Debates of Sept. 26th, 1996

Government Response To Petitions

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions.

Quebec

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to announce that I intend to refer to the Supreme Court of Canada certain specific questions of great importance to all Canadians.

Let me begin by reaffirming our deep conviction that our great country will remain strong and united both into and beyond the next century.

On two occasions in the recent past the majority of Quebecers have voted for a united Canada. Notwithstanding those democratic expressions of the popular will, the current government of the province of Quebec seems determined to bring the issue to a third vote at some future time. Moreover, it claims to be entitled to make a unilateral declaration of independence to create a separate state of Quebec.

In our view that position is contrary to Canadian law, is unsupported by international law and is deeply threatening to the orderly governance of our nation.

If another referendum is to be held, we are convinced that the population of Quebec will note in favour of a united Canada a third time, and that they will do so because a united Canada is the better option, for themselves and for their children.

And just as Quebecers have chosen to stay within Canada in the past when they were asked to make a choice, Canadians everywhere know that Quebec's inclusion is essential to preserving the country that we cherish.

As a Canadian who makes his home in Toronto, I can speak very personally in saying that, without Quebec, the magnificent dream and the shining ideal that is Canada would simply not exist.

However, we cannot avoid the serious difficulties created by the Quebec government's assertion that there is a right to secede from Canada through a unilateral declaration of independence.

The Government of Quebec has expressly stated that the Constitution and the courts have no role to play in determining the correctness of its position. As we have argued in court and as I have asserted here in this House, we believe its position to be profoundly wrong.

To leave this issue unresolved would pose a serious threat to orderly government in Quebec and in the rest of Canada.

The Government of Canada does not argue against the legitimacy of a consultative referendum. A referendum is an opportunity for a government to consult with the people. But however important that consultation may be, the result of a referendum does not in and of itself effect legal change.

It is terribly important to remember that in the Canadian context there is no political justification to argue for a unilateral declaration of independence by the Quebec National Assembly.

In most countries the very idea of secession would be rejected. But that has not been so in Canada. There have been two referenda in Quebec. The leading political figures of all the provinces and indeed the Canadian public have long agreed that this country will not be held together against the will of Quebecers clearly expressed. And this government agrees with that statement.

This position arises partly out of our traditions of tolerance and mutual respect but also because we know instinctively that the quality and the functioning of our democracy requires the broad consent of all Canadians.

Regrettably, the view of the current Quebec government on the nature and the role of a referendum is quite different. We have therefore concluded that the responsible and the effective thing to do is submit this issue for determination by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Let me be very clear. This issue is of enormous significance.

A unilateral declaration of independence would undermine political stability, interrupt the prevailing order and cast into doubt the interests and rights of Quebecers and all Canadians.

A unilateral declaration of independence would create the most serious difficulties for ordinary Quebecers. There would be widespread uncertainty within Quebec about which legal regime was effectively in control.

For the average citizen, business or institution in Quebec, there would be the greatest confusion. Individual Quebecers would be uncertain what laws applied, what courts and law officiers to respect, to whom to pay their taxes.

In such an environment, it is certain that Quebec society would be deeply divided over the course the provincial government would have adopted.

Moreover, such a unilateral declaration of independence would have been made in the absence of an agreement with the rest of Canada on such fundamental issues as recognition for Quebec internationally, trade and economic arrangements, the rights of citizens to move within the country, the sharing of public debt and assets, the use of currency and scores of other issues.

Quebec would likely find itself, after a UDI, with no recognition by all or most of the international community, unable to manage its relations with sovereign states. Quebec would be unable to issue recognized passports for its citizens or to represent their interests abroad. Its unilateral act would make it virtually impossible to issue public debt on international markets. In other words, the idea of a unilateral declaration of independence makes no sense no matter how it is considered.

The issue is not just a mere legal nicety. It is also of enormous practical significance. Any government that suggests it would throw Quebec and all of Canada into the confusion of a unilateral declaration of independence is being profoundly irresponsible. It is a formula for chaos.

I firmly believe we shall never reach the point of having to deal with the reality of Quebec's separation. This nation shall endure.

Should such a day ever come, there is no doubt that it could only be achieved through negotiation and through agreement. The

Government of Canada believes that both our Constitution and international law protects us against the irresponsibility of a unilateral declaration of independence, and that is the very issue we shall be taking for determination to the Supreme Court of Canada.

As I have stressed, our nation is built on shared values of tolerance, accommodation and mutual respect. Canadians are admired throughout the world because of our understanding of the need to accommodate one another to achieve our larger common purposes.

In this respect, we share a commitment to using negociation and orderly processes to work out differences-something that Canadian individuals and businesses do every day. This commitment is what the international community has come to expect of Canada and to admire.

Canadians' shared values have guided us in the past and will continue to do so in the future. All Canadians, including Quebecers, can take pride in the civility and tolerence we have shown one another in dealing with this fundamental issue. There is every reason to believe that civility will continue.

Our insistence on resolving questions raised by the prospect of Quebec secession through an orderly process and within the framework of law is simply consistent with those values.

However remote the possibility that a future referendum would reject Canada, it is essential that the legal framework that has enabled us to resolve our differences as Canadians peacefully and co-operatively be clearly established now, in advance of a referendum.

That is the reason we became involved in the Bertrand litigation before the Quebec superior court last May. It was only after the attorney general of Quebec brought a motion last spring to dismiss that litigation that we decided to involve ourselves, and then only because of the grounds relied upon by the attorney general of Quebec in bringing his motion.

The attorney general of Quebec based his motion on the argument that neither the courts nor the Constitution of this country have any relevance to the process that the Quebec government intends to follow in advocating separation, but that international law alone applies.

It was my obligation as the Attorney General of Canada, as the custodian of the Constitution of our country, to respond in the courtroom. There we argued that the Constitution is not only relevant but governing, that the courts have jurisdiction to deal with these issues.

In addition, we argued that the Quebec government would have no right either under international law or otherwise to make a unilateral declaration of independence.

We submitted that while there are some limited circumstances in which international law provides a people with the right to secede unilaterally from an existing country, none of those circumstances exist in the case of Quebec within Canada. I may point out that our conclusions in that regard were largely consistent with the opinions expressed by five experts in international law, retained in 1991 by the commission dealing with the issues relating to Quebec sovereignty, established by the Government of Quebec itself.

When I welcomed the decision of Mr. Justice Pidgeon of the Quebec superior court on August 30 last, I noted in particular that by deciding that the court had jurisdiction to deal with the questions before it, Mr. Justice Pidgeon had confirmed the primacy of the rule of law.

What is this rule of law? What is its practical meaning, its social value? Is it simply a technicality used to overrule democratic decisions that the federal government does not agree with?

First and foremost, the rule of law, as it has developed in Canada and in other democratic nations around the world, is not simply a legal abstraction or a technical precept. It is a living principle that is fundamental to our democratic way of life. In substance, it means that everyone in our society, including ministers of government, premiers, the rich and powerful and the ordinary citizen alike is governed by the same law of the land. We are all bound by the Constitution, by the Criminal Code, by acts of Parliament and the legislatures. In cases of dispute regarding the application or interpretation of law, the courts are the ultimate arbiter.

The great value of the Rule of Law is that it is democratic. Its substance is derived from our democratic institutions. It applies to everyone without qualification. It also permits democracy to flourish because it establishes a stable framework within which the democratic process can work.

The separatist leaders argue that the Rule of Law is simply a ruse by which the Canadian Government intends to defeat an expression of democratic will by Quebecers-a trick to deny the results of a lost referendum. They argue that to require an orderly process within the legal framework would place Quebec in a straightjacket, defeating the democratic result of a future referendum.

Such arguments are made for political effect. They are based on the misunderstanding that the rule of law and democratic action are

somehow mutually exclusive. That is quite wrong. In fact, they coexist in harmony. The safety of both depends upon the integrity of each. The failure to observe either endangers the two at once.

Simply to insist upon an orderly process is not to foreclose the acceptance of change. Let us be vigilant to ensure that the true issue of the day is kept before us. The issue is not whether a democracy such as Canada can keep a population against its will. Of course, it cannot. The issue arises from the false claim by the Government of Quebec that it alone, in a unilateral fashion that changes according to its short term political interests, can decide the process that may lead to secession.

Quebecers as well as their fellow citizens across Canada would be dramatically affected by the break-up of our country. Everyone has the right to be certain that the process is lawful, mutually acceptable and fair to all.

That brings me to our decision to take steps intended to clarify the legal issues that have arisen between the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec. It is my intention to refer to the Supreme Court of Canada three specific questions for a decision by that court on the fundamental issues that have arisen.

Here are the questions we will be asking the court:

Under the Constitution of Canada, can the National Assembly, legislature of Government of Quebec effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?

Second, does international law give the National Assembly, the legislature or the Government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally? In this regard, is there a right to self-determination under international law that would give the National Assembly, the legislature or the Government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?

Third, in the event of a conflict between domestic and international law on the right of the National Assembly, legislature or Government of Quebec to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally, which would take precedence in Canada?

It will be evident that these questions build upon the fundamental issues identified by the hon. Mr. Justice Pidgeon in his judgment rendered last August 30 in the Bertrand litigation.

While it would have been possible for the Government of Canada to continue in the Bertrand litigation and to argue these points at trial, we have, on such fundamental issues a duty as a national government to ensure that they are brought to the courts directly with a view to an early and definitive judgment. We have therefore decided to go to the highest court in the land and to ask it to address these questions as soon as conveniently possible.

I also wish to emphasize that the very questions we are putting before the court and those that arose from the judgment of Mr. Justice Pidgeon in Bertrand resulted directly from the position taken by the attorney general of Quebec in the Bertrand litigation. I have therefore referred to the Supreme Court of Canada in concise form the fundamental matters put at issue by the Government of Quebec itself in moving to dismiss Mr. Bertrand's lawsuit.

I have written to the Attorney General of Quebec urging him to participate in the proceedings before the Supreme Court of Canada. It is obvious that there are profound differences in our respective views about these crucial legal matters.

In keeping with our long tradition in this country, consistent with our values of civility and respect for democratic institutions, I call upon the Attorney General of Quebec to join me in a full, frank and open discussion of the very issues he has raised in the place where they are best resolved: in the highest court of the land.

Let me emphasize something that this government has tried to make clear from the outset. The rule of law is not an obstacle to change. It permits change to take place in an orderly way. It allows Canadians to alter and to adjust to their institutions in a fashion that reflects our values of consensus, of dialogue and of accommodation. I have every confidence that the courts will endorse and accept the position that I have put forward. Nonetheless, it is for the courts to make that determination and we will of course respect and abide by the results.

There is every reason for Canadians across this great land to be optimistic about the future of our country. We must continue to work to avoid ever having to deal with an attempt at secession. The world would never understand the failure of a country like Canada which embodies in so many ways that which is best in the human spirit. Indeed, Canadians would never forgive themselves.

Our common objective must be to continue to work together to improve our government, to make the case for Canada in Quebec and to celebrate the great distinctiveness of Quebec as a fundamental characteristic of our country.

The Canadian government is committed to doing all of that in partnership with all of the provincial and territorial governments of this country. Whatever happens, we must continue to deal with one another with respect, with tolerance, through accommodation and within the law. That is democracy.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The hon. member for Saint-Hubert.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are told that the federal government intends to seek the Supreme Court's opinion on the legality of Quebec's eventual accession to sovereignty.

Unlike what the Minister of Justice said at the beginning of his speech, I am convinced, and so are my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, that the people of Quebec will vote in favour of a sovereign Quebec in the next referendum.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[An hon. member]

Sixty per cent.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

They will do so because it is the best option for them and for future generations.

The close results of the last referendum are probably behind the federal government's decision to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on the legality of Quebec's sovereignty.

This reference to the Supreme Court of Canada is in line with the federal strategy that subordinates the legitimate right of the people of Quebec to accede democratically to sovereignty to the rule of law.

Both the Bloc Quebecois and the Quebec government have always said that accession to sovereignty is above all a political matter and not one that should be decided by the courts.

Oddly enough, in August 1995, shortly before the last referendum held in Quebec, the Minister of Justice said in a public statement that it was important to respect the democratic vote of Quebecers on the matter of sovereignty. To him it was a political, not a legal question.

I think it is also surprising that last spring, the Minister of Justice said that the federal government's participation in the Bertrand case was basically motivated by the involvement of the provincial government.

Since the Quebec government has withdrawn from this case, why has he now decided not only to withdraw from the Bertrand case but to pursue the matter alone before the Supreme Court?

It is because of the close results of the last referendum that the federal government is now asking the Supreme Court for its opinion on the legality of Quebec sovereignty. Resorting to the Supreme Court is part of the federal government's plan B strategy

which involves making the legitimacy of Quebecers' democratic accession to sovereignty subordinate to the rule of law.

Now that it is afraid of losing, the federal government is trying to throw doubt on the entire Quebec referendum process and to impose its own referendum laws. The feds have lost the political battle and are turning to the courts in order to save face.

The federal government's justification for its reference to the Supreme Court is based essentially on the concept of the rule of law.

However, when referendums were called in 1980 and 1995, this did not meet with legal objections from the federal government, which was, in fact, a major participant.

We saw this as a political acknowledgment of the process initiated by Quebec for its accession to sovereignty. In fact, it also acknowledged the legitimacy of the exercise initiated by the Government of Quebec.

The federal government must realize that the rule of law should always be justified by a respect for the democratic values and principles that prevail in our society. The rule of law should never take precedence over the will and the legitimate right of the people of Quebec to accede democratically to sovereignty.

We have said many times, and I say it again today, that the exercise initiated by the province of Quebec needs no definition by the courts.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I begin today by indicating that the Reform Party is in support of the reference of these questions to the Supreme Court of Canada. Clearly the vagueness and unpreparedness of the country on this profound question of the rule of law cannot be allowed to continue.

We offer this support in spite of the fact that we have profound differences with the Liberal government about the nature of Canada and the way this issue should be handled in other regards. Reformers do not believe in its vision of a centralized and unreformed Canadian Confederation. We also do not agree with its approach on matters such as language policy, the approach it has taken on national unity and we are still concerned about the vagueness it has on many of the issues that relate not only to keeping the country together but to contingencies in the event the country should have to face the problem of Quebec secession.

I would also like to express to the minister, before I continue, not just my agreement of his actions but that I appreciate his co-operation in discussing these matters with us and in fully informing us of the actions the government is prepared to take.

I also think it would be appropriate on behalf of all Canadians to acknowledge the role of Mr. Bertrand in bringing this matter to the attention of the courts in the first place.

Let me make a couple of comments about the specifics of the government's reference. Generally the government has referred the correct questions to the Supreme Court. I am concerned, however, about some of the wording relating to international law, as the court may be reluctant to express an opinion on that matter.

Also, the reference does not address the critical question of by what means Quebec secession or the secession of any province could occur under the Constitution and whether the Constitution can be used to address that question. I do not see those in the questions that the minister has asked the court and there is somewhat of a deficiency in that regard.

We view this as only a first step. To the extent that the government is increasingly prepared to look at plan B options, it must be prepared to table a legislative framework for such a contingency and also to take greater efforts to inform the Quebec population of not just the possible cost but the consequences and possible conditions of their secession.

I would point out that our position is not new and is not the result of the referendum campaign. Indeed, we made our position on these issues clear a very long time ago.

As early as October 1994, after the election of the current separatist government, I raised questions in the House about the legality and constitutionality of the Quebec secession question. I point out that ministers and parliamentary secretaries refused to answer. They said that the Constitution did not address these issues and that the position was strictly hypothetical.

I would also point out that they went farther and I think to the detriment of federalism in the last referendum campaign. They denied the importance of these realities. The Prime Minister indicated that a majority vote in favour of secession would not necessarily lead to the separation of Quebec. This, in our view, was a very dangerous factor in convincing the population of Quebec that the yes option was not a risky one.

On referendum night we became aware that not only was the Government of Quebec serious about its unilateral plans for separation but in fact had made extensive arrangements and preparations for a unilateral declaration of independence. Clearly

this was not a hypothetical question from their point of view and given the result of the referendum it cannot be treated hypothetically now.

The minister is unclear or sending mixed messages when he says that he views a possible yes vote in a future referendum as remote or unlikely. We have to face the fact that we are dealing with this question precisely because of the results of the last referendum. We have to take the expression of the people of Quebec seriously and tell them that when they vote yes it has consequences and those consequences may some day be separation. We cannot just dismiss the results of the last referendum. We must admit they are responsible for the heightened awareness of the danger of this problem throughout Canada.

I would also point out that not only have we supported this position for some time, and we did discuss freely the implications of unilateral separation in the last referendum, but we also, immediately after the referendum, published our formal position on these issues. We have published a document called "the 20-20" which includes not only our 20 proposals for the reform and decentralization of Canadian federation, but also our 20 proposals for contingencies for the rest of the country in the event that Quebec should vote to secede. These are based on three very fundamental principles which the government is finally expressing. These are respect for democratic consent of the people, respect for the rule of law and the primacy of the protection of the interests of all loyal Canadians.

I realize that in making this decision, the Government of Canada will face fairly serious criticism, indeed fairly serious political challenges from its so-called federalist friends in Quebec. In particular, I want to point to the leader of the federal Progressive Conservative Party and the leader of the Quebec Liberal Party.

Members will recall that in the dying days of the last referendum campaign, it is my view that these two individuals ambushed the rest of Canada with their demands for special status. I believe ultimately, although I do not imagine my colleagues will admit it, they ambushed the Prime Minister also. They have maintained that there is a necessity for a plan A that is extremely generous to virtually any demand that comes from the Government of Quebec, but they are not prepared to contemplate any aspect of a plan B.

This is, in our view, a tremendous contradiction: that the threat of Quebec's separation is great enough that the country should be prepared to make not just concessions but virtually any concession to deal with it. However, it is not to be viewed as serious enough that we should in any way plan any contingency to defend the interests of the rest of the country.

These people are tremendous at flag waving and great PR events when they want to get up and say to the rest of the country that they oppose Quebec sovereignty. Today they are finally being asked to show that they are prepared to support Canadian sovereignty. What this issue is about and the reference of this case to the Supreme

Court, in our view, is precisely the opposite of what the premier of Quebec has said. Canada is a real country. Quebec is a province of that country, and that is nothing to be ashamed of.

I would also like to speak of the position of the Bloc Quebecois. I must point out that, over the years, the position of the Bloc and of the sovereignist movement has changed. As one example, Mr. Lévesque himself proposed a referendum solely as a public consultation, admitting that he ought to negotiate Quebec's final change of status with the rest of Canada.

It is also difficult for us in the rest of Canada to understand Mr. Bouchard's position, when he says that he supports not only sovereignty but also sovereignty-partnership with the rest of Canada. To have a partnership, there must be partners. In this world, partnerships need to be negotiated. This is impossible, and evidence of the lack of maturity of the sovereignist movement, in thinking that it can have a partnership that is unilateral. Not only is this a misconception of human nature, it is also untrue to the nature of relations between sovereign states.

I would also like to point out that the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this idea because, in its eyes, it supports the voice of democracy. I must point out too that, on two occasions, the voice of democracy has rejected Quebec sovereignty. I think I am in agreement with the members of the government as well, in saying that it is time for the government of Quebec to start respecting these expressions of the voice of democracy.

I will conclude by addressing the questions and the fears we all have as Canadians in the shadow of the last referendum. There are those who continue to insist for whatever reason that the possibility of Quebec's separation should not be taken seriously. There may be votes, there may be upheavals, there may be dislocation, but Quebec will never separate.

I have never taken this position. My understanding of Quebec is that as profoundly as I disagree with the position of the separatists, it is a position that is honestly held by many. While I think it is unfortunate and historically was avoidable, there are good explanations for the existence of this movement.

Will Quebec leave? I do not believe it will but it is possible. However, it would be profoundly unfortunate should that occur.

We believe that the struggle occurring in the province of Quebec today is a struggle that is going on in many parts of the world as we emerge from the cold war. That struggle is one of whether we will evolve toward greater forms of co-operation among all nations and all peoples of the world, whether we will move toward structures

and toward arrangements that address and support the idea of the brotherhood and the sisterhood of humanity or whether we will once again descend into the narrowness and the narrow view of ethnic nationalism.

In my view, the choice of Quebec's separation is a choice for ethnic nationalism and would be a choice to embrace the darkness rather than to accept the light. This is a problem for Canada but it does not mean the end of Canada. I profoundly disagree with those who say that as tragic as Quebec's separation would be, it would mean the end of this country. In my view that devalues this country. This country has a strong history and remains strong to those who support it not just in Quebec but elsewhere in Canada.

A country does not live or die by its Constitution or its legal arrangements. These are important for the management of its day to day affairs and ultimately, as the minister has said, important for the management of any profound change in those relationships. However, countries live or countries die in the hearts of the people who belong to them, particularly democratic countries.

Canada remains strong in the hearts of Canadians and, according to two referendums, in the hearts of the majority of Quebecers. The fact that it has died in the hearts of some or may die in the hearts of others is no reason for us to ever give up on this country.

Committees Of The House

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 29th report of the standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of some committees.

If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this 29th report later this day.

Access To Information Act

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-327, an act to amend the Access to Information Act (disclosure of results of public opinion polls).

Mr. Speaker, this private member's bill was previously Bill C-346 in the last Parliament and was originally tabled by the then hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Mr. Patrick Boyer, and I want to give him credit for it.

I am pleased to introduce this bill, targeting the disclosure of results of public opinion polls commissioned by the government. This bill would amend the Access to Information Act and force the government to disclose within a set time period the results of all public opinion polls which the government itself commissions. This bill would compel the designated minister to disclose the issues dealt with in the poll, the questions and responses, the time period during which the poll was conducted, the name of the person or firm who conducted the poll and the costs of the poll to Canadian taxpayers.

This bill will promote transparency of the government's actions and specifically its relation to pollsters. I would point out that had this bill been law the present Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food would have had to disclose the results of his polls on the Canadian Wheat Board rather than having them painfully leaked out to the public.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Committees Of The House

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 29th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented earlier this day, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

Petitions

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions.

The first petition comes from Barrie, Ontario. The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to society.

The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that choose to provide care in the home for preschool children, the chronically ill, the aged or the disabled.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition comes from Bloomfield, Ontario.

The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that the consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health problems or impair one's ability, and specifically that fetal alcohol syndrome or other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.

The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to enact legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, York North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present to this House three petitions signed by the residents of York North which speak to the rights of Canadians.

The first petition is about the Helms-Burton law. The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that the Cuban liberty and democratic solidarity act attempts to impose American domestic policy on other sovereign states and therefore violates international law.

The petitioners further draw to the attention of the House that Canadian interests, rights and businesses must be defended with strength and vigour.

The petitioners therefore call on Parliament to pursue all avenues available to ensure the rights of Canadians are protected.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, York North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals with small businesses, the important role they play in our economy, the challenges they face and what we as the federal government can do to help them succeed.

The petitioners call on Parliament to continue to create a healthy environment for small businesses, to ensure that they have access to the financing they need and to help them explore and capitalize on new opportunities.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, York North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my final petition draws to the attention of the House that Canadians of all ages view our health care system as a defining element of Canadian society and that user fees do not work. Rather they merely shift the burden to the most vulnerable in our society.

The petitioners therefore call on Parliament to continue to uphold the fundamental principles of the Canada Health Act so that public health care remains accessible, comprehensive, portable, universal and publicly administered.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present a petition signed by 28 residents mainly of Calgary.

These petitioners call on Parliament to conduct a full public inquiry into the relationship between lending institutions and the judiciary, and to enact legislation restricting the appointment of judges with ties to credit granting institutions.

Questions Passed As Orders For Returns

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 12 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.

Question No. 12-

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

Concerning federal government owned or leased building/space for which Public Works and Government Services Canada is responsible in Canada, would the government provide: ( a ) a list of all buildings owned or space leased for Public Works and Government Services Canada use in which 5 percent or more of useable space remains vacant specifying in each case type of building/space (office, warehouse, etc.), number of square metres vacant and address; ( b ) a list of all buildings owned or space leased in which space is presently available for renting/subleasing to a client/tenant specifying in each case type of building/space (office, warehouse, etc.), number of square metres available for renting/subleasing and address?

Return tabled.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

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

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I wish to inform the House that, because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 43 minutes.

Supply

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

moved:

That this House condemn the federal government's refusal to reveal the full facts on the tax-free transfer of two billion dollars out of the country and its decision instead to

attack the credibility of the Auditor General while opening the doors to other capital transfers that will deprive the federal government of hundreds of millions, and possibly billions, of dollars every year.

Mr. Speaker, I am still shocked by the arguments used by the Minister of Justice and the Reform representative, which, in my opinion, smacked of demagogy and cynicism, belittled the people of Quebec and denied their democratic rights.