Debates of Sept. 26th, 1996

Supply

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate. I was anticipating such an opportunity but I did not know it would come so quickly. I want to share my time with the hon. member for Gatineau-La Lièvre.

We have been hearing today that the members of the Bloc Quebecois want to denounce the government for all sorts of reasons that they have been telling us about. At the same time, in their speeches, the members of the Bloc Quebecois and also those of the Reform Party, the members of the opposition, have pulled out all the stops in a vain attempt to show that the government did not, in their view, act properly with respect to family trusts.

Nothing could be further from the truth. First, the member for Gander-Grand Falls gave a very good overview of the issue just now in his most excellent speech. Furthermore, it must be recalled that the question is not about family trusts, but about exporting assets when a Canadian decides to move out of the country. This is where the problem arises.

It is the same problem, albeit with different amounts, whether we are talking about a Canadian who suddenly decides to move from Montreal to Boston, a so-called ordinary Canadian, or a wealthy individual who leaves a large Canadian city with all his assets, his millions and so on.

It is also important to remember that the controversy that has apparently shocked the member across the way, a former organizer for the Conservative Party, if memory serves-

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Me? Never in my life.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

The action that has so shaken the hon. members across the way took place in 1991, when Mr. Mulroney was Prime Minister of Canada. As the member for Gander-Grand Falls has

pointed out, the Canadian finance minister has done everything required, in order to plug this sort of loophole in future.

Second, we have heard about the moratorium announced by the revenue minister. Third, we have also heard that in future this sort of ruling will be made public.

Therefore we have seen that the government has been vigilant, notwithstanding the attempts of members across the way to demonstrate otherwise.

What we should note is that the auditor general did not say that the present Government of Canada had done anything wrong. He made no suggestion at any time to that effect. That has not been said by the members across the way. However, I think some members across have adopted the strategy that if enough mud is sent toward the government some of it is bound to stick and the objective will be achieved.

Maybe some of that is true, although I think it is holding Canadians in rather low esteem to try to use this strategy, but by and large it is not true and Canadians will see what those people across the way are up to.

There is also another interesting proposition when we are talking about money leaving Canada and going elsewhere. We all recall during the referendum of last year when the separatist provincial Government of Quebec attempted at the time to speculate on its own loss using provincial taxpayer money. In other words, what the government did at the time was it bought huge amounts of Canadian dollars and then resold them later, making money in the process and participating in an exercise that could be best described as betting on its own loss.

That was a rather strange thing for a separatist government to do. In other words, it went at it this way: "We will surely lose so let us participate in this exercise and rake in the profit that will be created by moving money across the Canada-U.S. border in two different ways and in a very short period of time". That was the exercise in which that government participated. In the flurry of activity that occurred at that time not much was said about it, but the fact still remains that it is true.

I have in front of me the Nesbitt Burns "Economic Research Provincial Handbook" produced by David Rosenberg, senior economist for Nesbitt Burns, dated September 1996, in which he describes the economic outlook of Canadian provinces. This is not designed to be a commercial in any way, but I really recommend this book to all colleagues because it is, after all, not published by the government. It is produced by an organization in the financial area and presumably when things do not go the way of the financial community it does not take too long to remind Canadians of its thoughts.

Here is what I read from the general overview. I will get into some of the provincial summaries a little later. In this document it states, from page 3, which refers to the economic growth of Canada:

Growth should be more conducive to an improved fiscal performance in both 1996 and 1997. The real GDP is expected to advance 2.9 per cent next year after this year's 1.8 per cent uptick, marking the second strongest gain this decade. Alberta will retain its growth leading status of the past five years, with 2.5 per cent growth this year, and 3.5 per cent next, while strong population gains should keep B.C. a close second at roughly 3.2 per cent in 1997.

It goes on to describe the Canadian growth that will occur and it complements the position that Canada is in. It is clear from this document that we are into some major growth over the next few years. I look at my own province of Ontario:

Ontario's auto production and exports are on track for another record year-which will likely be surpassed in 1997-as assembly capacity is in the process of being dramatically enhanced. Parts makers and assemblers already invested more than $13 bln in new plants and machinery during the first half of the 1990s, and more investment is on the way. The new $300 million Honda minivan plant in Alliston, now under construction with production to commence in the fall of 1998, will have an annual capacity of 100,000 vehicles. Toyota is spending $600 mln to expand its Corolla production and its Cambridge facility. Chrysler is consolidating its entire North American production of LH line at its Bramalea plant, in conjunction with a $500 mln overhaul of its operations as the firm gears up to build the new line of mid-size sedans for the 1998 model year.

It goes on to describe the great things that are occurring in this country everywhere. The unemployment situation is stated in the document. Of course we know about the 669,000 new jobs created by the government since we came to office. It also mentions the major gains in the area of reducing unemployment next year.

So, you see that the affairs of state are being well managed by this government, that the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Revenue, the Prime Minister, and the whole cabinet, are doing an excellent job of managing the country's assets. Members may try to persuade the people of Canada to think otherwise, but, as usual, they are mistaken.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would never be ashamed to admit to having been a Conservative Party organizer if I had been, but that is not the case and I would just like to reassure the government whip. I just wanted to clarify that. Moreover, I was a Nationalist Party candidate in Quebec in 1984.

The government whip then goes on to say that I was too critical, that the Bloc Mps have been too critical. Here we have one of the four ratpack members, the one whom, when they were in opposition, the media labelled as the most aggressive, almost harassing,

member of the bunch. In fact he ran after ministers, even trying to break up their press conferences and other such antics.

Now he takes a holier-than-thou tone, speaks quietly, no aggression. He is the House whip now, and adopts this manner because he would like to cool down the emotions of the hon. member for Lévis.

This is the same hon. member who is heavily involved just now in collecting money for the poor souls accused by the director of elections for Quebec. They have been told that they spent money they ought not to have during the Quebec referendum last year. He is assuming that attitude, perhaps, to attract the sympathy of Quebecers, but they will not forget that.

Now, not knowing what more to say on the matter-he is probably tired, and has every reason to be-he starts to read a report that has nothing at all to do with today's question on economic growth. But let us talk about economic growth.

I have had the time to read another report, one that could well have worried the hon. member for Newfoundland just now, one which tends to show that investments are not very high in Quebec, among other things. Some say that the share of investments in Canada is only in the 11 or 12 per cent range, from its previous level of 17 per cent. This report indicates that 59 per cent of private investments are made in Ontario, his province.

The people in the other provinces ought to be really worried about this, since it means that all of the efforts of this government on the economic level are probably linked to the number of Liberal MPs in the province. In Ontario, practically all members are Liberals, so it flaunts the fact but does so discreetly so the other provinces will not notice. We all know this government has a very soft spot for Ontario.

I am from the riding of Lévis. When defence contracts are announced, MIL Davie is asked to tender its bid against another shipyard, but recently, when it was time to order army tanks, there was no call for tenders and the contract was awarded directly. People in other provinces have the right to hear about that.

The Bloc Quebecois, whatever members opposite may think about it, is the official opposition, and as such we condemn the treatment of family trusts. We did so during the last election campaign. We did not wait for the auditor general's report. We said this should be investigated.

At the very beginning, when the auditor general expressed its concerns about $2 billion that were transferred to the United States, all we asked is that the government shed some light on the question. The government whip can say anything he likes, but we in the Bloc Quebecois intend to keep insisting that this government

do everything that is necessary to clarify the situation around the transfer of $2 billion and that it take all necessary steps to ensure this does not happen again. We will not give up.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I duly noted the accusations made by the hon. member across the way, who is condemning me for daring, with other Canadians, of course, to assist those who helped keep our country together last year. Last week, Bloc members accused us in this House of violating Quebec laws. The Bloc found us guilty even before the trial had started.

I see the hon. member for Saint-Hubert across the way. I think that, as a legal expert, she should talk to her colleagues and teach them that one is generally innocent until proven guilty, especially before the trial. The judge has not ruled yet, he has not even heard the case, but they have already found these people guilty.

I am not about to apologize for defending Canadians. This concert will be held on October 27 here in Ottawa; Canadians can all get tickets by calling Ticketmaster at 755-1111.

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

It being 6.13 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that proceedings on the motion have expired.

The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Negotiation Terms Of Separation Act

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

moved that Bill C-230, an act to provide for a national referendum to authorize the government to negotiate terms of separation with a province that has voted for separation from Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in support of my private member's bill, Bill C-230, which is entitled an act to provide for a national referendum to authorize the government to negotiate terms of separation with a province that has voted for separation from Canada.

Repeatedly we have seen severe impacts right across Canada when the Government of Quebec has decided to ask Quebecers to vote to leave Canada. The possibility of such a separation has brought severe repercussions for its own province and all the people of Canada, including both short term and long term impacts

on investment, from housing prices to business and industry, on the value of our dollar, on the rate of interest which must be paid to induce people to invest here and on the sense of personal comfort and well-being of our people. Even the threat of Quebec separation has been like blackmail hanging over our heads.

However, I want to make clear from the beginning of my comments today that I have had this legislation drawn up not to encourage Quebec to leave Canada but instead to promote discussion and eventual agreement on the ground rules for such a secession in order to prevent repeated referendums and the chaos which surrounds them. We must avoid the bad effects for our entire nation if a separatist government in Quebec again tries to pull the wool over people's eyes about the true meaning and full consequences of what a vote to separate from Canada will mean.

I know from many discussions with people outside Quebec that such separation will not be quick, it will not be simple and it will not be easy. Perhaps most important, such a separation will not lead to increased economic well-being for the people of a foreign country called Quebec nor for Canada.

For example, the North American free trade agreement was originally negotiated with a strong Canada. How would a foreign country called Quebec and a weakened Canada fare against U.S. negotiators in an entirely new round of NAFTA bargaining which would be required if Quebec separates?

To look at just one aspect, what would happen to the current Quebec dairy quota if Quebec decided to become a foreign country? No longer a part of a great nation, which despite our lingering internal trade barriers, today is a great economic union. Once the people of Quebec are given the true facts about what separation from Canada would mean, it is extremely unlikely they would decide to leave. Nevertheless it just may happen although passing Bill C-230 would help to prevent that.

The government has done virtually nothing to prevent it. By contrast, as an example of a prudent government response, yesterday United States congressman Tom Campbell, a Republican from California, had a U.S. congressional subcommittee hear testimony from academics about the possible consequences for the United States if Quebec separated from Canada.

Mr. Campbell's researchers emphasized this morning that their witnesses confirmed that an entirely new NAFTA would be required if Quebec separated from Canada.

Other international consequences would be its affect on NATO, the UN, the St. Lawrence Seaway and American purchasers of Canadian and Quebec debt. How ironic that the Government of Canada by contrast with the U.S. Congress has chosen instead of preparing people to bury its head in the sand and has neglected to bring forward legislation on this critical bill. Even debate on this private member's bill has been limited to one single hour today.

However, the topic has met better fate at the hands of many serious thinkers across Canada since I introduced Bill C-230 on March 8 of this year.

This summer the C.D. Howe Institute released a commentary entitled "Coming To Terms With Plan B, 10 Principles Governing Secession". It began with the following:

The silence of the federal government during two Quebec referendums has left the Parti Quebecois free to describe how it would achieve secession. Maintaining the silence is irresponsible and will lead to chaos if Quebec tries to declare independence unilaterally.

I also find it ironic that the Quebec premier has repeatedly indicated that he believes neither the courts nor the law of Canada should be applied with regard to the possibility of a unilateral declaration of independence by his province.

He is only too willing to use the law and the courts as his defence with regard to the Churchill Falls contract with his neighbouring province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Obviously the Quebec premier has chosen to cherry pick which laws he will respect and which laws he will ignore.

Most Canadians respect the law and at this time there is no Canadian law which would allow the province of Quebec to separate legally. As the C.D. Howe commentary points out, the lack of such channels within the Constitution:

-is a case for deep concern. Canada is a democracy whose ultimate legal and political foundation is the consent of Canadians to be governed under the Canadian Constitution and Canadian law. If a significantly large and determined majority of Canadians in a particular province withhold that consent then the absence of appropriate legal wording to achieve secession will not prevent them from realizing their goal. Thus, the absence of an agreed upon procedure to govern secession will lead to confusion and conflict over the legitimacy of any proposed secession.

Clearly Quebecers have a big stake in ensuring that a vote to secede is regarded as legitimate. Otherwise consequences could be disastrous. The best way to avoid confusion and conflict would be to accommodate the legitimate needs and aspirations of the province of Quebec within Canada. That does not mean giving into blackmail which says do what we want or we will leave.

On behalf of the people of my own riding of Okanagan-Shuswap I want to emphasize that we want Quebec to remain in Canada as one of 10 equal provinces whose citizens are equal before the law. The people of Okanagan-Shuswap respect the fact that Quebec is different from us in many ways. However, we totally reject the idea that Quebec should be offered any kind of powers or status greater than what is offered to every other province of Canada.

If the people of Quebec reject the idea of remaining within the revitalized Canadian federation, the break up will cost all of us a great deal of pain.

One way to lessen that pain would be to pass a law like Bill C-230 so that a majority of Canadians agree in advance on the ground rules for negotiation with regard to separation. Also trying to avoid Quebec separation the Reform Party has released a position paper called "20/20" which presents many ways that all provinces would be given greater powers simply by administrative decision with no need whatsoever to reopen the Constitution.

However, in the event that such changes either are not made or do not satisfy the people of Quebec, it is our responsibility as the Parliament of Canada to have legislation in place which will serve as the ground rules for how a legal separation could be accomplished and that will clearly tell Quebec voters what a vote to separate will mean.

Personally I believe that the law must respect the will of the people.

I firmly believe that my fellow Canadians would be willing to look for a way to allow the people of the province of Quebec to go their own way, if in fact it could be clearly demonstrated that it was the will of the majority of the people of Quebec to become a foreign state; to give up their Canadian citizenship and their Canadian passports; to lose their unrestricted right to enter, travel and work in Canada; and, to lose their right to send some of their brightest and best people to Ottawa to represent them in the Parliament of Canada and in many of the highest ranking positions in the Public Service of Canada.

What has been done so far? Due to the lack of foresight of this government, there is not even a subcommittee of either this House or the Senate currently discussing this critical issue.

Regarding this lack of foresight, after examining the international experience, the C.D. Howe Institute basically said that advance planning in the event of secession could avoid violence and hardship later by establishing a consensus on the terms.

To promote such a consensus by encouraging debate I draw members' attention to Bill C-230 itself. It begins with a preamble, which states that the principles should exist in law to determine whether a vote to separate is a legitimate expression of the wishes of the people and that the provincial electoral districts where there is not the majority vote to separate must have their wishes respected equally with districts where the majority of the people vote to separate.

Simply stated, if Canada can be divided because of the will of the people, then Quebec can be divided because of the will of the people.

Pundits have urged that Cree and other aboriginal people whose traditional lands lie within Quebec have a fiduciary relationship with the Government of Canada which could only be ended with their consent.

Personally, I believe no political unit should be forced to leave Canada against its will whether aboriginals or simply strong federalists. Their decision to remain in Canada must be every bit as binding on the Government of Quebec as the legitimate Quebec vote to leave Canada should be binding on Canada.

Bill C-230 spells out how I believe we could be sure that a separation vote was legitimate. Of course, a serious problem with my beliefs is that I cannot tell the separatists in Quebec what to do. However, this Parliament not only can but must tell the Government of Canada what to do.

If Bill C-230 were passed into law, it would say that unless certain conditions are met, the Government of Canada cannot negotiate separation. It would tell the Government of Canada that it must hold a binding national referendum within one year if elected parliamentarians agree that a fair vote was held in the province wanting to separate. Note that while I include an elected Senate, an appointed Senate is excluded because it represents only political patronage and not the will of the people of Canada.

Bill C-230 says that we must have a national referendum but only if Parliament agrees that the provincial vote to leave Canada was conducted according to the conditions set out on pages 3 and 4 of this legislation.

Some details about the process would include: full and fair advanced advertising and printing on every ballot that a vote to separate means a vote to become a separate state, foreign to Canada; cease to be a province of Canada; cease to have representation in the Senate and in the House of Commons; lose the right to be citizens of Canada; lose the right to hold a Canadian passport; and lose the right to unrestricted entry and travel within Canada and the unrestricted right to work in Canada.

They must also notify provincial voters that the Government of Canada cannot negotiate separation of any electoral district in which a majority of at least 50 per cent of the votes cast, plus one vote, are against separation from Canada; nor could provincial electoral boundaries have been changed so that the number of native people or non-francophone people was significantly altered from the preceding election.

This House and an elected Senate would have to agree by a free vote, that is, a vote in which the party whips told their members they are free to vote their conscience.

I have included many provisions in Bill C-230 to ensure that this issue is decided with the maximum respect for the wishes of the people. The ultimate respect for the wishes of the Canadian people will be shown by referring this entire issue to their final judgment by means of a binding national referendum.

After all, it is their country being carved up. They feel just as strongly about it as some Quebecers do about the partition of Quebec.

According to Bill C-230, the question to be put before the people no later than one year after a legitimate provincial vote to separate should be as follows: "Do you agree that the Government of Canada may negotiate terms of separation between Canada and-?" The name of the province would be inserted here.

Once again the nationwide ballots would have to repeat that electoral districts which did not vote to separate would not be included in the separation. This would help keep separation within the realm of politics and promote a peaceful resolution rather than the wars and/or major civil disobedience likely to follow if, for example, Quebec tries to force primarily English speaking sections in and around the city of Montreal as well as the aboriginal peoples mostly living in northern Quebec in the region known as Ungava to leave Canada against their will.

Many people have argued that the Ungava region was only given to the province of Quebec to administer on behalf of Canada and that Ungava certainly did not form part of the province at the time Quebec joined Confederation. They say, therefore, that it must not be included in a foreign country called Quebec. I prefer that the issue be settled by vote and not by academics arguing.

Finally, Bill C-230 would allow elected representatives of the people of Canada to include additional questions in this binding national referendum, for example a formula for dividing the national debt.

During the last referendum we came very close to losing this country. I have had to sit here in the House many times and listen to the government on the other side, which buried its head and said that everything was fine, talk about us as Reform members not doing anything with regard to that situation. It knew full well that it begged and pleaded with us not to interfere because it had the situation under control in the province of Quebec and we would only get in the way and hinder the process.

Unfortunately, I have to admit, I along with many other colleagues fell into the trap that the Liberals laid for us in the House and we believed them. Look what almost happened. They now use that against Reform whenever they feel like it. They are forgetting quite conveniently how they pleaded with us to let them please handle it and it would be brought under control. Shame.

In conclusion, I repeat that the federal government should take reasonable actions to satisfy the legitimate aspirations of the people of Quebec within Canada. However, if Quebec still votes to leave it is essential to pass legislation like Bill C-230 to make the separation process as orderly as possible.

I would now like to ask for unanimous consent from the House to make this bill votable.

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

Do we have unanimous consent of the House to have Bill C-230 a votable bill?

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C-230 tabled by the member for Okanagan-Shuswap is aimed at giving Canadians the impression that the Reform Party has a serious, carefully thought out plan for preserving national unity.

While our government is pursuing a positive strategy of renewing the federation and giving all Canadians hope for the future, the third party is telling Canadians to throw in the towel, to launch themselves into a negotiation process in the wake of a referendum that has not and may not take place.

This demonstrates yet again that the Reform Party does not have a real strategy for national unity. To put it simply, it has no vision for national unity and no vision for the country. The third party has patched together a series of third rate ideas and calls it a plan.

At a certain level I think I understand why this bill is being brought forward today. My hon. colleague, like many Canadians, was shaken by the last referendum. He is trying to respond to the concerns of Canadians but has chosen a misguided approach.

Our government's strategy is, above all, to deal with the real issues concerning all Canadians: economic growth, job creation, maximum government efficiency, as well as the protection of our social programs and our environment. But the federal government is also committed to providing certainty and legal clarification regarding the issues arising from Quebec's possible secession.

Earlier this year, we became involved in a case submitted to the Superior Court of Quebec by Guy Bertrand. We were forced to do so partly because of the Quebec government's position in this case. That government claims that the issues related to Quebec's secession do not come under the jurisdiction of the courts, that they have nothing to do with Canada's laws or Constitution, and that

Quebec can unilaterally determine how it will secede without taking Canada's Constitution or its judicial system into account.

Given the Quebec government's position and Judge Pidgeon's ruling, our government announced that it would refer to the Supreme Court the basic issues raised by the Pidgeon ruling.

Under that procedure the federal government is submitting to the supreme court questions of law and fact that it deems important for the court to hear and consider. We made this decision because the federal government owes an obligation to all Canadians to provide social, economic and legal stability. This obligation requires the federal government to provide certainty and legal clarification regarding the issues surrounding Quebec's possible secession.

Now is the time in this period of relative calm, with a future referendum not immediately looming, to seek judicial clarification of these issues.

By referring these issues, we are asking the Supreme Court to establish a legal framework and a common understanding that will allow us to address certain fundamental issues surrounding Quebec's secession.

Our decision to use this approach at this time does not in any way bring into question the right of Quebecers to express their views on their own future through an advisory referendum. We are appalled by the Quebec government's decision to place itself above the law and outside the jurisdiction of Canadian courts.

As for the result of the reference, the most important outcome will be that we finally have some certainty on the fundamental legal issues arising from the Quebec government's plan for secession. Nevertheless, the Government of Canada is pursuing its commitment to renew the federation through a wide range of constructive, well thought out initiatives.

In the February speech from the throne, our government indicated its willingness to withdraw from areas such as labour market training, forestry and mining development, social housing and recreation. Further progress was made during the constructive discussions and the first ministers meeting in June. This work is ongoing and we are on track with our plan.

At the first ministers meeting it was agreed that our government would continue to work with the provinces in the coming months, building on the work of the ministerial council on social policy reform and renewal to develop a new partnership for securing and modernizing the social union.

In the weeks following the first ministers meeting the federal and British Columbia governments agreed to a full bilateral review of the responsibilities and roles of the federal and provincial governments in the management of the Pacific salmon fishery.

These are the types of measures that build goodwill, measures brought about through partnerships based on mutual respect and the desire to enter the 21st century as a renewed, united federation.

These measures may not be flamboyant enough for my colleague across the way, but they show that the Canadian federation is flexible and benefits all its partners.

We are proving that Canada works and that separation is not a solution. We are proving that another choice is available, namely the renewal of our federation, and that it is a best choice. Polls show that most Quebecers favour this option. I would therefore urge the third party to support this option.

This is the kind of positive attitude we need, in Canada, to see us into the 21st century, all the while remaining united. This is the attitude we, in the Liberal government, have. We do not sink into negativity; we are not afraid to take positive measures.

We want to unite Canadians, not divide them. We are also resolutely committed to a national reconciliation process.

We are putting in place initiatives that will lead to greater co-operation among governments and will reinforce the economic union and social fabric of this country. We are taking a step by step approach to bring about real practical changes. In so doing we are demonstrating the flexibility of the federation and undermining the myths that build support for separatism. This is how we will achieve national reconciliation.

The Premier of Quebec himself, Lucien Bouchard, has realized that he had better set his separatist designs aside and focus on concerns regarded as priorities by Quebecers: the economy, job creation and putting the fiscal house in order.

According to a Gallup poll released earlier this month, no fewer than 45 per cent of employed Quebecers are afraid to lose their jobs. That is the kind of concern that must be looked into and that we, in our government and our party, are presently looking into.

Quebecers want their government to take part in the discussions with the federal government and the other provinces, so that the interests of Quebec are represented.

They want change, of course, but change within Canada. That is the message they conveyed in the October referendum and this government, our party, is in the process of acting of on this message.

The bill proposed by the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap does not respond to this message, nor does it correspond to the wishes of Quebecers and other Canadians who are asking their politicians to work together constructively to renew the federation, promote economic growth and work toward creating a climate suitable for job creation.

It is a far cry from the measured approach our government is taking to clarify issues and allow for a constructive dialogue to take place well in advance of a future referendum. The leader of the third party may believe he has 20-20 vision on national unity issues but this bill shows he has a big blind spot.

For these reasons I cannot support Bill C-230.

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C-230 introduced by the member for Okanagan-Shuswap is entitled An Act to provide for a national referendum to authorize the government to negotiate terms of separation with a province that has voted for separation from Canada. It proposes rules which would apply to a referendum on the separation of a province from the rest of Canada.

In spite of its neutral wording, it is obvious that this bill primarily seeks to impose on the province of Quebec rules for its next referendum on sovereignty.

What the member for Okanagan-Shuswap proposes is strangely similar to the secession act passed in 1990 by the Soviet regime, in the former USSR. I will remind the member of certain facts regarding the passing of this act. Unlike Canada's constitution, the constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialists Republic included a clause granting republics the right to freely separate from the USSR, without any procedures or conditions.

At the beginning of the nineties, following the crumbling of the Gorbachev regime and of the Berlin wall, some sovereignist parties took office in certain republics. Given this situation, president Gorbachev quickly had the Soviet government pass an act on secession.

The act, which was passed in April 1990, set the conditions for separation. In fact, it sought to make it impossible to exercise this right by the means proposed in Bill C-230. For example, the Soviet legislation defined the referendum procedure to be used by the republics, including the type of initiative allowed, the voting procedure and the number of ballots required for the decision to be valid.

The bill proposed by the member for Okanagan-Shuswap gives the House of Commons and the Senate the right to rule on the eligibility of the question and its wording, should the yes side win.

Indeed, should the yes side win, the Senate and the House of Commons will determine whether the question that was put was a simple and direct question; whether an affirmative vote was cast by a majority of at least fifty per cent plus one; whether the referendum was held in compliance with the laws of the separating province and whether its results were recorded on the basis of the electoral districts of the province; whether notice of the referendum appeared in the Canada Gazette and in at least one major newspaper in each riding of the province which, of course, means Quebec; whether the effect of a vote in favour of separation was clearly stated on the ballot including: the fact that the province will become a separate state, foreign to Canada; that it will cease to be a province of Canada; that it will cease to have representation in the Senate and House of Commons; that its residents will lose the right to be citizens of Canada; that they will lose the right to hold a Canadian passport; and, finally, that they will lose the right to unrestricted entry to and travel within Canada, and the unrestricted right to work in Canada.

By granting the House of Commons and the Senate the right to review the holding of a referendum, the bill proposed by the member for Okanagan-Shuswap gives the two houses a veto over a province seeking to achieve sovereignty. Indeed, this bill provides that the conditions I just listed can only be met if the House of Commons and the Senate render a favourable decision.

In the current context, it would be surprising, to say the least, to expect members of this House and the other place to make an objective decision. In addition, the bill gives the House of Commons and the Senate the authority to refer to the Supreme Court any question relating to the holding of a separation referendum.

In point of fact, this bill allows the process whereby a province wishes to become independent to be defined by the courts. Should the will of a people to decide on its own destiny be relegated to questions of a legal nature?

The referral to the Supreme Court must please the Minister of Justice, since he confirmed only today that he intends to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court by submitting to it, by way of a constitutional reference, the question of the legality of Quebec's sovereignty. In fact, any legal strategy intended to thwart the will of a people must be eclipsed by the freedom of that people to democratically decide on its political future.

Nonetheless, once the Senate and the House of Commons have determined that the sovereignty referendum is valid, the Governor

in Council shall hold a Canada-wide referendum that is binding on the Government of Canada within one year.

The question in this Canada-wide referendum will be whether or not the people of Canada authorize the federal government to negotiate the terms of separation of the province wishing to secede. The legislation on secession passed by the Supreme Soviet of the former USSR that I mentioned a little earlier provided for the same consultation mechanism.

In the event that a republic voted in favour of sovereignty, this legislation required the results to be submitted to all the other republics in the Union. Like Bill C-230, the Soviet legislation on secession also made provision for the right of partition of certain groups within the Republic. These groups were literally given the right to secede from another group that was seceding.

The right to self-determination is an attribute of peoples and of nations. Quebec being a nation within the Canadian federation, it follows that, should it become sovereign, its borders would be guaranteed against any challenge by Canada, the corollary of this right to independence being the respect of the territory associated with this people or this nation.

It is illogical to say that a riding within the province could take advantage of that right, just as francophone populations outside Quebec could not demand to be linked back to Quebec.

Finally, we all know what happened to president Gorbachev's plan; the independentist republics simply ignored it. Let us be straight with ourselves, however: Canada cannot be compared to the former USSR of 1990. The mere fact that Bill C-230 is oddly inspired by such an authoritarian model does, however, give one pause, even though this trend is not a great surprise to anyone.

The Bloc Quebecois has always defended the principle of sovereignty of the provinces and their respective legislatures on their own territory. Provincial governments, being the elected representatives of the population, have the authority to achieve sovereignty, provided they receive a democratic mandate from their population to do so.

As I said a while ago, this bill is aimed primarily at Quebec. Should there be another referendum in Quebec, the bill is aimed at not only submitting the provincial government to the authority of the federal government, but also at preventing Quebec from exercising its right to sovereignty. The Bloc Quebecois has always been opposed to any move by the federal government to hamstring the Government of Quebec by dictating the conditions for access to sovereignty.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-230, introduced today by the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap, would provide for a national referendum to authorize the government to negotiate terms of separation with a province that has voted for separation from Canada.

It is the second time within only a few months that the Reform Party has proposed a debate on a variation on the same theme. It is clear that by introducing this bill, the third party favours confrontation over national reconciliation.

Whereas the government is working to improve the federation so that it better responds to the real concerns of Canadians, the Reform Party seems to be interested only in the hypothetical scenario of secession. That being said, the practical constructive approach the federal government is focusing on to renew the federation does not prevent the government from understanding and sharing some of the concerns expressed today by the member for Okanagan-Shuswap.

I probably do not need to remind the member that the federal government has made a commitment to clarifying the legal questions relating to the possibility of Quebec secession.

I nevertheless wish to recall why our government intervened in the Bertrand case. We did so to defend the rule of law, to express our profound disagreement with the position of the Attorney General of Quebec, who maintained that Canadian courts had no role to play in issues concerning separation and that these issues had no connection with Canadian laws or our Constitution.

In the light of the position taken by the Government of Quebec and the ruling by Judge Pidgeon in the case of lawyer Guy Bertrand, our government announced that it asked the Supreme Court of Canada to give an advisory opinion on the fundamental issues relating to separation which arose from the Pidgeon ruling.

It is reassuring for all Canadians to note that the Superior Court dismissed the main arguments of the Government of Quebec, which maintained that accession to sovereignty had nothing to do with the Canadian Constitution. The judgment pointed out, first of all, that the case is an important one, and that it cannot be rejected without a hearing; second, that the legal aspects of secession are complex and important and therefore deserve to be heard on the merits of the case; and third, that the courts play a fundamental role in protecting the rule of law.

Let it be clear that the government's decision to ask for a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada in no way challenges the right of Quebecers to decide on their own future through a consultative referendum. What we want is to establish a framework based on legal certainties that will permit us to reply to certain fundamental questions to do with a possible secession.

Contrary to what the government of Quebec is advocating, this is a responsible action on the part of our government, which must ensure social, economic and legal stability for Canadians. As long as there is a question of another referendum in Quebec, our government will assume its responsibility of ensuring that all the cards are on the table.

We are thus on the one hand fully assuming our responsibility and on the other hand and as a priority pursuing our plans to renew the federation step by step which is what Canadians want. On the contrary, rather than making a constructive contribution to the debate and helping Canadians to come closer together, the Reform Party has a tendency to exploit the differences that divide for partisan ends.

The issues of concern to Canadians are economic prosperity, jobs, social programs and the unity of our country. They are also the priorities our government has set for itself.

Canadians want their government to work together to bring about the changes that will make the federation work more effectively and more efficiently. They want gradual changes that will yield direct, positive results. The government is forging ahead with the measures to make the Canadian federation work better which were announced in the speech from the throne in February and the last budget and discussed at the first ministers meeting in June. In that regard, allow me to summarize for the benefit of my hon. colleague the initiatives for change that have been announced or implemented.

The federal government is pursuing its efforts with the provinces and territories for a review of the roles and responsibilities of the various levels of government. It has therefore undertaken to withdraw from areas of activity that are more properly the responsibility of the provinces, municipalities and other stakeholders, such as job training, certain sectors of transportation, mining, forestry, recreation and public housing.

In this regard, the proposal made last May by our colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, is a concrete example of delivering on a promise that was important for our government and for most of the provinces, which have, for some time now, been asking for more responsibility in this area.

It is a practical example that will make it possible to tailor programs to the particular needs of the regions, thus marking an important step towards a more flexible federalism.

With respect to social programs, the government is committed to ensuring that all Canadians can continue to rely on a secure, lasting social safety net. We are working with the provinces to ensure that Canada's social programs continue to express the national objectives, values and principles cherished by our fellow citizens.

Again, with a view to co-operation and dialogue, a federal-provincial-territorial committee on social policy and national standards was proposed at the first ministers meeting in June and was endorsed by the provinces in August in Jasper, Alberta. Alberta recently appointed the co-chair of that committee. Our colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, together with the Minister of Health will thus be able to pursue the discussions on this matter which is of key importance to all citizens.

As far as the economy is concerned, the government will continue to work with the provinces to reduce the barriers to internal trade and manpower mobility.

It is also in the interest of better serving the public interest that the federal government is proposing the creation, in co-operation with the interested provinces, of new mechanisms to reduce overlap in the sectors of securities, revenue collection and food inspection.

In the environmental field the federal and provincial governments have agreed on a renewed partnership to develop effective management objectives and principles. In the field of tourism the provinces and territories have welcomed the private sector's co-operation in connection with the activities of the Canadian tourism commission.

These are a host of tangible examples of the progress that can be achieved through co-operation between the different orders of government. Discussions are evolving to renew the immensely successful national infrastructure program. The federal government is working with the provinces and territories to develop a proposal that is acceptable to all. This matter will be discussed at the upcoming finance ministers meeting next month.

Furthermore, our government is committed to restricting its spending power in areas that are the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. It will no longer use its spending power to create new, shared-cost programs in areas under provincial jurisdiction without the consent of the majority of the provinces. Provinces that opt out and establish a comparable program will receive compensation. It is the first time the federal government has offered to limit its powers outside the context of formal constitutional talks. This commitment marks a turning point in the history of federalism.

This is how our government is renewing the Canadian federation, by proposing constructive solutions to the issues which concern Canadians in an atmosphere of co-operation, dialogue and

respect. We believe that the spirit of co-operation and openness will enable us to further Canadian unity.

Therefore, for all the reasons I enumerated previously, I cannot support the bill introduced today in the House by the hon. member.

Again, I do not dismiss the concerns about the possibility of another referendum in Quebec. Our government is well aware of them and is acting responsibly, as was pointed out in the throne speech.

However, I believe that co-operation, not confrontation, is the way to bring about the changes Canadians want and to guarantee the unity of our country.

We will continue to demonstrate that as we gradually improve the way our federation works, we will be in a better position to respond to the needs and aspirations of all citizens.

If the Reform Party wants to do everything it can for national unity, we urge it to drop the confrontational rhetoric and work on national reconciliation and the renewal of our federation, in the best interests of all Canadians.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-230 today, put forward by my colleague from Okanagan-Shuswap.

As I sat here listening to these last two Liberal speakers I got the distinct feeling that these two hon. members must have been living in a complete vacuum over the last three years. This separatist group here has been standing in this House every day since the 35th Parliament started, saying: "We want to secede from Canada. We want to separate from Canada". I wonder if these hon. members have been hearing that.

This is why we got into so much trouble in the referendum in Quebec. This government appears now, after listening to the member for Simcoe North and the member for Ottawa-Vanier, to prefer to just carry on the with status quo. Let us just try and keep doing what we have been doing.

That is what almost lost us the referendum in October 1995. This government, these Liberals, would not face up to the fact that these separatists and the Quebecers they duped into following their line want to separate from Canada.

What does it take to get the message across? I do not want that province to leave Canada. That province belongs as much to British Columbians, Nova Scotians, Albertans, Ontarians and Saskatchewanians as it belongs to Quebecers. It part of Canada, even though only one part.

This Liberal government, the member for Simcoe North, says that we want to proceed with positive and constructive measures. That is Liberal talk for we want to have more appeasement and more accommodation for the province of Quebec.

I cannot believe the member for Ottawa-Vanier said the Reform Party talks about a hypothetical scenario of secession. The Bloc and the Parti Quebecois in the province of Quebec just went through a referendum in 1995 to determine whether the people wanted to separate. There is nothing hypothetical about that. What is the member for Ottawa-Vanier thinking about? He says it is absolutely important that we ensure that all cards are on the table.

We stood in this House day after day leading up to the referendum in 1995 and told the Prime Minister and this Liberal government, whose members were sitting on their hands: "For goodness' sake, put the cards on the table for people who are thinking about leaving Quebec by voting yes. Put the cards on the table".

There were no cards on the table. We came that far from a yes vote because this Liberal government did not have the backbone then to put the cards on the table. It obviously does not have it now to put the cards on the table.

The member for Ottawa-Vanier made another incredulous statement that the Reform Party would like to exploit the differences between Canadians. What an incredible statement.

There has been no political party in the history of Canada that has done more to foster the differences between Canadians than the Liberal Party of Canada in any Parliament at any time of our history since 1867.

Continually, day after day, year after year, the Liberal government, whatever it was of whatever year, has done more to foster the differences between Canadians than to bring Canadians together as one people.

That is on record a million times. How can the member for Ottawa-Vanier talk about the Reform Party's wanting to exploit the differences when this party has built its political career by fostering the differences between Canadians? What an incredible statement.

The reason the member for Okanagan-Shuswap put forth Bill C-230 was that this government does not have the guts to deal with these separatists on a face to face basis. It would rather beat around the bush and try to smooth things over.

We are talking about a group of Quebecers-thank God not all Quebecers, a majority want to stay in Canada-who have been duped by a small group of politicians into believing that there is some nirvana out there if they should leave Canada, a nirvana called Quebec nationhood.

I say thank goodness the referendum failed in 1995. Unless this Liberal government gets its act together, it may not win the next referendum the separatists hold. If it continues on a path of do nothing, say nothing and hope the problem will go away, its members are going to lose.

Now we get down to the issue of Bill C-230. I say that Quebec is part of Canada and always has been. Since we became the country of Canada, Quebec has been a part of it. It has enjoyed the benefits of Canada as Canada has enjoyed the benefits of the province of Quebec. We have a country here. We have a nation.

But some people in Quebec have decided that somehow they will be better off if they leave this great country of ours. Somehow they have managed to convince a number of people in the province of Quebec that this would be a good thing to do.

In 1995 in the last referendum, did they talk about separation leading up to the actual voting day? No. They talked about some fuzzy sovereignty association. The Liberal government would hardly even mention the word separation in this House unless we dragged it out of them.

This separatist group that wants to break up this country did not have the courage to put a simple question to the people of Quebec: Do you want to separate from Canada, yes or no? It referred to some bill that had been passed in the Quebec legislature that dealt with some sort of fuzzy sovereignty association, negotiating some arrangement with Canada.

The separatists say they want to separate but they did not have the guts to go to the people of Quebec and ask them if they wanted to leave Canada, period. That is what the question should have been. If that had been the question that was put, the no vote would not have squeaked by like it did. The no side would have won by a huge majority because the people would have clearly understood the question. It would not have been some convoluted question that the separatists came up with, but it would have been a clear question.

The Reformers stood here and talked to the Prime Minister. We said: "Why do you not tell the people of Quebec what they are voting for? Why do you allow the separatists to put this convoluted question before them? Why is the Liberal government not saying something about it? Why are you not clarifying it?" Why did they not put all the cards on the table like the member for Ottawa-Vanier was talking about? That is what we demanded of the Liberal Party. In response the Liberals said: "You Reformers keep out of it. We know how to handle it".

We saw how the Liberal government handled it. It just about lost it. We came close to losing the vote in Quebec because of the Liberal government's inaction. The Liberal government did not have the courage to deal with these separatists head on.

The majority of the people of Quebec do not want to separate from Canada. We cannot believe what this separatist group has been telling us. We cannot believe what Mr. Bouchard in Quebec is saying. We cannot believe that.

The people of Quebec are Canadians who happen to live in the province of Quebec. I would say that if the Canadians who live in the province of Quebec had a clear question put to them: yes or no, do you want to separate from Canada, it would be an overwhelming no. That is what we are demanding in Bill C-230: that this Liberal government have the backbone, the courage to talk about the real question and not to let people get suckered in by these separatists here.

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

The period set aside for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

It being 7.13 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.13 p.m.)