Debates of Dec. 12th, 1995

The Economy

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a minute ago the finance minister made the absurd statement that somehow the government has cut more of its spending than it has cut transfers to the provinces. I point out that it did back flips to preserve Liberal pensions and the finance minister led the charge in that whole argument.

The people who have been showing leadership in the country are those in the provincial governments. The only leadership this minister has shown is in defending his interests.

Will the finance minister commit to taking a page from the book of the provinces? Will he balance the budget and will he hold out the hope of tax relief for ordinary Canadians who actually pay taxes?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, surely there ought to be some connection between the preamble to the question and the question itself.

The hon. member knows that the government's objectives are to eliminate the deficit. It has pursued a very clear track of deficit elimination. It has bettered its targets every time, which is the first time in a long while that that has happened in this country's history.

It is focused on the preservation of social programs and on job creation.

The government is not going to throw the fabric of the country away because of any narrow fiscal ideology as expressed by the members opposite.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is job creation has stalled in the country. The fact is the government is being forced to cut into social programs because the interest on the debt is undermining those programs. The fact is that the provinces are leading the way.

Will the Minister of Finance take a leadership role for a change, go to the conference today and tell the provinces that he is going to undertake to do what they have done and begin the process of balancing the budget. Will he ultimately hold out some hope to Canadians that there will be some tax relief, not in the 21st century but in this century?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, the history of the last decade in this country and its deficit projections have been one of missed target after missed target.

Since the government took office, not only has it hit the targets, but it has bettered them. That is very clear. Rounding off the numbers, when the present government took office the deficit was at 6 per cent of GDP. Then it went down to 5 per cent, next 4 per cent, then 3 per cent and then 2 per cent. That is a pretty clear track and we are going to take it all the way to zero.

National Aboriginal Day

[Elijah Harper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Last week aboriginal spiritual leaders and elders, representatives of many churches and faiths, political leaders, youth and ordinary Canadians gathered in Hull for a sacred assembly. The assembly asked for a national aboriginal day to recognize the contribution of the aboriginal people to this country and to celebrate a distinct people which has thrived on this land for thousands of years.

Does the minister support a national holiday to recognize the tremendous generosity and contributions of the first peoples to this country?

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I did not speak with clarity yesterday but I hope to today. I support the efforts to make June 21 aboriginal solidarity day.

This was put forward as a vision by the national chief on behalf of his people. We talked about reconciliation, a day when aboriginal communities can celebrate themselves and their contribution. They can organize festivities.

This vision was approved by his people, the grand chief and his assembly, by all the spiritual leaders who were there, not only the native spiritual leaders but the spiritual leaders from the Mennonite church, the Anglican church and the Catholic church, every church, and by this minister.

[Translation]

Taxation

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

On January 1, the Minister of Finance intends to go ahead with a plan that dates from 1991 and has been repeatedly postponed. It involves limiting the deductibility of provincial taxes on capital and payroll from federal income tax. Implementing this proposal would penalize business in Quebec especially, because Quebec takes half the taxes that would be affected by the federal measure.

Will the Minister of Finance agree once and for all to do away with the plan to limit the deductibility of taxes on capital and payroll from federal income tax, a plan that would hit Quebec business hard?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, as the member is aware, this measure hits a number of provinces. The member also knows that, when I was in his place, I asked the same questions and had the same discussion as opposition critic.

It is certainly our intention to resolve the question, but we want to resolve it as part of discussions on all taxation measures between the provinces and the federal government.

Correctional Services Canada

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

Mr. Speaker, I have just received what Correctional Services Canada calls its latest amended version of the commissioner's directives. I quote from that document: "Overtime shall only be awarded where no other reasonable alternative exists". This is in prison.

Would the Deputy Prime Minister confirm whether this ridiculous policy still remains on the books or whether if a parolee is sent back to jail he somehow qualifies for time and a half?

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has informed us of the information he has just received. Therefore for the benefit of members concerned I will take this under advisement. I am sure the minister will answer him appropriately.

Wei Jingsheng

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Tomorrow the Chinese government will be trying leading dissident Wei Jingsheng, the winner of the 1995 Olaf Palme Award, on charges that could lead to the death penalty.

I ask the minister to tell the House what steps the Liberal government has taken to protest this rushed show trial? He was given five days notice of this trial. Will the minister assure the House that the Canadian embassy in Beijing will send a senior representative to monitor this trial tomorrow?

[André Ouellet, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member we will investigate this situation. Our official in Beijing will act according to the spirit of Canada which has been never to hesitate to speak out on behalf of human rights, particularly in China.

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, today it gives me great pleasure to introduce a very select group of Canadians. Because I want to join you in applauding them, I ask that you wait until I have introduced all of them.

I want to introduce your very own Canadian space heroes, our first Canadian mission specialist, Major Chris Hadfield, his wife, Helena, and the following astronauts from the Canadian Space Agency Astronaut Corporation: Dr. Steve MacLean, Mrs. Julie Payette, Dr. Dave Williams, Dr. Marc Garneau, Mr. Bjarni Tryggvason, Dr. Robert Thirsk.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

Dear colleagues, this is a very special day.

I invite all hon. members, if their duties permit them to attend, to Room 218, the Speaker's salon, where I will be holding a reception for our astronauts, who have made us so very proud.

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There has been some comment on votes taken in the House. I want to make it clear, if only for the record, that with respect to the votes taken yesterday I would have voted against the amendments and in favour of the resolution.

With respect to the vote that will take place tomorrow, for which I will be absent, I would vote against-

[The Speaker]

That is not a point of order.

Ways And Means

[Doug Peters, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of a ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act, the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Shipping Act. I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.

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

Constitutional Amendments Act

[Audrey McLaughlin, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-110, part of the unity package by the Liberal government and the Prime Minister, which appears has created more disunity than any recent package.

As minister Petter from British Columbia recently said, it not only fails to promote national unity but it has impaired national unity, a position with which I heartily agree.

In the north, in particular Yukon and Northwest Territories, and I hope my colleagues from Western Arctic and Nunatsiaq will speak up on this issue, this bill will make it even more difficult for the creation of new provinces. I find it difficult to understand why

those two important members of the Liberal government would not be speaking out strongly against this proposal.

The west, as we know, feels alienated. Quebec says no. Clearly this bill is not creating unity. As has been said recently, when you have painted yourself into a corner, you walk out on the paint. The Prime Minister has really walked out on the paint in this case. The footprints are causing reverberations right across Canada. They are not reverberations of unity but of discontent with the actions of the government prior to the referendum in Quebec and with its actions to address issues since then.

I will talk about three issues: the purpose of this bill, the process surrounding this bill and the other two aspects of this package, and the content. As good New Democrats always do, I will give some specific suggestions to what should be done with this bill.

I have listened very carefully to various members who spoke before committee, in particular the Minister of Justice, about why it was important to have this bill. I am left wondering whether there has been someone out there hiding behind a rock, excuse the expression, waiting to leap out and spring some kind of constitutional proposal on us that somehow the federal government has to be protected against and enshrined in legislation such as Bill C-110 so it will know what to do. Maybe that is one purpose, but it was something that was certainly a surprise to most of us.

Bill C-110 instructs the government on how it will use its power to accept or not accept constitutional amendments. It does not change the Constitution. Therefore that was obviously not the purpose of the bill.

The leader of the Liberal Party in Yukon, always with constructive comment, said in the Whitehorse Start of December 5 that the Prime Minister is trying to fulfil his promise of coming up with a plan that will satisfy the people of Quebec. He clearly has not done that.

What could be the other purpose? The Minister of Justice said in committee hearings: "This bill is just a bridge to the April 1997 constitutional conference on the amending formula. It can be changed. It is just in place temporarily". Again, we have to ask why. If it is there temporarily, it is satisfies no one, what is the real purpose?

The leader of the New Democratic Party, Alexa McDonough, called this constitutional package a fly by the seat of its pants response to yesterday's polls and today's editorials. That about sums up the purpose of this package, in particular this piece of legislation under discussion today.

The Minister of Justice said in terms of purpose that Quebec is acting and so we have to act. I guess by that sense of logic if someone decides to leap off a building, they will decide to leap off a building. There does not seem to be any comprehensive reason for this package other than for the Prime Minister to save face. He has not succeeded. It is a heck of a way to run a country if the government and the Prime Minister are simply putting proposals forward to keep a promise. These proposals do not keep that promise and they alienate not only the province to which they are destined but the other provinces and territories.

What about the process? There was no consultation with provinces, territories or aboriginal people. Apparently there was no obvious consultation even with members from British Columbia on the Liberal side.

It is fair to say that the process generally in place for constitutional discussions was totally circumvented. Those of us who have been a part of many constitutional endeavours in the House know how difficult it is and are empathetic to it. However, no process is not a substitute. No process is no democracy. That cannot be the essence and principle on which constitutional change is made.

The Prime Minister said that he responded to British Columbia, that it would now have the veto it requested. He added in a recent television interview that he knew the country well and had travelled it for 32 years. If the Prime Minister knows the country and the people so well, why does he not listen beforehand rather than act in an ad hoc manner?

I have to say, because I want to be fair to the government, that there was not a complete lack of consultation. In the same article of December 5 in the Whitehorse Star the president of the federal Liberal association is quoted as saying that she received calls from the prime minister's office and was reassured that changes would not be a hindrance to Yukon. The president went on to say that she felt very reassured after speaking with officials from Ottawa.

I would only say: "It should be so easy". If we have Canadians and members of the Liberal Party in other parts of the country who simply by making a phone call to Ottawa can be reassured by the Liberal government that everything they are doing is fine and there is no worry, I have to say we are in big trouble.

To the people of Yukon and elsewhere I say that a simple reassurance will not do it. It has not done so in this package. It has not done so in Bill C-110. Clearly the Minister of Justice has difficulty defining for Canadians and members of the House what purpose it will actually serve. The process was clearly not respected in any way in the development of the legislation.

In terms of process, the Liberal Party brought in closure on debate. It is something we have great difficulty with because we feel in a democratic system everyone should have an opportunity to speak. Although my party and I did not support closure, in this case I suppose the Liberals are only talking to themselves anyway. We have to wonder how serious that will be.

Now I will refer to the content. How does Bill C-110 relate to section 38 of the Constitution? That is the real question. Section 38 talks about the amending formula of seven provinces with 50 per cent of the population. This legislation would require over 80 per cent of the population to make change. It is clearly a very different intent from the actual Constitution.

The Minister of Justice says that it does not matter, that it is only temporary. Again I ask if there is someone out there lurking, wishing to spring something on us, from which we have to be protected. Why can we not have a process that people are involved in, with full consultation involving all the provinces, territories and aboriginal people?

We ask whether the formula being proposed under Bill C-110 will be the position of the federal government in the talks in April 1997 on the Constitution and the amending formula. The government has been very unclear about that and has not committed at all to what it will do.

In the generosity of spirit for which my party is known I should like to make some recommendations. The first one is to withdraw the bill. It is ill advised. It is not achieving any objective. The process has been illegitimate and the content does not address the real issues of Canadians today.

The second one is to undertake consultations with the provinces, the territories and the aboriginal people to reach a consensus.

The third and most important one is if the bill is simply for the Prime Minister to save face and to be seen to keeping his promises, he should keep his promises and create jobs. Last month 44,000 Canadians lost their jobs. If the Prime Minister wants to keep his promises, he should create jobs and help the youth to participate in the economy. The participation rate of youth in our economy is the lowest in 20 years. He should put in place the 50,000 child care spaces promised by the Liberal Party and ensure cash transfers are maintained so that the national health care system is preserved.

In other words, unity will be achieved by what we do to ensure economic security, safe communities and the rights of Canadian citizenship, which surely must mean good health care, jobs, security for the elderly and the eradication of child poverty. Instead of trying to devise formulas for 50 ways to say no, the Prime Minister must create unity by creating a country in which every Canadian wants to say yes.

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable interest that I rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C-110 concerning a veto for Quebec.

You are aware that, during the referendum, the Prime Minister spoke of major change and promises. What is odd, immediately after the referendum, is that the Prime Minister is saying he made little promises and that he has just acted on his little promises.

As regards Quebec's veto and the concept of distinct society, it would be a good idea perhaps to remember the people of Quebec have a motto, which is: "Je me souviens", or "I remember". We often have to remind the Prime Minister of Canada, a Quebecer himself, to remember a little bit of Quebec's history. We must also remind Quebecers that they have a history that they must never forget.

Quebecers have been demanding their rights and privileges since Confederation, when they were misled. This Confederation was decided on without Quebecers being asked for their opinion, without a referendum, probably with the help of a few Quebecers who were richly rewarded afterwards. Between 1936 and 1940, Mr. Duplessis was already saying that, of course, Quebec had to "repatriate its booty". The Union nationale, a party of Quebec nationalists, was created as early as 1936. Mr. Duplessis managed to stay in power for almost 20 years by repeating that the federal government must not be allowed to encroach on Quebec's jurisdiction. Then, in the 1960s, Mr. Lesage was elected by talking about being "Masters in our own house".

You must remember that these slogans were very important; Mr. Lesage, a former deputy minister in Ottawa, came to Quebec City after realizing that Quebec was being taken for a ride. He led the Liberal Party to power with a slogan that went like this: "Masters in our own house". A little later, Mr. Johnson senior became Premier as leader of the Union nationale by calling for "Equality or independence". In 1976, Mr. Lévesque won the election on a sovereignty-association platform. As you can see, this is nothing new.

I wish to remind him today that this is nothing new and that the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois are not the only forces behind the recent referendum. It has a long history. In 1980, Mr. Lévesque lost his referendum because of Mr. Trudeau's promises that they would patriate the Constitution and amend it in line with Quebecers' legitimate needs.

Again, this promise was not kept, since the Constitution was patriated and amended without Quebec's consent. This is somewhat reminiscent of the Prime Minister's promises in the last referendum.

I was elected here for the first time in 1984 with a mandate for national reconciliation. We wanted to reconcile all that. From early 1985 all the way up to 1987, we worked very hard on what was called the Meech Lake project, which met with the provincial premiers' approval in 1987. But since it had been decided that the consent of seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the popula-

tion was required to amend the Constitution, consent had to be sought. The provinces were given three years to approve the agreement signed by the premiers in 1987.

You will recall that, in 1990, the Meech Lake accord was rejected, by English Canada in particular, once again with the support of the current Prime Minister, who made every effort to have it fail, in co-operation with premier Wells of Newfoundland and Ms. Carstairs, who was leader of the Liberal Party in Saskatchewan at the time and has since been appointed to the Senate. She was rewarded for doing that.

All this to show that, once again, the current Prime Minister was against it, because his only goal at the time was to become the next Prime Minister of Canada. He made every effort to ensure that the Meech Lake project fail because, had it worked, it would has been to the credit of the Conservatives. Since they could not allow that to be, the current Prime Minister, then preparing to become the leader of the Liberal Party, did his best to have this project fail, so that he could have a chance of becoming the Prime Minister of Canada. That is what we must bear in mind.

When the Meech Lake accord failed, they panicked, so to speak, wondering what to do. That is when the commissions started, the Castonguay-Dobbie commission and all the others. There was also Keith Spicer's travelling commission. That cost us millions. At the same time, Quebec got into the act and established the Bélanger-Campeau commission. That was the most serious exercise ever conducted in Quebec since Confederation.

More than 600 briefs were submitted to the commission. Over 200 witnesses were heard, and 55 experts were hired by the Quebec Liberal government of the time. The commission came to the conclusion that, to thrive and grow, while also preserving its culture and its language, Quebec needed greater powers, more than 20 real powers, to achieve its destiny as a nation.

During that period, as I mentioned earlier, the Castonguay-Dobbie and Spicer federal commissions were working on a project called the Charlottetown proposal. A referendum was held in 1992 and, unfortunately, the project was still not quite complete. It was called a draft and it was truly that.

In spite of all that, English Canada turned down the proposal because it felt that Quebecers would be getting too much. As for Quebecers, they felt that they would not get enough. So, everybody voted against the proposal, though not for the same reasons.

As you can see, it is not possible to reach an agreement. There are two irreconcilable views in this country that must be acknowledged. Following that referendum, Quebecers elected a sovereignist federal party, the Bloc Quebecois, in 1993. Out of 75 MPs, they sent 53 Bloc members to Ottawa. Let us not forget that. Then, the following year, another sovereignist party, the Parti Quebecois, was elected in Quebec. Finally, a Quebec referendum was held in 1995. This is when the Prime Minister promised major changes. But now he comes up with minor changes and he has the nerve to say: "Here are the small changes I promised you". However, during the referendum, Quebecers were led to believe that there would be major changes.

Unfortunately, we lost that referendum. However, 49.4 per cent of Quebecers supported sovereignty. The two sides were literally neck and neck. Sixty per cent of Quebec's French speaking voters supported sovereignty, but this is not enough to achieve our destiny.

As I said, in 1980, Mr. Trudeau promised major constitutional changes. Quebecers believed him, but he did just the opposite of what he had said. In the 1995 referendum, the current Prime Minister also promised major changes. Everybody was expecting great constitutional amendments. But instead, all we get are not even amendments, just a House of Commons bill, Bill C-110, which gives Quebec a veto and recognizes Quebec as a distinct society. This is a far cry from constitutional amendments.

We know full well that a bill can be amended at any time. Even the present government could amend this act tomorrow morning, next week, next month. The Liberal government could be replaced and its successor could decide to change this constitutional amendment. This does not mean anything. This is an affront to the people of Quebec.

Moreover, five regions are given a veto: British Columbia, the western provinces, Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes. A veto for Quebec would mean, for instance, that Quebec has a veto on account of it being a people who is a minority in Canada. The Quebec people must have a veto. But if it is also given to everybody else, it does not mean anything any more.

The Prime Minister is once again trying to deceive Quebecers, to trick them. He keeps on repeating: "We want to give Quebecers a veto, we want to recognize Quebec as a distinct society". But at the same time, he does not mention the he is giving a veto to the others.

Essentially, what this really means is that the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party have decided that there will never be any constitutional amendment. By giving a veto to five regions, you make sure that there will always be a region which will not agree to the amendments put forward by the federal government or somebody else. There will always be obstacles and the Prime Minister is deceiving the Quebec people trying to make them believe that they are being given veto power. By giving veto power to everybody he is not willing to amend the Constitution. It is as simple as that.

It is a trap and I am telling Quebecers that the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party of Canada are trying to deceive them. If we are voting against this veto power and against this distinct society it is because it is a trap set for Quebecers. I want to say that clearly to Quebecers today.

It is an insult to Quebecers and they should remember the little story I just told, because we tend to forget it.

At the present time, what the Prime Minister is doing is making fools of Quebecers. He believes they are not too bright. He seems to think that Quebecers have a short memory.

I remind the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party that in Quebec the motto on the license plates is "Je me souviens", I remember. I often tell my constituents: Never forget to look at the car in front of you, its license plate probably says: "Je me souviens". We should remember our history, it is not that long. If we do, maybe we will not be duped so easily.

During the last referendum, people in English Canada panicked because polls were saying the yes side was leading. They were totally panicked. Why? Because the Prime Minister of Canada had made these people believe that there was no danger whatsoever that Quebecers would ever vote for sovereignty. Yet, it was close. It was very close and I find it regrettable that the Prime Minister had concealed the Quebec reality from the rest of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, you are indicating that my time is up. Is it, really?

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is the Chair's fault; your time was up four minutes ago.

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would have a lot more to say, but I think that what I just mentioned will certainly enlighten Quebecers.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the more I hear from the government, and from the Bloc Quebecois and its leader, it begs the question: Why are we wasting time trying to fix the problems of Confederation in Quebec when the leader of the Bloc, the heir apparent of the separatist Parti Quebecois in the province of Quebec, has stated that he will not accept anything that is done? Why not get on with fixing the problems that affect all of Canada, including Quebec? When the Government of Quebec is ready to sit down at the table and discuss its concerns, that is the time to do fine tuning on Quebec's specific problems.

Let us look at our humble beginnings in this country. What is now Quebec and Ontario was thought of as the main part of Canada. The rest was looked on as the colonies. The Atlantic region was mainly considered an east coast access, the prairies as farm country and British Columbia as west coast access. Each outlying region was expected to harvest its raw materials or produce and send it to the centre for processing and consumption. It was not until the 1930s that the prairies gained control over its oil and gas reserves.

The government of the day primarily represented central Canada and concerned itself mainly with the issues of central Canada. The rest of the country was simple, under developed and relatively unconcerned with the concentration of power at the centre core. That notwithstanding the fact that there was a certain reluctance on the part of many people in British Columbia to join Confederation. It was not until late this century that Newfoundland on the opposite coast finally agreed to join Confederation.

Overall this worked acceptably but times change. Consider how the average family operates. Within that family there are certain rules by the head of the family, by a parent laying down rules that are appropriate for the time and place of that family. As the younger members of the family become teenagers, if the parent group continues to treat them like pre-schoolers, there will be a lot of resentment and problems within that family.

As those teenagers grow into adults, as times change and as evolution takes place in their personal development, it will be time for them to move on and become adults in their own right, to stand on their own. If the rules of the family have grown with them and been proper and reasonable, then there will always be close family ties and there will be an interdependence and relationship between family members. However, if the head of the family is unyielding and unreasonable, then the younger family members will flee the family, never to be a part of it again. This is a very fitting analogy to view the way Canada is going at this moment.

Quebec is distinct. No one could or wishes to dispute that. However, the Atlantic provinces are distinct in their heritage and culture. The prairies had a much harder struggle for survival and development than central Canada. That makes them unique, or as the popular buzzword goes today, distinct. British Columbia is geographically and culturally distinct from the rest of this country. Perhaps the most distinct of all is the territories. Their unique geography and climate sets them apart form the rest of the country. It takes a special kind of person to develop the territories and those people and their area are unquestionably distinct.

The only way the concept of a distinct society can be dealt with fairly is to recognize that all of Canada is made up of a collection of distinct societies, each with its merits. Saying this does not diminish the uniqueness of Quebec's language or culture but no province, territory, region or group should have any special powers not bestowed on the others.

Each of the provinces should have more autonomy to deal with its needs. Most of what Quebec apparently wants should be granted to all provinces. When the federal government finally realizes that not only the 19th century is gone but most of the 20th century as well, perhaps it will start to deal with the needs of the 21st century. It is time to realize that Canada is no longer a central core with supporting colonies on either end.

The whole concept of a constitutional veto is wrong. What is needed is constitutional ratification which is now in place with the seven and fifty formula. The current veto legislation is a knee jerk reaction from a government that felt it needed to do something and frankly did not know what to do.

First it was a veto for Quebec. When that did not sell, it added in the provinces and regional concept. Still no sale, so the government tinkered a bit more. As it now stands there are senior provinces and junior provinces. Reform's position has always been that if there is a veto it is the people of the various provinces or regions that should have it.

When the government first came forward with its ill-conceived veto idea, it could not have gotten it more wrong if it tried. Sometimes I think it probably did try. First and most important, it provided this veto to the regional governments instead of the people. Second, it did not even know the proper concept for the regions. Belatedly it tried to correct its error on the real number of regions but in so doing it continued to provide vetoes to governments instead of the people.

Imagine the horror of people right across this country: a veto on the Constitution in the hands of a separatist government. Bill C-110 is not a unity bill. It is a disunity bill.

The Prime Minister thought he could get away with his standard strategy during the Quebec referendum. That strategy is doing absolutely nothing. What the heck, it has kept the government artificially high in the polls ever since the election so why not continue? The swing to the yes side leading up to the referendum provided the answer to that. The Prime Minister's lack of leadership, which had worked so well for him in the past, proved to be a problem which almost cost us the country.

His continued lack of a real plan and his unwillingness to deal with the real problems may yet destroy the country. For too long divisiveness has been a great problem in Canada: English versus the French, aboriginal versus non-aboriginal as well as cultural issues.

Instead of working to resolve the differences and making all Canadians equal, the government has worked on the basis of divide and conquer. It seems to believe that only where there is confrontation is there a real need for government. It is time for the government to realize that it is not the solution and in fact is the problem.

This latest bill by the government, often referred to as something drafted on the back of a napkin, follows the old divide and conquer philosophy. However the government is losing its ability to conquer. When that happens, all that is left of the old formula is divide.

The Bloc Quebecois and Parti Quebecois are really one and the same. They must be taking a secret delight in the government's latest faulty strategy. Both of them want to break up the country at any cost and the Prime Minister is playing right into their hands. The country's problems cannot be solved by playing one problem against another, and that is exactly what Bill C-110 does.

The Prime Minister knew that offering a deal to Quebec alone would not be accepted so he included another province, Ontario. When that did not appear to be working he added one more, British Columbia. When Alberta protested he suggested that it effectively had a veto over the rest of the prairies by virtue of its population mass.

Indian versus white, immigrant versus citizen, English versus French, east versus west, and now province versus province. When will the government wake up and realize that it is not saving or protecting the country but is destroying it?

Bill C-110 is not the answer to the country's problems. It is a symptom of the problems. Not only should the bill not be passed. It should not even be voted on. If the government had any integrity at all it would withdraw the bill and proceed instead to a process of decentralization.

Not only will I not be supporting the bill, but as a member of Parliament from B.C. and one who has certain unquestioned loyalties to my home province I will also vote against the amendment to give B.C. a veto. To do otherwise would be providing an indication of endorsing a nationally unacceptable concept.

Instead of the continuing policy of divide and conquer, it is long past time that the government started practising a new policy of equality of all people and provinces in Canada. It may be a bit much for me to expect it. However it is Christmastime. Maybe miracles still happen. What a Christmas present it would be for Canada if it happened now.

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today, we are rushing through debate on Bill C-110, an act respecting constitutional amendments.

I say rushing, because, as you know, the Liberal government has been attempting in the last few days to speed up the political process to ensure speedy passage of Bill C-110.

Let us first take a look at the general context of this real crab trap the Prime Minister got himself caught in, according to some analysts, and we certainly agree with them.

A few days before the October 30 Quebec referendum, the federal Prime Minister, driven by panic, made an about-face and promised major changes to Canadian federalism. So, in early November, he created two committees made up of federal ministers in order to examine the issue of constitutional and administrative changes. I want to point out that, since then, we never heard anything more about those committees.

Then, on November 27, two weeks ago, even before knowing what these committees werre going to propose, the Canadian government announced its intentions on constitutional matters: first, a resolution symbolically recognizing the distinct nature of Quebec, then a bill where the federal government committed itself to never adopt constitutional amendments to which one of the four regions of Canada, namely, Quebec, Ontario, the Maritimes and the West, were opposed.

Finally, the third measure expressed Ottawa's intention to partially withdraw from manpower training programs, while, of course, maintaining control over funds and national standards. One can understand the government for trying to gag any opponent of its constitutional reform package. The utter mess it has created and cannot get itself out of verges on the most grotesque cynicism.

Quebecers have nevertheless seen through its scheme. The results of a SOM poll which was released last Friday show that 53 per cent of Quebecers find the federal proposals inadequate, and a meagre 24 per cent find them adequate.

Interviews for the poll were conducted between December 2 and December 5, two days before the last episode of government bungling over the veto for B.C. and Alberta. Results would be even more critical if the poll were taken today.

As far as improvisation and inconsistency go, in an area as fundamental as constitutional changes, the federal government takes the cake. Even before Quebecers had a chance to say these proposals were unacceptable, the federal government yielded to pressure from the west and granted a veto to B.C. and a veto by default to Alberta.

But the show did not end there. Last week, federal Liberals fell all over themselves to tell us Quebec does not have a distinct culture and there is only one Canadian culture from coast to coast.

We have a government that claims to be willing to grant symbolic recognition of Quebec's distinctive character, but says at the same time that this does not mean anything and that Quebecers do not have a distinct culture. As I already said, these intellectual flip-flops are tragically funny and deceptive.

With Bill C-110, the roundabout ways of the government are just as difficult to follow. First of all, we are told that this bill gives Quebec a veto power, which Quebec thought it had until the Supreme Court stated otherwise in 1982. Since it is one of the two founding nations, Quebecers had always thought that, in order to maintain a good relationship, both partners had to agree before major changes could be made. However, Bill C-110 does the exact opposite and achieves an incredible feat by annoying all Canadians from sea to sea to sea.

Quebecers have always considered the veto power as, by definition, a kind of constitutional protection, because they did not want to relive the events of 1982 and be excluded from the constitutional amendment and reform process. But Bill C-110 is only a bill. All it will take is a majority of members in this House and Quebec can say goodbye to its veto power.

We are far from entrenching this power in the fundamental law of Canada. This unconstitutionalized veto will not be granted only to the two founding nations.

At first, besides Quebec, Bill C-110 was to grant this veto power to Ontario, the Atlantic provinces and the Western provinces. A week later, after a press conference given by the premiers of B.C. and Alberta, these two provinces also got the veto power. By the end of my speech, the federal government may have granted a veto to Nova Scotia and Manitoba.

As my colleague from Bellechasse put it, in his colourful language, this is the Colonel Sanders' veto power, a big chicken with legs for everybody.

The message the Liberal government is conveying is pretty simple: Quebec is a province like any other and only gets a veto because of the size of its population. With the recent presents offered to us by our federal Santa Claus in this Christmas season, any change will require the support of at least seven provinces representing at least 91.8 per cent of the Canadian population.

In other words, Quebec is not getting a veto, but rather a guarantee that all future constitutional negotiations will have the same fate as Meech or Charlottetown. We have reached a constitutional dead end and there is virtually no way of getting out.

One has to be particularly out of touch-and we thought we had seen the worst of it with the Charlottetown Accord-to add insult to injury.

In a press release dated November 27 of this year, the Liberal government said, and I quote: "Now is not the time to hold a round of constitutional talks since the Government of Quebec is completely dedicated to the secessionist option. If conditions changed, that is if Quebec and the other regions agreed, the veto proposal contained in this bill could be enshrined in the Constitution".

So the federal government is imposing its own constitutional rules without seeking the approval of Canada's four or five regions-the number varies from one day to the next. Already the government is not respecting the principles of Bill C-110 in its current approach. Like Trudeau in 1982, this Liberal government is trying to impose a formula for amending the Constitution through a process that goes against the very principle underlying the proposed formulas.

In closing, I urge Liberal members to oppose Bill C-110-I know I am dreaming but one more nightmare will not make a difference-for the simple reason that if Liberal members love Quebec so much, as they came to tell us before the referendum, they should understand that Quebecers will never be satisfied with empty shells and constitutional footballs that have no more credibility that the rhetoric that comes with them. The least we can say is that, in the best country in the world, even crabs are laughing their heads off.