Debates of Nov. 25th, 1997

Supply

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thought the minister had addressed this in his remarks, but it seems to me at this time that what we are talking about is language. My experience of this constitutional dilemma is that it is often not the technical legalities and not even the distribution of power that is at the root of the problem. It is people's level of comfort or discomfort with certain ways of describing the country and describing Quebec's place within the country or describing the place of the aboriginal people in Canada and so on. We are trying to find a way of talking to each other about ourselves that does not cause us to divide, that does not cause us to be in conflict with each other.

I see the Calgary declaration as one more attempt, because there have been so many unsuccessful ones, to find a way of talking about Canada in a way that meets the need in Quebec for both a symbolic and practical recognition of their distinctiveness but to do that in a way that does not offend against other images of the country and understandings of the country with respect to equality of the provinces and so on—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Colleagues, with permission, when there is obviously a good deal of interest in joining the debate, if we could keep our comments and questions to about one minute and responses to a minute we would be able to get a lot more in. Let us give that a shot.

Questions and comments, the hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the hon. member that I share most of his point of view.

I will ask him if he is in agreement with the following statement. I want to say that it is normal that there is a lot of suspicion throughout the country. Our country has been in this debate for 30 years now. Though some people have some concerns it does not mean that they do not agree with the goal, with the objective which is to say which values we all share. I want to quote, and it will not be long.

“This gradual approach, which is based on consultation and which includes the opposition parties, this desire not to set overly ambitious goals, shows that Canada has learned from its mistakes and wishes to put all the chances on its side so as to avoid another failure. This is wise. The Quebec minister responsible for Canadian intergovernmental affairs, Jacques Brassard, simply laughed off the suggestions of other provinces, showing clearly that his government is cutting itself off from the people of Quebec”.

I quoted Alain Dubuc, whose remarks the member distorted earlier.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what happened here to me points out what I have seen so many times and what I think is wrong. I do not know whether the member was asking me a question or was debating with the Bloc Quebecois. Sometimes it is hard to tell. One becomes the presumption or the platform for another family fight between Quebeckers. They are all in the same family whether they like it or not. These family fights are sometimes more vicious than the debate which goes on between the rest of Canada and Quebec.

I would simply ask Quebec members of Parliament, and Quebeckers whoever they might be, on whatever side they might be, to try to rise above this tendency to always be at each other's throats and try to take the rest of us into the debate because this is our country too.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before beginning and with your leave, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to share my time with the hon. member for Brandon—Souris.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what is surprising today, is that we have a motion from the Reform Party, at a time when there is a process under way that seems to be going well, but it is not making headlines, and Reform is once again stirring up trouble on this issue.

When a process starts to work well, the Reform Party has to stir up trouble. Now, we have learned that the government side will join them, and also the New Democrats.

We of the Conservative Party will be voting against this motion for several reasons. It harbours negative sentiments. It comes from the Reform Party, and in the House they make themselves look good, and so on, but when we discuss with them outside the House, we realize that they want nothing to do with Quebec and francophones. My colleague from Brandon—Souris will be speaking shortly on the real stance of the Reform Party on constitutional matters. They are skillful in political and parliamentary manoeuvring in the House, but outside of the House, over a coffee or other refreshments, we get to see the other side of the Reform Party, and now people will know what the Reform really stands for.

We cannot agree with this. The leader of a party cannot take on a new image within six months. During the election campaign, we saw what the Reform Party stood for. That same outlook is still here today, and the party structure is the same.

We are against this motion. It is not the time for such a motion. The process got under way in Calgary. For us, in any case, there are other ways to make this country work rather than with constitutional changes, with plans B, C, D, E or F. We proposed something different in our platform, a Canadian pact. In fact, the government will most likely borrow from this position during coming meetings.

We do not agree with this either and we are very surprised that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the minister who creates havoc each time the Constitution is mentioned, supports this proposal. He and his counterpart in Quebec are firing off letters to each other. They are writing an essay on federal-provincial non-relations, on how to ensure that these relations will not work. Now we are getting ready to go to the supreme court for a real bout of legal and constitutional squabbling.

Could we not come back to the basic principle of dialogue and action? We want a federalism that is efficient and sensitive. Other solutions can be found. We are ready to share these and to discuss them. Let us not attempt however to go to Quebec to talk about the Calgary process. Quebeckers are capable of reading and understanding what it is about.

I would like the Bloc Quebecois member who spoke earlier about the national commissions on Quebec's future to know that I was a commissioner. On constitutional matters, such as the Calgary declaration or the Meech Lake accord, ask Quebeckers to name the five conditions of the Meech Lake accord and few could do so. What they understand is that an attempt was made to keep the country together. So, we can let the Calgary process take its course.

In the meantime, let us try to give this country some real solutions. We are prepared to share our ideas, as I said earlier, including the Canadian pact. What is it? It involves—and the people in the Bloc Quebecois will be happy and we agree with them—respect for individual jurisdictions and an end to overlap and duplication. Our government is a centralizing government forever shoving its nose in others' business. The Reform Party now wants municipalities to come under the federal government. This is a real mess.

What we are saying is that, without a constitutional amendment—as our leader often points out—we can talk, meet others' standards and respect their jurisdictions, come to mutual agreements and, under the British parliamentary system, establish traditions that go on to become law. So let us try to get back to the real priorities.

The Reform Party tabled a motion this morning because they want to screw the whole thing up. They want to stop it from working. That is where the problem lies. Talk to Reformers, talk to certain MPs and their staff outside the House, and they will tell you that, for them, Canada means no Quebec, no francophones, no multiculturalism, no official languages. That is what the Reform Party is all about. Just look at their web site. The Reform web site is not even bilingual. Close to 50% of them are bilingual, and they want to be a national party. Forget it, it just will not work.

What we are proposing is to sit down together, respect jurisdictions, and make the country work on an administrative basis. Let us get back to bread and butter issues. People will not be able to explain what the Calgary declaration is, or what Meech Lake is, if they have no bread on the table.

Now I will give the floor over to my colleague from Brandon—Souris.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to remind my Conservative Party colleague that the Meech Lake accord is not something I was promoting. That was an agreement between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party of Quebec. If people did not learn about the conditions of that agreement, it is more or less their fault, not mine.

When people voted in the 1995 referendum, they knew what they were deciding on. He himself says that he was a member of the commission on the future, which discussed the matter thoroughly.

I would like to ask him a question concerning a letter written by his leader on the eve of the Calgary meeting. The letter states “As I have pointed out, a successful meeting would include—and here he names things—a draft definition of an action plan for Canada. The statement could set out the following points: the need to rebalance the roles and responsibilities of the federal and provincial governments”.

He also speaks of spending power. He says “The measures limiting this power should focus on the long term common good”. He speaks of a reform of institutions that ought to include an indispensable reform of the Senate.

I repeat the first phrase: “A successful meeting would include the following”. Is the hon. member in agreement with his leader, then, and can he conclude, as he must, that the Calgary meeting was a failure?

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I am in agreement with my leader. I campaigned with my leader because that is what I believed in. This letter basically repeats what was in our election platform.

The Calgary process is one that will hopefully evolve. As for the statements the Bloc Quebecois member attributed to my leader, yes, I am in agreement. If we could implement the points the member has quoted from the letter by the member for Sherbrooke, I think the country would perhaps be in better shape. The Bloc member knows very well that the position of my leader, the position of the Conservative Party in Quebec, is one of the most popular positions and one which has the potential to rally all Quebeckers. This is something the Bloc member knows, and that is why they do not want us to gain too much power in Quebec because they know that the next time they will be out the door.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Quebec for sharing his speaking time for a member and a colleague from western Canada to speak to an issue I consider to be of utmost national significance.

I am pleased to be in this House to see the transformation from a cocoon to a butterfly of the Reform Party. It is now putting forward its position on national unity. A short six months ago the positions taken with respect to national unity by hon. colleagues from the Reform Party were not quite as positive as the position now being put forward in this House.

It is no secret that the Progressive Conservative Party believes very strongly in the federation of Canada. It believes very strongly in ten provinces and two territories. It believes this country has everywhere to go in the future to ensure we embrace the national unity of the federation and to make sure we have ten solid provinces and two solid territories.

I can speak to the experience and the confidence of the leader of our party. It was the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party who brought this country back from the abyss. In the last referendum he was called upon because there was no leadership from the Liberal government. He was called upon to make sure this country did stay together. There is a majority in Quebec that wants to remain Canadian and it will do so.

The policy of the Progressive Conservative Party has always been one of consultation, conciliation and understanding unlike the policies of the Reform Party.

The Calgary declaration is embraced and accepted by the Progressive Conservative Party. It is nice to see there is leadership in this country beyond that of the federal Liberal government which has not given any indication of leadership. The premiers of the provinces had to sit down to put forward a plan, the Calgary declaration. They had to come forward to say that this question is of such importance we have to deal with it ourselves without the leadership of the federal Liberal government. I am thankful for the Calgary declaration which we embrace and I thank the premiers.

I will discuss the Jekyll and Hyde transformation of the Reform Party. A short six months ago during the election campaign the Reformers stated quite emphatically that Quebeckers do not know how to solve the unity crisis. The motion which is before us specifies that the Reform Party wants to consult with the people of Quebec. There is the Jekyll and Hyde. I would like to know the motivation behind this particular motion.

I would also like to discuss distinct society and unique society. All of a sudden it seems that Reform members have this wonderful transformation and unique society is something they can accept. I fought in the trenches during the last election campaign and I can say that distinct society was a major issue. It was an issue which the Reformers used as a cheap political trick to push hot buttons in western Canada.

I would like to remind the House of the motives—

[An hon. member]

Did you support it?

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Yes, I supported distinct society and I do now. In fact, Quebec is distinct. It is very distinct and unique, as are all provinces of this country very distinct and unique. There are no special powers but they are distinctive nonetheless. We accept bilingualism. We accept the fact that they speak a different language. We accept the fact that there is distinctiveness in Quebec.

I would like to bring to the attention of the House an ad campaign during the last election. The ad campaign said quite emphatically, “Do you want any more leaders from Quebec? We do not want any more leaders from Quebec”. This is the same party which now wants to consult with Quebeckers about the types of leadership we should have in this country? I think not.

I do not believe the motives of the Reform Party. I have some serious concerns about them. As a matter of fact, a high level staffer in the Reform Party issued in the Calgary Sun of October 30 ten different resolutions, one which suggested “Eliminate bilingualism and multiculturalism. With Quebec gone the rationale for bilingualism and multiculturalism would go too”. To me this does not speak of a resolution put forward for consultation—

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member has cited an article dated October 30. I wonder if he could cite the year and table the document.

[The Deputy Speaker]

If the hon. member is going to table the document, it will require unanimous consent but he is free to answer the question, which is not a point of order.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would be more than happy to have this document passed on to the hon. member. It is an article from the Calgary Sun dated October 30, 1995.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Oh, all right.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

I see. Things have changed quite dramatically since 1995.

The motives I am afraid are not acceptable to the Progressive Conservative Party and our members will not be supporting the resolution put forward by the Reform Party.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it unfortunate that the Tory caucus will not be co-operating with this kind of initiative, as will the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party. It seems that once again the Tories are joining their old separatist allies, the people who kept them in power for nine years, people like Lucien Bouchard.

If that party is so strongly in favour of national unity, then why did it have card carrying members of the Parti Quebecois running for it in the last federal election? Is that its degree of commitment? If the leader of the Tory party is the great hero of the last referendum, why did he lose his own riding to the oui side in the last referendum?

What is it that the hon. member objects to? The advertisement to which he referred said that it is time for all Canadians to have a voice in the national unity debate. That is exactly what we are calling for today. By opposing this motion are they opposed to giving all Canadians a voice on that debate? Are they satisfied with the failure of the former Tory, Premier Bouchard's government's failure to let Quebeckers have a say on this issue? Why not let Quebeckers speak to the Calgary declaration?

Does the member not understand that the unique characteristics clause in the Calgary declaration is a non-justiciable, non-interpretive clause which is qualified by the equality provisions riddled throughout that declaration which were entirely absent from the failed Charlottetown and Meech accords imposed by the top down Mulroney government?

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, once again the rhetoric coming from the hon. member for Calgary Southeast is rather enjoyable. I am sure the hon. member realizes that from a unity perspective the Progressive Conservative government had a much better understanding of the Quebec issues than does the Reform Party.

As for consultation, we have always said that the consultative process is a keystone of bringing Quebeckers into the federation of Canada.

Make no mistake. Federation in Canada is 10 provinces. No one province is more equal than another province. We recognize in our own policy that all provinces have to work together to make the federation stronger.

That is what we wish to do with the province of Quebec. That is what we wish to do with the consultative process in Quebec. We believe very strongly in that. We do not believe in divisiveness. We do not believe in intimidation. We do not believe in the 20 point plan put forward in the last election which said that it was their way or the highway.

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with my colleague for Prince George—Bulkley Valley.

I am pleased to stand in support of the Calgary declaration which frameworks a national dialogue on Canadian unity. We have come a long way in the two years since the referendum. Two years ago in the referendum we were told not to talk, not to discuss, and to stay out of the situation.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in favour of this important motion for two reasons. First, I indicate my support and that of my constituents for a strong and united Canada that is a welcoming home for the people of Quebec as well as all Canadians.

Second, I hope to teach the government a bit of humility. Why humility? It is for one simple reason. If our country is to be saved it will not be by the government. It will not be by the plans of the Prime Minister or the letters of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs or the strategies of public servants who only a few short years ago were the architects of the Charlottetown accord. The sooner the government accepts a bit of humility, the sooner the real work can begin.

The people of Canada will save Canada, the men and women who love the country and make it work every day through their work and their faith; the 150,000 people who flooded into Montreal during the referendum campaign to demonstrate their love of country; and the many millions at home who held their breath during the voting. Canadian unity hit absolute bottom that day.

As I have said in the past, if Canadians have the will and determination we can resolve federal and provincial concerns. We can resolve aboriginal concerns. We can resolve language concerns. It will be an expression of popular will and not a master plan of political manipulation that will make the difference. The grassroots will prevail.

This is a lesson that the nine premiers and two territorial leaders took to heart three months ago when they framed the Calgary declaration. To their credit they realized that making a grand statement was not the object of the exercise. Rather it was setting up the process for consultation that was so important.

Every province and territory, with the exception of Quebec, has put in place a consultative mechanism so its citizens can have their say on the principles of the Calgary declaration and the future of their country.

This is a very important step. Through the motion we can urge the House to endorse efforts to encourage consultation. As parliamentarians we must use our good offices to encourage our constituents to participate in the provincial consultation processes. As Canadians we must make sure that all Canadians, especially those living in Quebec, receive the very important messages contained in the Calgary declaration. Canadians wish to have dialogue to encourage unity discussions with all.

The Calgary declaration has some advantages over previous efforts to renew the federation. We should be working to ensure its success. It has the advantage of having come from the premiers and not from Ottawa, which will give it some added credibility in the eyes of many Canadians who remember the top down executive federalism that produced the Meech and Charlottetown accords. Discussions involve the people of Canada and will have their direct input.

It has the advantage of not being a fait accompli. Instead it signals the flexibility of the federal system in which provinces have the freedom to exercise their powers in the way it best suits their traditions and character.

I had the pleasure to appear at a town hall discussion hosted jointly by my provincial elected colleagues. Our open forum discussions touched on many topics but encouraged all to send their ideas and concepts to the Alberta legislature.

The declaration is suggesting for consideration a way of breaking the deadlock that the phrase distinct society has created, rightly or wrongly, by polarizing opinion on whether Quebec should have a special status in Confederation. Distinct society was undefined. Unique has equality qualifications.

The Calgary declaration recognizes the unique character of Quebec's society, including its French speaking majority, its culture and tradition, the civil law and the role that the Quebec government and legislature have in protecting and developing this unique character within Canada. It also recognizes the legitimate aspirations of all provinces, the equality of their status in Confederation and the fairness of ensuring that any powers offered in a future constitutional amendment to one province be available to all.

I believe Canada is blessed by the uniqueness of many areas. In short, the Calgary declaration recognizes reality. That is what makes it so regrettable that the Bloc Quebecois and provincial government have not consulted Quebeckers on this important dialogue.

The Calgary declaration emphasizes equality of people, equality of provinces and equality of powers. If one province is conferred powers, they ought to be available to all.

It is important we take the steps necessary to extend the dialogue to include the people of Quebec. We call on the government to do so in a formal manner. We ask all hon. members to recognize their responsibilities as parliamentarians and to speak out in favour of a strong and united Canada.

In closing, let me reiterate my support for the motion as a member of Parliament, as an Albertan and as a Canadian. It is my sincere hope that members of the government party will see the wisdom of putting their energy and enthusiasm behind the success of a Calgary initiative that does so much to encourage dialogue with all and of voting for the motion.

It is my hope members of the Bloc Quebecois will act in the best interest of all Quebeckers and will urge their masters in Quebec City to let their constituents have their say. All Canadians must have the opportunity to speak out on the unity of our great country.

I move:

That the motion be amended by inserting immediately after the words “equality of citizens and provinces” the following:

“and special status for none”.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair will take the amendment under advisement for the moment.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, during the last election campaign, Reformers said that Quebeckers were not worthy to run the country. When I hear that and read motions such as this one saying that the Reform Party has made a 180 degree turn, I cannot accept this, or the fact that they are undermining national unity. They seem to come up with arguments valid only for the day they are used. They are not speaking for the good of Canada as a whole. I find this frustrating, and it worries me to see what is developing within the Reform Party. It is something I cannot accept.

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure to what the hon. member was alluding. I can only speak most assuredly for myself. I am standing in the Chamber as a result of the last referendum. I was in Quebec City visiting and I saw the voting going on. It was on a plane coming back to Edmonton that I resolved to seek out political parties on the work they were doing for national unity.

I had discussions with several parties and the one plan I wholeheartedly agreed with that supported national unity was that of the Reform Party. That is when I first started working for the Reform. I am standing here today because of the convictions of the Reform Party and its definite interest in national unity.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to step into this disagreement between Conservative and Reform Party colleagues.