quebecers, however, are not fooled. Now all of the evidence points to the fact that the Prime Minister's offers were tabled in a mad panic. For example, the last minute press conference. The phoney committee chaired by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs had not even finished its deliberations.

The Liberal caucus had not been consulted either, and was put in the picture only after the Prime Minister's press conference. The offers presented are far from having unanimous support from the other provinces. This is a put up job, and a bad one at that, indicating that the Cabinet was beginning to panic about the challenges to the Prime Minister's ability to lead.

Many political figures on the Canadian scene, particularly in Quebec, gave an extremely chilly reception to the proposal for a regional veto, which was probably a great blow to the Liberal government. What explanation can there be for such a uproar of disapproval in response to the Prime Minister's proposals?

While the Meech Lake accord offered all provinces the right of veto over constitutional amendments, particularly those relating to federal institutions, here we have the Prime Minister reheating an old amending formula dating back to the seventies and the Victoria Charter. There is only one tiny change, the percentage of population required for the maritimes. The reactions were more or less the same in all the rest of Canada. English Canada reacted strongly to a proposal dating back to a distant time we were only too pleased to think had been forgotten forever.

First of all, the premiers of the two most populous western provinces voiced strong opposition to this offer. In British Columbia, Mr. Harcourt was not terribly enthusiastic, and a number of academics in the province even suggested the Prime Minister would cause the birth of a separatist movement in British Columbia. To show you how hard it is to grant these veto powers, the Prime Minister immediately turned around and promised British Columbia it would have a veto too. All in less than 24 hours. If you want a veto, the Prime Minister has a drawer full and will hand them out to anyone who makes a fuss and does not like his proposals.

That is not the kind of veto Quebec had in mind. The same kind of reaction came from Premier Klein of Alberta, who was not at all keen to see Ontario have a veto while three western provinces had to share. He maintained it was unfair to one of the three richest provinces in Canada and a province whose population was increasing at the fastest rate. Need I recall the position taken by the Reform Party, which is opposed to special privileges for any province and in the case of Quebec refuses to recognize anything, not even a symbolic and meaningless distinct society with no legal validity?

In Quebec, reactions were harsh as well. In one of his speeches, the Prime Minister maintained that Quebecers would recognize themselves in his proposals and that these would respond to the aspirations of Quebecers. Obviously we are not talking about the same Quebec.

His comments now and during the referendum indicate that the Prime Minister no longer knows Quebec and that the fact that he has been living in Ottawa for more than 30 years has probably cut him off altogether from what is happening in Quebec.

His proposals were intended to satisfy Quebecers, but he made the serious mistake of wanting to please everyone. By giving everyone half a loaf, he managed to please no one.

Most political parties in Quebec either reacted very negatively or were not satisfied with the proposals or dismissed them out of hand.

When there is a fire in Quebec, the other provinces panic. They show Quebec a whole arsenal of firehoses, telling us we can now feel safe and sound, protected by the other provinces and this array of firehoses. Too bad there was not enough water in the hoses to put out the fire. What we are being offered is not the real thing, but Quebec wants the real thing.

As I said to a colleague yesterday, we want to be recognized as horses, but they recognize us as little ponies. A horse is stronger than a pony. Quebec claims to be that strong and powerful; it does not want to be seen as small, weak and disadvantaged.

Mr. Dumont's Action démocratique also argues that what Quebecers want is not mere motions or bills but real constitutional reforms.

Both the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois have rejected the Prime Minister's proposals. Labour indicated that it was too little, too late. As for the very federalist Liberal Party in Quebec, all it had to say was that it was a step forward, but without any great enthusiasm. At a regional council held the day before the Prime Minister came out with his proposals, the Liberal Party in Quebec went much further in its constitutional demands.

The Premier of Quebec and even Mr. Bourassa before him would never have agreed to the Prime Minister of Canada's watered down proposals. Beyond partisan politics, however, the media's reaction was the most revealing indication of how the federal government's proposals were received. The editorial writer for Le Devoir refutes the federal proposals, arguing that enshrining this veto power in an act of Parliament would not really give Quebec its veto back.

Quebec would not really get its veto back because although its veto was recognized by tradition, the Supreme Court stated that Quebec never had a legal veto. This editorial writer points out that any government could very well revoke this act. Reform would probably make it a point of honour to do so upon taking office. The most telling comments in the newspapers, however, are in La Presse , whose chief editorial writer, Alain Dubuc, who is well-known for his pro-federalist positions, wrote that Quebecers want much more than that. He added that, as long as these principles are guaranteed by legislation, all it would take for Quebec to lose its guarantees is a shift in policies or a change of government. The Prime Minister's proposals are held up to ridicule from all sides and considered as plainly unacceptable, both by English Canada and by Quebec.

To conclude, I would like to add that the main problem with this bill is its very essence; after all, it is just a bill. As long as all the provinces do not agree on its principle, it will remain just a bill.

This simple bill has the same force in law as any other bill, which means that it can be repealed by any government, as it sees fit .That is its weakness and that is what we condemn.