Debates of Dec. 12th, 1995

Constitutional Amendments Act

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Secretary of State (Parliamentary Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's very important debate which, as you are aware, has grown out of the referendum debate we had not long ago. On October 30, Canada gained more than a mere referendum victory.

History will recall this referendum as one in which not only Quebecers but millions of Canadians renewed their allegiance to our country and proclaimed their pride at being Canadian. From sea to sea, millions of Canadians realized more clearly than ever before how important it was for them to live in this great country rich in resources and in potential.

People everywhere also became aware that the unity of our country is more important than many individual demands. People everywhere said that keeping this country together was a worthwhile undertaking, was worth a few concessions and compromises. The Prime Minister clearly understood what Canadians were feeling on the eve of the referendum. He saw our desire and our determination to continue to see this best of all countries progress even further. He also recognized the desire everywhere in the country for change, concrete and progressive change within Canada.

The Prime Minister kept his promise. Barely a month after his promise to Quebecers to recognize the distinct society, to give Quebec a veto and to decentralize powers, he has made good on that promise. Last Monday we passed the motion the Prime Minister had promised recognizing Quebec as a distinct society. Today, we are looking at Bill C-110 on the right to a veto.

A few days ago, my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, proposed a new employment insurance plan which gives the provinces full jurisdiction over manpower training. This is a real and effective way to bring services and decision making closer to the people.

The Prime Minister's initiative for change is a high point in the recognition of Quebec's traditional claims.

These three elements-the distinct society, the veto and decentralization of powers-form the essence of what Quebec has wanted and has sought for 30 years.

We now know that there is no need to throw everything up in the air or to give up our country, our citizenship or our future for our identity to be recognized with dignity and our place to be confirmed with pride in Canada's confederation.

Obviously, I am under no illusions. The opposition parties do not recognize the immense value of the Prime Minister's proposals. For the members of the Reform Party, the whole thing goes way too far. To them, Quebec is not different, it is insufferable. It is not distinct, it is incomprehensible. It does not need a veto, but rather an ultimatum.

In fact, what the Reformers want is to separate Canada from Quebec and thus rend a most noble fabric that forms the heart of an independent, autonomous and unique Canada.

For the members of the Bloc Quebecois, opposite, the Prime Minister's initiative does not go far enough. They treat it with disdain and contempt. The leader and the members of the Bloc Quebecois should remember that, on October 30, a majority of Quebecers rejected their option of sovereignty. They said no to their plan to separate Quebec from Canada. They said no to the farfetched promises that were made. They said no to the enormous economic risk the Bloc Quebecois wanted them to take.

Our friends opposite should humbly recall that on October 30, Quebecers chose Canada. They chose to keep their Canadian citizenship. They chose to keep their Canadian passport, invaluable when you travel. They said they wanted to go on living in the best country in the world.

On October 30, Quebecers chose to go on living in the country that affords them the best guarantees for progress, success and prosperity. And on October 30, Quebecers chose to live in Canada.

Of course Quebecers and Canadians as well indicated they wanted change, but change within Canada. That is exactly what we are proposing. The Bloc Quebecois maintains that it is not enough, the Reform Party that it is too much. It should come as no surprise that our position differs totally from that of the opposition parties. The Bloc wants to isolate Quebec. We encourage Quebec to look outward. The Bloc rejects everything we have built in the past 127 years. We are using our experience to make social and economic gains. The Bloc wants to destroy our country. We are working to make it even more prosperous, fairer and equitable.

What we are proposing to Quebec today and what we have been discussing for the past few weeks is a new way of approaching constitutional amendments that might affect the powers, rights and privileges of the National Assembly and the Government of Quebec. In fact, what we are proposing to Quebecers is the assurance that we will never amend the Constitution without their consent. What we are proposing to Quebecers is an authentic partnership that respects the rights and responsibilities of each partner.

We often said during the referendum campaign that federalism is a flexible and dynamic formula. We said that we were open to change and that change is possible within Canadian federalism.

The Prime Minister is a man of his word who leads a government that keeps its promises. We had further proof of that today. Thanks to the Prime Minister's initiatives for change, Canada and Quebec are turning a new page in our history. This page and the pages that follow will be imbued with the openness, respect and pride shown by so many Quebecers and Canadians during the referendum campaign.

In keeping with the will expressed by a majority of Quebecers on October 30, we are now full partners. Thanks to this modern and strong partnership, we will enter the next century still at the head of the line and we will stay there.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter this debate with mixed emotions, emotions of sadness and gladness at the same time. I am reminded of the novel A Tale of Two Cities . The opening sentence goes something like this: ``It was the best of times; it was the worst of times''. Today we find ourselves with that ambivalence in Canada.

In the last three weeks and the weeks preceding the October 30 referendum we have seen some of the most terrible things happen. We have also seen some of the most wonderful things happen. People have been divided and people have come together on this issue. The Montreal rally was a coming together that we have probably not witnessed ever before in this country, yet the occasion was a negative one. It was one of tearing people apart.

Our country is a democracy. Unlike the words that were used only a moment ago about the mutual respect that we need from one another, the unfortunate part of it is that too often we impute motives to people. People impute motives to members of the Reform Party and say we want to tear Canada apart. Nothing could be further from the truth than that.

I stand here today as a proud Canadian, as someone who was born in this country, as someone who can look back to a grandfather and father who left a country that was being taken over by a

government that was not democratic. The Bolshevik revolution brought about my family's emigration from Russia.

My grandfather came to Canada with his children and they became citizens. They were buried here. Now I stand here and say I am proud to be able to be in Canada. It is a privilege to be able to speak one's mind and not be afraid that one might be stricken down or killed because of opinions that one might hold.

While there are a lot of differences and variations in this country, the real reason we are here is that this nation is free. It is here where we can express our religious beliefs, where we can express our political beliefs, where we can move forward and build a country that is strong, a country that is united.

We saw a few days ago how fragile that peace can be. It reminds me so much of a conversation I had with one of my constituents. He is a person who came to this country seeking freedom, seeking a domicile that would allow his children to grow up in peace and harmony. This person has family in the old Yugoslavia.

My constituent said to me: "I want you to know that I am not so much concerned about what is happening in Bosnia right now where my people are suffering the ravages of so-called ethnic cleansing. I was very concerned. Two years ago when you were elected all I could talk about was the way in which my forefathers' country and the things they built were being taken apart. Now, I want you to pay attention to what is happening in Canada. The very things that are happening in Canada today, in October 1995, are the very things that brought about the division and the terror we now see as the Bosnian conflict in the former Yugoslavia".

That is so serious. Why do we not listen to those people? Why do we think that we must somehow create differences and create a distinct society based on where people live because of a particular language, culture or race? It is wrong. Not only is it wrong, it carries within it the seeds of disintegration of what is a nice country. We should do everything we can to make sure that those seeds do not sprout. We must make sure that we can continue to develop a mutual respect for one another without fear and at times perhaps even express love for one another. I wish we could do that all the time.

I also want to draw attention to the west. The west is a very interesting part of the country. I was born in Alberta and moved across the mountains into British Columbia. Those of us who were born in Alberta can detect the difference. Something happens to all of us in western Canada. We are fiercely independent but we are also very, very patient. We know how difficult it is to eke out a living on the prairies. Quebec and Ontario think they know everything and that they can tell the westerners how to live. They cannot. They do not know how but Ontarians say: "We will tell you how".

Mr. Harris wrote an article in one of our local newspapers which I think covers it very well. With respect to the unity question he said: "But the sleeping giant in all this may well turn out to be Manning's west". Why it is Manning's west I do not know. I think it is just as much Schmidt's west as it is any other person's west. Nevertheless, that is how it was said.

He went on:

This great and insanely loyal part of Canada has waited for more than 100 years to take its proper place in the Confederation; it is still waiting.

The PC Party died on the prairies because it sold out the notion of a strong and equal Canada in the name of winning in Quebec, just as the Liberals have for generations.

If Ottawa continues to fail the west while it woos Quebec with special status, the country may still fall apart like a soggy jigsaw puzzle starting with the Rocky Mountains rather than the Laurentians.

That is the opinion of one columnist.

If members had been in my riding in the last four days and listened to the comments that were made, particularly when the Prime Minister presented the motion we voted on last night and the bill we are now facing closure on today, they would have heard people ask: "How much longer do we have to put up with this?" They do not want to put up with it at all. Do they want to be part of Canada? Absolutely. They want desperately to be part of Canada, but they want to be part of a united Canada, a part of Canada that says people are equal, the provinces are equal and that no one deserves any special status regardless of language or geography. That is what they want and it is what I want.

I do not think there is one person in the House who is any better than anyone else. I do not think anyone on this side of the House is any better than anyone on that side of the House and vice versa.

We are trying to build a united country. There are those of my colleagues who would say: "Well, those guys over there cannot possibly be as good as we are". In reality and in our hearts we really are trying to do the best we can for our constituents, but we certainly disagree on certain things. In particular we disagree with what happened yesterday.

Yesterday the government had a chance to recognize that special status does not mean unique powers, and what did it do? It refused to accept certain amendments which stated that if we were to recognize special status it should not be conferred or interpreted as conferring upon the Government of Quebec any new legislative or executive powers, priority rights, status or any other rights or privileges not conferred on the legislature or government of any other province.

That was a good step forward and it was rejected. It would have brought about unity. Instead the government did the opposite. It said: "You have special powers and you may indeed have unique powers that other provinces do not have". That was completely unacceptable to me and to my constituents. They have told me 100 times, if they have told me once, that it is not acceptable to them.

The government had another chance. It could have said that it was not to be interpreted as diminishing in any way the rights and freedoms of any citizen of Canada under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by virtue of province of residence. This second chance was turned down. It would have helped. It would have brought about unity but it was rejected.

The final chance was to deny or be interpreted as denying that Canada constitutes one nation. This too was rejected. I went home sad last night because an opportunity to bring about a direction that could have healed the nation was denied. It was a sad day.

Today we are not approached with recognizing Quebec as a distinct society. We are told that society is distinct and shall now have a veto. It is totally contrary to democracy that any one group would have the power of veto when the group cannot constitute a majority. It is wrong in principle.

We are in danger of committing one of the worst possible actions we have seen in a long time. This is where a positive comment can also be made. If the Prime Minister wants to bring about the unification of the country, he would come to the House and withdraw Bill C-110. If the Prime Minister would do that he would recover some of the losses he has experienced in the last little while. We could then respect him as a leader.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

He would want that, because then we would win an election with 70 per cent instead of 60 per cent.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

It is possible for the Prime Minister, even though he has a majority, to make a mistake. It is not a sign of weakness to admit an error. It is not a sign of weakness to stop yelling across the floor.

It is important to recognize that we can bring about a positive Canadian unity. We ask the Prime Minister to withdraw the bill. He would re-establish himself as a good thinking, unifying Prime Minister instead of forcing an issue like this one that we cannot even debate as much as we want.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to participate as a member of the official opposition

in this debate on Bill C-110, an act respecting constitutional amendments, and more specifically implementing what must be referred to as a symbolic veto.

I am very happy to participate in the debate on this bill, because I was immediately struck by both its form and its content. Its form is a beauty.

This bill is being touted as a historic response to the Quebec people's democratic impulse, because, as you know, Quebec is mostly responsible for Canada's constitutional problem.

This bill has six pages, including three blank ones. Including the front page, we end up with the equivalent of about a page and a quarter of text as a response or a semblance of response to the constitutional debate that, as you know, has been hurting Canada for some 30 years.

The content of this bill is also a beauty. As for a symbolic veto, I am reminded of one of our greatest hockey stars, Guy Lafleur, who when questioned about his reasons for supporting the no side said in 1992-if I remember correctly-that he had interpreted the right of veto as meaning the right to vote. That is about the extent of it. Talking about symbolic, this veto will allow Quebecers to vote, and very soon, in favour of sovereignty.

This bill and this exercise seem totally improvised, like the spontaneous show of love-albeit at bargain prices-made to Quebecers in the last weeks and days of the referendum campaign, and they also lack depth. More importantly, it seems to me that this is a pitiful non-event from an historical perspective.

Let us not forget that this process by the Liberal government is meant to be the answer to the historical claims of the Quebec government and people within the Canadian confederation. As a Quebec voter and citizen who has had an interest in this issue for a number of years, I try to get a better understanding of what is going on by going back to 1954, when premier Duplessis led the fight against the federal government's unconstitutional interference in fields of provincial jurisdiction, eventually winning a hard fought battle to have the province collect a direct personal income tax.

This is truly an historical event, following which Quebecers became more proud, more assertive and more determined to gain full dignity as a sovereign people.

Then came the Tremblay royal inquiry commission on federal-provincial relations in Quebec and Canada. Then, in 1960, just after Duplessis died, we had the advent of a Liberal government, the quiet revolution, with all the good things it brought about, and Quebecers taking their future in their own hands through the government takeover of the hydro sector, the set up of the Caisse de dépôt, the Quebec pension plan, and so on.

In 1964, an eye-opening event took place: the Queen's visit. I was there. The police force deployed was larger than the crowd. That day was later described as the day of the visit of shame, in the city of shame, Quebec City, because the people had remained indifferent to this visit, which, unfortunately, led to what came to be known as the samedi de la matraque, or "Billy-club Saturday", of 1964.

In 1966, still in that historical perspective-and that is what we on this side of the House, let alone the hon. members on the other side, cannot understand-there was this collective surge. As early as 1956, the sovereignist movement, which then became established in 1959, came into play. In 1966, it was represented by Pierre Bourgault in the riding of Duplessis. Few people know that 39 per cent of the voters of this riding voted for Mr. Bourgault, who was the leader of the Rassemblement pour l'indépendance nationale , the RIN, at the time.

In 1967, a prominent figure dropped by on the occasion of the centennial of Confederation. General de Gaulle sent out the message, for the whole world to hear, that the people of Quebec did exist when he declared: "Vive le Québec libre".

The next year saw the foundation of the Parti Quebecois by René Lévesque. This was a turning point in our modern history. Two years later, with 23 per cent of popular support, the PQ won seven seats in the National Assembly. Three years later, in 1973, he got 30 per cent of the votes and 6 members, because of the well-known incongruities of our British parliamentary system. Three years later, in 1976, a sovereignist party was officially and democratically elected in Quebec for the first time in the history of the province and of the country. The 1980 referendum followed, with, even then, 41 per cent of Quebecers giving a mandate to the Government of Quebec to negotiate. The majority, unfortunately, decided otherwise.

At the same time, on the Canadian side, people were becoming aware that something was wrong. In 1963, the Laurendeau-Dunton commission was talking about two solitudes. We could have taken big chunks of the Laurendeau-Dunton report and read it here. It would have been extraordinarily relevant.

So we had the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, then we had the Macdonald commission at the end of the 1980s and then the Pepin-Robarts commission, an event in constitutional terms, but a dead end, because Mr. Trudeau, the Prime Minister of the time, did not believe in their view of things. Then there was the constitutional bog of the 1990s with the Spicer commission and the Castonguay-Beaudoin-Dobbie-Edwards commission.

As Mr. Castonguay will remember, these people were upset-which should give Quebec federalists food for thought-at the degree of willingness to recognize a Quebec people within Canada that they saw. Mr. Castonguay even withdrew from the commission at that point, and, as you saw in the recent campaign, he remained true to himself and logical, warning everyone that he

could not try to convince his Quebecers that Quebec should remain in confederation, so shaken was he in his deep convictions.

Continuing with the major landmarks in the history of Quebec, we arrive at the aftermath to the no vote in the referendum, the great initiatives of Mr. Trudeau, the unilateral initiatives which were condemned by the Supreme Court. Trudeau had to call in the provinces. Quebecers will all remember the Night of the long knives, when the Constitution was patriated. One of the instigators of this was the Minister of Justice at the time, then and still the hon. member for Saint-Maurice. He cannot plead ignorance of the harm that has been done historically to the people of Quebec by such actions, yet he does not recognize-it cannot be repeated in this House too many times, a place where the existence of the Quebec people is not recognized-that Quebec as a people and a culture does exist, whether the Prime Minister likes it or not. The Quebecois culture does exist, and this must be said.

All of the efforts now being expended represent one of the three little promises made by the Prime Minister, as he himself qualifies them, to Quebecers and to Canada in the referendum campaign. One of these was recognition of the distinct society, an empty shell; the second was a token right of veto; the third was the Minister of Human Resources Development's nice little present which will make the poor poorer and the rich richer.

A fine country indeed to invite Quebecers to remain part of. Everyone in Quebec is aware, whether our federalist friends like it or not, that they are a people making democratic advances, a people marching toward collective pride, a people prepared to say yes to their very existence.

[The Speaker]

I have made a mistake. I should have recognized the hon. member for Vancouver East before the hon. member for Trois-Rivières. I will now recognize the hon. member for Vancouver East.

[Anna Terrana, Liberal, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-110, an act respecting constitutional amendments. The bill, which grants a veto to various regions of Canada, has been recently amended to include British Columbia as the fifth region that can exercise a veto to block a constitutional change.

This veto can only apply to a constitutional amendment requiring the support of seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population.

This amendment to the bill was requested by the people of British Columbia, who exercised a great deal of pressure to obtain this right.

The amendment is welcome and gives B.C. a well deserved autonomy in the exercise of the veto and the recognition by the government that B.C. is a distinct region in all aspects. B.C., which has a powerful economy and a strong Asia-Pacific connection, sees itself is a region because of its geographical location and a tremendous growth potential both economy and people wise.

Furthermore, British Columbia has been called the Pacific region for many years in many government departments and other agencies. In British Columbia, beyond the Rocky Mountains, we have a vibrant population that is more and more requesting to be recognized for its distinctiveness. Its population of over 3.7 million people, almost 13 per cent of the Canadian population, feels more and more a sense of pride in its achievements and successes.

British Columbia has been changing dramatically over the years and has become the home of many immigrants, a large number of them from the Pacific Rim, being the closest region to B.C. For a long time B.C. was somewhat isolated, far from Europe and from eastern Canada. It did not seem to attract as many people as Ontario and Quebec. At this point British Columbia is one of the most desirable places in Canada and in the world in which to live.

The growth in population and its variety have made British Columbia a booming place. In 1997 Vancouver will host APEC, the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation Conference, 10 years after Expo' 86, the time when Vancouver and B.C. seemed to be discovered by the world.

Even my family members in Italy often comment on Vancouver. They often see it on television and read about B.C. in the papers. This is quite recent, and we seem to like the attention.

I arrived in B.C. in 1966 and I have seen many changes since then. I saw Vancouver's skyline change dramatically. I saw the composition of the population constantly alter to eventually create a mosaic of cultures and beliefs. I saw these cultures coming together to celebrate a province more and more conscious of its great location and appeal.

I would like to thank the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice for the change they made in this bill. This amendment gives British Columbia an important place in the history and future of our country.

We know that Canada is a remarkable country where people respect each other and are unique in their understanding of one another.

B.C. remains part of the west. We are in the west but there is a difference between being a prairie province and a province that lies on the Pacific Ocean and which is becoming more and more a part of international trade.

The Prime Minister with his missions to the Orient has strengthened Canada. B.C., being the coastal province, has received many benefits and continues to receive them.

This amendment will help British Columbians feel their rights are being respected and that their voice is being heard because they demanded the veto and they obtained it.

[Cliff Breitkreuz, Reform, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Okanagan Centre for being happy and sad at once.

I am disgusted with Bill C-110 with its proposed constitutional veto. However, I am pleased as always to honour my commitment to represent the people of the great riding of Yellowhead. They are against this bill. I am against it. I am proud to denounce it here today on their behalf.

The people of Yellowhead are certainly not opposed to national unity. They are not what some prime ministers have foolishly called them, enemies of Canada. A few months ago I commissioned a scientific poll and about 70 per cent of my constituents want Canada to stay together.

What they are opposed to, which came through loud and clear in the poll results, is the strategy of saving Canada by appeasement, appeasing the separatists in Quebec. They overwhelming oppose the notion of Quebec as a distinct society and oppose sovereignty association.

As a member of a caucus which listens to the people instead of lecturing them, I do more than take polls. I go on tours in my riding to hear what the constituents are saying and how they are saying it. I just finished doing that again. I want to tell everyone here what they said. That is my job. Some of the members opposite would do well to remember that is their job as well.

My constituents told me overwhelmingly they do not understand, and quite frankly neither do I, why we are even talking about caving into Quebec, why distinct society and veto powers are even on the table. People in my riding are so sick of this never ending debate. I hear that some are wondering if there is anything they can do to kick Quebec out of Canada. That is how angry they are. That is how frustrated they are.

It is not ordinary Quebecers they are sick of. It is this constant giving in to the whining and snivelling Quebec politicians, both separatist and federal old style politicians. This weak-kneed policy of giving the spoiled child of Confederation whatever it wants is driving my constituents to despair. I call on my colleagues opposite to listen to the people and stop this policy of appeasement before it is too late.

My constituents want, indeed demand that a line be drawn in the sand. This line should signal a few things: no more favours, no more appeasement, 10 equal provinces, not 9 provinces and Quebec.

I do not think I pay my constituents any great compliment when I say they are smarter than most politicians, especially when I look at the government side across. People are saying that 30 years of appeasement to Quebec has failed miserably. People are saying that 30 years of government by politicians, of politicians and for politicians has left the people of Yellowhead as disgusted as the people of Quebec with the way things are done in this place.

The people are saying stop already. Enough is enough. Treat everyone as equals. Treaty everyone as grown ups, not as some spoiled children. Treat everyone fairly, equally.

The Trudeau Liberals, the Mulroney Tories and now this Liberal administration drifting aimlessly have virtually ruined this once great country. In my riding it is pretty common observation that the three prime ministers responsible for this disaster have all been from Quebec. Yes, it took them only 25 years to virtually bring the country to its knees, to almost wreck it, 25 years of tearing apart our country which took real nation builders centuries of toil and tears and sweat to build; 25 years thrown to the wind.

The common thread here is that people in most parts of the country, the ordinary taxpaying public, the public that pays the bills for big oppressive governments has had it. It will not take it any more. People will no longer sit idly by and watch the concessions, the favours, the appeasements to sell out the country to the separatists in Quebec.

Concessions to Quebec continue to march forward with the government. It is not only with the distinct society motion and the Quebec veto, the matters currently before the House, it is Bill C-89, the act that supposedly privatized Canadian National Railway; major concessions to Quebec by statute. CN's head office must stay in Montreal and by statute the heavy handed provisions of the very undemocratic Official Languages Act must prevail.

I will not go into the litany of favours given to Quebec during the Trudeau-Mulroney years or, more aptly stated, the Trudoney years. One glaring example comes to mind, and it especially sticks in the

craw of westerners, the CF-18 contract assigned to Winnipeg but which went to Quebec. Air Canada is another example.

Bill C-110 really takes the cake. This will turn out to be the mother of all concessions and appeasements granted since Confederation. The bill enshrines in legislation, not mere discussion or some off the cuff remark, the ultimate in legislative lunacy. It even exceeds the lunacy of Bill C-68, the gun control bill.

Bill C-110 gives the separatist government of Quebec on a silver platter a veto over all future constitutional change. In effect, there can be no change. With this bill the Constitution would be buttoned up in a strait-jacket because it is the intent of the Prime Minister to eventually entrench this loathsome legislation in the constitution.

The Liberal government is so sadly lacking in leadership, as evidenced last night on the Prime Minister's town hall meeting. Even the $1 billion subsidized federal institution, the CBC, could not make the Prime Minister look good.

The Liberals are stuck with another Chamberlain when what they really need is a Churchill. Look at the ranks of the Liberals. There is obviously no Churchill forthcoming, only little bitty Chamberlains.

With this bill and a dozen or so others the Liberal government, come the next election, will be gone. For a lot of Canadians that cannot be too soon.

[The Speaker]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway, Criminal Code; the hon. member for Edmonton East, medicare; the hon. member for Ottawa West, pensions.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I feel we have been here before as I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-110, an act respecting constitutional amendments. The purpose is to condemn again the constitutional position taken by the Chrétien government.

I sometimes have the impression I am using that well-known teaching technique which repeats the same message in every possible form, the purpose being, of course, that its content will eventually be understood and retained.

Following the results of the referendum, members of the Bloc Quebecois unanimously decided to continue to defend the interests of Quebecers in the Parliament of Canada. Furthermore, since our members decided to continue the dialogue with the elected representatives of English Canada, it is important to repeat the message so that some day it will finally be understood and our Canadian friends will accept our future decision calmly, with dignity and respect, and be prepared to co-operate with us, albeit within an entirely different framework.

I think it is sad that the present Prime Minister still does not understand his fellow citizens from Quebec and especially what they want.

How can we in fact not get upset at such insipid statements as those made last week to the effect that there was no Quebec culture? How can we expect our Canadian friends to understand our position, if the Prime Minister himself and his Quebec cohort cannot explain the reality of Quebec to their colleagues? On this level, it is really a disaster. So much time and money spent harping on the same ideas.

Unlike the Prime Minister, we in the Bloc Quebecois consider good relations with our Canadian friends important. This is why I will try once again to explain Quebec's position in this House. Bill C-110 is unacceptable to Quebec. It is unacceptable for a number of reasons.

First, the veto is not given to the provinces, it is lent to them. Has anyone ever heard of such a thing in constitutional matters? A veto that is not actually granted, but is only on loan. In everyday life, when we lend something, we expect to get it back. Both the lender and the borrower know that there is nothing definitive about the transaction. Le Petit Larousse defines the verb ``to lend'' as to give for a time, upon condition of restitution.

Does the Prime Minister think for one instant that Quebecers will be satisfied with a loan? I think this makes a mockery of Quebecers and resolves nothing at all. Any government can decide to ask for its marbles back, and the provinces have no say, because the marbles do not belong to them. This is totally off the wall.

Is that what the Prime Minister had in mind when he made the people of Quebec the following promise, and I quote: "Any changes in constitutional jurisdiction will only be made with the consent of Quebecers"? As we know all too well, a veto on loan does not give the people of Quebec any guarantee or any security. It is therefore totally unacceptable.

Another problem adds itself to the first, as the federal government could apparently decide that this veto will be exercised either through the National Assembly or by referendum. I say apparently because there seems to be some confusion about this within the government. In fact, Bill C-110 only refers to the provinces. It is not specified whether this means their legislative assemblies or their people.

Also, when he tabled his bill before this House on November 29, the Prime Minister said: "This bill requires that the Government of

Canada first obtain the consent of Quebec, Ontario and two provinces from both the western and Atlantic regions representing 50 per cent of the population of each of those regions before proposing a constitutional amendment to Parliament".

As we can see, he did not specify either the conditions of approval. We took for granted that he meant the provincial legislatures. Surprise. If you take a look at the documents prepared by the Minister of Justice, in the section dealing with how the bill applies to constitutional amendments, you find out that, after at least six provinces have given their consent (through resolutions, referenda or government approval), the federal government will be released from the obligation to proceed with motions in the Senate and the House of Commons.

There, it is in the bag and the cat is out of the bag. Not only does the federal government only lend its veto, it is set to have absolute control over the process, given that it plans to go directly to the people if it suspects that the provincial government might not take the direction that it, the almighty central government, thinks it should take. That too is taking Quebecers for fools.

I wish to point out to this House that my suspicions were confirmed as recently as this morning, when the Prime Minister was quoted as saying that a referendum is a frustrating process held under provincial legislation and led by provincial politicians. The Prime Minister has no qualms about telling everyone that he fully intends to interfere in provincial matters whenever he feels like it, thus going over the heads of provincial politicians.

This is not a good sign of respect for democracy and the Constitution. It can be said, however, that this undemocratic approach is consistent, in light of the Prime Minister's repeated admissions that he would not abide by the results of the referendum should a majority of Quebecers vote for sovereignty.

I could go on and talk about the other reasons why this veto bill is totally unacceptable to Quebec, but I do not have enough time.

Although, as he himself admits, he had made only three small promises to Quebecers, we and all Quebecers now realize that it is nothing but a sham, nothing but false representations. Rhetoric and crocodile tears will not change anything.

The Chrétien government still does not understand anything and I fear that it has no intention of changing the federal system in line with Quebecers' aspirations. Everyone knows that. The time for deception is over. I therefore urge our Canadian friends to discuss a new partnership that would finally accommodate the aspirations of Quebecers.

[The Speaker]

Dear colleague, I did not want to interrupt, but in the future, we ought to have "the Liberal government", or something similar, instead of "the Chrétien government".

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-110 today. I was next in line when the time allocation ran out at second reading. It is nice to see that the time closure is not going to affect me today.

Since that time the government saw fit to make an amendment to the bill to include British Columbia as a region and give it a veto. It is interesting how the Liberal government seems to be surprised at the reaction it has received from people in British Columbia. This bill and the amendment have united the people in British Columbia as it would appear that they are all against it.

What the Liberal government does not seem to understand is that the people of British Columbia do not want any one province to have a veto. They do not want the veto themselves and they do not want any other province to have the veto either. They understand very clearly that the veto will entrench the status quo.

What the people in British Columbia are looking for and fighting against is the establishment of the status quo and entrenching it. What they want is a Constitution that will evolve, change and recognize the changes that have taken place in this country since 1867. What they do not want is for British Columbia to be left in the position that it is in right now.

British Columbians are not happy that almost 13 per cent of Canada's population lives in British Columbia but it has less than 11 per cent representation in this House and less than 6 per cent of the seats in the other place. Those are the things British Columbians want changed. They want a Constitution that will allow those changes. That is why they see the amendment to include British Columbia as a distinct region as not mattering at all because they do not want a veto. They do not want anybody to have a veto.

What B.C. wants is to gain its rightful place in Confederation. In order to do that, one of the players in Confederation is going to have to give up something. If Bill C-110 passes and we have a veto, it will mean that the provinces which are required to make concessions by giving up something in order to give British Columbia its rightful place will have a veto and will prevent that from happening.

This bill will deny British Columbia its rightful place in Canada. However, Bill C-110 has united British Columbia. The provincial Liberals are against it, the provincial Reformers are against it and the provincial NDP is against it. It is dangerous for this Liberal

government to create that kind of unanimity among otherwise diverse political parties.

I remind the House that in the late 1870s the British Columbia legislature actually voted to secede from Canada twice. I am afraid that this Liberal government in instituting Bill C-110 has wakened a sleeping giant and it does not have any idea what the results will be from the feelings of deep resentment that are surfacing in the people of British Columbia.

By originally grouping B.C. with other western provinces, the government ignored our people, our history and our geography. I wonder why government members did not read the items in the book they released this past week on the symbols of Canada. I want to share with the Liberal government what the book that it published has to say:

British Columbia was inhabited by the greatest number of distinct Indian tribes of any province or territory in Canada. They were not only different from each other, but also from the rest of the Indian tribes in Canada.

Unlike eastern Canada where the French and English disputed control of the land, the first two countries to contest areas of British Columbia were Spain and Russia.

In 1778 Captain James Cook of Great Britain became the first person to actually chart the land. Having firmly established her right to the area, Britain proceeded to settle disputes with both Spain and Russia.

When gold was discovered in the lower Fraser Valley in 1857, thousands of people came in search of instant wealth. To maintain law and order, the next year the British government established the separate colony of British Columbia. The colony was cut off from the rest of British North America by thousands of kilometres and a ridge of mountains.

I would suggest it is very clear in the Liberals' own publication that B.C. is a distinct region. It was a travesty for the government to completely ignore that distinctiveness and to lump us in with all western provinces.

Then the Minister of Human Resources Development cut $47 million in federal transfer payments to the province of British Columbia. The government seems to think it is okay to fund only 33 per cent of British Columbia's welfare bills when every other province gets funded up to 50 per cent. That is just one example of how the province of British Columbia is getting shafted.

Last month Business and Industry Development B.C. released the results of a Peat Marwick study which was done on its behalf. The study showed that not only has B.C. not received its share of federal spending, but its proportion of federal spending is continually declining. The province of B.C. receives only two-thirds of federal spending when compared to a composite indicator of its population, GDP and amount of federal income tax paid. While the federal government puts in less than two-thirds of the money it should, it takes out over 10 per cent more in income tax.

This is the status quo the federal government wants British Columbia to maintain. The message I am getting from my constituents and from the people in British Columbia is that they are mad as all get out and they are not going to take it any more. They are going to start to fight back.

When Bill C-110 passes, the Liberal government will be sending British Columbians a message. The message is that they had better get used to this because with all the vetoes that have have been spread out all over the country, especially the veto given to the separatist government in the province of Quebec, the constitutional changes, changes in Parliament and changes in the way that government does business will never happen.

The people in British Columbia are being told to sit down, shut up and be grateful for whatever small crumbs are being thrown their way. Members opposite may be surprised to find out that this approach will no longer wash with British Columbians. We will not be denied our rightful place in Canada any longer.

I join with other British Columbians who will fight to see that the government does not accomplish what other governments have tried to do. That is when the people of British Columbia will see no other option than to follow in the footsteps of the province of Quebec.

[The Speaker]

It does not happen too often in Parliament that we get a new table officer, as they usually stay with us for decades. However, at this time I would like to take a moment on behalf of the House to welcome him.

I would like our new table officer, Tranquillo Marrocco, to please stand. Welcome to the House of Commons. I wish you well and many years with us.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to join you in welcoming the new staff member to the House.

I am pleased to participate in the debate, at second reading, on Bill C-110, an act respecting constitutional amendments.

This bill is meant to embody the commitments made by the Prime Minister during the Quebec referendum campaign, particularly in a speech made in Verdun, on October 27.

The Prime Minister's answer to the results of the referendum is clearly less than what was proposed in the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords.

As for the motion tabled by the government to recognize Quebec as a distinct society, it merely provides a symbolic and meaningless recognition, with no real substance. The motion passed yesterday merely describes Quebec's reality: its French-speaking majority, its unique culture and its civil law tradition.

However, a few days after tabling that motion, the Prime Minister refused to acknowledge the existence of a Quebec culture. This is quite the contradiction.

Bill C-110 on an so-called veto for Quebec does not go any farther in terms of meeting Quebecers' expectations. This is a bad piece of legislation, done in a hurry and without any substance. Even some Quebec Liberals are starting to criticize that bill. It is not an acceptable proposal for Quebecers. The referendum results clearly show that people want real change.

It was the government's intention with this bill to put us into an awkward position by forcing us to say no to the veto and to the distinct society. But we have the people of Quebec behind us.

I have met many voters from my riding of Bourassa, in Montreal North, in recent days and I have asked what they think. The vast majority do not approve of the federal government's proposals. They ask: "Why would we accept something that contains less than the Charlottetown accord turned down by 56 per cent of Quebecers in the 1992 referendum?"

As I have said, the concept of a distinct society is even less than what was in Meech.

First of all, neither the concept of a distinct society nor the right of veto will be entrenched in the Constitution. Recognition of the distinct society will be nothing more than a simple statement by the House of Commons.

If Bill C-110 become law, it can easily be amended or repealed by the present government or any other in the future. The Reform Party has come out clearly against this bill. If they were to win the elections-not that I would wish it-this law would most definitely disappear.

Certain provinces, such as British Columbia and Alberta, have already expressed their opposition to the concept of Quebec as a distinct society.

As I was saying, this bill on the right to a regional veto was poorly drafted. Initially, the federal government was committed to not proposing any constitutional amendments without setting itself the obligation of obtaining the consent of the four major regions of Canada: Quebec, Ontario, two eastern provinces and two western provinces, provided that in each case those two provinces accounted for more than 50 per cent of the population in their region.

However, 24 hours after excluding such a possibility, the federal government has now included a veto for British Columbia. Ottawa seems to be improvising its policy as it goes along. Practically speaking, this decision also gives Alberta a veto, since two provinces in the new Prairies region with at least 50 per cent of the population will have to give their approval for an amendment to the Constitution.

According to the 1991 census, Alberta has 54.6 per cent of the population of the Prairies. Because of this double veto, from now on any amendment to the Constitution becomes virtually impossible. Tomorrow the federal government will give a veto to all the provinces including Prince Edward Island. I wonder what the criteria are, demographic or otherwise, for obtaining a veto. Does this bill have any serious purpose?

In 35 years, successive governments in Quebec have requested the patriation of legislative powers essential to the economic, social and cultural development of the province. Since I arrived in Montreal in 1974, I have found that all governments, the Parti Quebecois as well as the Liberal Party, have demanded a real constitutional veto for Quebec and not a mere legislative measure that can be easily changed or abrogated later on.

We can assume that in the case of a major conflict between English Canada and Quebec, the federal Parliament will override the veto given Quebec in this bill. That is why this insignificant veto was even rejected by many people who voted no in the referendum on October 30.

Furthermore, Bill C-110 does not guarantee that the Quebec National Assembly will be the sole possessor of this veto, as demanded by all Quebec governments. The federal government reserves the right to seek the consent of the provinces by means of a national or regional referendum, as required. It will be able to consult citizens directly, without going through the provinces.

The main weakness in this bill is its failure to recognize the Quebec people and the status and powers that would accompany this recognition. The bill refuses to recognize one of the founding peoples of Confederation.

This bill has raised a ground swell of opposition from almost all parties, the Bloc Quebecois, of course, the Reform Party and even the Conservative Party, which was a meek ally of the federal government during the referendum campaign.

The government hurriedly changed its mind to give a veto to British Columbia and, indirectly, to Alberta. By doing so it is trying to please everybody, but the effect is exactly the opposite.

A recent poll shows that a majority of Quebecers consider Ottawa's proposals inadequate. The constitutional amending formula providing for the agreement of seven provinces with 50 per cent of the population was already considered particularly restrictive. With this bill, we will need the initial consent of seven provinces with 92 per cent of the population.

For all these reasons, all the members of the Bloc Quebecois and I will vote against Bill C-110.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Oh, what a disappointment.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

I hope this is what the hon. member was expecting.

[An hon. member]

It is an empty shell.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

It is an empty shell, and I will be happy to vote against this bill along with all my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak against Bill C-110.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Not another one.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Yes indeed.

Ontario feels very strongly about what is happening here and I am pleased to be able to stand up and represent that voice. We are here because of a promise that was made in panic, a knee jerk reaction. It was a reaction to what was a dishonest question. It was a dishonest question that never at any time had the Canada response. What was Canada's response to the dishonest question that was being posed by the separatists?

To indicate how much of a panic the government is operating in, the fact that British Columbia was originally excluded from this bill is unbelievable. However, it is testimony to the complete lack of thought and planning that went into this and attests to the fact that all of this has been nothing but a knee jerk reaction to the separatist agenda, rather than standing up to them.

I would like to go back and cover a little of the history that has brought us to this point. In June 1994 Reformers wrote a letter to the Prime Minister asking 20 questions that needed to be answered in advance of a separatist referendum. The Prime Minister never answered those 20 questions and when we raised them in the House they were dismissed as hypothetical, "it isn't going to happen, don't worry, be happy".

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

And it didn't.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

No thanks to this government it did not. It was thanks to the Canadian people that it did not. Had those 20 questions been responded to the people in the province of Quebec that voted no thinking they were going to have it all ways would have known better.

It was interesting that the don't worry, be happy response is still being used by the Prime Minister. It was used in response to my leader's question today about how the government is going to ensure that the question will be fair in the next referendum, about what powers the government is going to use. That question must have been asked three times today with the standard response of don't worry, be happy. Don't worry about it.

Canadians have had that don't worry to the point that the country was almost lost. I do not know when the time is to start worrying but I suggest that it is long overdue.

Not only did the government not respond to the what ifs, the share of the debt, boundaries, dual citizenship, passports, but at no time did it accept Reform's challenge to put forward a positive agenda, to give the people in Quebec who wanted to reject the separatists a reason to do so and not try to fight the leader of the Bloc Quebecois' dream with a bunch of negatives.

I am proud to say that we put forward 20 proposals for positive change that would have gone a long way to addressing the concerns of Canadians inside and outside of Quebec.

The other tragedy in the referendum was the failure of the government to respond to the 50 per cent plus one which was first introduced by Mr. Johnson in Quebec. He was prepared to accept the democratic will of the people of Quebec and was going to accept 50 per cent plus one, as was the Minister of Labour, the government's point person in the referendum. They were both prepared to accept 50 per cent plus one as the democratic will of the voters of Quebec.

The Prime Minister was not prepared to accept that and without indicating what he was prepared to accept, he made it easy for those people to vote no on the basis that there probably was a better deal coming. That was one of the tragedies of the referendum which the government did not address. The Prime Minister played right into the hands of the separatists in not drawing a line in the sand, in making it clear to them what the consequences of separation were. As a result of that failed tactic, 30 per cent or one-third of the people in Quebec voted thinking that they were going to have it all ways.

Canada is a blessed country. That was indicated in an article in the Globe and Mail just a couple of weeks ago. The headline was that Canada is blessed but stressed. All Canadians are stressed both inside and outside of Quebec. This bill just adds to that stress. It does nothing to address it. It is a disunity bill and not a unity bill. Make no mistake about it, we must change because Canadians are demanding change. The 1993 election, when 205 new members were elected into the House, and the referendum on October 30 were strong messages that Canadians want change. More than that, Canadians want a voice in what that change will be. However, this bill denies that Canadian voice.

The separatists were given 30 days to spread their break-up Canada message. In the House because of closure the Canadian voice has been given three days. The separatists had 30 days. Because of closure, after only three days of debate the government is cutting off debate and ramming it through in spite of the Canadian people, who have already rejected it. The Liberals tried this at the front door and Canadians said they do not want it. Now they will bring it in through the back door. So much for open

government, listening the people, freer votes in the House of Commons and members of Parliament who represent the people in their ridings.

The majority of Canadians do not want this bill. Quebec does not want this bill. Who are we doing it for? The bill will not unite us. The bill gives a veto to a separatist government. It is unbelievable that the government would do this. If it is to give a veto, give it to the people of that province. Trust the voters. That is what has been missing in this place. We need to restore the level of trust that has been lost. This bill does nothing to restore that trust. It alienates the voters.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I regret the time has expired.

It being 5.15 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to the order adopted earlier today, to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of report stage of the bill now before the House.

The first question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?