Debates of Dec. 12th, 1995

Constitutional Amendments Act

[Janko Peric, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak on this issue. I should like to share my vision of Canada with members opposite, the Canada that I dreamed of as a 10-year old boy in Croatia.

I dreamed about Canada. It was a huge country. I dreamed about Canada when I asked my parents whether there was anything for breakfast. Today as a parent I am asking my children what they want for breakfast.

My dreams became a reality in 1968 when I arrived in Canada. I was by myself and not even 19 years old. The question is why Canada. I cannot answer that question. However today I know that I made the right choice. I had the chance to go to Australia or New Zealand or to stay in Croatia. However I chose to come here. Three years later when I became a Canadian citizen I was the luckiest person on the planet.

I did not know about the differences within Canadian society until I arrived in Canada and I found out about English speaking Canada and French speaking Canada. That was great. There are Canadians in the middle, Canadians like myself, who came to build

this great country. We cannot ignore that they built it and they made it the best country on the planet.

We do not know how to appreciate that. Sometimes I ask myself what is wrong with us. When we return from travelling abroad and seeing how other people live and how much they have, we really appreciate what we have here and what we are.

October 27 was an historic date for Canada. We gathered in Montreal and told Quebecers that we loved them. The Prime Minister made a commitment which I fully support. It is not just to recognize Quebec as a distinct society. It also recognizes the historical fact that French people in Canada are different. It is not that they are better or worse than anybody else, but that they are different. They have a different language and a different culture. That is great and we have to respect and admire that. We have to tolerate that if we want to be a strong, united Canada.

On October 27 I took my eight-year old son along with the rest of the 250 constituents from Cambridge to Montreal. He was a part of that historic day. He was proud to be part of that historic day, the beginning of a new Canada. Today he is learning French in school. He will probably share some time in Quebec with his eight and nine year old colleagues in the near future.

Unfortunately maybe we do not know each other very well. It is about time that we took the effort to know each other, to get to know Canadians from British Columbia, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories. It is about time we know about our unique Canadian culture to which many newcomers and I contribute.

By giving this recognition to French people in Canada, I am convinced that Canada will survive. We are facing difficulties today, but it is not the end. It is evident that we have to solve the problem today and continue building a stronger and better Canada for our children and grandchildren.

I urge members from all three sides to work together to make Canada even better, to put our differences aside and work together to build a unique and stronger Canada. We can accomplish that, so help us God.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-110. As we all know, the bill was designed to give a veto to the province of Quebec over the Canadian Constitution.

We thought at one time that we had dealt with the issue during Meech Lake and the Charlottetown accords when we gave all Canadians a say in the matter. Lo and behold Canadians said: "No, we don't accept what politicians have done. We are staying with the way it is". Here we are today after a referendum and the Liberals are right back at it again, on the top down approach.

The bill also gives a veto to B.C., the prairies, Ontario and the Atlantic provinces. B.C. was not included originally. Six B.C. Liberals would like to say they had some influence on the acknowledgement of British Columbia as a separate region, so to speak, because of its position in the federation. They would like to take credit for that, but the fact is we are back to the way it has always been. They do what they are told over there. They had little or no influence. The party said "you will" and they did. They did nothing.

It was the outrage of people in British Columbia and across the country who said: "What are you doing with four regions as opposed to five?" The government changed its mind. The problem is that they are still talking about the governments of the regions and not the people of the regions. I do not believe that will ever get through to the government, ever, until the government is replaced by a populist party and not a party that works from the top down.

Let us make no mistake. This is once again an act of appeasement to separatists in Quebec. Over the years we have been giving the country away piece by piece. Every time the separatists squawk this government and the government before it overreact.

Let us look at why we are in this mess in the first place. Over all these years we have had some issues to deal with such as the finances of the country. The Liberal targets at best are weak. Their economic fiscal management, as well as that of the previous government, is a disgrace.

At least the province of Quebec is open enough to say: "Look, if you can't get your act in gear we are going to leave". Other people are saying: "If you can't get your act together, we are going to stay and try to fight it".

Let us look at the battle against crime. The Liberal government still does not understand how bad it is out there. It is still doing a messy, pathetic job at fighting crime in the country. We have one separatist province saying: "We don't like the way you are doing that either, so we want out". Whose fault is it that we have this spoiled child of separatism sitting here? It is the governments that have done very little to help the country since the current Prime Minister was finance minister.

Today the government still appoints its friends and hacks to the Senate. It is still ripping off Canadians with an MP's pension. It voted out recall. All these issues are part of the problem in the country today. They are rubbing everybody the wrong way, from the east coast to the west coast.

What did the Liberals come up with? They came up with a veto power in the Constitution. They said that it was the best a Liberal majority government could do in the country. That is very sad indeed.

When the Bloc appeared for the first time in the last election in 1993, what happened? How did the Liberal government deal with it? First it agreed to official opposition status. That was the first mistake. It has been dealing with that problem since we have been here. It is not dealing with all the problems across the country. It is only dealing in self-interest.

The referendum came along. We saw a Liberal government with no vision. Its members were stumbling and bumbling through a referendum until in the dying days when it looked like they were going to lose it and they threw out a few carrots. That is a heck of a way to run a country. Now we see the government shelling out veto powers, not to the people but to the governments of the provinces within those regions.

Why do we give vetoes in any event? To my knowledge no democratic country in the world provides vetoes on constitutional issues to a body, particularly to a provincial body that just happens to be a separatist government.

What exactly does the government think it will achieve by doing that? It has not thought about it. It is another knee-jerk reaction to a group of separatists in the House.

Coming from British Columbia, having lived there, with my riding being there, I can see the time is coming when British Columbia needs a very forceful government.

We in the House had better understand why that will be necessary. It seems the only way we can improve a federation is to threaten these guys. That seems to be the game. The separatists show up and give a little more. The separatists speak out and the government gives a little more, piece by piece. They are never happy. What happened last night when distinct society came up in a motion to vote on? They voted against it. That is because they have not been given enough. When they are given enough, it will very likely be too late.

[An hon. member]

Sovereignty.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

A member says sovereignty. They are really saying separation.

At what point is the government prepared to draw a line and say enough is enough? It proposes there is no point and there is no line; just keep shelling and giving until there is no more to give. That is not a plan. That is acquiescence.

How do the people in my riding feel? If one has a spoiled child, how does one deal with it? A lot of people would say if one has a spoiled child perhaps one has parents who are not running it right.

Here we have governments that do not run it right. That is the problem. We have a Prime Minister and a cabinet with many members from Quebec. There is a conflict of interest when they sit behind closed doors and make deals about the province they are from.

People in my riding say draw a line, tell these people where the line is. They say not to give a veto to governments. If they have to give a veto, if they will make that decision anyway, give it to the people, not to governments, particularly not to a separatist government.

We have to say in the House and throughout this land to give these people the facts. Draw the line in the sand somewhere so they know what can be given and what cannot be given, not this year after year of saying more for you, more for you, at the alienation of every other province.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand I have only 10 minutes, unfortunately. I wish I had an hour to respond to the remarks I just listened to very quietly, as difficult as that was.

I heard so much fiction from the member for Fraser Valley West, so many dangerous interpretations of our history and society that I feel compelled to respond to at least a few of them.

The hon. member and members of the third party are repeatedly saying that in the veto bill the federal government is giving the separatists a veto. That is patently nonsense.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

What do you think it is?

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

I listened very carefully to the member for Fraser Valley West without interrupting him. I would appreciate if he would do the same for me, as that is the nature of democratic debate in the House. We can disagree without interrupting each other as we speak.

The current Government of Quebec unfortunately is a separatist government. We all know that. We do not need to be rocket scientists to know that. However, the mistake made by the hon. members opposite is they assume we will have a separatist government forever in Quebec. That is ridiculous. All we have to do is review the history of the province of Quebec to know there have been very few years when a separatist was in power.

The bill proposes to give to the province of Quebec, as it does to the governments of four other regions, a veto power. It is not to the people or to the separatist Government of Quebec in a sense that it will be there ad infinitum.

The hon. member mentioned that the six Liberal MPs in B.C. like to say they have influenced the government's change of mind in recognizing B.C. as a region. I think my colleagues did have an influence in that change of decision. One thing I do know for sure is the Reform Party certainly had no influence in changing the mind of the government in giving B.C. a regional veto.

The ignorance of Quebec and the situation in Canada in terms of our veto power from some members opposite is unbelievable. As a Canadian and someone who taught Canadian history, the degree of ignorance, even by certain members of the House, about our history alarms me.

Where did this idea of veto power for four regions come from? Was it dreamed up out of thin air? It was not dreamed up out of thin air. In the early 1970s at a conference in Victoria a decision was made to give veto powers to four regions in the country. That Victoria formula was endorsed by all 10 premiers of all 10 provinces, including the province of British Columbia at that time, as well as by the Government of Canada.

It is ignorance of Canadian history to suggest that somehow the government and the Prime Minister have dreamed up this plan. It is based in fact and it is based in history. The lack of knowledge of Canadian history by some members in the House is appalling.

My colleague from Fraser Valley West said no democratic government in the world provides a veto. I am almost quoting him directly.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

That is right.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

He is now saying that is right. I am sorry to see him lead with his chin like that. Let me introduce him to a nation to the south called the United States of America in which one democratically elected person, the president, has a veto power.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

That is not a state.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

The last time I checked, I thought the United States of America was a state. I thought it was a democracy. I thought the President of the United States had a veto power. I invite the hon. member for Fraser Valley West to enrol in some basic courses in political science and Canadian history. I would be very happy to recommend some for him.

The United States of America empowers one person, its democratically elected president, with the right to veto legislation. It is incredible for me to hear an elected member in the House say that no democratic government in the world has a veto power. I will put it down to a bad day for my colleague from Fraser Valley West.

The last point I will address from the hon. member is the characterization of Quebec as a spoiled child. The attitude that somehow Quebec is a spoiled child, to generalize and make the blatant characterization of Quebec as a spoiled child on the basis that 30 per cent of the people are separatists, is part of the problem we have. It is ignorance of the real demographics in Quebec. It is ignorance of what the people in Quebec really believe. It is a dangerous generalization that the most basic student of history is taught not to make. Because 30 per cent of the people of Quebec are very hard core separatists, we should not be foolish enough to characterize the people of Quebec as spoiled children.

What makes that all the more dangerous is that the people applauding the loudest secretly when members like the member for Fraser Valley West make these blatant generalizations are the separatists. Every time a member in the House of Commons spews that kind of logic, every time a Canadian anywhere in Canada makes that kind of ridiculous comment, it only advances the cause of separatism in Quebec. It only makes the job of the Bouchards and the Parizeaus easier in Quebec.

It is a pity we have elected members saying that. I know the member for Fraser Valley West does not like to hear these truths and that is why he interrupts me, even though I did not interrupt him when he made these comments. That is okay. I will debate him now on the point that he does not have his basic facts correct. I will debate him here on the point that he does not have his basic facts of Canadian history straight. I will debate him anywhere he chooses. He does not have the facts of Canadian history, the history of this veto power, or the knowledge that the United States has a veto power.

I am shocked. I am disappointed. Most dramatically, I am alarmed that an elected member would come into the House of Commons and make the kind of statements, the twisting of facts, and display the ignorance I have heard.

I say these things in kindness. I offer them as constructive criticism. I think we can help the member for Fraser Valley West to learn more Canadian history if he has an open mind. That is the problem. One wonders if the attitudes are not so ingrained in some members of the House, if they do not bring the kind of attitudes and the lack of knowledge of Canadian history in such a visceral way into the House that perhaps they are not willing to listen to facts, not willing to learn some Canadian history and not willing to change.

[An hon. member]

What do you know about the west?

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

I have been in western Canada many times. I have an uncle in Quesnel, B.C. I have an aunt in New Westminster, B.C. I converse with them frequently. I know their views on this situation as people living in British Columbia now.

There is some knowledge of western Canada on this side of the House. All wisdom, all logic, all knowledge and all defence of western Canada, thank goodness, do not rest with the party opposite.

[Maurice Godin, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak after the hon. member for Fraser Valley West to set the record straight. The hon. member does not seem to understand a thing about what is happening in Quebec right now when he describes the province as a spoiled child. All that we

in Quebec are asking is merely for Quebec to be sovereign. We are asking nothing of him and, if he just agreed to Quebec's sovereignty, he would have nothing to do with us any more.

I am also pleased to speak here today on Bill C-110, an act respecting constitutional amendments, to establish a regional veto so that no constitutional change can be made without the consent of all Canadians, according to this government.

Is the government for real? No. And the same way I voted against the distinct society motion yesterday evening, I will vote against this bill out of pride and respect for the people of my riding and of Quebec as a whole.

How can Quebec be recognized as a distinct society through a motion that is binding on the federal government but not on all of the provinces, a motion that may be overturned by a new government? And how can the government at the same time introduce a bill establishing a regional veto that is the same for every province? Only our Prime Minister can do such somersaults.

This only meets the election minded expectations of the Liberal Party of Canada. These projects are meaningless; they are a smoke screen and they also show a lack of respect for Quebecers. This government never gave a better illustration of how panic-stricken it is, which explains why it is totally improvising. After saying loud and clear before the referendum that it was not going to talk about the Constitution, the government started alluding to changes one week before the referendum. Then, after a narrow victory, it tabled a motion on the distinct society, followed by a bill on regional vetoes.

After dragging its feet for two years, the government introduces a UI reform which clearly shows that it intends to bypass the provinces, regardless of their distinct nature, and not give them an opportunity to be heard. Then it tells us that we must refer to a Canadian, not Quebec, culture. Finally, the federal government reconsiders its decision and gives British Columbia the status of region, for the purpose of its Bill C-110.

In the meantime, a phoney committee is on standby, waiting for the government to stop its antics and give it a mandate. This is mind boggling. I would be hard pressed to show the logic in all this. The government acts like a chicken running in all directions with its head cut off, trying to save its broken eggs. It did not even realize that it came very close to losing Quebec. Will the government finally realize that, in spite of all its foolish attempts, it clearly shows that it will never be able to come up with a constitutional reform project that meets the expectations of Quebec, as well as those of the rest of Canada?

We are two peoples in Canada, but one country is missing. What would be a worthwhile and possible undertaking would be to accept that we are a people and that Quebec is a country. The Prime Minister told us here in this House just recently that he was most anxious to see the Bloc members vote against his motion on Quebec as a distinct society, against Bill C-110 and against unemployment insurance reform. I would like to tell him that the people in my riding are equally anxious, but not for the same reasons.

The 58 per cent who voted to elect me in October 1993, and the 58.3 per cent who voted in the October 30, 1995 referendum, asked me to attend the House on Monday, although that is the day I am generally in my riding office. They wanted me to be here to vote against this ridiculously out of date project. It is a matter of too little, too late. The 49.4 per cent of Quebecers who voted in favour of Quebec sovereignty in this referendum were voting for the right to pass our own laws, to collect our own taxes, to sign our own treaties.

They do not want a bill aimed at making it impossible for any government, including the Government of Quebec, to change the Canadian Constitution.

The Minister of Justice has stated, and I quote: "True, this resolution will satisfy neither the Parti Quebecois nor the Bloc Quebecois. As we know, sadly, nothing short of breaking up this country would satisfy them". What a wonderful red herring to push through a bill that will make any in depth changes to the Constitution impossible until the end of time. Canada does not need the Parti Quebecois or the Bloc Quebecois to break itself apart, the Prime Minister and his centralist federalism are doing well enough on their own. Unfortunately, they do not realize this.

On Friday, December 8, a SOM-La Presse poll reported that Quebecers are not satisfied with the Chrétien government's proposals. A meagre 31 per cent of Quebecers now admits to having supported the federalist option. Furthermore, no sooner was the bill tabled than the Minister of Justice made an about-face and agreed to the concept of a fifth region to satisfy British Columbia, which proves this government is playing it strictly by ear.

The minister asked us to trust him, saying it was hard to imagine how the government would support a constitutional amendment that did not have the support of all regions. In other words, the federal government should not support a constitutional amendment unless all regions agree. The minister has a poor memory. He must have forgotten the lesson we learned in 1992. The minister ought to know that once bitten, twice shy.

Remember when in 1982, the Canadian Liberal government patriated the Constitution and amended it and adjusted it in the image of English Canada, without the consent of Quebec. What may seem immoral to the present Minister of Justice did not seem

so to the then justice minister in 1982, who is now the Prime Minister. All things considered, we are not inclined to trust the cat who tells mousie he loves her dearly, but well done, with stuffing à la Clyde Wells.

This is not about giving Quebec a veto, let us be clear about that. What we have here is a cosmetic exercise that gives a pseudo-veto to four, five or six regions unilaterally identified by the federal government. These regions are both distinct and equal, as far as I can see. The government probably thinks it has found a way to give the impression it is giving Quebec what Quebecers want, while giving the other regions in Canada the impression this does not mean a thing. Not surprisingly, the rest of Canada is not any more pleased than Quebec with this sleight of hand. This extra-constitutional exercise is only an exercise in wishful thinking.

After the first constitutional veto, requiring unanimous consent on any change in the responsibilities of the Queen, the governor general or the Senate, came the veto on amendments involving one or more provinces, such as to borders, then came the veto on general amendments-the rule of seven and fifty: 7 provinces and 50 per cent of the population-and now we have the so-called regional veto, the criteria to be determined by the government, such as: a resolution by a legislative assembly, an order in council, a notice signed by the provincial premier, a notice signed by a provincial lieutenant governor, a provincial referendum organized by a province, a federal referendum in one or a number of provinces or a vote by federal members of Parliament from the province in question.

With such a collection of distinct criteria, the federal government has any number of ways to go over the heads of the provinces.

The last piece the government needed to never again change the Constitution has just been tabled in the House, and all those who voted no believing in the fine promises of the Prime Minister to amend the Constitution to meet Quebec's requirements are, today, in mourning. On their behalf, I will vote against this bill.

I must, nevertheless, in closing, thank the Prime Minister for the 10 per cent of electors we lacked to achieve Quebec's sovereignty. With this sort of understanding of Quebec, the next referendum will be the winner.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Essex—Kent, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on November 27 the Prime Minister introduced three initiatives for change in how government works in Canada. It is important to remember that these changes are not constitutional changes in themselves. Rather these initiatives respond to how Canadians want their government to respond to the realities of Canadain the 1990s.

Canadians want the government to move forward, to respect the needs of our people, to make government more accessible. In the wake of the Quebec referendum, Canadians expected the federal government to make good on its commitments to maintain a unified country.

Canadians recognize the need for governments to remain focused on the issues of importance; issues such as employment creation, consumer and investor confidence, government spending and control.

Canadians also recognize that initiatives on distinct society, regional veto and manpower training will permit the government to fulfil its obligations to Canadians without allowing the country's agenda to be hijacked by those who wish to further their own personal agenda of destroying rather than building our country.

These unity incentives are a very important first step. These initiatives are also an effective way of dealing with the concerns of Canadians and of building partnerships with all regions of Canada, while at the same time not reopening the whole constitutional debate.

The proposed actions are consistent with what Canadians want and are the most expeditious way of achieving those goals. For many of us, both inside and outside government, constitutional discussions gave rise to concerns of lengthy, protracted debate without meaningful resolution.

Bill C-110, the act respecting constitutional amendments, does not raise these concerns. Evidence of this can easily be found in how government reacted to the issue of regional vetoes. By responding quickly to the concerns of B.C., the government has modified its regional veto to include British Columbia as a separate regional veto. This action flows directly from the commitment to listen to people and to introduce actions that bring people from all regions together.

The act, in its present form, would require the consent of Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, the Atlantic and the prairie regions before any constitutional amendment can be proposed in Parliament by the Canadian government. This is, in effect, a guarantee that each of these five regions will have a general veto in areas where they do not already have a specific veto. This authority, simply put, will allow any one of the five regions to stop an amendment from the outset.

This bill keeps a commitment to all Canadians for increased protection within the Canadian federation and it recognizes the Constitution and its amending process is of interest to all parts of the country. By recognizing a regional veto for the province of British Columbia, the government is recognizing the existence of a uniquely Canadian west coast situation.

British Columbia, with its size, population, location and economic development, constitutes a region of interest that requires its own recognition on regional issues. By extending this regional veto power to British Columbia, the government is reaching out to

Canadians, acknowledging the variously uniquely Canadian situations and bringing us closer together by helping this part of Canada survive and strengthen its loyalties.

In a recent Regina editorial, the unity initiative was referred to as having solid potential and the Prime Minister's olive branch to Quebec could do what eight years of constitutional debate did not. This is an indication that the prairie provinces recognize the importance of a federal government that actively pursues addressing the regional interests of Canadians. The inclusion of B.C. in a veto power builds on an initiative and a decisive act that can be a valuable component of national building.

In the same editorial, the Prime Minister's actions were described as swift and bold in the government's accommodation of Quebec. These are again descriptions that could justifiably be used to describe the government's movement to address the B.C. situation.

The unity initiative promoted by the government is much more simple than the Charlottetown accord of 1992. Today's bill is much more concise and limited in its scope, yet it moves to achieve certain goals that have been sought by regions. Even in Quebec, sovereignists like Mario Dumont believe that this is a new, much simpler proposal and should be judged on its own merits.

Before the proposed veto change for B.C., a Vancouver editorial commented on the Prime Minister's unity package by saying: "It is an offer of tangible, substantive change that even Bouchard will find hard to discredit". Now that the B.C. veto is being promoted in this package, one can only assume that certain of those reservations have now been looked upon and completed with B.C. coming into the union with a veto.

In Edmonton an editorial comment suggested that the Prime Minister "did all he could within the powers of his government" in reference to Quebec's uniqueness and the veto rights. Yet it was this government that once again rose to the occasion by finding a way to enhance western Canada's position, not at the expense of others, but in recognition of British Columbia.

One can easily detect the concerns and desires of our Canadian regions. If one listens and acts in a comprehensive way, the same regions will recognize that efforts are for the benefit of the whole and do not jeopardize or favour the position of one region over another. Simply put, the veto proposal and the added recognition of British Columbia says to the provinces that no constitutional change will occur if regions oppose. This is more than any province has today and the inclusion of B.C. as a separate veto does nothing to favour one over another.

The Edmonton Journal noted: ``Albertans cannot have something for nothing. Life, as we know it, would not end if Alberta lost the provincial veto it never had''.

Many Canadians recognize that unity initiatives are probably about as far as government can reasonably go in the political climate of the 1990s. It is the recognition of the desires of Canadians and a response to the same within the context of Canadian society and will be acceptable by law. It will also give Canadians a chance to view the Constitution before any changes occur.

The proposals for a regional veto try as best as possible to acknowledge that the country has great variation of population densities. It would be much easier to divide the geographical area without the need to regard the population of the regions of the country. But this is not possible in Canada. What is possible is to pursue and find a compromise that will address the regional concerns within the context of national programs. The regional veto is a logical attempt to balance the will of our regions and its populations.

In central Canada editorial opinion suggests that the regional veto is a move that recognizes the reality of the country and its population. It is the recognition of what Canada is and what we stand for and how best the government can deliver these services is the driving force for change. It is not the government proposing change for the sake of change, but rather change for the sake of addressing concerns of Canadians.

There was also an observation in a central Canada newspaper that the unity proposals allowed us to test drive the concepts of them without enshrining them in our Constitution. Perhaps this is the most telling observation of Canadian society. We are a people that do need to be prepared to accept change. We must accept change, not one region over another, not with the idea of the contempt of change, but we must make certain that our drive forward is to unify the country, what we can do to help Canada and Canadians survive in this ever changing society.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will start by telling the House why I ran for office. Why did I want to come to this place? To sum it up I would say it was because I could add something to this country. I believe in this country. I have travelled extensively and I know what people think of this country.

What is wrong with the country? I thought there was a lack of equality. The political system was one where the message came from Ottawa back to the ridings and the parties were too strong. I was mad because of the GST, because of the national energy program. I was mad at the arrogance of government. I looked at it and thought that this was a very centralist place. In the past as I

have mentioned the national energy program and the GST were forced on people by Ottawa.

I look at this Parliament and I do not see that much has changed. I see employment equity being forced down people's throats when others are getting rid of it. I see gun control being forced on people without any attempt to change any of the clauses. There was the Quebec referendum where we were told to be happy, that everything was fine and it was not.

Now there is this unity package and I see closure. Closure is the ugliest thing that can happen in this place. People are disenfranchised and are not allowed to speak for their constituents.

Canadians are saying: "We need jobs. We need tax reform. We need somebody to deal with the criminal justice system. We need the reform of Parliament itself. We need more free votes. We need to know that our MPs can stand up for what we believe".

Now we get this veto package, which totally lacks a vision for Canada. This is supposed to be a unity package. It is anything but. It is anything but creating the equality that we all believe in. We all want change and this package does anything but allow us to ever have any future change.

We now will need something in the neighbourhood of 92 per cent of Canadians in order to get any change by a package like this. Our hope of free votes, our hope of getting rid of that other place are gone now. It does anything but provide any kind of unity for the country.

We look at the government listening to the people. The PCs did not listen during the GST. They did not listen during Charlottetown. We saw what happened to them in 1993. We now have a government that seems to be following the same pattern.

I look to an example of a week ago in Edmonton where the member from Edmonton East had a meeting. Seventeen people went to listen to the unity package of the Prime Minister while across town 800 people were telling us exactly what they thought of that unity package.

In my riding I have completed a survey that went out last Thursday. So far we are into the hundreds of returns and 87 per cent are saying not to give special status or the veto to anybody. That is 87 per cent of the people who answered that question.

The people of the west and the people of Canada are mad. Yesterday, Mr. Klein dropped out of Team Canada. Is that building unity? Listen to the message. The government is losing the country. This centralist top down government will lose the country. Even the national polls show that 53 per cent of Quebecers are unhappy with this package as are 58 per cent of the rest of Canada.

Only 23 per cent of Quebecers think this package is worth anything. It is just a rehash of Meech Lake and Charlottetown. They did not get the message last time and now they are going to wait until 1997-98 to get that message. We will never get rid of that Senate.

There are 105 people who came here because their constituents demanded change. The separatists want a different approach than we do but they are asking for change. Not one province is not asking for change. This government has no vision. It is into this centralist philosophy of government.

We need some strong leadership to face Mr. Bouchard, a very credible leader. We do not have it.

We no longer have an amending formula. We have a veto formula drawn up by a centralist government. The veto is not fair, it is not equitable and it was done without the consultation of the people.

How would we get out of this problem? Our Prime Minister had the obvious opportunity to get out of it by giving the veto to the people. Give it to all of the people. Do not put in the hands of the separatists. Do not put it in the hands of provincial politicians. Put it in the hands of the people. We can trust the people. They have shown they are involved and will be involved.

The people have spoken. They spoke in Charlottetown. They spoke in 1993. Of course the people spoke to the referendum. It was not the politicians that helped the yes side catch up, it was the people. Everybody, even on the other side, agrees to that.

We need to show some leadership. We need to show some terms and conditions. What does it mean if a province wants to separate? Tell it. Put it straight. The people will understand it. It is the politicians who want to manipulate it. Talk about what land goes with separation. Talk about the language and the culture, the debt sharing, the citizenship. Talk about all of those things, including the protection of minorities, but talk about it. Talk about it with the people.

We need a vision. We need to fight that separatist dream with a vision. We need to fight deception and untruths with truth and facts. That is what this vision is all about. We need to develop a vision and a passion for Canada. That is what we need.

Many of us felt that in 1967 when we went to Expo in Montreal. There was passion there. We felt passion during the Olympics in Calgary. We felt passion whenever we travelled. Last year my constituency hosted the World Junior Hockey Championship and there was passion and feeling for what it was to be Canadian. We were proud of our Canadian kids who won that championship and who demonstrated what it was like to be Canadian.

Do not whine and cry. Plan a vision. Get a vision for the country. Show that we are listening to the people. This country is worth saving. I implore the Prime Minister to get out of the past, do what

is right for Canada. Involve the people. Abandon the centralist governments of the past which did not work. They will never work.

It will destroy this country if we keep following this path. Continuing on this course will truly mean the Prime Minister will go down in history as the Prime Minister who destroyed the country. We must change that.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I too will begin by speaking about why I am in this House.

My sense of this country and therefore my mission as a member of Parliament comes from two main things. First, my father was an immigrant. I do not remember when I first heard how lucky I was to be a Canadian, how lucky I was to live in this wonderful country, to have this as my home and as my future. Having come from Europe my father was very much aware of what a wonderful future this nation has.

The second reason that gives me a sense of why I am here, of what my purpose is and what this country is all about I owe to a grade five teacher whose name I have even forgotten. I was 10 years old and I learned about this country from coast to coast from that teacher. I learned about the Rockies, the west coast, the east coast and the north. I also learned about the voyageurs who had opened up this continent for us. They had travelled on rivers and through mountain ranges nobody had ever travelled before, except our aboriginal peoples. From that I have such a strong sense of the importance of the two founding peoples of this country. Without the French settlers and explorers who came to the country we would not have what we have today.

[An hon. member]

We would have something far better.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

A member opposite says that we would have something far better. I could not disagree with him more. To deny the contribution of the people who came to the continent from France, who had the courage, as Champlain did, to last an entire winter at Annapolis and to continue up the St. Lawrence and the Ottawa rivers into the heartland of the continent, is a denial of what the country is all about.

The country was built by consent and consensus, not by force and not by dominance. The three measures now before the House to reinforce national unity continue the marvellous tradition of moving ahead together by consent and by consensus, not by one exercising power over another.

As we came together as a Canadian family at each stage we made special provisions for newcomers to the family and recognized their special needs. Whether it was the size of Prince Edward Island and the assurances it needed with respect to its representation in Parliament, whether it was British Columbia with its need for the recognition of a railway to link it to the east, we have always made special provisions. We respected the fact that we were creating a family.

That sense of family took a thousand people from my riding and tens of thousands from all over the country to Montreal on October 27. The hon. member is absolutely right: politicians could not have created that tremendous outpouring of goodwill and love for our country and commitment to keeping Quebec within Canada. However politicians could make it possible, as many of us did, for the people we represent to have the means of expressing that sentiment.

In the last week of the referendum campaign, the Prime Minister of Canada promised Quebecers that Quebec would be recognized as a distinct society within Canada, that no constitutional changes affecting Quebec would be made without their consent, and that changes would be initiated to bring citizens closer to services and to decision making.

It may be unusual for the Reform Party to see in place a government and a Prime Minister that keep their commitments. Just as we did in the 1993 election when we put forward very clearly our commitments to Canadians and our intention to keep them, in the last two weeks we have been doing exactly what the Prime Minister committed to do.

We are not trying to pacify, appease or please the separatists or gain their consent for what we are doing. We know they will not consent to anything that will unify and strengthen the country. We certainly are trying to speak to Canadians across Canada who want to see change, who want to see us moving forward together and not as the western separatists or the Quebec separatists want.

With the recognition of a veto for each of the regions of the country, we are saying that if we are to change the relationship that binds us together we will have to work at building a consensus around it. We cannot have parts of the country imposing their will on other parts of the country. That is not easy to do, but it is important that as we move forward we do it with consensus as we have done to this point in our history.

People have been concerned about distinct society and what it recognizes. First I will talk about the meaning of the word distinct. It does not, as some would have us believe, mean special, better, superior in some way or deserving of special treatment. It means different.

If there is one person in the Chamber who does not feel a great pride or does not accept that Quebec, with its majority French

language, its unique culture and its law system that is different from that of the rest of the country, constitutes a part of Canada that is different and by its very difference enriches the whole country, I am not sure he or she understands what the country is all about.

Concern has been expressed about how this might affect our attitude to people of different ethnic cultures, backgrounds and origins. I say to them the respect for diversity of the country is found in the original agreement that created the country, that we would respect each other's differences and each other's languages. Without the initial bargain of Confederation we would not have a country that is now a model for the world of how people of different cultures, backgrounds and languages can live together as one while respecting each other's uniqueness.

For the House to simply say we recognize the distinct nature of Quebec within the Canadian family and we undertake to respect that distinctness as we move forward with the business of the nation is not a threat to anybody. It is a reassurance to people who badly need to know that the rest of the country does value and does not intend to try to dominate, demean or diminish the special society that has been built in Quebec. Nor does it diminish our commitment as a federal government or our obligations of fiduciary responsibility for aboriginal peoples everywhere in the country inside and outside Quebec.

I will speak about the veto briefly. Perhaps there are some who feel that the majority simply by its numbers should be able to dominate and have its way. I am not one of those. I believe we can continue to solve our problems and our differences and to change and grow in the future by agreeing together as we have always done in the past.

I am proud to support the changes that have been brought forward. I am proud to look forward to a future for my children in a united Canada.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

As you know, Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House of Commons passed a motion recognizing Quebec as a distinct society. For us in the Bloc Quebecois, this motion was pointless because it was insufficient. Why? Because it does not recognize Quebec's special status and does not actually grant that province any additional powers.

Today we are debating Bill C-110 dealing with constitutional amendments. This bill would give certain provinces a say concerning the federal veto over constitutional amendments.

There have been many speeches so far, and I think it would be a good idea to remind those listening to us of the bill's purpose.

The bill reads as follows:

No minister of the crown shall propose a motion for a resolution to authorize an amendment to the Constitution of Canada- unless the amendment has first been consented to by a majority of the provinces that includes: a ) Ontario; b ) Quebec;

This majority must also include the Atlantic provinces, provided that at least two of the four provinces represent 50 per cent of the population; and at least two of the three prairie provinces, provided that these two provinces represent 50 per cent of the population.

Following the representations made by BC residents, and particularly by the third party, British Columbia was granted a veto. One might think that, had some pressure also been exerted by residents of other parts of the country, for example Yukon or the Northwest Territories, these regions might also have been given a veto.

If Bill C-110 is passed, three provinces will have a veto: Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia. The other provinces would have such a veto by groups of two, as long as they represent 50 per cent of the population of their region.

What did the 1982 formula provide? Let us compare the current proposal with the 1982 formula. The 1982 Constitution provides a veto, not only for the federal government, but also for the provinces, although that constitution was rejected by Quebecers, through their National Assembly, in 1982. There is a formula provided in the Constitution.

What does it say? It provides that constitutional amendments require the approval of seven provinces, or 50 per cent of the total population.

In our opinion, Bill C-110 offers less than Meech and Charlottetown. Quebecers thought Charlottetown did not go far enough, while the rest of Canada, and particularly the western provinces, felt that it was going too far. Since Bill C-110 provides less than that, you will understand that the Bloc Quebecois, which looks after the interests of Quebecers, is not happy with that measure. The Reform Party, which primarily represents western Canada, thinks it is still going too far. This is a catch 22 situation, and the more we forge ahead, the worse things get.

Another major problem with Bill C-110 is that it only commits the House of Commons. Therefore, it can be assumed that, following a change of government, after an election, the Reform Party could hassle the new government and, if it displayed its current attitude, could prompt that new government to repeal this piece of legislation.

This is not really a constitutional change, but merely a bill that could be superseded by another, as the current government could easily do, given its majority.

But the fundamental problem with the federal system as we know it rests mainly with a distribution of powers that favours the federal government too much. Through its spending power and under special circumstances, it invades provincial jurisdictions from which it never withdraws afterwards.

The Quebecers who voted on October 30 were hoping for a more meaningful veto. They will not buy this bill that may be amended by the next government. The provinces did not consent to this bill being introduced.

Why not have had this veto proposal tested by submitting it to the provinces for discussion? No, the Prime Minister did try to get discussions going, but he was put in his place in no time flat, as they say. So, he consulted only with the members of his party in the federal government.

Now the amendment to include British Columbia in the deal made the people of Alberta and the aboriginal peoples unhappy. As we can see, instead of putting an end to the debate, this bill is keeping it going. If that trend can be reversed, it should be pointed out.

But what matters to the people of Quebec is that they are a people, one of the founding peoples of Canada. For any negotiations on the future of Quebec to be successful, it must be recognized from the outset that the people of Quebec are masters of their own destiny. Bill C-110 respecting a so-called veto for Quebec does not meet the expectations of one of the founding peoples of Canada, namely Quebec. This bill responds solely to the electoral ambitions of the Liberal Party of Canada.

All of the governments of Quebec for the past 35 years have, as representatives of the people of Quebec, demanded repatriation of the legislative powers that will be essential for Quebec's social and economic development. All of Quebec's efforts to negotiate a new agreement with the rest of Canada over the past 35 years have arisen out of a desire to change how powers are shared.

This bill is not a satisfactory response to the promises made by the Prime Minister at the meeting in Verdun in late October. No one in Quebec believed the federal government would propose such an insignificant veto to the people of Quebec, not even the militants of the Quebec Liberal Party who voted no on October 30, 1995. No Quebec government, whether PQ or Liberal, has ever had such an insignificant change to the constitutional amending formula in mind. Quebec has traditionally demanded a true constitutional veto for Quebec, not a mere legislative promise not to proceed unilaterally during the lifetime of this present government.

It would appear that the Prime Minister wants to save face by pretending to keep his referendum promises, but Quebecers have not been taken in. This sham veto does not meet the needs for change expressed by Quebecers-far from it. All that it is is a continuation of the unilateral patriation of the Constitution in 1982 and the imposition of Trudeau's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and none of this was agreed to by Quebec, not only not by the PQ, but not by the Quebec Liberals either. Even Claude Ryan, that ultra federalist, who was then leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, did not agree.

Instead of offering constitutional change, this is one more padlock to prevent future constitutional changes in a process already complicated by the so-called Canada Bill of 1982, which required the consent of the federal government and seven provinces out of ten representing 50 per cent of the population. And now, the federal government will make exercising a veto even more difficult. In addition to the veto powers I just explained, the government's own veto will depend on how it is exercised by five regions, in two of which the consent of at least two provinces will be needed.

Quebec's motto is: "Je me souviens", and we on this side of the House remember that the man who moved the patriation of the Constitution of 1982 is the same person who is now proposing a padlock that will prevent any future changes.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure and a privilege to have the opportunity to speak on such important legislation as Bill C-110, an act respecting constitutional amendments.

Many hon. members over the past couple of days have spoken on this most important issue and debate has flowed from both sides of the House. We have have heard all the figures and all the mechanics, such as the five and seven ratio. That is fine. I do not want to go over the facts and figures and the mechanics. I want begin my presentation with a quotation from two distinguished Canadians who gave their heart and soul to Canada.

I quote Sir John A. Macdonald:

If I had influence over the minds of the people of Canada, any power over their intellect, I would leave them with this legacy. Whatever you do, adhere to the union. We are a great nation and shall become one of the greatest in the universe if we preserve it. We shall sink into insignificance and adversity if we suffer it to be broken. It is God and nature who made Canada one. Let no person be allowed to put it asunder.

Another great Canadian, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, said this:

This cathedral is made of marble, oak and granite. It is the image of a nation I would like to see Canada become. For here, I want the granite to remain the granite, the oak to remain the oak, and out of all of these elements I would build a nation great among the nations of the world.

Approximately 100 years later the words that were spoken by these two distinguished Canadians we hear today from nations, that Canada is the best country in the world in which to live. I reach out to members in the House and tell them how blessed we are and I continuously remind my family and friends of that.

I really do not know what is going on here. I noticed last week that the new words inscribed in the coat of arms state: "They desire a better country". These two distinguished Canadians desired a better country. Each and every one who came to this country, whether as immigrants, such as our parents or grandparents, came because they desired a better country. People came to build on the foundations that Laurier and Macdonald established for us.

Where do we go from here? Do we have the will to survive? I say we must develop a Canadian soul. We must develop unity and pride and share it publicly. We must share the joy of being Canadian, share the joy of being unique among nations.

I am afraid of what has happened because this whole situation is out hand. Specifically, there seems to be a shoving match because neither the Bloc Quebecois nor the Reform Party are prepared to say: "Yes, we have made a mistake. Yes, our country comes before petty politics. Yes, there are times for give and take as the Fathers of Confederation did".

The country said yes to the railway in order to appease British Columbia in past years to make the union strong. I really fear what is taking place in the country right now.

I took my family to see the Lion King not too long ago. What I see across the way reminds me of the hyenas and the vultures, just sitting there waiting to grasp on to a situation. It worries me greatly. It worries me because we must be accountable to our children and our grandchildren and their children in generations to come. I am concerned because I do not even want to think of the day when I will sit with my grandchildren, and if God keeps me well, with my great grandchildren and tell them what a great country we had called Canada. There is a possibility that my grandchildren and great grandchildren will need a passport to visit their friends in Montreal or Quebec City. I do not even want to think about that.

Today I want to reach out, not just to members of the Bloc or the Reform Party who say they speak on behalf of their constituents. I do not believe that for a moment. On October 28, at three or four o'clock in the morning many of my colleagues and their constituents, seniors and students came together at Lawrence and Midland to load on to buses and take that six and a half hour ride to Montreal. They did not do it to beg Quebecers to stay in Canada. What they did was show their true love for this country. They tried to tell the nation from sea to sea to sea that we are one strong, united country and it only makes sense to keep it strong and united.

Their only means of getting to Montreal that day was in buses and planes organized by the members of the Liberal Party. I want to take this opportunity to thank the unity committee for its efforts in putting that project together.

I am concerned because there seems to be a falsification of the facts. The leader of the Bloc Quebecois stands up and through innuendo creates strawmen in trying to touch the emotional aspects of an ambiguous question, a question that was full of misleading statements, a question that was full of gaps, a question that had no substance, a question that was misleading.

I walked the streets of Montreal. I visited grocery stores. I visited restaurants. The people were confused right up to the very last minute. They did not know what they were voting for. God forbid if there is another referendum. I certainly would advocate putting a straightforward question to the people of Quebec: Do you want to stay in Canada or do you want to leave Canada? Do you want to continue to be a Canadian or do you want to become something else?

We are a relatively young nation compared to most of the nations in the world. But in that short period of time, we have managed to attain the status of the number one country in the world.

Earlier I spoke about Laurier and Macdonald. They too were immigrants. I am proud to stand in this House 100 or so years later, another immigrant, defending this country. It is a darn shame that we have members from the Bloc, members from the Reform. I was not born here but I am blessed to be living in this country.

There are not words that I can say to the members of the Reform or the Bloc that will change their minds. I am not going to attempt to, but I will be speaking to my friends in Montreal and in Quebec City and I am going to tell them what is the truth.

Members of the Reform Party keep flipping back and forth. The vision of their 20-point plan is this. They say they represent the rest of Canada and the rest of Canada does not want any province to have special rights over any other province. They say that they will never vote for a bill that gives one province more power than another. They forgot they felt this way when they brought out their 20-point new Confederation package. In it the leader of the Reform Party states that his party is in favour of Canada being split into five regions, in favour-

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

That is rubbish.

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

Be honest for a change.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Be honest with the people of Canada. Do not get in front of the TV cameras and make a scene trying to score cheap

political points. Members will have to answer to the people of Canada. That day is not too far off.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

You bet.