House of Commons Hansard #48 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was quebec.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
We shall carefully consider the official opposition's latest initiatives. We will settle everything at the same time, and as quickly as possible.
Stéphane Dion LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief to compensate for the length of the official opposition's speeches and their repetitive, rhetorical arguments as they pretend not to realize they have lost this debate.
In this matter, the Government of Canada defends the right of Quebecers and other Canadian citizens to be treated fairly under the law whatever the circumstances. As I just said, the official opposition is pretending it does not realize it has lost the debate. They can quote the Prime Minister of Canada as much as they want; all this would do is show that, as a good democrat, the Prime Minister has no intention of keeping a people against its will once this people has clearly expressed its desire to leave Canada.
At the same time, it has been clearly demonstrated in this debate that a unilateral declaration of independence would violate the rule
of law and go against democratic principles and would not be recognized by any constitutional democracy on this planet.
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have an interesting proposal for the minister. If, as he claims, the Prime Minister is indeed a good and great democrat, then let us hear him reassert his position. He simply has to vote in favour of the motion. The Prime Minister simply has to tell his government colleagues that he is not afraid of repeating what he said in 1970 and wrote in 1985. This is what we are asking him to do on this opposition day.
The minister also says that we lost the debate. The fact is that the democratic and political debate is not over in one day. This is not the society of a thousand years, as former Prime Minister Trudeau once said. We have a right to democratically discuss ideas. We had a good example of that last week. The debate on the issue of sexual orientation as a prohibited ground for discrimination lasted for over 25 years in Canada.
People maintained their position and, thanks to their tenacity, finally got what they wanted. This is how changes are brought about in the political process. This is what we were taught in the past by very democratic people, in Quebec and in Canada. We learned that political debates are the way to go, that battles are won by convincing people with good arguments.
Right now, new arguments come up every day and more and more people are in favour of Quebec's sovereignty. It is so because, in the days that preceded the October 30 referendum, the Prime Minister, speaking for the current federal government, said to us: "We will make major changes". It is the second time in 15 years that we are told major changes will take place, and this time again there are no changes. Each time, some people realize they made a mistake by voting no, and the next they will vote yes. This is the reality. This is the real political debate, and we will win it.
The people of Quebec has been forging ahead for a long time. The fact that sovereignists have been here for over two years is not a coincidence. For a long time, we believed that we could become sovereign by simply forming the government in Quebec City. We realized it was important to send a message to Canada and to make the country realize that sovereignty was not a folksy thing in Quebec, but a deeply rooted feeling. Such was the message sent by Quebecers to all federalists at the 1993 election.
Quebecers said: "We want to be represented by a majority of sovereignists, and we want Canada to know that. We will make decisions accordingly and we will always do so in the respect of democracy".
Today, we are merely asking the Prime Minister to say that, yes, he will continue to respect the rules of democracy. The decision rests with him.
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Mr. Speaker, the member has used the pronoun nous or we many times: We in Quebec want this, we in Quebec want that. He and I both agree there is a lot of democracy going on here now and then.
When he uses the term "we" is he not also trying to speak for the majority of Quebecers who voted no in the last referendum? How is he able-
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC
I can tell my hon. colleague that when I say "we" as democrats, I am referring to the vast majority of Quebecers. Last October's referendum, in which 93 per cent of the population went to the polls, shows very clearly that we Quebecers are democrats. I would add that Canadians, too, are democrats. What we are asking today is for the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada to reaffirm that they still stand for democracy and that they are always ready to accept the rules of the game, even though they are feeling the heat.
Mary Clancy Liberal Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with my colleague, the hon. member for St. Boniface.
I am very pleased to take part in the debate today. I am glad the hon. member from Scarborough asked the hon. member from Kamouraska the question about to whom the term we refers. When I look at the quote in the original motion, I remind hon. members opposite that in 1985 we did win, just as we did win in 1995. As far as I am concerned we refers to all Canadians, whether you live in Quebec, British Columbia, or the Yukon, whether you speak French or English, the we includes all of us from sea to sea to sea.
The Bloc motion seeks to sow confusion once again among Canadians, then blame it on the federal government. I draw to the attention of the House and the attention of Quebecers in particular to the true intention behind the words of the secessionists. I will deal briefly with a number of myths that they enjoy circulating.
First, let me talk about transfers to the provinces, the first myth we have to deal with. Quebec's current finance minister said when he tabled his last budget that Quebec is the most indebted province. Indeed, its economy generates revenues for the provincial government which fall below the Canadian average.
It is precisely to remedy the inequalities this situation could cause over time that the federal government provides Quebec with generous and completely unconditional equalization payments every year. A federal system can afford to do that, unlike a separate and separated heavily indebted country.
Quebec is not the only province that receives federal transfer payments. My province of Nova Scotia does, as do Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and New Brunswick. It is because we are a federation, it is because as a federation we believe in assisting each other.
Mr. Speaker, you will remember there was a time when Quebecers and maritimers, eastern Canadians in general, paid $5 a barrel over the world price for oil in order to get the Alberta oil industry moving. That is what a federation is about, helping one part of the federation when it is needed.
Transfers to the provinces represent a substantial part of the federal government's program spending. We could therefore not reasonably streamline the spending in the last budget without touching those transfers, but they are still there and will continue to be there.
Nevertheless, the cuts in transfers to the provinces that were made are far from disproportionate. They will require from all the provinces an effort to adjust that is well below the one that the federal government is imposing on itself. Thus, in the next two years the federal government intends to reduce its own spending by 7.3 per cent while the main transfers to the provinces will be cut by only 4.4 per cent. In other words, the federal government is being much easier on the provinces, Quebec included, than it is on itself.
The Bloc is also trying to make people believe that cuts in federal transfers affect Quebec more than the other provinces. However, it has taken pains not to mention Le Hir study which stated that Quebec's share in that regard has remained stable for 15 years at around 30 per cent, which is clearly greater than Quebec's proportion of the Canadian population.
Moreover, the Bloc is also not mentioning that the reform announced in the last federal budget in this regard even gives additional protection to the seven less wealthy provinces, which include Quebec, because equalization payments to these provinces will continue to increase in the next four years. Equalization payments to Quebec will thus increase by around $200 million for a total of $4.05 billion in 1996-97. Yet another myth that just does not cut it.
The Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois refuse to respect the will of Quebecers, a majority of whom have twice chosen to stay in Canada and work to renew it.
However, the Bloc and the péquiste keep singing the same tune. For example, their unsubstantiated inflating of the cost of overlap and duplication to $3 billion is another deliberate attempt on their part to discredit Canadian federalism and to hoodwink the people in the province of Quebec. Yet they will never admit that.
In the vast majority of cases where the two orders of government are active in the same field of activity, their actions complement one another because they serve different clientele or provide different services to the same clientele. This federalism works and works well for the people of Quebec as it works and works well for the people of every province and territory in this great country.
Furthermore, they are very reluctant to tell people that the few serious analyses of the subject show that the savings achieved would be less than $1.7 billion and that those are gross savings which would be offset in the event of secession by the loss of economies of scale and by higher interest rates on government borrowing.
The overlap being described to Quebecers is much less than our friends across the aisle would have them believe. It certainly is not worth destroying a country for. We intend to minimize unnecessary overlap while ensuring that we effectively manage overlap that is inevitable.
There are other myths too. Our opponents across the aisle like to suggest that Canadian federalism is responsible for the high unemployment in Quebec. That has nothing to do with the Canadian system. Everyone, except it seems the Bloc, seems to know that unemployment is a problem for all western countries. Some unitary states have unemployment rates much higher than Canada. Canada is taking the necessary measures to implement the fullest employment policy possible.
The IMF forecast of a 2.9 per cent economic growth in 1997 is good news for all Canadians and for the Canadian government, whose main objective is to revitalize the economy and improve our economic union. The standard of living of all Canadians depends on it.
The secessionists may not like it but Canada actually works a whole lot better than their highly speculative smoke and mirrors. If federalism is so harmful to the economy and jobs in Quebec why do economists unanimously conclude that the job situation in Quebec would worsen considerably following separation?
The secessionists like to suggest that the Government of Canada gives Quebec money only for unemployment insurance, social assistance and seniors. Yet the federal government has always invested considerable sums of money in Quebec year after year in a large number of projects that are essential to its social, economic and cultural development. Furthermore, statistics show unequivocally that Quebec within Canada is very profitable for Quebecers. In fact, Quebec provides 21.7 per cent of the federal government's revenues and receives more than 24.5 per cent of federal spending.
Let me give a few examples of that spending: 47.5 per cent of Canadian industrial milk quotas go to Quebec farmers; 32 per cent of Canada Council funding is distributed to Quebec, specifically in the literary and publishing field, Quebec receives 40 per cent of
council funding; more than 50 per cent of financial assistance from the Department of Canadian Heritage for publishing and distribution of publications goes to Quebec; 37 per cent of Telefilm Canada funding is distributed in Quebec; 33 per cent of federal funding for the reception and integration of immigrants goes to the Government of Quebec, even though Quebec receives less than 20 per cent of the immigrants who come to Canada each year; $204 million is earmarked for the economic development of the regions of Quebec by the Federal Office for Regional Development-Quebec.
How can the Bloc seriously claim that federalism is hurting Quebec's development and keeping it in a state of dependency? It is beyond understanding. It is smoke and mirrors. It is a sham and one that I do not think Quebecers believe any more than other Canadians do.
Canada is seen as the jailer of Quebec. That is the latest outrage, to compare Canada to a prison in which Quebec is being held against its will. Is this a strange sense of humour, or are the secessionists serious? Indeed, how can Quebec want to separate from their jailers today and yet want to reassociate with them tomorrow?
Belonging to an political and economic union brings with it the obligation of co-operation and consultation. In today's interdependent world, doing what I like is not the objective of any responsible government. It is not even feasible.
Quebecers have twice chosen with their hearts and with their heads not to mortgage their future and their children's future when they benefit from economic and political association with Canada and are part of the country with the best quality of life in the world.
If our friends across the aisle want to help Quebecers, they will have to do their part, abandon their completely unrealistic ideology and work with the majority of their fellow citizens who want and will help us all to build a better Canada.
Maurice Godin Bloc Châteauguay, QC
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the hon. member had to say. I can tell you that her speech will not go down in history since she constantly changed subjects and contradicted herself. Let me quote some of her comments. She talked about confusion. If there is someone who is confused in this House, it has to be the Prime Minister. We were given an example earlier. We were told that in 1970 he did not do the same thing as he did in 1985.
One day, he says something, the next he goes back on his word. Let me give you an example. Not so long ago, the Prime Minister said in this House that we would "have to face the music" at the next referendum. At the time, he was sure he was going to win. When you are sure to win, there are rights, no such considerations. He was sure to win, so he could say anything.
The situation has changed since then, with the growing popularity of the sovereignist movement, the results of the last referendum and the things yet to come. After the next referendum, it will be over. Why? Because the federal government has not been able since 1867 to deal with federalism as it should have. Initially, within the federal system, the federal government and the provinces were supposed to share Canada's sovereignty. Little by little however, the federal government got involved in areas of provincial jurisdiction, so much so that we now have a dominating and centralizing federal government.
As for the hon. member's conclusion, we will come back to that. I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are indicating I have only one minute left. I will not be able to say much, but let me sum up what I wanted to say. When we are told that we lost the last referendum, I always answer that federalism did not even exist in 1867.
Everybody agreed more or less with what was put on the table. But in 1980 the results were 44 per cent and in 1995, 49.6 per cent. Quebecers are becoming aware that, within the current system, we are not progressing, we are moving backwards, and at the next referendum, I am convinced we will get between 55 per cent and 60 per cent of the votes.
I just wish people would understand one thing: the only way to put an end to the constitutional debate is for federalists to propose a real program if they have one, but unfortunately, they do not have any.
Mary Clancy Liberal Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, I understand our difficulty. The hon. member suggested that I was confused and contradicted myself. He did not give any examples, ergo I cannot refute his utterly ridiculous charge.
He said that we do not share. I gave eight examples of where the federal government not only shares but shares most generously in federal funds with the province of Quebec without even getting into the transfer payments.
Finally, our federation certainly has its problems as do other federations. I know we can overcome these problems because on this side of the House we have faith in the sense and sensibility and the good hearts of all Canadians whether they live in Quebec or anywhere else in the country. I am sorry the hon. member over there does not. However we will prevail.
Ronald J. Duhamel Liberal St. Boniface, MB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my voice to those trying to describe the ties of affection that have long existed, and that still exist, between Canada and Quebec.
I am adding my voice in the House today to those of my colleagues in the government, first to set the record straight for
Canadians, especially Quebecers, and at the same time to respond to the disinformation that is continually being put forward by the Bloc Quebecois.
The Bloc would have Quebecers and other Canadians believe that Canada is a prison, that the federal government is a jailer keeping Quebec bound and gagged and thus preventing it from expressing itself on issues that are important to its future. Nothing could be further from the truth. That is the type of hysterical rhetoric we have become used to hearing from the Bloc as it defends its now secessionist position.
Let us look at the motion tabled by the Bloc today which is yet another example of that kind of disinformation. The Bloc would like the government of a country that has flourished for 129 years to remain mute, absolutely mute with regard to a unilateral declaration of independence that would flout the Canadian Constitution in the courts.
Accordingly, the Bloc would like to see the 23 million Canadians outside of Quebec stand idly by and give the secessionist government a blank cheque by abstaining from discussing this matter. It is now the secessionist government itself that has brought us to this point. The Government of Canada now has an obligation to respond even though a majority of Quebecers have expressed yet again their desire to remain within the Canadian Confederation.
As Mr. Daniel Johnson, the leader of the opposition in Quebec has said, this is a phoney problem. But because the PQ has instigated this legal debate, let us do it calmly and coolly. That is the position of the Canadian government. Anger and emotion must not win out over reason. Unfortunately that is how the BQ and the PQ are reacting.
Let us talk about some myths. I will read you a quotation: "We must separate from Canada, this prison, and fly on our own. Once separated, we will re-establish our association with our good partners in Canada". This is what is really behind the Bloc's motion. We are accused of hiding our true motives, while, for them, duplicity and camouflage are the order of the day.
The motion introduced by the Bloc Quebecois today is proof yet again. The public is not fooled. It is well aware that the official opposition enjoys in this House considerable freedom of expression that only a country as democratic as Canada would tolerate. It can also tell the difference between reality and the myths the Bloc Quebecois delights in spreading.
I will now speak about the vitality of the federal system.
The Bloc is trying to make people believe that Canadian federalism is outmoded, that it has not changed at all, that it is keeping Quebec in a straitjacket. The truth is very different. Members opposite may not like it but the federal system is doing very well indeed.
The Fathers of Confederation who came from Quebec and three other provinces wisely chose for Canada in 1867 the model of a federal state in order to pool the assets and channel the energies that existed in our wide geographic space. Above all, they wanted as a population to be able to live and evolve within a political system that would be able to adapt, improve and renew itself over time and as needed. It was a system in which each part preserved its distinctiveness but the whole was more than the sum of its parts.
The evidence has been in for a long time that the flexibility of the Canadian federation has allowed and still allows all provinces to develop in accordance with their priorities and their specific characteristics while ensuring that they enjoy the benefits of belonging to this great country of Canada.
Throughout our history the sharing of powers, which has been revised on an ongoing basis, has yielded many benefits in the form of flexibility, innovation and initiative. For example, it has allowed the federal government to set national goals and standards which apply to all Canadians, while leaving it to the provinces to ensure that services best correspond to their own realities.
Quebec has been no exception to that rule, as evidenced by the tremendous progress it has made particularly in the past 30 years. The quiet revolution took place inside a united Canada, yet in all that time Quebec was indeed a part of that same Canadian federation the Bloc is now denouncing.
The distinct nature of Quebec. From its very beginnings, Canada has always striven to improve, to modernize and to secure for its citizens the best possible quality of life. Quebec's contribution to this process has been unflagging and unique, especially because of its French roots. But it has also derived benefit from belonging to Canada, through such things as the support of federal institutions in matters of culture, which has given it considerable influence on the world scene.
Quebec is an asset to Canada, a treasured part of our country. Canadians are attached to the distinct character of Quebec. It is recognized and encouraged by the Canadian government.
It is therefore in this spirit that the Prime Minister asked Parliament to make commitments regarding Quebec and to pass in this House a resolution recognizing Quebec as a distinct society. By
so doing, the Parliament of Canada made official one of the Prime Minister's commitments and, as the only body that can speak on behalf of all Canadians, gave a solemn undertaking. It thus recognized an obvious reality, the distinct character of Quebec, based on its language, its culture and its legal system.
This open-mindedness of the federal government with respect to the distinct character of Quebec is part of what distinguishes Canada from its neighbour to the south.
I would now like to look at the division of powers, because this is an area in which we differ greatly from a number of other federations.
In the wake of significant changes it initiated to modernize the federation, the government announced in the speech from the throne that it intended to open a new chapter in federal-provincial relations. From now on the watch words will be respect, dialogue, consensus and co-operation. We will be partners in serving Canadians.
Those are not just empty promises. The federal government's commitment has already been translated into tangible measures, such as the approval of detailed action plans to improve federal and provincial services, an action plan that has been rejected by the secessionist government whose avowed aims are to make people believe that the federal government serves no purpose and to break up Canada.
The same secessionist government wanted us to withdraw from labour market training. After investing $1.5 billion in that field in 1995-96 and $433 million this year, we agreed that we would withdraw from labour market training. We did not want to do that to make the secessionists happy. What was important to us at the end of the day was for the governments' actions to complement one another so that high quality services are delivered at the lowest cost to taxpayers by the government in the best position to do so.
The Canadian government has also indicated its firm intention to withdraw from other fields of activity, such as forestry, mining and recreation and to transfer its responsibilities to local or regional organizations or the private sector.
The federal government will respect provincial jurisdiction by limiting its own spending power with regard to co-financed or shared cost programs in fields of provincial responsibility. Together with the provinces, it is also seeking out new forms of consultation and joint management in certain areas, such as environmental management, social housing, food inspection, tourism and freshwater fish habitat. It is also actively pursuing the establishment of a Canadian securities commission.
I see that my time is up. In closing, I therefore invite my colleagues across the way to reconsider this federation, to look at what it has done for us and what it can still do if we work together with the goal of improving it.
Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC
Mr. Speaker, first, what stands out from my hon. friend's intervention is that he regrets that Quebecers do not see Canada his way. Indeed, the 49.4 per cent of Quebecers who voted Yes in the referendum already knew what the hon. member wants them to be convinced of. This is not the issue.
When the hon. member talks about the distribution of powers, he should remember that the main power, which makes the constitutional power sharing illusive, is spending power. Spending power radically changed the distribution of powers originally negotiated by the Fathers of Confederation.
Finally, the hon. member should recognize that, when the Prime Minister wants to limit the use by Quebec, which is not just another province but a people and a nation in its own right, of its democratic right through a referendum, the 1867 Constitution was originally an act passed by Great Britain for its colonies, achieved through negotiations between politicians from each colony, mainly because, after the 1837-38 rebellion, in the so-called union of Canada, that is, a forced union of what is currently known as Ontario and Quebec, nothing worked any more.
Ronald J. Duhamel Liberal St. Boniface, MB
Mr. Speaker, I feel that I have nothing to regret in what I have said. What is happening is that we have two totally different views. What I am calling for is a look at what a federation is. Twice, the majority of Quebecers have agreed with what I have said, every bit of it.
What I find regrettable is that I have heard nothing good said about this federation. I find it incredible that even an Opposition member cannot say "Here are three or four very good aspects".
Now, about the Prime Minister again, he has said: "We will be democratic, we will respect Canadian law and international law".
As you know, in his 1985 book Straight from the Heart , on page 140, the Prime Minister says ``We'll put our faith in democracy. We'll convince the people that they should stay in Canada and we'll win''. That is what he says.
Jean Landry Bloc Lotbinière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the floor, and I would like to ask my colleague opposite to explain, since he has been talking for a while now about the
beautiful great country Canada is, why their popularity in Canada has dropped by 7 per cent compared to last month, according to the polls.
Ronald J. Duhamel Liberal St. Boniface, MB
Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleague will admit that this is a beautiful great country, a country held in esteem by everyone on this planet. I trust that he did not want to indicate that it was anything other than that.
As for the polls, I would be prepared to compare our polls and yours across Canada, if that is what you want to do. We must pay some attention to polls, but we must not let ourselves be led by them. The most important poll of all is the one held on election day itself.
Yves Rocheleau Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am both proud and sad to take part in today's debate on the motion moved by the official opposition, which reads as follows and quotes the prime minister: "We'll put our faith in democracy. We'll convince the people that they should stay in Canada and we'll win. If we don't win, I'll respect the wishes of Quebeckers and let them separate." This is the subject of our motion based, you will have understood, on a quote from page 150 of a book written by the Prime Minister entitled Straight from the Heart.
I am proud because this is a very important debate, and sad because this debate is part of the constitutional debate, which today takes a threatening turn, as it has for some weeks now. Indeed, the situation is extremely serious and these are difficult times for the Canadian democracy.
Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice told us these past few days that, in the event of a yes vote in a democratically held Quebec referendum, the Canadian government would not recognize it because the present Constitution makes no provision for one part of Canada to secede.
What is important to remember is the underlying meaning of such statements. This means that, in the mind of the Prime Minister of Canada, the wishes expressed by Quebecers will be subject to an amending process requiring the unanimous consent of the provinces in order to be recognized. This means that the wishes of Quebecers will eventually be subject to the will of Canadians, and this supports the argument in favour of not recognizing the existence of a Quebec people on this planet.
This is in keeping with the evolving federalist thinking. Over the last 30 years, we have been a bit annoyed by the growing sovereignist movement which English-speaking Canadians have a hard time explaining and understanding; then there were different theories like cooperative federalism, flexible federalism, asymmetrical federalism, cost-effective federalism, the age-old renewed federalism, which the Prime Minister mentioned again recently, and now we have carping federalism. Carping federalism is based on confrontation, on the B plan we could now call the Bertrand plan.
This confrontation is the antithesis of the other movement which briefly prevailed and which, after referendums in Quebec, could have created a momentum whereby English Canada would have found ways to implement the changes promised by Pierre Elliott Trudeau in 1980 and by the present Prime Minister in 1995. They would have come up with offers acceptable to the majority of Quebecers and would have made space for Quebec in the new 1982 Constitution. But that movement did not endure.
There were a few efforts, like the distinct society, but it was a distinct society without any content or powers. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said it himself after a conference in Vancouver where he almost whispered to his audience that the expression "distinct society" meant nothing. Maybe he forgot he was being filmed, but we saw him on TV in Quebec. This killed the rose in the bud because Quebecers quickly caught on that the distinct society concept was an empty shell.
There was also the term "principal homeland" which appeared, again through the initiative of the new minister, but it was short-lived. Right from the beginning, it sounded fishy.
Finally there was a vote on a veto, but giving a veto to each and every province meant essentially that they were refusing to acknowledge the specific characteristics of Quebec and to recognize Quebecers as a people.
It is very important to keep in mind the significance of plan B. With plan B, instead of encouraging Canadians to think, the federal government prefers to attack Quebec. It prefers to attempt to make Quebec smaller. It prefers to attack its institutions, its laws, its democratic traditions, its right to self-government, which is, once again according to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, only valid within Canada. We see he has studied the issue for a long time and is very generous toward Quebecers.
With plan B, the federal government prefers to go to court instead of going to the people of Quebec, especially to a court that does not fall under the Quebec government, but under the federal government, even though it is called the Superior Court of Quebec, a court where judges are appointed by the federal government. So, given the process by which judges are appointed, these people are part of the federal government and of the federal system. These judges will have to make a decision based on the Canadian Constitution, which was almost unilaterally repatriated by Ottawa without Quebec's consent, a Constitution Quebec does not recognize and which it did not sign. By this Constitution, these non elected and non accountable judges are being given, no doubt sometimes against their will, major political and decision-making powers.
Conversely, when a referendum is held democratically, the opposing forces, both from the yes side and the no side, have equal financial means, at least when Quebec law is respected. When it is violated, as the federal government did in October 1995, we get the results we have seen.
So, a referendum held democratically is called a consultation exercise, the will of the people being subjected to the colonialism of the courts.
It should be pointed out that, for Guy Bertrand, the new ally of the federalists, the mere idea of holding a referendum on Quebec's future would be illegitimate, undemocratic, abusive, immoral, fraudulent and anarchic. With such allies, who needs enemies. This is as quoted by Mrs. Lise Bissonnette.
I will conclude by quoting an editorial writer with La Presse of Montreal, who is far from being a sovereignist. Mr. Alain Dubuc wrote on May 14, two days ago, in his last paragraph: ``Beyond their disagreement on Quebec's future, Quebecers agree on believing an honest referendum is not merely a consultation exercise and also, that Canada cannot legitimately prevent Quebec from leaving Canada if it chooses sovereignty. It is this consensus the federal government has attacked through its silences and contradictions.''
Given the attitude the government has taken by sanctioning plan B, the Bertrand plan, I dare hope the Liberal Party of Canada will pay the political price one day.
Jay Hill Reform Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to respond to the comments made by my hon. colleague from the Bloc.
I believe the majority of the constituents of Prince George-Peace River, whom I am pleased to represent in the House, want to see Canada remain united. They want to see Quebec stay a part of Canada.
However, from conversations I have had with them over the last couple of years, they are sick to death of this issue. It is dominating the agenda of the entire country and dominating the agenda of this place.
My constituents want Quebec to decide once and for all if it is in or out. They have a universal cynicism that the issue will never be settled or decided. The Reform Party, the constituents of Prince George-Peace River and I are in favour of referenda. We have demonstrated that.
However, the Prime Minister, the Liberal government and the separatists have fuelled the cynicism that exists. When the Prime Minister and the government say they will honour and respect 50 per cent plus one provided it is a no vote, and the separatists say they will honour and respect 50 per cent plus one if it is a yes vote, but neither side will respect the results if they do not go its way, what will be accomplished by holding a referendum? This is was asked last fall. What is the point? What does it solve?
Last fall's referendum proved there is a lot of confusion in the minds of Quebec voters. There is a lot of confusion in that province about what exactly people were voting on. The hon. member referred to an honest referendum, which is what we would all seek.
What result will it take? How many times do Quebecers have to say no before the separatists give up on their foolish agenda to try to destroy the country?
Yves Rocheleau Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Speaker, some questions are made to seem basic but they mean nothing. The people of Quebec have always had respect for the democratic process. When a question is decided by a 50 per cent plus 1 vote, as it was just recently, we accept the referendum results.
What we hope and expect is for Canada to do the same, should a referendum result in a majority voting in favour of achieving sovereignty.
I also detect in the remarks made by my hon. colleague from out west a lack of understanding of how the sovereignist movement has developed. Sovereignty is nothing new in Quebec, it was being contemplated long before 1993. The movement emerged in the early 60s. In 1963, the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission, chaired by two distinguished Canadians, concluded that two solitudes coexisted. At that time, there were a few hundred Quebecers who advocated Quebec's sovereignty.
From a few hundred, our numbers have grown to thousands and now a few hundred thousands. When asked to vote on the matter, millions of Quebecers vote for sovereignty.
It would be wise not to apply the Ostrich Principle and think that Quebec's will to become sovereign is something that sprang up overnight, a creation of the mind. Probably ever since the events on the Plains of Abraham, there has always been a desire in Quebec to self-govern and to take charge of our destiny, throw off our shackles, our British shackles in this case.
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC
Mr. Speaker, although I am extremely pleased to rise today to speak to this motion, I do so with some sadness.
I do so with some sadness because I cannot imagine how this debate can take place in this Parliament where sat Henri Bourassa, in this Parliament whose members, especially those on the government side, extol the merits of democracy in detail at every opportunity. What is democracy if not our collective ability to decide what we are?
Do you think that, if Henri Bourassa, Lionel Groulx, André Laurendeau, René Lévesque were taking part in this debate, they would not say that each of them worked in his own way, in accordance with his own philosophy and through his own contribution to political life, so that in the end we Quebecers can democratically-repeat, democratically-determine our own future?
I cannot imagine for a single moment, even during my most eccentric musings, that there are Quebecers in this House who, like us, received a public mandate under the election process and who do not fully agree with the underlying philosophy behind the motion put forward by the official opposition, which we are reiterating very clearly. The fact that the official opposition in this Parliament was democratically elected on the basis of a very clear program, which, as you know, is still to promote Quebec's interests and ultimately to achieve statehood, is quite meaningful.
I hope that all of us tonight will have a sense of history and agree with the current Prime Minister's diagnostic at a public meeting in Alma in the early 1970s, when he said: "Let us be democratic". He was right to say that. The intensity of constitutional options can never compete with what should be the purpose of communities, namely the ability to recognize a democracy freely expressed through its most legal forum, a referendum.
That is what the Prime Minister said in 1970 and that is what we want to see recognized. That is why, in our opinion and in the opinion of others-But I challenge any member of this House, including Quebec members, to find a single decision maker-be it an editorialist, a journalist or a member of the business community-who supports what the Canadian government is about to do by getting involved in the Bertrand court case.
No one supported this decision. Even La Presse , which is not known for its sovereignist sympathies, said, through some of its editorial writers, that this approach was stupid. Why is it stupid? Because we know full well that international treaties recognize the right to self-determination.
The people on the other side are proud to say that Canada contributes $200 million to the operations budget of the United Nations, they are proud to uphold international law along with its main supporters at the United Nations, and that reminds me of what the Secretary General of the United Nations, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, said when he came to Montreal. He said that the most accomplished type of collective organization, even though we are at the dawn of a new century, is still sovereignty.
Here is what he said and what caught our attention. He said: "Sovereignty is the basic principle of universal organization. It is the art of making equal powers that are not equal." That is what we have in Canada, two nations within the same political organization. There cannot be two nations within the same political organization, because one is then subordinate to the other.
In essence, with this motion today and with the message it has conveyed here for the last three years, the Bloc has remained loyal to these principles and to the principles of international law.
The principles of international law and international covenants stipulate two things concerning human rights, and especially the right to self-determination. When one reads about international law, it is interesting to see-and I have the privilege of sitting next to a legal expert-that it is always subject to human rights. This is so true that this issue is always discussed, year after year, at the International Conference on Human Rights in Geneva.
So there is a very important relationship between human rights, collective rights and the right to self-determination which, according to the UN charter, is the first attribute of peoples.
If we follow the government's logic, it means that, by the end of the day, unless the Liberals are hypocrites, which is always a possibility, they should, if they are logical with themselves, rise in this House and say that they do not believe Quebecers are a people. From the moment it is recognized that Quebecers are a people, it means that they have a right to self-determination even under major international law.
The right to self-determination is not always but often exercised through a referendum. But the law also says, and I think this should be our first consideration in this House, that the right to self-determination, in addition to the legal considerations, is first and foremost a matter of political legitmacy, which can be exercised under certain conditions.
Of course, you need to have a history. You need to control a territory. You need to have the will to live together collectively. You need to have a legal tradition and, once sovereignty is achieved-and this was said clearly by the Bélanger-Campeau Commission and was repeated many times during the referendum debate-you need to have effective control of a territory under the state continuity rules.
Which member will rise in this House, whether he is from Ontario, Newfoundland or the Magdalen Islands, and say that Quebec does not meet these conditions?
What interest does the government have in joining forces with the man who will no doubt go down in history as the greatest crank of our times?
I remember very well that in 1987, just to give you a few biographical details, I was responsible for running Francine Lalonde's campaign for the leadership of the Parti Quebecois, and I came into contact with Guy Bertrand, who had just been campaign-
ing all over Quebec telling us that we had the right to decide our own future.
This man ran for the leadership of the Parti Quebecois on a single theme, Quebec's right to decide its own future. He was so all over the map that, had we been in a different century, he would have been sent to see a doctor. But we are not in another century, and everyone has the freedom of expression.
That being said, there is something deeply offensive and hurtful in the action taken by the justice minister, who has always seemed a courteous man, and the approval given by this government, in trying through legal subterfuge, to deny Quebec's right to decide its own future. If the action by the Government of Canada is taken all the way, I can certainly promise you that something very serious will happen in our political society, both for Quebec and for Canada, and that will be the refusal to recognize the legitimacy of this decision.
It is not true that since 1960-there are even people who trace the quest for sovereignty back to the 18th century-well, certainly for 30 years, Quebecers have been preparing themselves as they have, only to be denied the right to self-determination, now that they have democratically elected representatives to this House.
Still, it is sad that the government has been so lacking in judgement, perception and the most basic political tact, that it has failed to recognize that this is a profound question of political legitimacy. It is not by trying to transfer the debate to the legal arena that the government will achieve its ends.
You know, not more than two years ago, there was a declaratory judgment, because a member of the First Nations, Ovide Mercredi, not to name names, also tried to have a possible referendum declared unconstitutional. The judiciary was extremely clear on this subject, by virtue of what democracy is, but also by virtue of what should prevail in a society such as ours, that is the distinction between the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature.
So let us hear from these Liberal MPs with ridings in Quebec, in the coming days, in a public forum-they can choose the time, the date, the place-let them tell Quebecers they do not have the right to decide their own future. Let them come and say it in Montreal or in the regions. Let them for one moment tell Quebecers that they do not exist as a people, that what they have accomplished over the last 30 years is all in their heads, a political fantasy.
It takes a justice minister from Toronto, a Prime Minister like the one we have now with his own very personal view of history, to support a motion such as the one before us, which is profoundly irresponsible and profoundly disrespectful towards Quebec.
Darrel Stinson Reform Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member talking about separation and self-government. Not long ago in this Chamber, I remember a vote supported by all Bloc members under aboriginal self-government and self-determination.
Will the hon. member respect a vote if the aboriginals in Quebec decide to deal with self-government and allow them to stay with whomever they choose democratically?
Another question I have for the hon. member is this. When he has a chance to go forward with this referendum, will he be looking at population? Is he more inclined to go poll by poll? This would make a big difference in how the rest of us would look at the situation.
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC
Mr. Speaker, I believe what the Bloc says is logical and consistent. Once we recognize the right to self-determination, we also recognize that this right can be exercised by any group having the characteristics of a people.
If we finally recognize that legally speaking native nations have the characteristics of a people, this means implicitly and explicitly that they also legally have the right to self-determination, within the legal territorial boundaries set for Quebec.
This being said, I am not sure I fully understood the second question.
The hon. member wishes to add a supplementary because, as we know, there is a fair amount of excitement in the ranks of the Reform Party, these days. Does he want a supplementary, Mr. Speaker? I am always ready to answer.
This being said, it seems to me that my friend's second question creates some confusion because one thing is very clear and clearly affirmed by all leaders of Quebec: Quebec's right to self-determination will be exercised in a referendum. The rule of 50 plus one will apply. The hon. member was asking if we would proceed by way of a vote. I believe you understood the same thing. Of course, the referendum process requires that we count the votes and the final result will bring us victory or defeat.
Hon. members will recall, and I think this will be my most important moment today, the famous words of the current Prime Minister immediately after taking office. He said something I will never forget. He declared that for Quebec, a no means no. I would like to tell the Reform Party that if one day the answer is yes, it will mean yes.
Andy Mitchell Liberal Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise on debate on today's opposition motion. I to make a comment on behalf of all of my constituents. It refers to a comment made by the former leader of the Bloc Quebecois. He basically said Canada is not a real country.
On behalf of my constituents and I believe the vast majority of Canadians, I state clearly and unequivocally Canada is a country, Canada is a nation and will remain so, absolutely, not only in the months and weeks ahead but in the years, decades and centuries ahead. It will because we are a nation.
Despite what we hear from the other side, Canada is a nation. It is a nation because we share many things in common and we share this great land is Canada. We share a common geography from coast to coast. We share our natural resources such as mining, whether it takes place in Quebec or in Ontario, and the development of energy and the development of agriculture. These natural resources are things we share as a nation.
We have a common history on the north side of the North American continent where together Canadians of all stripes, of all ethnic origins, have built a strong distinct Canada, a distinct nation with values and beliefs unique to us as Canadians.
We share some very important concepts from one end of Canada to the other. We believe in the rule of law and we share this belief among all Canadians. We believe in social justice. We believe as a nation, as a government and as a people there are responsibilities we hold to each other. We believe as Canadians that below a certain level we will not allow people to fall.
When people walk into a hospital they are not asked how much money they have. They are simply asked how sick they are. People do not go hungry for a lack of food or shelter. We help those people. Those are values we share as Canadians from coast to coast whether one happens to live in the English speaking part of Canada or in the French speaking part.
We believe in certain freedoms. We believe in the freedom of thought, belief, expression and assembly. We share those core beliefs as Canadians and they make us a nation.
We have differences in Canada, but they are not differences that need divide us. They do not separate us one people from another people. They are differences which make this country unique among nations.
Canada in its history, for 130 years, has shown the nations of the world what can be accomplished, what can be done with a nation of several peoples. We have shown the world our success. We have shown the world we are a nation that works and can sustain itself.
As a nation Canada recognizes that it has differences. The people of Canada recognize there are two founding peoples, the English speaking Canadians live in Quebec and francophone Canadians live outside of Quebec. We are an integrated nation, English and French from coast to coast. We have been joined by many peoples from around the world to make the fabric of Canada strong, a nation which is integrated, open to change, one which accepts and evolves over time.
As a nation, as a government, as Canadians we recognize we need to make accommodation for different peoples. We recognized and made the clear statement that Quebec is a distinct society. We have recognized the importance of regional variance and evolved a veto system. We have come to understand that different institutions work differently in different parts of the country. We understand there needs to be a division of power, that some things are done better at the provincial level as opposed to the federal level.
When Parliament as recently as December made these suggestions and showed we will evolve as a nation, that we will accommodate our differences, the Bloc voted against it. Members of the Bloc voted against the fact that Quebec was a distinct society. They stood in the House and said: "No, Quebec is not a distinct society. No, Quebec should not have a veto. No, Quebec should not have its own institutions". Those statements were made by their votes. That was terribly wrong.
What is at stake here? Canada. What is their base argument for wanting to destroy the country? Politics is a big part of it. They want to destroy the country over whether Mr. Bouchard is to be called a premier or a president. Those are grounds to break up the country? I think not. Those are not valid grounds for breaking up the country.
Members of the Bloc said we need to have a more efficient federation. Are we to break up the country because of the mathematical formula for transfer payments?
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
I assure the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka he will have the time remaining after question period to conclude his remarks.
The chair is now ready to rule on the point of order raised earlier today by the chief government whip relating to the interpretation of Standing Order 43(2), which provides for a 20 minute speech to be divided in two.
A cursory review of our practice shows that motions have been moved by both members sharing a 20 minute period. I refer members to cases that occurred on March 25, 1993 and April 19, 1993.
It has also been common practice for a period of time now for members to share the first speech on supply days. A quick check of our proceedings reveals that the first speech was shared on February 10, 1994 and subsequently on May 3, 1994, November
22, 1994, March 16, 1995, March 26, 1995, May 11, 1995, November 22, 1995 and, most recently, March 20, 1996.
What has changed since March 20, 1996 is that the second speaker from the same party has proposed an amendment to the motion tabled by the first. This is the reason for the chief government whip's point of order. The question he raised with the Chair is whether, under the spirit of the Standing Orders, the main motion may be subject to an amendment from a second speaker in the same initial period of the debate.
I quote from Standing Order 81(22), which provides the time limit on speeches for supply days:
During proceedings on any item of business under the provisions of this standing order, no member may speak more than once or longer than twenty minutes. Following the speech of each member, a period not exceeding ten minutes shall be made available, if required, to allow members to ask questions and comment briefly on matters relevant to the speech and to allow responses thereto.
Furthermore, Standing Order 43(2) provides for periods of debate to be divided in two:
The whip of a party may indicate to the Speaker at any time during a debate governed by this standing order that one or more of the periods of debate limited pursuant to section (1) of this standing order and allotted to members of his or her party are to be divided in two.
It is clear from Standing Order 81(22), that the first speech on a supply day is limited to 20 minutes. If we apply the letter of Standing Order 43(2), we may logically conclude that the first speech on a supply day may in fact be divided in two.
The Chair has reviewed the standing orders and has been unable to find any other standing order which would imply the first speech of a supply day cannot or should not be divided in two.
Consequently, in light of the practice that an amendment may be moved when a 20 minute period is divided and in light of the well established practice that the first speech on a supply day has many times been divided, it is difficult to accept the argument advanced that it ought not be done today.
If the House considers this to be an anomaly, then the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has the means to address the review of the wording of the standing orders.
That said, the Chair allows the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm, Mr. Bellehumeur, and I will put it to the House. The other amendment proposals made earlier in anticipation of this ruling will not be put to the House.
I thank all hon. members who have made a contribution on this point.
The hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm, seconded by his colleague for Laval-Centre, moved that the motion be amended by adding the following, immediately after the word "stated": Straight from the Heart .
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify the matter of the Chair's acceptance of the amendment by the member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville in the event the amendment by the member for Berthier-Montcalm was not allowed.
Is this indeed what happened? Logically, therefore, it seems to me that the amendment to the amendment by the member for Berthier-Montcalm is also allowable, since we said that, if one were not, the other would be. Since an amendment to an amendment was tabled, it seems to me that it-the one taken under advisement-is the logical conclusion of the amendment tabled, in the logic of the ruling we have just been given.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Speaker
My dear colleague, I heard what you said. I will take the question under advisement and will return to the House with another ruling after question period.
It being two o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to statements by members pursuant to Standing Order 31.
Harold Culbert Liberal Carleton—Charlotte, NB
Mr. Speaker, 1996 marks the 125th anniversary of the incorporation of the town of St. Stephen, New Brunswick.
This Friday, May 17, the mayor, council and citizens of St. Stephen in recognition of this special anniversary have planned a re-enactment of the first town council meeting in full era costume. Following the re-enactment a special dinner will be served with food customary of the 1871 era. Dessert will commence with a cake constructed of 125 smaller cakes made by local St. Stephen families.
It is also interesting to note that the member of Parliament in 1871 was Mr. John Bolton, also a Liberal.
I commend Mayor Gillmor, the municipal council and the citizens of St. Stephen for taking such pride in the 125th anniversary of their town. They exemplify a true symbol of community spirit and unity.