House of Commons Hansard #45 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was nay.
Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would remind the minister that Quebec never signed the 1982 Constitution and its amending formula.
Can the Prime Minister offer any justification for his constitutional about-face other than that he has now decided to implement Plan B, a hard line approach with Quebec?
Marcel Massé LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, our goal has always been to reconcile Quebecers of all stripes with the rest of Canada, and to pass legislation and implement policies that will allow us to improve the well being of Quebecers and Canadians alike.
As a Quebecer, I must say that it is clear-
Marcel Massé Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I see that the Bloc Quebecois is reduced to negative slurs. Unfortunately, I must point out that when they say we are getting into bed with Mr. Bertrand, they are insulting one of their own former colleagues who saw clearly that PQ doctrine did not correspond to the needs of Quebecers. This is what makes us federalists, and Mr. Bertrand very clearly realized that the Bloc Quebecois's goals and policies run counter to the interests of Quebecers.
Stephen Harper Reform Calgary West, AB
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. It relates to the government's decision to intervene in the Bertrand case.
I think it is important that the minister has recognized the importance of defending the rule of law, without which the democratic process has no meaning.
To clarify fully the government's position, is it the position of the Government of Canada that any change to the constitutional status of a province would have to be done legally and would require under the amending formula the consent of all provinces?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, it is our position that any change in the make-up of the country would have to be done legally. As to the precise mechanics or dynamics, that is a matter of discussion even among academic and constitutional experts. I do not think it is possible to be categorical in saying exactly what protocol is required.
However, it is terribly important to emphasize, as is implicit in the hon. member's question, that democracy and the exercise of democratic freedoms go hand in hand with the rule of law. It is possible to exercise democratic freedoms only when the rule of law is firmly in place.
No one should think that mere adherence to the rule of law means change cannot take place. Change can happen effectively in a stable and orderly way only when the rule of law prevails, which is the approach we have taken to this issue.
Stephen Harper Reform Calgary West, AB
Mr. Speaker, that was a question I first asked the government on October 17, 1994. The government declined at the time to answer it, saying it was strictly hypothetical. It is good we are now answering it but I wish the government had more precise answers to the specifics on this issue.
My supplementary question is also from that date. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra has written that the federal government today retains its full constitutional options to allow or not to allow a referendum vote, to control the content wording of any referendum question, to control the actual timing of any vote and to launch its own pre-emptive nationwide referendum legally superseding any Quebec vote.
Do these statements reflect the position or the constitutional thinking of the Government of Canada?
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, if I understand the hon. member's question, it is the right of any provincial government to test the popular will of the population by putting a question in a consultation process through a referendum.
I think what is brought into sharp focus by the position taken by the attorney general of Quebec in the Bertrand litigation is the effect of such a consultative vote. It was implicitly said by the Quebec attorney general in the Bertrand litigation that should such a referendum, if it results in a positive vote, can supplant or replace the Constitution and the rule of law so that they have no application to the consequences.
To that we take direct and substantial opposition. We have involved ourselves in the litigation for the purpose of responding to that position as expressed by the attorney general of Quebec.
Stephen Harper Reform Calgary West, AB
Once again, Mr. Speaker, we support the intervention in this case, but I think it is fair to point out that we expect it would be done and will be done in a broader policy framework on all of these questions.
On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, the fear in Quebec is that the federal government would use the rule of law to deny the political and democratic will.
Will the minister confirm unequivocally that the political will of Quebecers, as expressed legally and democratically, will be respected and that the federal government will negotiate in good faith?
Marcel Massé LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure
It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government respects any wishes clearly expressed by the people.
It is also obvious that two referendums were held on the issue of Quebec's separation. Each time, the people of Quebec clearly indicated they did not want to separate.
If the idea is to get a definitive answer, I cannot help but wonder why the no vote does not constitute a definitive answer. Why does the Bloc Quebecois not accept the will very clearly expressed by Quebecers? They should stop fostering political uncertainty in Quebec, promoting unemployment across the province and causing problems to all Quebecers on something on which they have expressed their will twice already, both times voting no.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board talks about reconciling Quebecers and Canadians, but he should be concerned about reconciling federalists. Indeed, Daniel Johnson, the leader of the no side in Quebec, does not agree with the federal government. He recognizes the right of the people of Quebec to determine their own future. The federal government must be really desperate to make an ally of Guy Bertrand.
I want to ask the President of the Treasury Board, who said that the people of Quebec-those are the words he used-
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
You can bet the Prime Minister will have another version tomorrow.
"You have to right to express yourselves, you have the right to say what you want to be, you have the right to say that Quebec must become a sovereign country, but you must first ask for the permission of the rest of Canada". Is this what he is saying? I remind him that when Newfoundland joined the Confederation, it never asked Quebecers whether they agreed or not with that decision.
Marcel Massé LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, there is a people of Quebec like there is an Abenaki people, a Cree people and an Inuit people. I hope Quebecers will not deny the existence of the Abenaki or Inuit people.
The will of the public must clearly be subject to the laws of a national assembly and to a constitution. When there is a constitution in a country, the first democratic duty of citizens it to comply with the law that dictates the major policies in their country. This is what I am asking the Bloc Quebecois to do.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the minister that the first province to recognize the aboriginal nations was Quebec, on March 20, 1885, well before Ottawa.
The minister can try all he likes to justify himself, but the government's argument does not wash. This minister is part of a government that has lost the trust not just of Canadians, but also of Quebecers, because of its performance with the GST, its bizarre attitude with the army and its minister, its broken promises on discrimination, and the hopeless state of constitutional affairs.
Let the minister admit that the sole purpose of this strategy is to revamp the government's image in English Canada, because it needs it and, as usual, to do so under the leadership of the Prime Minister. This is a man who is accustomed to renewing his image at Quebec's expense, as he has done throughout his political career.
Marcel Massé LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, clearly, the Bloc Quebecois thinks that insults are their best argument today. In fact, it is their best argument, because if they are saying that they have recognized the peoples living in Quebec, such as the native peoples, then why do the native peoples not have the right, through a referendum as they are saying, to become sovereign themselves?
We can see only too well that their arguments make no sense and that it is therefore necessary to have a law setting out citizens' rights and the manner in which they may be expressed.
Leon Benoit Reform Vegreville, AB
Mr. Speaker, the results of a recent plebiscite in Alberta demonstrate that grain farmers want to have the choice to market their grain outside the Canadian Wheat Board.
In response, Alberta's minister of agriculture has presented the idea of buying grain from farmers for $1 per load in Alberta and selling it to farmers for $1 per load in the United States. This proposal is meant to get around the roadblock thrown in the way by the Canadian Wheat Board. This would in effect allow farmers the choice they voted for in the Alberta plebiscite.
Will the minister of agriculture move quickly and allow Alberta farmers the choice they demanded in the plebiscite?
Jerry Pickard LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.
The export of Canadian grain still remains a federal legislative responsibility. It is not proper for a province to take on unilaterally a decision which would affect grain farmers right across the prairies, which would affect their livelihood.
Over the last several weeks the panel we have set up looking at the grain question has had opportunity listen to the concerns of every province, including Alberta, and to the problems of all the producers. It is coming out with a report in June.
We will look at the report. We are certainly concerned about the whole issue of grain across the country.
Leon Benoit Reform Vegreville, AB
Mr. Speaker, you have to wonder if anybody on that side of the House has a clue as to what is going on in western Canada. Study, study, study and still no answer.
Alberta farmers have already spoken on this issue. The minister's refusal to act is costing farmers about $2 a bushel at a time when they desperately need money to plant their crops. Why will this minister not act for a change? Farmers need the money now.
Jerry Pickard LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the minister has acted. He put together a panel to study the grain issues in this country and he is making certain that every voice is heard. He is making certain that this grain panel has the opportunity to report back to the government before action is taken.
It is proper when a panel or a group is put in place to give it time for its consultations and to listen to its recommendations.
Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
On October 24 in the Verdun auditorium, the Prime Minister stated that he agreed with the Quebec people's desire for change. He went on to say, and I quote: "I supported that position in the past, I support it today, and I will support it in the future, whatever the circumstance".
How can the Prime Minister reconcile his smooth talk on the eve of the referendum with his current attempt to deprive the Quebec people of their fundamental right to decide their own future?
Marcel Massé LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, again, it is not a matter of depriving the Quebec people of their fundamental right to decide their own future.
What is essential in this desire for change is that governments, whether it is the Government of Canada or the provincial governments, put in place policies that are more in line with the needs and expectations of their people.
If you look at our government's throne speech, you will see that we indicated our intention to effect the changes needed either in the economic union or in the social union to better meet the needs of Canadians. That is what a good government does and that is what we did in the past and will continue to do in the future.
Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC
Mr. Speaker, if the past is any indication of the future, what awaits Quebecers in the future is an unemployment rate even higher than today.
Will the Prime Minister admit that the reason for his about-face is his fear of losing the next referendum? Now that they know they almost lost it, they are really afraid of losing the next one.
Marcel Massé LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, again, what is at issue in this case is which government policies will help Canadians, including Quebecers, better deal with the problems of tomorrow. That is what people are afraid of. Yes, the matter of the referendum does increase uncertainty in Quebec, reduce investment and aggravate unemployment, and that is what people are afraid of.
As those who conduct door-to-door polls in the Montreal ridings realize, people know that the option advocated by the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois reduces the number of jobs, reduces investment in Quebec, reduces their income, and that is what they are afraid of. What they want is good government and not the uncertainty of a referendum.
John Cummins Reform Delta, BC
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is in deep water over his west coast revitalization plan. Why will he not come clean over the issue of allocation?
He knows if land claims go the way of the Nisga'a deal, then 50 per cent of the fish catch will go to native only fisheries. Will the minister admit that the real reason for his buy back plan, which will destroy the lives of thousands of fishermen, is not to reduce the number of fish caught, but to transfer the rights to catch fish from one group of fishermen to another?