Debates of June 5th, 1996

Supply

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in this debate. It is important that we focus on exactly what this is all about.

This is not about a fair share for one part of the country or a fair share for another part of the country. This is about governing. It is about the Minister of Natural Resources standing up to her obligations. It is about the Minister of Natural Resources doing her job. It is about the Minister of Natural Resources understanding that government is about setting priorities and acting on those priorities. That is what this decision is about.

It has nothing to do with one part of Canada getting this and another part of Canada getting that. This is an understanding. The Minister of Natural Resources, in conjunction with members of Parliament and with members of her department, have decided what is and is not a priority in terms of R and D in Canada. They have made hard and tough choices.

We are in a climate of fiscal restraint. We are in a time when government has to make choices. The minister has made sound choices. She has made good choices. She has made choices that are in the best interests of all Canadians, regardless of where they live from coast to coast to coast. That is what this debate is about. That is what this decision is about. It has nothing to do with fair shares in different parts of the country. When members opposite try to suggest that it is, I would suggest they are wrong.

Let us look at R and D in Canada and in particular that which comes out of NRCan. A great deal of it takes place all across Canada, including in the province of Quebec.

For example, there is a new research and development impact network that is going to be helping research organizations in Quebec measure the results of R and D. The network will refine and adapt tools for measuring the social and economic impacts of research and promote the exchange of best practices. This will enhance the ability of Quebec scientists and others to strengthen their contacts across Canada and around the world.

Another example is the national topographic data base. This is a mapping service developed by Geomatics Canada and based in Sherbrooke, Quebec. It provides sophisticated information on such geographical features as rivers, lakes, mountain ranges, vegetation, cities, railroads and roads.

Another example is Canada's network of model forests. It makes Quebec industry, non-governmental organizations and aboriginal groups partners in the sustainable management of forests. News about successful new techniques is shared quickly among all partners, including those in Quebec through an extensive information network.

There are many more examples. The government established the Canadian Space Agency in 1989 to promote the peaceful use and development of space for the social and economic benefit of Canadians. In June 1993 the space agency moved to St. Hubert, Quebec, bringing 350 high technology jobs to that province.

All of us in this House and across Canada take great pride in the visible accomplishments of our space program and the scientists who are in this Quebec based organization who support it.

This past week, we had the example of astronaut Marc Garneau returning from outer space, a Quebecer who demonstrates clearly that participation in this important program is from across Canada.

There are other examples. Let us turn to the mining sector. Mining is a big and important part of northern Ontario. The natural resource department undertakes its research across Canada, including in Quebec.

In mining, the department administers the mine environmental neutral drainage program, as an example. It was established in 1988. The program brings together a consortium to co-ordinate research into ways of reducing the impact on the environment of drainage from mining sites.

This is an important environmental concern. New methods have been developed to neutralize the effects of acids from tailings and waste rock. This research, which is carried out in co-operation with 20 mining companies across Canada, helps ensure that neighbour-

ing properties, lakes and rivers in Quebec as well as in the rest of Canada, can be protected.

Since 1989, a total of $1.5 million has been spent or committed on the mine environmental neutral drainage program in Quebec by NRCan and a further $650,000 is going to be spent in that province in the next few years.

Another important example is research in the area of energy, which is taking place at the energy diversification and research laboratory in Varennes, Quebec, a joint enterprise in association with the Institut de recherche d'Hydro Québec, Institut national de recherche scientifique, ABB, the international engineering firm and 20 other partners.

This facility has staff of almost 50 scientists, engineers and technicians and has an annual budget of almost $6 million. The mission of the laboratory is to conduct applied research into energy efficiency, renewable energy and to do so in close co-operation with industry.

This facility, which operates in the province of Quebec, has a long list of achievements: the development of a high efficiency absorption heat pump designed for small commercial buildings, new catalytic gas combustion system with greatly enhanced efficiency and a new study on converting the conventional diesel system used in remote locations to a new hybrid photovoltaic wind diesel system.

What this demonstrates to the members of this House, to people from across Canada whether they live in Ontario, in British Columbia or the province of Quebec, is that the minister and the government do not make their decisions based on geography. They do not make their decisions based on trying to make an absolutely equation so much in, so much out. That is not how Canada operates.

This demonstrates that the government undertakes its job, in this case research, across Canada. It does not make its decisions based on whether it makes sense geographically. It makes its decision based on what it should do. Does it make sense scientifically? Is it a Canadian priority? Is it a governmental priority given what the science and technology of the day is? Is it a priority that we can deal with in terms of the fiscal environment, the fiscal context within which we are operating?

That is what the government does. That is what the minister has done. To suggest somehow that this is a plot or some devious way of withholding funding from a province just is not so. It is not that at all.

I have clearly demonstrated that when we look at where we undertake this activity. It takes place in Ontario. It takes place in the west. It takes place in the maritimes and it takes place in Quebec as well. That is important for the people who live everywhere in Canada, including the people in Quebec, to understand. The suggestion that this withdrawal of funding is some sort of plot is simply wrong.

There are priorities today in research. Fusion research is something that could have great returns, but that is not going to happen for quite some time, 20 or 30 years in the future. The minister has had to make a decision based on what our priorities are today and based on our ability to have a return on that investment in the short term. That was an appropriate decision for the minister to make. It was an appropriate decision for the government to make.

I believe all Canadians should applaud what is being done here. We are making those tough choices that have to be made and we are allocating those resources in the best interests of all Canadians, regardless of where they live, from coast to coast.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I feel that the question I asked was an excellent one, but unfortunately there was no time to answer it. I am therefore leaping at the opportunity I now have to ask it again, but I shall adapt it in light of what the hon. member from Ontario has just said.

I do indeed have the statistics here. He claims geography is not important, that what is important is how the money is invested and what return there is on it. I would, however, just draw his attention to the fact that his province receives 50 per cent of all of these research projects, and Quebec only 18.6 per cent. That is just a coincidence. It is probably why he believes that geography is not important.

But I will take another tack, picking up on my example from before. There are several centres of excellence in Canada. Often the government states that it will give contracts to these centres of excellence. There is one such centre for armoured vehicles in Ontario, GM in London. As I said, these vehicles need to be fitted with a specific turret and turret gun. The other centre of excellence in Canada is Oerlikon Aerospace, which is in Saint-Jean.

I would ask whether he considers it fair that $2 billion are being given to the centre in London, Ontario, which decides to have its turrets manufactured by its affiliates, which are in the U.S. moreover, with Delco getting some $600 million, whereas the department ought to insist the turrets be manufactured at Saint-Jean. From the geographical point of view, then, I have trouble understanding how such an uneven distribution can be made.

As for expertise-and this is my question-why has the government not awarded the turret part of the armoured vehicle contract to Oerlikon? If the hon. member from Ontario were in my shoes, I think he too would be offended that things were being done this way. This is, therefore, one example related specifically to his address, in which he states that expertise and return on investment

are what count. Let him explain to us, then, why this was not the case with Oerlikon and GM in London, and the turrets.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will give a broad response to that question.

Let us think about the model the hon. member is suggesting. We heard about this not too long ago in the House with respect to another matter. The hon. member is suggesting that if it makes sense to invest money in a particular part of Canada what we would have to do is say let us put that money there because it makes sense. Then, because we have to worry about geographic concerns and a claim saying it should have been somewhere else, we would have to invest similar amounts in Quebec, in the maritimes, in British Columbia and in the prairies simply to keep an equal balance because there would be a concern that one part of the country was receiving more than another part of the country. As an ex-banker I can say it would not take long with that kind of scenario for the country to become bankrupt.

If there is a $2 billion project in Ontario that makes sense, the member is suggesting we would have to invest $2 billion in Quebec, $2 billion in the maritimes and $2 billion in the west to keep everybody happy. We would have to spend $8 billion to have a $2 billion project.

That is not the way things will work. That is not the way they should work. It certainly is not the way the minister is to work. It certainly is not the way the government is to work.

I relate this to something I debated with a Bloc member in a previous debate. Think about a family. I know the Bloc may have difficulty with this, but Quebec is a part of the Canadian family. It is a proud part of the Canadian family. So is Ontario and so are all the other parts of the country. We are a family. We have been a family for 129 years and it has worked well. It has not been without problems, but it worked well. I am a parent and I have a number of children. We provide resources, not necessarily equally divided, but resources which are in the best interests of the family. We provide resources that move us forward. We provide resources based on the overall good of the family.

As a government that is what we are doing. We are providing resources in the best interests of all Canadians, making sound economic decision, sound investment decisions, decisions which make sense in the economic environment in which we find ourselves and that are good for Canadians, regardless of where they live in this great and united country.

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate.

I feel it is most important to put into context the decision of the government to discontinue the funding of the national fusion program. In program review, the most necessary examination of priorities of all programs, the government of Canada made some extremely difficult decisions.

As the minister mentioned, at Natural Resources Canada it was decided to give priority to research and development in energy which improve the efficiency of oil, gas and electricity and the development of renewable energy technologies such as biotechnology, solar and wind energy. Fusion does not come under any of these priorities.

To expedite the advancement of the strategic directions decided by NRCan the department is fostering the sharing of scientific knowledge throughout the country and working with parties in specific priority areas. I will provide some examples.

It uses the information highway to transfer high quality science and technology quickly to users. NRCan is making a major contribution to the highway by facilitating the supply and exchange of digital data organized and retrieved by geographical location. Such geo reference data are produced by a variety of government and industry sources. All are based on the fundamental systems created and maintained by the department.

NRCan works with the Government of Quebec and other provinces to define and develop the national spatial data infrastructure, this part of the information highway dealing with the management and exchange of geo referenced data. Called the geography lane, it covers all applications with significant geographic content. The department's geo route project also provides access to the network at the entry level for students, researchers and businesses for anyone in Quebec or elsewhere looking for geographical information.

The national atlas information service offers electronic samples of national atlas products and allows users to select a theme such as minerals, transportation or population density to create a customized map. The atlas is available on the Internet as a worldwide web site. The site won a gold medal at the 1995 technology in government week.

The department takes full advantage of the Internet to disseminate information. For example, anyone may obtain immediate access to national information regarding forest fires. A daily fire and weather index provides data crucial to controlling and managing forest fires in Quebec and across the country.

Partners and clients now have regular access to geo scientific data bases throughout the Internet and dedicated information centres set up in provincial facilities. Residents of Quebec may conduct searches, obtain reports and read public files. People are now buying maps via the Internet.

Internationally the department is strengthening its overseas links to create and expand markets for companies in Quebec and other provinces to improve access to foreign technologies and collaborate on global projects.

Canada works with other countries to develop international standards, scientific criteria and indicators and certification systems for global sustainable forestry. Without such certification fostered by NRCan Quebec forest products could encounter future trade barriers because of environmental requirements. As the leader of Canadian geomatics teams, NRCan is playing a strategic role in winning business abroad.

Most of these international projects involve Quebec firms. Under a $22 million contract Quebec based companies are modernizing Mexico's national mapping system. The leader of this project is SNC Lavalin. Subcontractors are Photosur-Geomat of Montreal and Le Centre canadien de geomatique of Sherbrooke. Another two-year contract is underway in Saudi Arabia. With funding from the Canadian International Development Agency, the department is working with a consortium of Canadian companies on a digital mapping project in Russia.

Companies involved with projects in Russia include DMR Group of Montreal, Tecsult of Montreal and Roche of Quebec. Working in Romania are Tecsult, and Pro-Sig and Sima of Montreal. Other overseas projects where Quebec companies are providing leading technology are in Lebanon, Burkina Faso and Argentina. As part of the efforts to pursue the marketing of energy and technology abroad, the department is leading a hydro technology mission to Poland.

NRCan keeps Canada at the forefront of geoscientific research through active participation in the international ocean drilling program. Canadian proposals for deployment of a drilling ship have resulted in more than $20 million of scientific drilling immediately offshore of Canada.

The department also provides administration for the International Union of Surveying and Mapping, an organization which provides a forum for exchanging science and technology information in geomatics.

Another example is an agreement with European community for the exchange of information on technologies in key areas of mining, mineral processing, metals recycling, waste reduction and related environmental issues.

Natural Resources Canada communicates the importance of science and technology to students all across this great country of ours. The geomatics professional development program matches recent university graduates with potential leaders in Geomatics Canada in a two-year program. NRCan personnel receive an infusion of fresh ideas and innovations. The graduates gain valuable work experience. The industry obtains graduates who have been trained to apply the latest academic and scientific skills.

A new link of growing importance is SchoolNet, which connects more than 15,000 schools across the country via the Internet. NRCan provides maps, geography databases and community profiles. Through this network a school in Jonquiere could obtain detailed geographic information about Montreal or anywhere else in Canada. For one project, an atlas of Canadian communities, created in partnership with the Canadian Association of School Principals, youngsters collected maps, photographs and stories about their communities. These were compiled in an atlas, packaged on a compact disc and provided through SchoolNet.

Another program, the youth science awareness program for schools, is designed to develop interest and capabilities of youth in science and encourage the pursuit of careers in scientific fields. A junior energy program was aimed at children in grades four, five and six. "Conserving Energy in Canada" explains this important priority to grades seven to ten. Scientists from NRCan also serve as part time professors at universities, providing strong links between the department's research laboratories and students.

This is a short description of the many and varied ways Natural Resources Canada is meeting the scientific needs of a whole range of Canadians from each province, including Quebec society. This includes students from primary school through university, teachers and professors, researchers, scientists, technicians, public administrators, business people, those engaging in mining, forestry, energy and geo-science, public interest groups and environmentalists.

Natural Resources Canada is investing its limited resources to meet the most pressing, present and future needs in science and technology. As a science department of the federal government, Natural Resources Canada is amply fulfilling its mandate to serve the needs of all Canadians, ensuring the place of all Canadians in the future and prosperity of Canada.

In view of these many ongoing programs, directly and indirectly benefiting all Canadians, the difficult decision to end funding for the national fusion program was appropriate, wise and entirely in keeping with the best interests of all the people of Canada and Quebec.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks of my Liberal colleague. He recited a list of many things the government has done, a sort of litany that tells us very little about percentages.

In August 1995, the Quebec department of industry, commerce, science and technology produced a study on federal R and D spending. The main conclusions of the study, which analysed specific federal spending in this sector using a grid with a number of criteria, are that between 1979 and 1991, six provinces out of ten were overfunded in R and D.

Ontario, of course, was at the top of the list. For the last 10 years, it has received 50 per cent of the funding. According to the study, during the same period Quebec came last, with underfunding of $2.5 billion, the amount it would have received if it had been treated equitably.

This study concluded that if federal funding had been equitable in 1991, the relationship between gross domestic spending on R and D and GDP, the indicator most often used to show the intensity of R and D effort, would have been higher in Quebec than in any other Canadian province.

The question I would like to ask my colleague is this: Can Quebec reach its full potential? In other words, by remaining in Canada, can Quebec hope to receive its fair share? We think it cannot. Recent history says it cannot. Quebec is not receiving its fair share.

As I was saying earlier, what we get from the federal government is social transfer payments. The central government has no policy for developing a specific region, as I see it, except that if you are part of the majority and you live in Ontario, you could care less. They say you should go where the getting is good, and the getting is almost always good in Ontario.

Does the member think that Quebec can hope to develop by staying within Confederation? I think not, and I would like the member to prove otherwise. If he cannot, this discourse that we have been listening to for 30 years and that is slowly but surely destroying us has got to stop.

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Prince Albert—Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question which is very specific and pointed.

Today we are talking specifically about funding to a particular project within Quebec, the magnetic fusion project. There has been some discussion about the amount of resources going to the province for science and technology.

I can assure the hon. member, coming from a province like Saskatchewan, that we are not overly financed in the area of research and development, probably less so than the province of Quebec. I believe this to be more than likely an accurate statement. It strikes me as being a bit like the hon. member complaining because he has no shoes. I am complaining because I have no feet.

The hon. member should keep all these things in perspective. Each of these different programs goes on in different regions across the country. Sometimes one area or another, for very legitimate reasons, will be a larger beneficiary of specific resources. However, after taking into account all the things the federal government does in all parts of the country, we are all well served.

When the maritime provinces have a need, the government is there to assist in meeting the need. As well, the people of other provinces share in meeting that need. It is the same with the province of Quebec. When there is a need in that province, people from the rest of Canada are there to assist in meeting that need. However, the people in Saskatchewan receive next to nothing in research and development dollars.

When taking into account all of the benefits we have in being Canadian, I am very proud to be a Canadian citizen. I am proud to be part of a country that cares about every region, where we share our wealth one with other so we all can benefit.

At different times in our history different provinces have had needs. Before oil was discovered in Alberta, it needed help from the rest of country and received that help. Now Alberta is helping other areas of the country.

When we look back over our history all regions of the country have needed assistance from time to time and all regions of the country have received it. When we consider our history and all of the difficulties and challenges that the different regions have had, we have all been well served by Confederation. As a result of this kind of caring, sharing and working together, I can say that I am very proud to be a Canadian.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

It being 5.53 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that proceedings on the motion have expired.

Referendums

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should, in accordance with international law, be willing to consider negotiating with any secessionist claim in the event of a future referendum, if and only if the following criteria are met: (1) the secessionist unit be comprised of a "people" meeting international standards;

(2) the people must have been subject to a denial of political freedom or human rights in a discriminatory manner; (3) the seceding unit must demonstrate in practical terms that it has and can create a practicable and governable state which can assert effective control over a reasonably well defined territory; (4) a clear and precise question is asked as to whether the population in question wishes to secede from Canada; and (5) two-thirds of the population vote in favour of the clear and precise question.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to introduce Motion No. 206 today. This motion would be unnecessary if the government had had a plan to deal with the national referendum issue that still haunts us to this day.

The national unity issue that we thought would be finished at the end of last year is unfortunately in front of us once again. The separatist leadership in Quebec continues to pursue a course and is trying to carve up this beautiful country that we know as Canada. The separatist politicians in Quebec are trying to seduce the population in Quebec, to try to lead them to the holy grail of separation.

The purpose of this motion is to put forward some terms of secession, some identifiable groundwork for the criteria for secession. What is patently evident from last October 30 is that the federal government did not have a plan A or a plan B. It did not have a plan if it was a yes vote and did not have a plan if it was a no vote. Sadly, after discussions in the House over the last two weeks and on questioning the government, it has repeatedly demonstrated that it still does not have a plan as our country moves inexorably toward the edge of a cliff of separation.

I have put forward Motion No. 206 in which I have tried to use the criteria under international law that is commonly respected throughout the world. The premier of Quebec has said that international law will be respected over internal law. The Prime Minister has said that international law will be respected. The attorney general of Quebec has said the same thing. No one has defined what it is in international law that allows an area to secede.

That is what Motion No. 206 is all about. It states that an area in Canada can secede if it meets the following five criteria: (1) that the secessionist unit be comprised of a "people"; (2) these people have been subject to a denial of their political freedom or human rights in a discriminatory manner; (3) the seceding unit must demonstrate that they can create a government; (4) that a clear and precise question be asked; and (5) that the question be passed by a two-thirds majority.

Those are the terms of secession. Those are the criteria which are required if the international community is going to recognize a new country. It is being applied all over the world. It was applied in the case of Czechoslovakia. The Slovak Republic could not secede from Czechoslovakia because it could not meet these criteria.

If Quebec or another part of this country wishes to secede it will have to fulfil these five criteria also. If it does not then it will not be recognized as a country in the international community.

I am appalled that the government chose not to make my motion votable. Incidentally, this is the only OECD country in the world that has non-votable private members' motions. What a waste of time and money. It costs the taxpayer $25,000 an hour to keep this place open, and for what? I caution the government in the future to be democratic, give members the power to represent their people and make these private members' motions, all of them, votable.

This motion came from the lack of desire, will and courage by the government to demonstrate and define for the Canadian people what it takes to secede. Does Quebec meet the five criteria that I mentioned? Let us take a look.

Part of the criteria is that the rights of the people in Quebec have to be abrogated. They claim that their rights have been abrogated. They claim that somehow they became second class citizens. One can only become a second class citizen if one allows it to happen. I am completely fed up with the whining that takes place from the separatist politicians and I know the members of this House are also.

Let us take a look at the facts. Are Quebecers second class citizens? Have the people of Quebec had their rights abrogated? For 24 of the last 26 years the prime ministers of this country have been Quebecers. Three out of the ten supreme court justices are from Quebec. Quebec's separate civil code is respected by the rest of the country. Quebec is allowed to have its own pension plan. It has opted out of the CPP. It is tolerated by the rest of Canada.

Let us take a look at the cold, hard economics. Members of the Bloc have said that the people of Quebec have not received their fair share. Let us look at the facts.

Since 1972 the province of Quebec has received $2.6 billion, at least, in excess of what it has paid out. From 1961 to 1991 the province of Quebec has received net transfers of $160 billion, funded by the rest of Canada. It is funded by the same part of Canada the separatists believe they are being abused by and treated as second class citizens. If that is being treated as a second class citizen, count British Columbia in.

Firms have been encouraged to operate in Quebec. Eighty-five thousand people in Quebec work in federal government jobs. A further 25,000 work in Ontario. Is that second class citizenship? Is that having their rights abused? I challenge anybody to name another country in the world where the people are supposedly having their rights abused because they receive economic and constitutional benefits. Those are the facts that Quebec has had to endure.

I ask the separatist politicians who keep complaining about their lot in life as a part of Canada to put themselves in the shoes of those living outside Quebec. They should put themselves in the shoes of the people who live in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario or Newfoundland. How do they feel about having to give their tax dollars to Quebec? That is a measure of tolerance. What we have seen in this whole debate is a measure of great intolerance. If we demonstrate that, this country will surely fracture.

What has been the response of the separatist politicians in Quebec? What did they do after the referendum? They blamed their defeat on the immigrants. They closed down hospitals in the immigrant populated areas of Montreal. That was not by accident; it was done deliberately to drive out the immigrant population that voted for a united Canada. That is absolutely disgusting.

Imagine a bill similar to Bill 101 being implemented in Ontario or in British Columbia. The people of Quebec and in fact non-English speaking people would be absolutely furious, and rightly so. It is discrimination.

That has been the response of the separatist politicians in Quebec to the non-francophones in that province. Is that care and consideration? Is that showing tolerance? Is that showing understanding? Is that trying to build a united country that is fair to all its members? I think not.

I presented Motion No. 206 because of the muddled, unco-ordinated approach made prior to the referendum by the federal government. Its lack of understanding continues to spiral on the national unity issue. I want to add an element of understanding and define the rules of the terrible game we are playing.

What must we do to keep Canada together? The first thing is the Prime Minister has to understand that the separatist leadership has no interest whatsoever in being a part of Canada. The separatist leadership wants only one thing: a separate country called Quebec. If we recognize that, then we also have to accept the fact that negotiating with the separatists will not keep this country together. The Prime Minister can stand on his head and spit distinctive society clauses all he wants but it will not keep Canada together because the separatist politicians do not want to be in Canada.

What must the Prime Minister do? He has to go directly to the people with a plan for a new federalism. He has to build bridges of tolerance and understanding between the people of Quebec, not the politicians, and the rest of Canada. He has to build bridges of tolerance and understanding between Quebecers themselves.

A few weeks ago I was in Montreal for a national unity rally and I was shocked, saddened and appalled. There is a polarization between the yes and the no sides. These individuals are reacting violently toward each other. Bridges of understanding are not developing.

The Prime Minister must go into Quebec with all members of Parliament who want to keep the country together and bring forth a plan for a new federalism. It must involve a decentralization of powers to the provinces including Quebec. By decentralization I do not mean making a weak federal government, but being intelligent about it. Powers should be given to all the provinces in areas that they can manage more efficiently and cost effectively. We should keep within the federal government in Ottawa the powers that a strong federal government can manage better. That is for the sake of all Canadians.

The Prime Minister has to dispel the myths which have developed between the separatists and people in the rest of Canada. In the last referendum half of the people who voted yes believed they would still have Canadian passports. They believed they could send members of Parliament to this House. They believed they could use the Canadian dollar. They believed they would be part of NAFTA and that business would continue as usual. That is a complete distortion of the truth.

In Mr. Bouchard's speech on television on October 26 he stressed in English that the vote was about sovereignty and the rest of Canada must be prepared to recognize the results. In French he emphasized that the offer of political and economic partnership be made to the rest of Canada. Those are two very different ideas on the same very important topic. This has to be dispelled. The Prime Minister must outline very clearly to the people of Quebec what separation means and dispel the myths coming forth from the separatist politicians.

Mr. Bouchard likes to say that the economic situation in Quebec is going to be better than it is currently with Quebec as part of Canada. That is simply not true. Before the referendum his own financial analyst said that in the event of separation the people of Quebec would suffer dire economic and social consequences. That information was deliberately suppressed by the separatist leadership in Quebec. The Prime Minister must explain in no uncertain terms to the people of Quebec the consequences of separation.

The premier of Quebec likes to say that the people in an independent Quebec would enjoy a situation such as exists in Europe under the Maastricht treaty. The fact is the Maastricht treaty would provide Quebec with less monetary and fiscal control

than what it has today. In fact, I cannot see an independent Quebec taking its monetary and fiscal orders from Ottawa but that is exactly what a Maastricht treaty would provide for a separate Quebec.

I fear if the national unity issue is left up to the politicians, Canada is going to fracture. The Prime Minister has muddled through this issue. He is not prepared to lay it on the line, not only to the people in Quebec but also to the rest of Canada. If he believes he can muddle through this, if that is what his advisers are telling him, he is dead wrong because this country will fracture.

The Prime Minister must deal with the people and work with all other politicians in this House. He must go into the trenches. He cannot stay in Montreal and Quebec City and deal with the separatist media there and expect to get his message across. He has to go eyeball to eyeball, flesh and blood, right into the rural areas of Quebec. He must meet with the people, understand their concerns and get the good ideas from Quebecers. He must address their concerns and their needs to preserve their beautiful language which is an integral and important part of the Canada we all know and love.

It is important to preserve Quebec's distinctiveness and culture. If the Prime Minister gives the responsibilities of language and culture to the province of Quebec, then Quebecers are going to be the masters of their own cultural and linguistic destinies. Whether their language and culture survive will be entirely up to them. Personally, I deeply hope they do because they enrich all of us.

The Prime Minister must also understand that if he is going to put forth ideas that are somehow unequal and are only for the people of Quebec and not for other Canadians, he faces the risk of having other areas in Canada fracture and separate.

British Columbians are absolutely fed up with pandering to Quebec. They want equality for all people. They want Quebec to stay in Canada because from the bottom of their hearts they believe that the culture, language and contributions Quebec and Quebecers have made are invaluable to the definition of our country. Quebec's beautiful language and culture enriches us all.

British Columbians do not want Quebec to stay in Canada as a group with special privileges and special laws and regulations that the rest of Canada does not enjoy. One of the problems we see in the world is that any time one group is given special privileges over another, disunity rather than unity is created.

The Prime Minister will have to show a great deal of statesmanship if he is going to keep this country together. It could be his legacy if he is effective in doing that. He must put a plan together on the national unity issue. I encourage him to look at the Reform 20-20 plan which has a plan A and a plan B. It has a sensible plan on the devolution of powers from the federal government and the separation of powers for all the provinces.

We need to bring Canadians together. We are standing at a crossroads. The Prime Minister must lay down the guidelines for secession. I hope he uses this motion to define the terms of secession for the people in Quebec and outside Quebec. He must state the consequences of secession for all Canadians. He must include all MPs in this House. He must define and describe a new federalism. He must dissipate the intolerance that is taking place within Quebec. Mark my words. The intolerance that is brewing now is going to ultimately boil over in violence. That is not Canadian. If he does not realize it, I challenge him to go back on the streets and find out.

I challenge people across the country, inside and outside Quebec, francophone and anglophone, to put themselves in their neighbour's shoes and understand where they come from. Together and united, we will build a stronger future for all of us. We must use our differences with respect and understanding to build a stronger country for all of us.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Madam Speaker, Motion No. 206 proposes that in the opinion of the House the government should establish conditions for secession.

The government has been persuaded that the hon. member introduced this motion with the best of intentions. The prospect of Quebec's separation, while not imminent, is certainly real. However, when he refers to the concept of distinct society as special privileges and refers to violence we fear that he shows the Reform Party's lack of understanding of the issue.

This past October 30, a majority of Quebecers said "no" to separation. Some of us hope that Canadians will not be confronted with the spectre of the secession of Quebec. Unfortunately, the Bloc Quebecois and its secessionist allies are the ones who refuse to recognize Quebecers' wishes.

Last month, Premier Bouchard stated in the National Assembly: "If Canada rejects our outstretched hand, if Canada wants to impose vetoes on us, wants to keep us within Confederation against our will, we will withdraw by proclaiming sovereignty unilaterally. We have the right to do so, and we are going to exercise that right". Premier Bouchard did us a favour when he made that statement because he made his true intentions very clear. We must take Mr.

Bouchard at his word. The Government of Quebec has matched this statement with legal action.

Premier Bouchard did us all a favour when he made that statement because he made his true intentions very clear. We must take Mr. Bouchard at his word. The Government of Quebec has matched those words with legal action.

Quebecer Guy Bertrand is a founding member of the PQ. Mr. Bertrand says he became convinced of the tolerance of Canada and the benefits for Quebecers within Confederation when he realized Canada would allow a separatist party to sit in the House as the loyal opposition. So convinced was he that he decided to take the Government of Quebec to court.

Mr. Bertrand hopes to force the provincial government to explain to Quebecers how Quebec could be taken out of Canada with only a magic wand and to expose this charade for what it is. The Government of Quebec is trying to have Mr. Bertrand's case dismissed.

The provincial government told the Quebec Superior Court that the Constitution of Canada would not apply if Quebec seceded. Canadian courts would have no jurisdiction. That is an extraordinary statement coming from the government of a Canadian province.

Consequently the government understands some of the thinking and shares some of the concerns expressed on these issues in the House and elsewhere. It understands why the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca drafted the motion we are debating today.

However, while the federal government understands and is facing these challenges it is at the same time committed to acting in the best interests of all Canadians.

The Government of Canada has made its position very clear. In the throne speech in February, we renewed before Parliament our commitment to rise to the challenge of Quebec secession resolutely and with renewed energy and commitment.

First and foremost, the government has put into place a true program of reform, a program that will be ongoing. Certain measures have, in fact, already been presented by the government and debated in this House, including the distinct society resolution, the regional veto, and the transfer of manpower training to the provinces.

However, given the long term objectives of Premier Bouchard, the federal government also promised that: "-as long as the prospect of another Quebec referendum exists, the Government will exercise its responsibility to ensure that the debate is conducted with all the facts on the table, that the rules of the process are fair, that the consequences are clear, and Canadians, no matter where they live, will have their say in the future of their country".

The federal government has shown its resolve in response to a reply to the motion filed by the PQ government in the Bertrand case.

Let me restate what the federal position is not. The federal government does not agree with Mr. Bertrand on many things. The federal government does not wish to interfere with the capacity of the provincial Government of Quebec to call a consultative referendum on any subject, including separation. The Minister of Justice and other have been very clear on this matter before the House and Canadians.

However, before the results of any referendum were used by a secessionist government as a political mandate to leave Canada, at a minimum the federal government would insist the question be clear and the consequences explained to voters. All participants in the debate among Quebecers would have to understand the fundamental consequences of their actions.

Were this mandate ever achieved, Quebec would not have a right to secede unilaterally. There is simply no legal foundation for this under either Canadian or international law. This is not new or a surprise. Quebec's own commissions and inquiries have been consistently told the same thing many times.

Some would argue so what, how can the law keep people in Canada? If the people speak, if the people choose, what is the law if not the will of the people? Would not a law seeking to deny people this fundamental right somehow be anti-democratic? That line of reasoning is deeply flawed. The rule of law is not an obstacle to change but provides a framework for change.

The rule of law would allow secession to take place in an orderly fashion and to preserve important protections for all. If we begin as governments or citizens to discard the rule of law what remains would be chaos where we make up the rules as we go along, where we set aside protections in the law, where at best we would enter into an unknown, and that is not what Canadians want and not action the federal government, any federal government, would ever support.

Canada cannot remain united if some of us say clearly, in response to a clear and fair question, that we want to leave Canada. After all, Canada is built on values of compromise and tolerance promoting our national identity.

Since 1867, we have shared the burdens and the joys of nationhood. We have gathered together the fruits of this country, which many describe as the best in the world.

In this same vein of tolerance and compromise, however, Canadians would insist that any secession would have to be by negotiation and not unilateral. This is the objection of the federal government and many Canadians to the route chosen to date by Mr. Bouchard and other secessionists.

Canada can be divided. It is certainly no prison. No one is forced to remain a Canadian or in Canada, but, at the same time, no one should have their rights denied arbitrarily, without due process of law. If Quebec were ever to secede, 30 million Canadians would expect, and no one would demand, that the governments would move beyond their differences, find a common ground and continue to create an environment favourable to all.

The hon. member's motion touches on some of these themes. It may even use the federal government's statements to date as inspiration, but Reform would go further and faster than the federal government chooses. The federal government has made its approach clear and it stands by those decisions.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, before speaking directly to Motion M-206, I would like to set the record straight regarding an aberration often heard in this House. It originates with the member who moved Motion M-206, the member for Esquimalt-Juan-de-Fuca. He said something to the effect that nearly only in Canada, a beautiful and democratic country, are sovereignist groups allowed to have a say.

I would like to remind him, just in case he does not know, that in Belgium there is a right wing Flemish party, called Vlaams Blok, which promotes independence for Flanders. Out of 150 members sitting in Parliament, 11 advocate independence. In Italy, the Northern League has sent separatists members to the Parliament. They number 59 out of 630. In Spain, there are three separatist sovereignist parties. Taiwan and the United Kingdom also have sovereignist parties. Canada is not the only country where this is allowed. This is democracy.

If there is something totally undemocratic, it is Motion M-206. If you were to ask me to describe this motion in a few words, I would tell you that it is useless, it lacks intellectual rigour and is provocative.

It is useless, because when you read it, you see it has only one purpose, namely to impose the will of the majority, not of Quebecers, but of Canadians, on Quebecers. This is not the first time we have said this, and I will say it again very calmly, Quebec sovereignty will be decided by Quebecers alone, not by English Canada, not by the rest of Canada. Quebecers will decide.

This motion does not make any sense, especially when everybody uses the expression the "people" of Quebec. Even the Prime Minister, last week, answering a question I had put to him, used the expression the "people" of Quebec. Everyone in this House, except perhaps for a few Reformers and a few Liberals sitting in front of me but who would probably feel more comfortable sitting beside me with Reform members, recognize that Quebecers are a people.

It is obvious that the secessionist unit is comprised of a people meeting international standards, as stated in the motion, but it is also obvious that Quebecers are a people. So this motion is unnecessary in that regard.

This motion lists five criteria, and I will go over each of them. The first criterion is that the unit be recognized as a people. This is unnecessary, as everyone in this House recognizes that we Quebecers are a people. We also showed in the last referendum that we were a responsible people, since we proposed the term "partnership", which is very fashionable these days in the House.

I am not saying that we invented it, but I think it was the first time the term "partnership" was used in this House. The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister then turned around and used it at every opportunity. All this to tell you that we are a responsible people and that we have already proposed a few things.

The motion says that the government should consider negotiating with any claim. Again, this is unnecessary because, if the hon. member had followed the referendum campaign a little more closely, he would have seen that this is in the standards, in the concrete measures proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, the Parti Quebecois and all the sovereignists in Quebec. They propose that some things be negotiated to benefit Quebec, of course, but also the rest of Canada. There are major issues to be negotiated.

The third criterion in this motion is also quite ludicrous and unnecessary. I think this motion is wasting the very valuable time of the House. I would also say that, on the basis of the points I raised earlier, this motion lacks intellectual rigour. Indeed, this motion addresses several issues, including democratic rights and international law.

This motion makes a grab for powers vested in legislative assemblies, as-and I think the hon. member did not make any secret about this-its sole purpose is to prevent Quebecers from voting again on their future, or at least to try to put up roadblocks by imposing an endless selection process. All this just for Quebec, to grab powers belonging to the Quebec National Assembly, among others, to try to subvert set rules and to interfere with the political judgment of a people.

I think that these are extremely important criteria and that trying to legislate and put them down on paper results in the kind of nonsense we have here in Motion M-206.

I also smiled when I read the second point, which says that "the people must have been subject to a denial of political freedom or human rights in a discriminatory manner".

If I am not mistaken, until there is evidence to the contrary, Canada is a democratic country. I think that everyone agrees to say this is one of our finest values, to which the people of Quebec, Ontario and the other provinces have all contributed. Correct me if I am wrong, but it is the democratic people of Quebec who will achieve sovereignty and, similarly, it is the democratic people of the rest of Canada who will negotiate a partnership with the newly-formed country called Quebec.

It is also to lack intellectual rigour to try, through a motion, to interfere with the judgment passed on the wording of the referendum question. I am referring to here to item 4 of the motion, which states: "a clear and precise question is asked as to whether the population in question wishes to secede from Canada".

If anything was made clear in the last referendum, this was it. The issue of sovereignty has been discussed extensively, and not just since 1995. I can remember, when I was elected in 1993, making speeches on sovereignty and promoting Quebec's independence; that was part of my mandate. Come on, this is really to ascribe to us intentions we do not have.

The question will be clear. In fact, it was clear. But the important thing is that it is not up to the federal Parliament, to the Ontario Legislative Assembly, or to other provincial legislature to phrase the question. It is up to the Quebec National Assembly, as in the case of Newfoundland. Indeed, referendums are not held only in Quebec. Over the years, some also took place in other provinces. Never did the federal government, or a provincial government, interfere in the process.

In 1948, Newfoundland joined Confederation with 52.34 per cent of voters supporting the idea. Did anyone claim it was not enough? If we can join Canada with 52.34 per cent of voters supporting the idea, we can certainly leave it with the same number. The Avalon peninsula said no to Confederation in a proportion of 67.18 per cent, but eventually joined it. There was no talk of partitioning.

As you can see, this motion lacks intellectual rigour, to say the least. More importantly, it is pure provocation. To say that 66.6 per cent of the population must vote in favour of sovereignty is to provoke Quebecers. In the last federal election, some members in this House got elected with barely 35 per cent of the votes. Do we question their legitimate right to represent their riding? No, because this is democracy.

When democracy speaks, there is not a parliament, an MP, or a constitution that can oppose the will of the people. This is what democracy is all about.

Motion M-206 goes squarely against this principle. Fortunately, it is not a votable item and we will not see how many Reform members, and perhaps Liberals members, would have been tempted to support it. We would have voted strongly against the motion.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I had a prepared speech, but after listening to the member for Esquimalt-Juan du Fuca I think I had better throw half of it away because I want to address several of the points he touched on.

I tried desperately during his presentation to extract the positive elements of his intervention.

If we are to solve the Canadian unity problem, it will not be by adopting such a motion. It will be by having dialogue. I would like to have a dialogue with the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.

One positive element of his speech, despite the Reform Party's lack of understanding of Quebec's needs and problems, was the language the distinctive culture in Quebec. He touched on the valuable contribution that Quebecers have made to the creation of this country. However, I still have serious doubts because when it came time for the Reform Party to recognize that great language and culture that make Canada unique and the efforts of Prime Minister in response to the passionate plea we made on October 27, the member and his party voted against the government's efforts to recognize Quebec's distinct society and the regional veto.

We are on a dangerous treadmill. This is what I want to point out to the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. When he uses words like intolerance and violence they preoccupy me immensely. The member from the Bloc Quebecois implied the motion is provocative and may induce violence, that is exactly what I fear.

The member also said his province is fed up with pandering to Quebec, again another form of intolerance, another form of showing we are not open to dialogue.

Prior to the referendum premiers were begging Quebecers passionately, saying "we will work hand in hand with you, your aspirations and concerns are our concerns". However, the member today measured his province by how much we benefit in economic terms from the federation and how Quebec is being pandered to and how people are fed up with always responding to Quebec's demands.

I remind the hon. member we made concessions to accommodate provinces when they joined Confederation. We made a concession for his province of British Columbia. We promised British Columbians: "Join our family and we will build you a national railway". That dream was realized in 1892, contributed to by the many immigrants who came to this country to help build that dream.

I ask the hon. member where would British Columbians be if that national dream had not been realized. Would the prosperity the province realizes today have been realized? I doubt it.

We made concessions for P.E.I., the smallest province of Confederation. We said: "Join our family and we will make sure you are represented in the House of Commons and the Senate and we will build you a fixed link". Quebecers paid for that national railway and for the fixed link. Quebecers did not say "where is our fair share"?

I am disappointed the member is not here. I believe if we are to solve the Canadian unity problem we must show respect for each other and have dialogue and understanding. I ask Reform Party members, who are now suddenly showing up in Quebec, being political opportunists, receiving petitions in my riding and other ridings, that if they are sincere why were they not involved in the unity debate during the entire referendum? Where were they?

They talk about their 20-20 vision. I think this motion is unfounded, very dangerous and very intimidating.

Therefore, our government supports co-operation with the provinces and all our partners in order to develop new approaches and find constructive solutions.

The Government of Canada does not intend in the slightest to promote confrontation, as is suggested in this motion, because it could undermine the renewal of federalism and especially our social harmony.

We want to unite Canadians, not divide them. We have launched a process of national reconciliation and federation renewal. We have taken some concrete measures by implementing initiatives to restore the balance within our federation, to reinforce our economic union and enhance our social solidarity and to further define the devolution of powers, just like the hon. member himself wanted us to do.

Canadians outside Quebec are open-minded and try to draw closer to their fellow citizens in Quebec, by recognizing that their differences are what makes our country's strength. If we work together to ensure our federation goes forward and meets the expectations of Canadians, we will have reached our goal without having to hold another referendum on secession.

We believe we can work constructively with the Government of Quebec, given the open-mindedness shown by Premier Lucien Bouchard, as we do with all the other provincial and territorial governments. It is our duty, our responsibility.

The next first ministers conference will deal with restoring the balance within our federation. It will give the federal and provincial governments the opportunity to discuss the priorities Canadians want us to set. This is why the motion put forward by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca seems inconsistent with our government's action plan. And this is why I do not support this motion and I urge my colleagues not to support it either.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Madam Speaker, Motion M-206 brought forward today by my colleague from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca says that the government should establish beforehand five specific conditions with regard to any secessionist claim.

I can understand why this motion is being debated. I can even say that, in a sense, I agree with my colleague from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca that the unilateral secession of any province is totally unacceptable.

Let me remind the House that the government was quite clear on that. We went to court to defend the rule of law. The federal government's intervention before the Cour supérieure du Québec is the direct result of the motion presented by the Government of Quebec. It claims that the secession of Quebec does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Canadian courts or the Constitution and that it is solely a matter of international law.

The matter is now before the courts and a ruling will be made at the appropriate time. In the meantime, we are concentrating, as we have always done, on issues of interest to all Canadians, namely the economy, employment, growth, the renewal of the federation, equality, social justice as well as national reconciliation, which the Reform Party obviously has no interest in.

Far from creating an environment favourable to national reconciliation, the positions adopted recently by members of the third party underline the fundamental issues that divide them.

When did our colleagues from the Reform Party contribute to the debate with positive arguments, constructive solutions? Instead, they seem to be on the path of division and confrontation.

While conditions for secession seem to be "the" main concern of Reform members, our government has clearly indicated its priorities in the throne speech. We are focusing our efforts on positive action that will prepare Canada for the challenges of the new millenium.

Economic prosperity, employment, equality, social justice and national reconciliation, these are the issues of concern to Canadians. These are also the priorities established by our government.

During the first half of its mandate, the government took some measures to set economic and budgetary conditions that would foster sustained growth and job creation. It undertook a major administrative reform, reduced the deficit, and took some trade and international investment initiatives.

It is in this context that, since it assumed power, our government has created more than half a million jobs and reduced the unemployment rate by two points, so that, for the first time in five years, it is under 10 per cent.

Thus, our government has made major changes in the past two years and it continues to put forward the measures announced in the throne speech to improve the workings of the Canadian federation. In this regard, let me remind the hon. member of the initiatives on which our government is focusing.

First of all, our government promised to limit its spending power in exclusively provincial areas. Never before has the federal government offered to limit its powers outside formal constitutional negotiations.

Moreover, at the request of its provincial counterparts, the government says that it will not create any shared cost program in sectors under provincial jurisdiction, without the agreement of a majority of provinces. Non participating provinces implementing such a program will be compensated. We believe that, with such co-operation and openness, we will promote Canadian unity.

Secondly, our government is determined to find new avenues for cooperation with provinces to maintain national standards in social programs without imposing conditions and without unilateral implementation. It must be reminded that our social programs guarantee all Canadians access to comparable levels of service no matter where they live. That is what our government's commitment to social solidarity means.

Thirdly, the government took the commitment to define more clearly the responsibilities of the different levels of government. This is done in cooperation with the provinces. We began withdrawing from areas which are more directly the responsibility of the provinces, municipalities and other stakeholders.

In this regard, the proposal put forward last week by our colleague, the human resources development minister, is a concrete example of the fulfilment of a major commitment for our government and for most of the provinces, which had been seeking increased authority over manpower training for a long time. The announcement also signals a new co-operation between both levels of government in the area of manpower training.

Therefore, provinces, if they wish, will be able to have their own programs of employment measures, such as wage subsidies, income supplements, job creation partnerships as well as manpower services such as employment counselling and job placement.

This is a practical example of the ability of federalism to adjust to the claims of its various partners and to the regional needs in the best interests of Canadians everywhere in Canada. We are also continuing with our plans to withdraw from a number of other activities, such as forestry, mining and recreation.

Fourth, the federal government will continue to promote economic union. In order to ensure greater protection for individual and common interests, our government has undertaken to work in concert with the provinces, in order to reduce obstacles to internal trade and manpower mobility. We are also proposing to create, in co-operation with the interested provinces, a Canadian Securities Commission that will facilitate the circulation of capital.

Fifth, the federal government is in favour of including in the Canadian Constitution a regional veto and recognition of the distinct identity of Quebec.

Finally, on the question of conditions of secession, which seem to be the Reform Party's main preoccupation, the government has indicated that it would ensure that the rules regarding the question and the consequences of secession are clear for everyone, which was obviously not the case in the referendum last October 30.

I would like to remind the House that the next first ministers' conference is part of that process for the modernization of the federation. That meeting will be the perfect opportunity to examine ways to improve the workings of our federation and to bring about the changes that all Canadians want.

Here is how our government intends to revitalize the Canadian federation: by proposing some positive answers to the concerns of Canadians, in an atmosphere of co-operation, dialogue and respect. This is also how we should, and we will, implement a more harmonious federation based on a larger consensus.

Therefore, we ask the Reform Party to join in with the federal government, in order that we may work constructively towards the renewal of the federation, as all Canadians want us to do.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. This item is dropped from the Order Paper.

The House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m.

(The House adjourned at 6.51 p.m.).