House of Commons Hansard #277 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was dangerous.

Topics

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

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

moved:

That, pursuant to its mandate in relation to the Comprehensive Review of the Young Offenders Act (Phase II), and specifically, to observe how the youth justice system operates in practice, the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs (6 members): four (4) from the Liberal Party including the Chair, one (1) from the Bloc Quebecois and one (1) from the Reform Party, be authorized to travel to:

I. Halifax, Sydney, (N. S.), and Charlottetown (P. E. I.) from February 18 to 23, 1996;

II. To Toronto and London (Ont.) from March 3 to 8, 1996;

III. Montreal and Quebec (Que.) from March 24 to 29, 1996,

in order to hold public hearings, visit sites (young offender facilities and programs) and meet with officials and that the necessary staff do accompany the Committee.

(Motion agreed to.)

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Milliken Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, since we are almost at the end of the session, I should like to take the unusual step of thanking my hon. colleagues opposite for their co-operation in arranging for all the routine motions that we have on a regular basis.

The hon. member for Roberval, the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie, the hon. member for Bellechasse, the hon. member for Lethbridge and the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan have spent a lot of time going over these documents in advance. I thank them for their co-operation, as well as all hon. members who patiently listen while we go through this rigmarole on a regular basis to have the motions adopted.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Nick Discepola Liberal Vaudreuil, QC

Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure of submitting a petition signed by about 100 people from the Montreal region, including some of my constituents.

The petitioners ask Parliament to amend the charter of rights and freedoms so as to protect individuals against discrimination based on sexual orientation.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Bethel Liberal Edmonton East, AB

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a petition today signed by 359 residents of Edmonton.

It has been over one month since Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other Ogoni activists were executed. The Prime Minister condemned this atrocity at the Commonwealth summit. Reaction to these executions at the University of Alberta was strong and swift.

The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade is reviewing the situation tomorrow morning. I ask that members consider the views of my constituents in their deliberations.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

NDP

Svend Robinson NDP Burnaby—Kingsway, BC

Madam Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present today.

The first petition notes that employees of the House of Commons, the Senate, the Library of Parliament and the staff of members and senators have no health and safety protection under

the law. The petitioners note a number of circumstances in which their health and safety have been jeopardized on the Hill.

They call upon Parliament to press the government to finally proclaim parts II and III of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

NDP

Svend Robinson NDP Burnaby—Kingsway, BC

Madam Speaker, the second petition is presented on behalf of hundreds of Canadians, in particular Tamil Canadians, who express their deep concern about the continuing military offensive by the Sri Lankan armed forces against Tamils in the north and east of Sri Lanka.

It calls upon Parliament to ensure that Canadian neutrality in the national conflict is not jeopardized; to intervene immediately and release Mr. Manickavasagam Suresh who was arrested in Canada pursuant to a minister's certificate; to take action to lift the economic embargo and press censorship in the north and east of Sri Lanka; and to resolve the conflict between the Tamil people and the Sri Lankan government through peaceful negotiations between the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE, the representative of the Tamil people.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

NDP

Svend Robinson NDP Burnaby—Kingsway, BC

Madam Speaker, I have an additional petition to present dealing with the very serious situation in East Timor.

It calls upon Parliament to send a clear message to the Indonesian government from Canadians that human rights violations against the people of Indonesian, and especially East Timor, will not be tolerated; to enforce this statement by making recent trade and aid deals with Indonesia contingent on respect for human rights as set out in the petition; and to ensure that Canada lends full and vocal support to the United Nations mediated peace process, pressing for the inclusion of East Timorese representatives in the peace process and access to East Timor for the United Nations and human rights and humanitarian organizations.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

NDP

Svend Robinson NDP Burnaby—Kingsway, BC

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the final petition which is signed by residents of Victoria and other cities in British Columbia.

It calls upon Parliament to establish a peace tax legislation which recognizes the right of conscientious objectors not to pay for the military and within which the government would declare its commitment to apply that portion of their taxes that was to be used for military purposes toward peaceful purposes such as peace education, war relief, humanitarian and environmental aid, and housing.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Rey D. Pagtakhan Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, I have the honour, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present some 1,000 signatures of petitioners from my riding of Winnipeg North and beyond concerning certain aspects of our immigration policy.

They pray that the landing fee be collected at the issuance of the visa and that no surety bond requirements for applicants be applied.

Knowing that the minister of immigration is sensitive and caring about immigrants and their sponsoring families, this member remains very optimistic.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Reform

Bob Mills Reform Red Deer, AB

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present to Parliament a petition signed by a number of people in Alberta regarding the military offensive by the Sri Lankan armed forces against the Tamil regions.

The petitioners are requesting the restoration of their rights and dignity and the release of Mr. Manickavasagam Suresh.

Therefore the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure Canadian neutrality in the national conflict in Sri Lanka is not jeopardized. They request Parliament to intervene immediately and release Mr. Suresh.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Clifford Lincoln Liberal Lachine—Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from 41 people in my riding and in the regions adjoining, written in both of Canada's official languages.

The petitioners ask the Prime Minister and the Parliament of Canada to immediately state and confirm that Canada is indivisible and that the boundaries of Canada, its provinces, territories and territorial waters may only be modified by a free vote of all Canadian citizens as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or through the amending formula stipulated in the Canadian Constitution.

It provides that Canada is indivisible and that the boundaries of Canada, its provinces, territories and territorial waters may be modified either by a free vote of all Canadian citizens as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or through the amending formula stipulated in the Canadian Constitution.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Reform

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

Madam Speaker, it is my honour today to present to the House a petition containing over 500,000 signatures from the

Melanie Carpenter Society. To be exact, there are 506,285 signatures in seven boxes full of petitions.

The petitioners pray that Parliament will enact legislation to keep dangerous sex offenders and pedophiles locked up for life; to eliminate statutory release; to impose stiffer sentences for violent offenders; to have violent criminals serve their full sentences and have time added for bad behaviour; to have a central registry for the names and addresses of violent offenders; to give more power to legal institutions to keep dangerous criminals, even after their sentences are served if they are still at risk to society; to give the police more authority in apprehending and interrogating violent offenders, including the ability to take blood and salvia samples; to eliminate the insanity, drunk or drugged defence; to impose stiffer laws and sentences for stalker criminals; and to reinstate capital punishment for first degree murder in which there is no doubt of guilt. They humbly pray that Parliament enact legislation.

I present these over 500,000 signatures from Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of the city of Vancouver, B.C.

They call upon Parliament to endorse the Bessborough Armoury Community Services project for the use of underused defence institutions in the city of Vancouver, and to initiate appropriate action to designate the armoury facility for shared use and make it accessible to the residents of the city of Vancouver for the community services proposed.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC

Madam Speaker, I have another petition to present from the people of British Columbia.

The petitioners respectfully call upon Parliament to enact legislation requiring that all containers of alcohol sold in Canada bear warning labels, alerting consumers of the attendant risks of alcohol consumption.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Reform

Ed Harper Reform Simcoe Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.

The first group of 200 petitioners requests that Parliament pass legislation to strengthen the Young Offenders Act, including publishing the names of young offenders, lowering the age of application and transferring serious offenders to adult court.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Reform

Ed Harper Reform Simcoe Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, the second group of petitioners requests that the Government of Canada not amend the Human Rights Act to include the phrases sexual orientation.

The petitioners fear that such an inclusion could lead to homosexuals receiving the same benefits and societal privileges as married people.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

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

Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Is that agreed?

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

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

Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Is that agreed?

Motions For PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Constitutional Amendments ActGovernment Orders

December 13th, 1995 / 3:25 p.m.

York West Ontario

Liberal

Sergio Marchi Liberalfor the Minister of Justice

moved that Bill C-110, an act respecting constitutional amendments, be read the third time and passed.

Constitutional Amendments ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

York West Ontario

Liberal

Sergio Marchi LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration

Madam Speaker, I am pleased and proud to take part in the debate in the Chamber this afternoon on third reading of Bill C-110, an act respecting constitutional amendments.

It will be very difficult for all of us in the short time allocated to each speech to capture the essence of how members feel about Canada and our shared future. However allow me to try nonetheless.

I listened carefully to the members opposite who told us what we cannot or should not do. I want to tell you about what we should do, can do and will do. With the support of all Canadians, we are going to unite Canada, and this is precisely what this debate will be all about.

I have listened to the ideologues of the Bloc Quebecois who would rather tear down than build. I have listened to Reformers who, despite all their loud noises, shouts and grunts, are really the couch potatoes of national unity. They would rather second guess. They would rather criticize than encourage. They would rather watch than participate as they did during the last referendum.

Participation is one of the two issues I should like to talk about for a moment. We have all heard the word participaction. Perhaps it is now time to talk about citizaction. Just as participaction is about exercising the body, citizaction should be about exercising our responsibilities and obligations as citizens of this great country. Good citizenship is not only about sitting on your hands and criticizing, like the third party, but it is also about getting out and doing something.

Good citizenship also means making a difference. At the end of the referendum we witnessed in a very moving and a very powerful way how average Canadians across this land answered that call and defined what citizenship is and should be all about.

I am talking about the unity rally in Montreal. I am talking about the candlelight vigils on the Pacific coast. I am talking about the march by tens of thousands of Canadians across the bridges between Hull and Ottawa. I am talking about the raising of the Canadian flag on Signal Hill in Newfoundland; all of these and many of the other demonstrations where people came together in the sense of collectivity, in the defence of a sense of community and demonstrated their affection not only for their country but for the kind of deep rooted commitment they have to good citizenship from coast to coast to coast.

This is a country of doers and not whiners. This is a nation of home builders and not home wreckers. The October 27 rally in Montreal for me and many others was a day like very few. We shall never forget that day for those who either watched it or participated in it. It was a day when the Canadian family showed what it was all about, considering the jammed buses and trains and planes that created that incredible movement to Montreal.

The Toronto caucus in metropolitan Toronto and area was able to facilitate on two days notice 100 buses of committed Canadians who wanted to do something about this country, about the inability to facilitate any other coach in the Ontario system because they were all gone.

We had to rent buses from Pennsylvania because of the lack of buses in the Ontario system. The Finch West Bakery in my riding, because people were getting up and lining up at 4.00 in the morning to get on one of these coaches, provided croissants and muffins and orange juice as its contribution to this movement.

We have to consider people like John Campion who said: "We cannot go but we would like to fundraise for those who want to go but may not be able to afford to go on their own". We had an outpouring of Canadians coming forward with financial contributions.

We had strangers who could not get on the bus and who car pooled with other strangers. All of a sudden, through that exercise we had instant friendship and instant family that tied us together quite naturally.

It sounds simple, and maybe it was, but it really was about ordinary Canadians doing extraordinary things. Farmers from Quebec shook hands with those farmers who travelled from western Canada. It was about a schoolgirl who sang the national anthem next to me, who was beside a gentleman who was born thousands of miles away in southeast Asia but who now proudly calls his home Canada.

It is the kind of thanks and appreciation, without being patronizing, we received from our fellow family Quebecers on the streets of Montreal who said thank you for coming down in solidarity, thank you for not abandoning the concept of community and of family, despite the attempts of some in the media to portray things clearly that were not the reality on that day.

One of the lessons that rally taught all of us, particularly the political class on both government and opposition benches, is that unity requires inclusion. That was the strong message of the rally. It showed Canadians also need to get involved and be part of the solution. Canadians must be able to sing the song and not only hold the song sheet in order for the country to continue to be the kind of society that is recognized not only by us but, more important, by those across the globe.

On that day in Montreal there were thousands of individual acts by ordinary Canadians that epitomized what good citizenship is all about. Sometimes as the minister of citizenship I am called to define citizenship, what active and engaged citizenship means. Sometimes we have these speeches that try to articulate that. Yet how powerful and eloquent instead of those speeches was the act on that day that gave expression to what active and engaged citizenship should be and is all about.

We have also heard from our friends in the Bloc mutter about the federalist plots and the discount fares which were the real reasons people came together in Montreal. Does the leader really think a cabal of schemers and plotters as well organized as it may be could have produced such spectacular events without the willing, enthusiastic participation of those Canadians? I think not.

Does he subscribe to the politics of exclusion, to the politics of marginalizing people on the sidelines of our country? That is the

second issue I would like to touch on this afternoon, the attempt by some to marginalize segments and people in Canadian society.

Canada cannot and will not survive in a climate of tribalism or of attempting to push certain groups to those dark corners, to those margins. This initiative today is not and cannot be only about history. It cannot be restricted or limited in debating only the English and French reality in the country.

This debate has also to be about our present and about our tomorrows. We must be inclusive and talk about today and a future that includes the French and the English facts that gave rise to the country. We must also embrace without reservation, without qualification the reality of the aboriginal people in Canada and the millions of Canadians whose origins span the globe.

It is only when we speak of these four pillars, the French, the English, the aboriginals and the Canadians who have adopted this country as theirs, does it give full expression to Canada. Only then will it be inclusive and only then can Canada be entirely whole.

Let me be very clear to those across the way who would want to dance neatly through the politics of exclusion by attempting to shrug off too many statements that were nothing more than veiled ethnic slurs, slurs that really try to appeal to people's darker sides and lowest instincts. It was not only a case of pure campaign gimmickry to alienate and marginalize individuals in the province of Quebec; it continues today, after the referendum was fought and won by Canada.

It continued this week when elements of that separatist movement suggested ethnic communities in Quebec were enemies of Quebec. It was articulated by Pierre Bourgault, who had the audacity and the courage to suggest that those Greeks, Italians and Jews were racist because they voted for Canada.

The separatists across the way and those beside them who participate in the politics of division would want to stratify our province of Quebec, our nation of Canada into different classes of people. They would want us to talk about them and us.

I find it exceedingly ironic that the separatists would try to chide, castigate and humiliate those communities which in large numbers have always supported the quest for the French Canadian identity in Quebec and across the country, those which largely have always supported the quest for that French Canadian language not only to be preserved and protected but to be enhanced, those which in the late sixties and early seventies supported the battle for bilingualism which Mr. Trudeau and the current Prime Minister fought tooth and nail for.

They did so willingly. They did so because they believed in that, because it defined what Quebec in Canada is and should be about. They also did so because they identified with that kind of quest for themselves, which is also part of Quebec and part of Canada.

We have the maturity and the foresight in this country such that when immigrants come through our airports we do not ask them to check their cultural baggage at Revenue Canada, Canada Customs and Immigration Canada. We say they are no less Canadian for believing in who they had been for the past 30 years or in the forces that shaped them in Europe, in Africa, in South America.

Now because those ethnic communities, as they are referred to, have the temerity to choose Canada, they are ridiculed. It is the separatists who are wrong because there does not have to be a choice. Those members in the Canadian family labelled ethnic want both and can have both because the two concepts are compatible. One can be fiercely loyal to Canada and our flag while at the same time aggressively promoting that which is the very essence of Quebec or our other provinces and territories.

That is their mistake, that they push for that either/or, when in fact those members of the Canadian family labelled as ethnic have always supported both, the search for the French Canadian identity and the eloquence of being a member of the Canadian family, the best membership the world knows.

When we cast our minds back to October 27 on the streets of Montreal, there were also immigrants at that rally. There were ethics at that rally. There were people whose skin tone was different from ours and there were people whose mother tongue was different from ours. However, we should never forget, let alone castigate them, that they were there because they too love Canada and Quebec, because they too helped build Canada and Quebec and because this is not just our home; this is also Quebec and Canada, their home.

The government will never play that ugly game of exclusion because that is a game that quite frankly breeds racism, hate and division. If we were to go down that dark ally which some want us to travel it truly would be the beginning of the end, without exaggerating.

All we have to do is notice on our television screens every night the kinds of wars and division this so-called world of ours is engaged in. If we think of the root causes which regrettably give life to the kinds of acts of one against the other, it is always found in the very divisions these statements would have us propelled into, the game of exclusion that does breed racism, hate and division between brothers and sisters.

We also know or should know in our souls that unity is certainly not exclusively built around constitutional amendments, constitutional discussions or constitutional conferences. I think Canadians know this very well. It is much more than that. Constitutions do not necessarily build countries. Constitutions do not necessarily give

countries greatness. Constitutions do not necessarily provide countries with momentum. People do.

Unity is bound by how we treat each other. On this score, Canadians and the very essence of Canada as I define it have always valued generosity, inclusion and a sense of compassion for one another. That is one of the reasons our country has been able to prosper over the years. This is not the time to abandon those values because those same values are needed the most at this time.

We must make these values part of our daily lives, perhaps even celebrate them in special events such as National Citizenship Week and Flag Day. This coming year, the two events will be combined into a week of celebrations around the theme Canada: take it to heart.

We have recently begun to note in Canadians throughout the country a growing desire to show their great love of Canada and their concern for the state of the nation in some concrete way.

It was with this in mind that the Canada take it to heart initiative was developed by the citizenship and immigration department working with the Canadian heritage department. Together we created a special week of activities where Canadians can come together to celebrate their commitments as fellow citizens and their pride in being Canadian and the remarkable heritage and future we all share.

This is just one very modest way of expressing that sense of Canadian community. For that concept of community to survive and indeed thrive, it will need the help and co-operation of the entire Canadian family, of all Canadians in all regions of all ages and of all backgrounds. We should never forget that it is only through the participation of Canadians and the inclusion of all of her people that we can make Canada grow, thrive and flower.

Constitutional Amendments ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre De Savoye Bloc Portneuf, QC

Madam Speaker, Bill C-110 is a big mistake. It not only fails to respond to Quebec's expectations but even makes future constitutional amendments impossible, for all practical purposes. When everyone has a veto, the obvious and inevitable conclusion is that on any given proposal for a constitutional amendment, there will always be one holder of a veto who will use it to block such proposals.

Although the Prime Minister hinted to the House that recognition of the distinct society concept would eventually be included in the Constitution, the veto powers he is now distributing left and right will make it impossible to make any further amendments to the Constitution. It would be a joke, if it were not so tragic. However, this is symptomatic of a far more fundamental problem.

When provinces and First Nations insist on each having a veto on any constitutional amendment, this can mean either that all parties are so pleased with the Constitution as it stands that they want to give each other assurances they will never change it, or they are showing a considerable distrust of the federal system. I am afraid the answer is obvious.

The present Constitution of Canada does not fit the economic, social and cultural realities of Canada today. The profound constitutional malaise in our societies today has many consequences for our daily lives, because of the combined impact of the federal government's legislative and spending powers.

That is why we are now saddled with an incredible deficit, why employment policies always were and still are formulated from the top down without any real regard for the provinces and why the spectre of national standards irrelevant to regional situations can only mean institutionalized chaos.

In this respect, the Quebec government's desire to establish a new partnership with the rest of Canada was and still is a unique way to start the 21st century with a process that would make for a new relationship and a new solidarity between the populations residing in the Canadian economic space. Unfortunately, traditionally federalist forces have stubbornly distorted Quebec's blueprint and made it out to be the opposite of what it really is.

Even the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration a few moments ago could not resist doing exactly that. The minister and this government must realize that when a majority of Quebecois voted no in the last referendum, it was in the hope that the Prime Minister would deliver on his promises.

The bill now before the House is not what was expected and is not what is needed. Therefore, no one should be surprised if in due time those who voted no shall want to reconsider through another democratic referendum.

In view of this, it is most unfortunate that the Reform Party proposes using legal force to oppose the legitimate will of the people of Quebec to reconsider democratically their future. Furthermore, it is also most unfortunate that the Reform Party has stated that shall the people of Quebec decide in favour of sovereignty, it should be denied this outcome using armed forces. Even the Prime Minister let it be known that he would object to the unfolding of this democratic process. This is intolerance and it is unacceptable in any democratic country.

Nor do we need the kind of statements that are spread around by the Liberal Party of Canada and repeated by the anglophone media, that Quebec is living on handouts from the rest of Canada and is not capable of taking full control of its tax system, legislation and international relations.

The exact opposite is true. In fact, Quebec contributes one quarter of federal revenues and also carries one-quarter of the federal debt, but unfortunately, it receives significantly less than its share of federal spending that creates jobs.

This unfortunately, but unavoidably, leads to proportionately greater unemployment insurance and social security expenditures. So that each federal transfer reduction measure wreaks even greater devastation on Quebec. This is exactly what has been happening in recent years. Per capita federal transfers in constant dollars have dropped significantly in the past few years.

This is why Quebec must take back control of its economic and tax levers at the earliest opportunity. To this end, serious and doubtless difficult negotiations will be required for the needed modernization of the constitutional framework. In the meantime, however, the very last thing we need is a bill that is both a bogus overture to Quebec and a straitjacket that will preclude any constitutional change in the future.

Traditionally, Quebec has always demanded a constitutional veto, and I repeat, constitutional, as protection against amendments to the Constitution which are contrary to its interests.

Let us take a quick look at history and remember that, in the early 1960s, the Fulton-Favreau formula arose out of a constitutional conference. It provided for a veto for the provinces on any constitutional amendment affecting their rights, powers and privileges. In 1971, the Victoria conference proposed a constitutional veto for Quebec, Ontario, two of the maritime provinces and at least two of the western provinces whose combined populations constituted a majority.

The mechanics of Bill C-110 are oddly similar to the Victoria formula, with one exception. In 1971, fourteen years ago, they were talking about a constitutional veto and not a simple legislative measure. It was the former Liberal premier of Quebec, Robert Bourassa, who turned down the Victoria accord, because it did not satisfy Quebecers.

Then, in 1979, the Pepin-Robarts report proposed four regional vetoes, including one for Quebec. In 1982, then Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, with the help of the current Prime Minister, tore up the 1867 Constitution, replacing it with another one, without Quebec's consent. Ever since that time, there has been a crying need for a constitutional veto allowing Quebec to protect itself against amendments that would hurt its interests.

The famous Meech Lake accord, which was supposed to achieve reconciliation between Quebec and the rest of Canada after the 1982 patriation episode, would have given Quebec a veto. We know what happened next. The current Prime Minister torpedoed the accord with the help of Clyde Wells and his associates.

In 1991, Beaudoin-Edwards recommended four regional constitutional vetoes, including one for Quebec; in 1992, Beaudoin-Dobbie also recommended a constitutional veto for Quebec.

Even the Charlottetown accord, which was found clearly lacking by the vast majority of Quebecers in a referendum, would have given Quebec a veto.

As we can see, the constitutional veto demanded by Quebec is a constant political aspiration that has always been at the heart of its minimum requirements. That is why, when the Prime Minister portrayed the Constitution as a path to change and promised a veto, as he did in Montreal, Quebecers were clearly expecting a constitutional veto, since Quebec always talks about this as a minimum.

As we know, giving Quebec a constitutional veto would require the consent of the federal government and the 10 provinces. Yet, according to a recent poll, barely 10 per cent of people in the rest of Canada support a veto for Quebec. The Prime Minister must know that he is in no position to give Quebec a constitutional veto. He also knows that, as he keeps telling everyone in the rest of Canada, a legislative veto is not worth much.

That is why the government performed mental gymnastics to create the illusion that it is offering Quebec a real veto. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. What the Minister of Justice is proposing to this House is not a real veto. In fact, his bill would give Quebec no constitutional protection against constitutional amendments.

Bill C-110 is not a constitutional guarantee that would ensure that Quebec will be protected in the future. You and I know that the government in place could repeal this bill at will. In fact, that is exactly what the Reform Party said it would do upon taking office. This goes to show how tenuous the protection offered by Bill C-110 would be.

The federal government has some gall to talk about a veto when in fact what it is offering Quebec is all wind, an illusion. Worse yet, it actually guarantees that no constitutional change benefiting Quebec will ever be approved, since all it will take is for another veto right holder to object to nip any reform attempt in the bud. With Bill C-110, we can be sure that the federal system will be even more impossible to change than ever before, until such time as the government grows tired of resisting and finally decides to repeal the miserable act.

What this government has come up with is at best a sort of self-censorship that is only binding on this government, if at all. In fact, with this stroke of inspiration, the Prime Minister will have managed, if only briefly, to make the Canadian federal system even more inflexible by taking the dangerous step of protecting the status quo at his own risk.

In reality, Bill C-110 is intended solely to convince Quebecers that the Prime Minister is making good on his referendum promises. No one in Quebec will be taken in, as recent surveys prove quite well.

Half of Quebecers opted for sovereignty-partnership and the rest, the majority, pinned their hopes for renewed federalism, but the bogus veto proposed by the Minister of Justice will not satisfy even his erstwhile referendum allies who, let us keep in mind, have always called for a constitutional veto for Quebec.

The federal government "knows best" attitude has been, is and will remain totally counter productive in this country.

During the debates on this bill this House has had a chance to appreciate the Prime Minister's talent for improvisation-I have chosen that term deliberately-in para-constitutional matters, by granting the province of British Columbia its own veto. But we must be well aware that adding to the number of vetoes ends up watering down their value, by diminishing the concept and thus its effect as well.

It must be realized that, although having a veto reassures each veto holder that Canada could not go against its interests constitutionally, this does not in any way make it possible for a province to go where its interests dictate. In short, it is our feeling that not only does the formula proposed by the Minister of Justice run contrary to the higher interests of Quebec, it is also contrary to the higher interests of Canada. For this reason, I and the Bloc Quebecois will be opposing passage of this bill, in accordance with the convictions of the large majority of Quebecers.