Debates of Nov. 25th, 1997

Supply

[Inky Mark, Reform, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the unity team representing the municipalities, I am pleased to speak to the very important topic of unity. We all know that this discussion is necessary and is on the minds of most Canadians.

I begin by telling the House what the Official Opposition has done so far to promote public awareness and discussion of the Calgary declaration.

We have circulated two letters to more than 4,400 municipal councils in Canada encouraging them to get involved in the process. That is the first order of government, the level of government closest to the people.

We have circulated copies of the Calgary declaration to municipal leaders on demand. We have circulated letters to all the premiers encouraging them to get involved with the municipal leaders in discussions. We have asked the prime minister to make a copy of the Calgary declaration available to every household in Quebec. We have posted a copy of the Calgary declaration on the website of the Reform Party of Canada, www.Reform.ca, including an analysis and survey.

Some questions need to be raised about what the government is doing at this point in time. What leadership has the prime minister taken to involve Quebeckers in awareness and discussion of the Calgary declaration?

Another question needs to be raised. What has the prime minister done to involve municipal leaders in the unity discussion coming out of the Calgary declaration?

I would like to elaborate on some of these points. I will begin by addressing the issue of municipalities, governments that are part of the main stakeholders in the Canadian unity debate.

Canadians are looking for leaders who will work in positive ways to strengthen and to unify the Canadian federation. There is no doubt that many of my former municipal colleagues in the House, and there are at least 60 of them, believe that the municipalities should be heard and taken into account.

Municipal governments provide direct service to citizens. No one understands the real issues related to serving the public at that level as they do. It is long overdue that the federal government recognize municipal governments as legitimate entities in their own right.

I reiterate that in 1996 the current prime minister in Calgary, at a meeting of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, acknowledged the importance of municipalities. He indicated that he would do something more than just acknowledge them as an entity and their own rights. We are still waiting for that to occur.

As a newly elected member of Parliament and as Official Opposition deputy critic on national unity for municipalities, I want to make sure that municipalities are involved in building a better and more united Canada.

During the last federal election national unity emerged as a key issue, certainly in my riding. Federalists across Canada, regardless of political affiliation, were disturbed by the near failure of the federalist side during the last Quebec referendum campaign. There is a deepening conviction among more and more Canadians that a positive resolution to the unity issue requires a two pronged approach.

One is a vigorous, inspiring and far-sighted vision for making federalism work better, a vision of a 21st century Canada which appeals deeply to all Canadians, including Quebeckers. This vision must reconcile and integrate the values and aspirations of importance to Canadians in every part of our country and at every level of government.

Second, a well defined, federal contingency plan for dealing with another referendum on sovereignty and/or a declaration of independence by Quebec. This plan must be made clear in advance of any decision on such matters and what the consequences would be for Quebec and Canada as a whole.

The Reform Party of Canada, which now forms the official opposition in this House, is committed 100% to the task of building a better and more united Canada, a Canada that includes Quebec as a full, essential partner.

Specifically, we have committed to co-operating not only with federal and provincial governments but also with Canadian municipal governments to help develop a vision for a better Canada and to propose alternatives where these are needed, including in Quebec.

Over the last six years as a municipal official, it was my privilege to visit and speak to many municipalities across this country. It is my conviction that public support is growing for a new non-constitutional effort designed to strengthen the unity of this country and that such an effort should focus on defining a vision of a better Canada which includes the following five elements.

First, a stronger commitment from the federal government to the equality of citizens and provinces in law.

Second, a rebalancing of the federal and provincial powers to meet the demands of the 21st century that take into account the responsibilities of municipalities as the governments closest to the people.

Third, ensuring this rebalancing equips each province with the tools required to protect and develop the unique features of their economies and societies.

Fourth, reform the institutions of Parliament and the federal system to make them more effective and accountable to the representation of local, regional and public interests.

Fifth, ensure genuine consultations with the public involving them in any major changes to the federation.

Municipalities are putting forth resolutions that will reconcile and integrate the principles and values of equality, uniqueness, balance of powers, effective representation and public involvement which go a long way toward defining the vision that Canadians are looking for to strengthen and unite the country.

I do not have time to read the many letters that I have received from municipalities across Canada, but I will at this time indicate the meat of the letter that I sent to the premiers on September 18 which reads “Municipal leaders across Canada are already making clear that they have a stake in the future of our country. Municipal governments frequently refer to themselves as the first order of government, the government closest to the people. Could we encourage municipal leaders to participate and hold town hall style meetings in each community open to residents of the communities with the assistance of facilitators. The information will be provided by the provincial governments with input from experts, including the participation of local MLAs, MPPs and MNAs. The key advantage of such a process and mechanism is the opportunity to transcend political partisan loyalties over commitments. This is the kind of leadership I believe Canadians are looking for.”

I would like to close by saying that Canada is a federal union of provinces and territories and Canada desires a balanced federation where provinces and citizens enjoy equal status before the constitution and the law of Canada. Canadians nationally and in each province and territory desire a country with better jobs, with brighter prospects for their children, with better health care, with more responsible and efficient government services, lower taxes, greater individual freedoms and more open and accountable government institutions.

Therefore, the Government of Canada and the provinces should pursue only policies and legislation which express the aspirations of Canadians to build a better Canada, more equal and united from sea to sea.

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

Mr. Speaker, having myself been a mayor for 10 years, I have much in common with the hon. member, who spoke about the importance of municipalities. However, he mentioned in his speech that municipalities were the first order of government. I would remind him that, in the Constitution, the federal government, and not the municipalities, is the first order of government. However, I agree with him that it is the order of government closest to the people.

I would like to ask the hon. member if, in his opinion, constitutional changes indicating whether municipalities should come under provincial or federal jurisdiction are required. Does the hon. member think changes are required?

[Inky Mark, Reform, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think this is an opportune time for this country to re-evaluate the relationship between the three levels of government. The hon. member may know or may not know that there are other countries in the world which only have two levels of government and do not have three levels such as this country.

The reality of history is that municipal governments existed long before the federal system came into being, way before confederation came about. Even though the provinces always elaborate and keep saying the municipal governments are the creatures of the provinces, they have taken a very paternalistic approach to the relationship between provinces and municipalities, it is high time we have a little more equality among all three levels.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech by the Reform member on today's opposition motion.

I find it somewhat disconcerting that he seems to claim that, since municipalities are the level of government closest to the public, they should be the ones doing the consultations. They should be the ones reviewing the agreement—the term “agreement” is used, but it is saying a lot about a piece of paper signed in Calgary, since there is absolutely no agreement in it, only proposals made with everybody's input. Is the hon. member really saying that municipalities should be the ones consulting people on this meaningless piece of paper?

What I find even more disconcerting is the question from the Quebec MP who asked the member whether he thinks municipalities should come under federal jurisdiction. The Reform member says that everything is on the table and that this may be an opportune time to consider such an option.

I should remind the hon. member that municipalities are created by legislative assemblies—the National Assembly in Quebec's case. According to the Canadian Constitution, not our constitution, not the constitution we never accepted, but the Constitution of 1867, they come under provincial jurisdiction. It is not up to the municipalities to examine or decide whether an agreement or a piece of paper such as the Calgary declaration is good or not.

I find it strange that the Reform member, and the member who tabled the motion, are concerned about Quebec and the consultation process, given that, according to the media, the consultation in their own part of the country, in their own province, is a phoney consultation in which practically no one is interested or involved.

I would appreciate it if the hon. member could comment on my remarks.

[Inky Mark, Reform, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the hon. member's comments and I respect his position. I do know that municipal governments are under the responsibility of all provincial governments, including the province of Quebec.

I think the object here is to encourage provincial governments to seek the assistance of municipalities to get into the milieu of discussion. The downfall of the last attempts with Canadian unity was the lack of grassroots involvement. If the hon. member believes in accountability to the people who elected and sent him to Ottawa, then I believe that the municipal governments and the citizens who live there and pay taxes are equally as important as the people who sit in the legislature at the provincial level.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to thank the member for Edmonton—Strathcona and also the member for Dauphin—Swan River for their initiative today and to explain why the Government of Canada will support this motion from the opposition.

Canadian unity is not a partisan issue. We have our disagreements on how this country should be governed, and it is normal in a democracy that there be a liberal approach, a social-democratic approach, a conservative approach and a reform approach, or whatever we choose to call it. What is important, however, is that we all work together for the unity of Canada.

The premiers have proposed principles that can gain the support of all Canadians, and as such can strengthen our unity. The Calgary declaration is not the only part to Canadian unity, but it is an important one to show that Quebeckers, just like Albertans, just like all Canadians, share values and can look forward to the next century with a shared purpose rather than in a spirit of division. That is the objective of this declaration.

It is a wonderful declaration because it shows that in Canada, perhaps more than in any other country, we know that equality is not the same thing as uniformity. Equality is an important value that is being pursued further in Canada than anywhere else, along with diversity, which is also an important value, and this country finds its strength in diversity. Diversity is not at all at issue; it is a strength, and these two values go together.

That diversity covers various features. There is of course the bilingual character of the country; there is the multicultural character of the country, there is the contribution made by aboriginal peoples, and there is the Quebec society, which is in a unique situation in North America, for reasons on which everyone can agree.

What is also new in the Calgary declaration is the fact that it is clearly stated that no special status is being created for anyone. All provinces have equal status. Either they are provinces or they are not. If they are provinces, equality of status always applies, but recognition of the equal status of the provinces should not prevent, in fact it should promote, taking into consideration the particular circumstances of each province, because we have a very diverse country, and circumstances in Alberta are not in many respects the same as those in Nova Scotia.

One province is totally unique by virtue of its majority language, its culture, its civil code, its own institutions, and that province is Quebec. There can be recognition of this province's unique situation without creating a situation of inequality compared to the others, merely by stating that everything to be given to one province, in light of its particular situation, must also be available to the others if they should require it.

Quebeckers are not jealous people. They do not want anything for themselves that others would not be able to have. They simply want assurance that, in this decentralized federation, their identity and their way of being Canadians “à la Québecoise” can be reinforced in the coming century with the assistance of other Canadians.

Other Canadians, Albertans and citizens from other provinces, are not jealous people either. They are not saying that since they do not need it, they do not want Quebeckers to have it. They just said that anything that is available for a province must be available for the provinces because this is equality.

It is in this way that we have reconciled the values of diversity and equality. We must commend all the premiers for having done that and we must support them.

I am very pleased to see how in this House the parties that believe in Canada speak with one voice. We support those principles.

I want to quote a great Canadian, a key Canadian for this very moment in our history coming from the province of the hon. member. “I believe in a Canada where all provinces have equal status, but a Canada that allows Quebec to protect those things that make it such a unique part of our national character. do not think those two principles cancel each other out. The Canada I am describing might be familiar to many because most of us grew up here in the tolerant and diverse nation where we are equal as Canadians no matter where we live, but where the word equality is not used as a blanket to smother diversity.”

I agree with that fully. That is exactly the spirit of the Calgary declaration which was stated last spring, well before the Calgary declaration, by Premier Ralph Klein. So it is not a partisan matter.

We are with premier Klein and with all the premiers, in this initiative which is aimed at enhancing our key values.

As the Leader of the Opposition said recently, Alberta political leaders have chosen to act as big westerners, not little westerners on this issue.

I am very proud to share this country with the hon. member from Alberta. We will fight together to make sure that we will stay fellow citizens. Whatever arguments we may have about social, economic and criminal policies, we will have the pleasure of fighting together in the same country.

We are are having a disagreement right now which is not a fundamental one. It is a disagreement about how to speak to Quebeckers at this very moment. It is not fundamental but it is something we have to discuss. I am happy that this discussion will occur today.

The point of view of the government today is that it is too soon for that. As the member from the Bloc said, it is not so easy to consult with people even in a province where a premier like Premier Klein is strongly supporting the resolution of the Calgary declaration. It is not easy because when people get up in the morning it is not their first preoccupation to listen to a debate about this declaration.

It does not mean that people do not support it. In fact, if they were strongly against it the likelihood that they would rush to these kinds of consultations would be greater. However, I think they support the principles.

I know that polls are polls, but what is interesting are the polls that are compared with the ones we had in Charlottetown or Meech. When we go into the details of the declaration, the support is even greater for the declaration in Quebec.

When Quebeckers are asked “Do you support the Calgary declaration?”, the support is there, but not strong support. When they are asked “Do you support citizen equality?”, there is very strong support. When they are asked “Do you support the equality of status of the provinces?”, there is strong support. And when they are asked “Do you support the recognition of Quebec's unique character?”, there is very strong support.

In other words, the more detail there is given on the declaration, the more people support it, and this is grounds for considerable optimism, even if the process of consultation in those provinces whose premiers support the process is not as easy as some would believe. People are not rushing to share their points of view, but there are still grounds for considerable optimism.

Where are we headed with all this? It is desirable for the premiers of the nine provinces and the territorial leaders who believe in a powerful united Canada, coming out of these consultations, to be able to find sufficient public support to enable them to submit to their respective parliaments a statement of principle, which will no doubt be fairly close to the Calgary declaration and will show the extent to which Canadians do, in fact, share the same values. This will lead to declarations by the legislatures.

It will not be a constitutional act. We are not speaking about the Constitution now. It is a declaration of principles that shows that yes, we share values. If one day we are ready, especially if there is a premier in Quebec who believes in Canada, we will see if there is still support among the people for something that would be a more legal document that we may consider putting in the Constitution.

The approach that we have with the support of the Leader of the Opposition and all the leaders in the House who believe in Canada and who support the step by step approach is something great and I am very proud to do it with all my colleagues in the House who believe in Canada.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. minister for his very constructive remarks and his leadership on this issue.

The minister will know that many people, particularly in western Canada, continue to be concerned about the singling out of the unique character of Quebec society in the fifth clause of the Calgary declaration. The concern is that this will be the seed of a new distinct society interpretive justiciable clause which could create two categories of provinces in Canada.

I wonder if the hon. minister could address that concern. Is it a legitimate concern? How would he respond to the view that recognizing the unique character of Quebec society in some way derogates from the equality of all provinces?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It is a legitimate question, but I do not think the concern is well advised.

It has been very clear since the beginning that with an interpretive clause, first, you cannot override what is clear in the Constitution. It is something which helps to interpret the Constitution when the Constitution is not clear.

Second, it cannot give to one province more powers or privileges than it gives to other provinces.

In order to be sure that it is very clear that this is not special status, what the Calgary declaration added is the principle stating that if any future constitutional amendment confers powers on one province, those powers must be available to all provinces.

That is already what we are doing. We could take the example of the manpower training agreements which we are negotiating with the provinces. Alberta and Quebec have decided to use all the powers which the agreements give them, but Newfoundland did not feel that it needed them, so there will be co-management with Newfoundland. Newfoundland will not have full autonomy in this field.

What is important is that everything is available for everyone. This is equality and we are committed to ensure that this will always be the case.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised that the government is supporting the Reform Party's motion faulting the Quebec government, which will not be consulting Quebeckers on the Calgary declaration or at least has yet to decide to do so.

I would like to hear what the minister has to say in response to three questions I have. First, what does he think of the statement by Mike Harris, who trivialized the concept of unique character to the point of describing it in terms of Pacific salmon?

Second, what does he think of the report in this morning's papers that only 4% of Albertans know about the Calgary declaration, that a televised report revealed last week that some people thought it concerned a labour dispute and that others did not know there was such a declaration? How can he preach ethics to us, when the people of Alberta, the people voting for the Reform Party, are not aware of the Calgary declaration?

How can he say that they are not speaking up probably because they support it? I would like him to explain his remarks. If people are unaware of something and they do not talk about it, it is probably because they agree with it. That is what he said.

On the subject of the powers to be given to everyone, not just Quebec, I would ask him to list the powers that will be given to Quebec and the other provinces in Canada as the result of the Calgary declaration.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by answering the last comment. Should it become a legal text enshrined in the Constitution, in itself it would not confer any powers on anyone.

However, it would reflect the values on which this country must build. One of these values is certainly ensuring that each constituent part of this country can develop on the basis of its own identity and particular values. We know how important this is to Quebec. I gave the example of occupational training, which is but one example.

Here is another example. Bijuralism is an asset to Canada. It is a great advantage to have two legal systems in Canada, and so is having two official languages. But this bijuralism needs to be strengthened, especially now that we are expanding our relations with countries whose legal culture is different from ours, and this ability to understand two different legal cultures, based on the fact that we have two in our country, gives us an advantage on countries where there is only one legal tradition.

We have decided, and I will close with this, to better harmonize federal legislation with the Quebec civil code. This will be very good for Quebeckers and for all Canadians.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe we should have more time for questions. I assume the minister would have a half hour spot here in this debate which would include his speech and questions. We have only had about 20 minutes.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

There is not unanimous consent.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was not looking for unanimous consent to extend debate, although I would certainly be happy to get that. Under the rules of this debate I believe each speaker is given a half hour to make comments and then to answer questions unless they specifically state that they will share their time. Did the minister do that or will we have the half hour?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Hon. members would know that in this debate the member moving the motion has a half hour. After that it is 15 minute interventions comprised of 10 minutes and 5 minutes for questions and comments. In the second round it goes to the method by which you are assuming it is all going. After the first intervention we are at 10 minutes and 5 minutes.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to say a few words on the Calgary declaration. In my statement, I will elaborate on some of the points that have just been mentioned.

First of all, we are discussing this issue today following an initiative by the Reform Party, which wants Parliament to endorse the Calgary declaration. It also wants to blame the Government of Quebec for not holding consultations on the Calgary declaration. Behind all of this, we can also see that the Reform Party is starting to look for a way out, on this issue.

There are four aspects I would like to deal with quickly: Why the Calgary declaration, the consultation process, the absence of consultations in Quebec, and, finally, the reasons behind the Reform Party's initiative.

Why the Calgary declaration? I have to go quickly and I will not have enough time in ten minutes to cover all the history behind this, but I will point out some main events. It should be remembered that following patriation in 1982 of the Constitution, which was not signed by Quebec and where Quebec was isolated, attempts were made to remedy this extraordinary error by the Liberal Party of Canada, but also with several premiers, some of whom are still around today.

Later, Brian Mulroney, the Prime Minister of Canada, and Robert Bourassa, the Premier of Quebec, tried in their own way to resolve this issue. Their argument was “Quebec has to be brought back in with honour and dignity”. As we all know, this led to the Meech Lake accord, which failed, and then there was the Charlottetown accord, which was rejected by the population. I do not want to spend too much time on these events that have been dealt with at length by others. This led to the arrival in the federal Parliament of regional parties, a trend that was maintained following the last federal election.

But above all, this led to the 1995 referendum. Very often, federalists forget to mention that there were two referendums in Quebec, even three. In 1992, Quebeckers refused to endorse the Charlottetown accord, by which Quebec would have signed the patriation of the Constitution under the Charlottetown conditions. We must always remember that Quebeckers said that no, under those conditions, they would not sign. This is an important issue in this debate. It seems that federalists have a selective memory and that they forget that episode.

In 1995, with a participation rate of over 93%, 49.5% of the population voted yes on the proposal for the sovereignty of Quebec accompanied by a offer to form a partnership with the rest of Canada.

In a panic, faced with this result, Ottawa did not know exactly how to react and took a hard line, with everything that implied under plan B, to attack Quebec, to make people think that the question was not understood, nor the issues, and everything else, and to come up with the greatest scare tactics that were ever used, on territory, etc.

In fact, we know that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is now the leader of the partitionist movement in Quebec. He is spreading the idea everywhere, not just in Quebec, but outside the province too. All this led provincial premiers to say “We must do something”. But how can they do something when they have hardly any room to manoeuvre, when just about everything has been tried in the negotiations that led to Meech and Charlottetown? Still, they feel they must do something symbolic because there will be an election in Quebec and, should the Parti Quebecois win, another referendum will be held.

Under the circumstances, the premiers decided to find a way to send a message to Quebec to the effect that they may be prepared to do something to please Quebeckers, because they do not want—and the Calgary exercise is primarily the result of this concern—the federalist party in Quebec, that is the Quebec Liberal Party, going into an election campaign with nothing but a promise to renew federalism and no concrete measures to support it.

So, the idea is to create the illusion that there will be a follow-up to this promise. That is why the premiers took a piece of paper on which they wrote great principles. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs himself said earlier, among other things, that should the agreement become part of the Constitution, these values would guide us in an eventual decentralization of power and so on. At the rate things are going, we better not hold our breath, because it could take a long time before anything comes out of this. The minister also talked about manpower training, which is a prime example of federalism at work, given that it took over 30 years to come up with a solution. This administrative agreement may be short-lived, because we never know what the federal government may decide.

Furthermore, we, as members of Parliament working in their ridings, know that the federal government is launching all kinds of youth training initiatives, but that it does not even respect the spirit or the lofty values by which it says it is guided. It obviously has no interest in them whatsoever, nor in that agreement. This is not a lofty principle, but a small administrative agreement to fool people into thinking that this system can evolve, can change.

But I do not want to look like the only one criticizing the Calgary declaration, so I am going to quote from a number of newspaper articles I have come across recently. I will start with Lise Bissonnette of Le Devoir , who gives a bit of the context in which the Calgary declaration was arrived at, and I quote “It confirms, nonetheless, that the stumbling blocks of the past are still with us and are crystallizing into three points that have always been viewed as essential in Quebec circles that believe in the renewal of federalism”. And these three points are: the concept of political pact between two peoples, constitutional recognition of the distinct character of Quebec and its real significance, and the division of power between the two levels of government.

She goes on to explain that there has been failure on all three counts. But I know that members opposite will say that Ms. Bissonnette is a nasty separatist, a sovereignist and whatnot. I will therefore continue.

According to an article in Le Soleil , after a tour by the then premier of New Brunswick, Frank McKenna, the specific nature of Quebec was too much for the West to swallow. The article refers to the non-inclusion of Quebec institutions as part of its unique character. They did not want to use the word “institution”. Frank McKenna said “I tried, but there was too much resistance in the West”.

One of the best articles, headlined “A path filled with pitfalls”, is by Alain Dubuc—whom one cannot classify as a sovereignist unless he has undergone a recent conversion, and if so someone should let us know. Allow me to quote from this article:

It is normal, however, for Quebeckers to welcome this initiative with as much circumspection as the premiers put into formulating it. Quebeckers, leery after the failures of recent years, are sceptical and want to know where all this is headed before they voice an opinion.

Alain Dubuc himself says that we need to watch what happens elsewhere before we voice an opinion ourselves.

He continues:

The way the premiers started off this new round, there was nothing to stir up any enthusiasm. In their palpable discomfort, their careful language, their way of paying lip service to their love, the nine premiers bore less resemblance to politicians beginning to rebuild their country and more to nine men in a waiting room waiting to be called in for vasectomies.

The author of this article is Alain Dubuc, senior editorial writer at La Presse . He goes on to list a series of traps, concluding with this:

The fourth trap is love. Some premiers have expressed their love for Quebec. But since it was obvious how terrified some of them were of public opinion, this message did not ring true, just as it did not ring true on the eve of the referendum. Recognition and respect would be more credible and more than sufficient.

The text probably never made it to the Power Corporation office.

I have here another article headlined “Bones without flesh: Jonathan Sauvé urges his party to be wary of the Calgary declaration”. Who is Jonathan Sauvé? He is the president of the Quebec Liberal Party youth commission, who made this statement a few days after the Calgary declaration was issued. I hope he will stand by this statement during the provincial election.

“Bones without flesh”. “The Calgary declaration: opening or setback?”. This is followed by a quote from Claude Ryan, saying that the declaration reflects mistrust of Quebec. This is Claude Ryan, the former Quebec Liberal Party leader, who is not known to be a staunch sovereignist either.

There is also this document in which the Government of Newfoundland clarifies what is at stake, and the minister was quite clear on this, but I would like him to repeat this everywhere he goes.

Why use the term “unique” instead of “distinct” to describe Quebec's character?

The answer is found in this guide being distributed to the public.

The word “distinct” is reminiscent of earlier discussions. In many parts of Canada, it has taken a negative meaning. In addition, “distinct” conveys the idea of “separate”, which goes against unity.

On the other hand, the expression “unique character” suggests something that is special but does not adversely affect unity. Accordingly, the expression “unique character” more accurately conveys what we mean.

These people want to play on words. If they want to recognize Quebec for what it is, why do they feel the need to get into a semantics debate to decide what word to use, if not because there is a degree of distrust, fear, apprehension and hesitation in many places?

Mr. Speaker, I know you are about to interrupt me, so I will conclude this part of my speech and then I will answer questions.

Let me briefly touch on the motivation of the Reform Party, which calls on their constituents to make sure this never happens by way of a constitutional amendment recognizing Quebec's distinctiveness. They are telling their supporters to express their views on this.

Now their leader is saying that Senate reform should be included in there somewhere. Preston Manning is looking for a way out and trying to put the blame on Quebeckers because they are not holding consultations. That is what we are witnessing today and we will be discussing what their real intentions are throughout the day.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to come up with a speech more deplorable than the one we have just heard on this subject.

Choosing passages that suit the member from documents supporting the Calgary declaration in general terms—

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

Talk about the 4 per cent in Alberta.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

He made no mention of scholarly papers like the one prepared by professor Benoît Pelletier explaining why the declaration is good for Quebeckers. No, it is too long. I have little to say.

I would like to point out some fairly elementary mistakes. Earlier, the hon. member said that only 4 per cent of Albertans were aware of the Calgary declaration. In fact, 4 per cent responded to the questionnaire.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister says that I chose passages from people who support the Calgary declaration. As far as I know, Alain Dubuc's editorial—I will send him a copy—contained little support for the Calgary declaration.

Ms. Bissonnette did not appear to be giving much support to the Calgary declaration. Jonathan Sauvé of the Liberal Party did not give it much support either. I will send him a copy because I imagine he has some free time and that he will take the time to read it in between two speeches on separation.

As regards what is happening in Alberta and the fact that a number of people responded, I remember a report we heard on a CBC radio station. They were doing man-in-the-street interviews in Alberta. Of ten or twelve people, two or three thought it involved a labour dispute, the others had no idea what they were talking about and knew nothing about the Calgary declaration.

That said, before we go calling that support, let us wait and see. I suggest he be prudent, because he knows very well that, before it gets support in Alberta and B.C., the Calgary declaration would have to be put to a referendum if it were to become a constitutional amendment. Then there would be a real debate, and I am sure that the minister and many members of his government would find the results most surprising.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member began and ended his remarks by saying that people in Quebec and the rest of Canada do not know what is in the Calgary declaration. If that is the case, that is why we are recommending in point four of our motion that the government and members communicate with Quebeckers regarding the Calgary declaration and consult the people of Quebec on its contents.

We all know very well the hon. member's secessionist views. Notwithstanding, does he think it is within the interest of well informed public debate in Quebec on this matter to take steps to inform Quebeckers about the content of the Calgary declaration, or does he want to leave them in the dark? What is he trying to hide from Quebeckers with respect to the content of the declaration?

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in 1995, barely two years ago—and these people do not know, because they are told all sorts of things by the federal government—a consultation process was held through the commissions on the future of Quebec. The process was criticized by this government, which claimed that it was a phoney consultation from which nothing would come out. Yet, during these consultations in Quebec, more testimonies were heard than in the best consultation process under way on the Calgary declaration. So, I hope they will reconsider, apologize and recognize that the process was in fact a great democratic exercise in Canada.

This being said, the ball is clearly in the federalist camp. In the last referendum, 49.5% of Quebeckers voted in favour of sovereignty, along with a partnership offer. It is not true that Quebec will now support meaningless proposals that have no constitutional value and that are simply meant to gain support for Daniel Johnson in the next election. Federalists want the Quebec government to go along with this so they can ultimately put the blame on Quebec by saying “in any case, Quebeckers do not want it. Therefore, we will not support it because they do not want it”.

Federalists from all parties and from the other Canadian provinces should start by agreeing among themselves. They should act while Quebec is still a province, because the countdown has begun. Let them agree on a substantial offer to Quebec and then we may have a debate. Otherwise, in the next referendum, people will have to choose between the insignificant Calgary declaration and its principles—some people even trivialized Quebeckers' unique character by comparing it to Pacific salmon—and sovereignty with a partnership offer. I am pretty sure which one of these two options will prevail.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just listened to the member from the Bloc. It reinforces why it is important for all of us who believe in Canada and want to see Canada remain united in the future to get our act together and to be able to say something to Quebec that will be acceptable, if not to the hon. member who just spoke, which is unlikely, then to a great majority of Quebeckers who may wish to stay in Canada if they feel the rest of Canada is in a position to offer them the possibility of a relationship that satisfies both their own self-understanding and a vision of Canada that is acceptable inside Quebec and outside Quebec.

I welcome the motion by the Reform Party. I welcome the news that the government intends to support it. Certainly the New Democratic Party also intends to support the motion.

One of the reasons for doing that is the need to show that in spite of differences which may exist from time to time on other issues, and indeed from time to time on the constitution, on the unity file, there is the possibility of coming together on this day in support of this resolution.

I hoped this would be a foreshadowing of future events in which we could come together around something more substantial, either the Calgary declaration as it stands or the Calgary declaration as amended or as followed up on in respect of other concerns that have been raised and will be raised in the course of the consultation.

The very nature of consultation, it seems to me, is that one is open, and I presume the premiers are open, to suggestions on how to approve the declaration or how to move beyond the declaration in ways that address very legitimate concerns that have been raised.

The first one that comes to my mind is the concern raised by the aboriginal leadership in this country, that there is wording in the Calgary declaration which, in their judgment, does not reflect properly their status within Canada, their self-understanding within Canada.

I and my party share their concerns. They are not concerns that would lead us to vote against this motion because this motion is about the consultation process. I note that even the Reform Party, whose members drafted this motion, are very careful not to indicate support for the Calgary declaration. Support for the premiers in their efforts, support for the consultation process, yes, but if one reads the motion very carefully, as I did, nowhere does it express support for the Calgary declaration. I do not know whether that is intentional. It could be intentional with good intentions. On the other hand, it could be intentional with not so good intentions.

Perhaps future speakers from the Reform Party could indicate the reason why. It does not necessarily vitiate one's commitments to consultation to take a stand for oneself as to the worthiness or unworthiness of a particular resolution.

One can then go out, consult and find that there are legitimate criticisms, legitimate suggestions as to how it can be improved and how those suggestions can be acted upon.

I would be interested in knowing from future Reform Party speakers just where they stand on the Calgary declaration as opposed to all the language of support for the process.

It seems to me, again with respect to what has been said so far by the Reform Party in support of its motion, that much of what the first speaker said had to do with his insistence that the Government of Canada consult with the people of Quebec now, immediately, yesterday, on the Calgary declaration.

I listened to the minister say that he felt that the time was not right for that kind of consultation. I tend to agree with the minister. I say to the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona that I think it would be a serious mistake to go into Quebec either through the instrument of the federal government or in some other way to create another round of expectations if we are not sure in the rest of Canada that we can actually say with a certain amount of unity and a certain amount of certainty that this is what we agreed upon.

We want to know what the people of Quebec think about this and we want to know their opinion on this.

At some point that has to happen, obviously. If it were not to happen, then that would be a serious mistake. When we reach that point, I do not think we should be fearful of the provincial government in this regard.

I think we have a right as Canadians and the federal government has a right as the federal government to consult Quebeckers on this issue. I do not say this out of caution or out of fear of what the view of the Quebec government is on this.

I just offer it as a tactical reflection, if you like, that the worst thing that could happen is one more round in which expectations are created in Quebec and then Quebec finds one more time that the rest of Canada really does not have its act together and cannot agree among itself, therefore whatever expectations would be created by going through a process in Quebec now would be disappointed.

It seems to me that that is the point of the Calgary declaration and the consultation process that it creates, to see if there is enough unity in the rest of the country—outside Quebec, that is—so that we can actually say to Quebec with some certainty that this is how we propose to redescribe and reconfigure our relationship with Quebec and, for that matter, reconfigure Confederation; what do you think? Some people may reject it, some people may accept it, but until we are in a position to do that, I think it might be a serious mistake to do what the hon. member has suggested.

I do not quarrel with the principle. I suppose I am asking him to reflect on the timing. Maybe it is just because I have seen this happen before and I am worried that we may repeat the scenario of creating expectations which cannot be met.

Having stated my reservations about what seems to be at the top of the Reform Party agenda, which is an immediate consultation with Quebec, I want to repeat that I doubt the wisdom of it at this time.

I also want to say to the government that it should find a way to meet the concerns of the aboriginal leadership in the country which they expressed not so long ago and which I know have been expressed personally to the minister by Grand Chief Phil Fontaine and to the premiers as recently as last week.

Let us not get into the bind we were in before where because we have agreed on something that we cannot agree to change it. We need to be able to agree to change things or to follow up so that we do not get into the corner we have been in so many times before, unfortunately, where we have not been able to respond appropriately to concerns that have arisen.

Finally, from a social democratic or NDP point of view, we also say to the government though we do not offer a simplistic or economic reductionistic view of unity in this regard, we do however believe that part of building a strong country means addressing the growing social and economic inequalities that exist in this country and which are more pronounced now than they were 20 years ago.

We cannot encourage people to think as citizens, as a community or to think that they are all in the same boat if on the other hand we are pursing policies which increasingly divide and separate people into winners and losers and people who regard themselves as part of a society that no longer cares for them. They cannot bring themselves to care for a society that does not care for them.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the last speaker. This is a man who is asking himself some hard questions.

Will the Calgary declaration, which I have only examined briefly, but which talks about the unique character of Quebec society, be accompanied by new inputs or amendments to the existing Constitution? If this notion of unique society were adopted in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada, has it been proposed to Quebeckers that this notion of Quebec's unique character be enshrined in legislation, which would be our new Constitution, and which would be accompanied by a change in the Senate, by a change in the division of legislative responsibilities, or whatever? I have heard nothing.

There is no doubt that Quebec is unique. It is unique in speaking French. It is unique in having its own poetry. It is unique in many of its structures.

But I would like the hon. member to tell me whether, in Calgary or in the consultations now under way, proposals to Quebeckers were formulated.