House of Commons Hansard #37 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was quebeckers.

Topics

The House resumed consideration of the motion; and of the amendment.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Moncton New Brunswick

Liberal

Claudette Bradshaw LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Cooperation

Mr. Speaker, I wish to support this proposal and I am happy to be able to describe the vision of our government for a strong and united Canada. I wish emphasize in this House that our greatest priority is to strengthen Canadian unity. I would also like to say that we are convinced that we will succeed in creating again the sense of purpose that allowed us to build this great country and that has carried it through to what it is today.

We are trustees of a tolerant society, one that welcomes people of all nations and all races. Canada has earned an international reputation as a champion of human rights. We recognize that “one size fits all policies and approaches” will not work in a country composed of such a rich cultural mosaic and have found ways to accommodate our differences.

Ours is a democracy where we can agree to disagree, but still get along. There is ample room for the provinces to manoeuvre within the framework of federalism while at the same time enjoying all the benefits of this larger, more powerful alliance.

It is exactly because we are Canadians that we have the freedom to maintain different languages and different legal traditions, to celebrate what makes us different in cultural terms and what prevents us from disappearing in a melting pot.

Canada has proven to the rest of the world that it is possible to live together in harmony, mutual respect and mutual trust. It is possible, because we share the same values of peace, generosity and justice, while maintaining our history and our traditions.

On the social union, over the years, we have created a network of policies and social programs that reflect our common values and that form the basis of our common identity.

I would like to add that it is this common experience, this mutual trust that has allowed us, more than legal definitions or constitutional considerations, to stay together and to develop in a country that is the envy of the world. According to the United Nations human development index, need I remind you, our country is listed at the very top among the world's nations.

I want to highlight several social initiatives which demonstrate that our core values remain the key to national unity and which clearly illustrate that there is more that unites us than divides us. On the national child benefit, the collaborative approach the Government of Canada and the provinces and territories have taken with the national child benefit system is a perfect example. In the summer of 1996 the first ministers made child poverty a priority and agreed to work together with the Government of Canada on an integrated child benefit.

When representatives of the two levels of government focused on the real issue on the table, giving children the start they need to become healthy, happy, educated and productive adults, there was no room for partisan politics. Everyone recognized that investing in children is vital to our collective future.

Whichever government they were representing, all the negotiators realized that what mattered most was not which level of government should be providing the funding or delivering the services. The aim was simply to provide an opportunity for a better future for children living in poverty.

They all recognized that reducing child poverty requires a co-operative strategy, a national effort bringing together federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictions to work towards the creation of constructive partnerships. The fact that we have succeeded in implementing the national child benefit demonstrates how Canada can work better when we work hand in hand.

Like the national child benefit, the new national children's agenda will also include the well-being of Canadian children and in the process strengthen this country's social union. Launching a national children's agenda is an opportunity to work together across provinces and sectors toward a common goal of building a better future for Canada's children.

We have enjoyed similar success in securing federal-provincial agreements on changes to the Canada Pension Plan. We will jointly shepherd reforms to the CPP to secure a viable and a sustainable public pension system for today's retirees and tomorrow's.

We hope to duplicate this co-operation in the coming months as we work with our provincial and territorial colleagues on other social priorities. Persons with disabilities are a priority of federal-provincial-territorial social services ministers. We will collaborate closely with our partners to develop a shared agenda to better meet their needs. We are currently working with other governments to put in place a replacement program for the vocational rehabilitation for disabled persons program.

In the same spirit we are working with the provinces and territories to create employment and learning opportunities for Canadian young people. For example, we are committed to developing a mentorship program in partnership with provincial and territorial governments and the private sector.

Also, working with our provincial partners we will continue to improve the Canada student loans program to increase access to learning opportunities for Canadian youth.

I would like to remind the hon. member that federalism can also adjust to the economic climate. For example, Quebec has long been seeking jurisdiction over manpower training, arguing that local authorities are in a better position to respond to needs for skills development, and are often capable of responding more quickly.

Our offer is without precedent and involves the transfer to the provinces of responsibilities in the area of labour market development. This will allow Quebec to design and manage its own manpower training programs.

Through agreements to develop the labour market, employment programs and services worth $2 billion annually—funded through the reform of the employment insurance program—will be handed over to the provinces choosing to assume these responsibilities. Up to now, Quebec and seven other provinces have signed agreements on new provisions for the labour market.

Canadians are fed up with federal-provincial squabbling. They want us to work together to create worthwhile and sustainable social programs for the 21st century.

Thanks to the many innovative measures I have mentioned, the Government of Canada has clearly shown its willingness to make the necessary changes to modernize Canada.

We are finding new ways to increase Canada's effectiveness for us all, and the result is not independent governments, but rather interdependent governments.

This partnership approach offers tangible proof that by working together, governments can strengthen the social union. We can advance a common social agenda and in the process, create more targeted government programs, improve service delivery and achieve significant cost savings.

I am suggesting that if we are willing to give each other a chance and really work at it, Canada can become whatever we collectively make it.

If Canada did not already exist, no doubt we would be doing our best to invent it. So let us celebrate Canada as a model nation, one that inspires the international community and that will continue to make a remarkable contribution to the world in the next millennium.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to my colleague's speech. She gives manpower training as an example of successful federalism.

At this time, it can be seen that there is a big problem in that area. When someone says that manpower training is being handed back to the provinces, while at the same time a duplicate youth strategy is being created, that the Federal Regional Development Office is taking steps to encourage young entrepreneurs alongside the economic development corporations already in existence, that millennium scholarships are created, another example of federal meddling in education and a measure designed with the next election in mind, this of course gives government members something to boast about. But all of this is in an area which is not in any way part of its jurisdiction.

With such examples of federal interference coming on top of all the previous failures to change the Canadian federal system, is it any wonder that Quebeckers are highly sceptical about the Calgary declaration? I find, moreover, that it contains nothing at all that Quebeckers have long been calling for.

Would there not be a way in this House for the federal government to show a real desire to respond to Quebec's demands, which have been expressed for many years, with a position that could at least meet the traditional needs of Quebec?

At the present time, the Calgary declaration does not even contain anything for the Quebec federalists who want to see Canada changed.

Could the hon. member not pass these desires and wishes on to her government in order to convince it to modify its position?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Claudette Bradshaw Liberal Moncton, NB

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Human Resources Development has said repeatedly, reform in under way and the provinces will be able to make their own decisions. That is what we are doing.

The Prime Minister said he wanted to make youth a priority and that, in the next millennium, the federal government, on this side, will be the one making decisions about grants. That is all right, that is what we wanted it to do.

But this does not make a bit of difference: it seems that, whatever we do, the Bloc always wants more, but not everyone in Quebec agrees. Many people in Quebec tell us they want a federal presence there, they want us there.

In spite of the fact that we give them responsibilities and take major decisions, people in Quebec tell us: “We want you too, we want the federal government as well”.

While listening to my friend opposite, I was reminded of Pierre Roy. Every morning for the past 21 months, he has been raising the Canadian flag with some veteran comrades of his. The message Pierre Roy is sending is that he knows what a divided country is like, because he fought for such countries on behalf of Canada.

My hon. friend must understand that the provinces are requesting that we share. They are asking that we have discussions with them and make decisions together.

Things are going will very well with the provinces. Many programs were developed in co-operation with other provinces. But as you all know, it is difficult to get the Bloc Quebecois or Lucien Bouchard to sit down with us so we can work together.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

The hon. member for Laval East may ask a question, but it must be short.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Bloc

Maud Debien Bloc Laval East, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised by the answer the hon. member just gave to my colleague.

I will ask her a question along the same lines. When the hon. member says that Quebeckers absolutely want the federal government to get involved in areas of provincial jurisdiction, in areas that come under Quebec's jurisdiction, is she implying that every Quebec government in the past 30 years was wrong in making traditional claims regarding Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, including education? Is the hon. member telling us that all Quebec governments of the past 30 years were wrong?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Claudette Bradshaw Liberal Moncton, NB

Not at all, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to tell the hon. member that Quebeckers want the Quebec government to sit at the table, with the federal government and with the other provincial governments, to take part in the decisions being made. Major decisions will be made over the next five years at the federal and provincial levels. My message was that Quebeckers surely want their provincial government to sit at the table with the other provinces.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Reform

Jason Kenney Reform Calgary Southeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the official opposition motion regarding the need for consultation on national unity.

We have the good fortune to live in one of the best countries in the world. Canada, with its prosperous economy, is a stable democracy that respects the values and aspirations of all Canadians. No other country can point to such a free and tolerant society, where diversity and difference are accepted, as witnessed by the languages and cultures of its citizens.

These are all reasons to be proud and to view Canada's future with optimism. Cooperation between the federal government and the provinces can only assure us of a better future by revitalizing our Constitution.

Effort is required to strengthen the Canadian federation. This effort has been made by the premiers of nine provinces who met in Calgary last September. These premiers drafted a declaration which embodies some of the basic principles that all Canadians share to guide future efforts in uniting this country.

What is monumental about the process surrounding the Calgary declaration is its emphasis on consultation. Unlike the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords, the Canadian public is being consulted at the front end of the process about its vision of Canada in the 21st century. We hope that the public, the premiers and this government are listening.

The Calgary declaration provides a way to renew the debate on ways of improving our country. It includes principles universally applicable in Canada and not limited just to eastern or western provinces, principles applicable in Quebec, even though the premier of Quebec was not at the Calgary conference.

Mr. Bouchard said he would not take part in any public consultation process. He is not unaware, however, that if the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords failed, it was because Canadians were not consulted. He adds that he has no interest in consulting Quebeckers as to whether they truly want to participate in Canadian society. By taking this approach, Mr. Bouchard is standing in the way of democratic debate in Quebec and in the way of Quebeckers' right to participate in free and open consultations with their elected officials on ways of becoming their own masters in the Canadian Confederation. The Quebec government alone is preventing Quebeckers from having a say in the definition of their future.

These consultations are essential to achieve a proper balance in the Constitution. The Calgary declaration proposes ways to rebalance the sharing of powers and responsibilities.

Of the seven principles found in the declaration, three—Nos. 1, 2 and 6—underline the equality of all citizens and of the provinces. The Reform Party is especially committed to this principle of equality. The first principle ensures that the equal rights and the freedoms enjoyed by all Canadians under the charter of rights and freedoms are recognized as the basis for any constitutional negotiation.

The second principle puts forth an idea that is not new, but that has been neglected in constitutional negotiations over the last 15 years, and that is that all provinces are equal. Canadians have reiterated in all consultations that the provinces are equal and that none is entitled to special constitutional status.

This is stated again clearly in the sixth principle, where it is said that “if any future constitutional amendment confers powers on one province, these powers must be available to all provinces”. Any constitutional amendment that provides more powers to the provinces must do so in a way that benefits equally all the provinces.

This equality is one of the things that unites us as Canadians. The provinces may be equal, but that does not mean that they are all the same or identical.

That is why the declaration contains principles that recognize the diversity of Canada, the differences that make it a great country. Principles Nos. 3, 4 and 5 state the unique character of Canadian society, including its “diversity, tolerance, compassion and equality of opportunity” that allow it to be without rival in the world.

Respect for diversity and equality forms the basis of Canadian unity. The unique character of Quebec society, including its French speaking majority, its culture and its tradition of civil law is a fundamental element of the fabric of Canadian society.

The declaration avoids the basic errors of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords, which included special treatment for a province or a people. Canadians are opposed to the idea of incorporating in the Constitution a justiciable “distinct society” clause or any other phrase that would contribute mostly to divide instead of uniting the country by giving a province special status or greater powers. The declaration emphasizes the importance of diversity within the framework of equality of status between the provinces, and, in doing so, it offers a clear departure from constitutional phraseologies that have failed in the past.

This principle defines a framework within which the federal government and the provinces can co-operate to find a new balance for the Confederation by excluding the federal government from exclusively provincial jurisdictions.

The Reform Party has been calling for a long time for a better balance within the Canadian federation between the federal government, the provinces and the population itself. Our party has developed 20 proposals to strengthen the Canadian union. Most of them can be implemented without going through lengthy federal-provincial negotiations or without having to amend the Constitution.

They are calling upon the federal government to withdraw from areas of jurisdiction which are more suited to the provinces and they are calling for the reform of federal institutions like the Senate, the supreme court and the Bank of Canada.

There is a critical role for the federal government in jurisdictions of national and international importance, including defence, foreign affairs, monetary policy, regulation of financial institutions, the development of national standards through interprovincial co-operation and in the areas of criminal law and reform of the criminal justice system.

But the federal government ought no longer to have the option of meddling in areas which are the exclusive purview of the provinces. The services and powers of this government must be decentralized so that the government in the best position to serve the population will be the one responsible. The costs and the inefficiencies caused by jurisdictional overlap between the federal government and the provinces is what lies behind most of the frictions threatening national unity.

The Reform Party recommends that the federal government refrain from intervening in areas such as natural resources, manpower training, social services, language, culture, municipal affairs, housing, tourism, sports and recreation. The provinces are in a better position to meet Canadians' needs in these areas.

The federal government should be prevented from using its spending power to intervene in provincial jurisdiction. The federal cash block grants to the provinces should be replaced with tax points at a fixed percentage of federal tax revenue whose value would increase as the province's economy grows to allow each province to enhance social security of its citizens.

Parliament should also pass an amendment unilaterally to the Constitution forbidding future deficit spending and massive increases in spending without approval through a referendum.

Lastly, a constitutional amendment should be passed to abolish the federal government's ability to disallow and reserve provincial legislation and to legislate under the declaratory power in areas of such jurisdiction.

We also believe very strongly there is need for further reform of federal institutions, particularly in western Canada with a growing economy and population. We find institutions like the Senate and the supreme court, the Bank of Canada and the appointment of lieutenant governors increasingly anachronisms that do not represent the growing parts of this country.

We must reform those institutions, among other things, through an elected, equal and effective Senate. Supreme court appointees should be nominated by the provinces, as should directors of the Bank of Canada and lieutenant governors.

Finally, we also believe that any future changes to the Constitution ought to be approved by the people in a referendum first.

The renewal of the Canadian federation of necessity involves the reform of federal institutions. We have good reason to believe that Quebeckers do not share their leaders' obsession with symbolic gestures. They are demanding significant changes. The citizens of Quebec agree with westerners that the federation must be rebalanced and that real changes must be made. Quebeckers and westerners have a great deal in common.

Quebeckers and westerners acknowledge that the federal government is interfering in areas exclusively under provincial jurisdiction by imposing national standards and by using its spending power not as an encouragement but more often as a way of ensuring that the provinces comply with its wishes.

Quebeckers and westerners agree that the provinces are in a better position to govern in areas such as culture, language, manpower, social services, housing, tourism and a good many others.

Quebeckers and westerners agree that the federal government must give up certain powers and give more power to the regions.

There is only one point which Quebeckers and westerners do not have in common. Quebeckers have been excluded by their government from the process of drafting the Calgary declaration.

Their government denied them the opportunity of working with Canadians to build a better Canada. Quebeckers must have a voice. They must be part of this popular initiative, working equally with Canadians in a positive, creative and constructive effort to build a new Canada that they will be an integral part of.

Quebeckers know all too well the outcome of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. Both failed miserably because of a secret process. Quebeckers and other Canadians were not really consulted. The two accords were produced by the great decision makers, without real consultation or prior agreement.

We have therefore called on the federal government to take responsibility for what the separatist government has refused to do, namely to involve Quebeckers in the Calgary process. But nine weeks have passed since the Calgary declaration and still the federal government has done nothing to seek input from Quebeckers on the process. How much longer must we wait? Most other provinces have begun to complete their consultations, yet Quebeckers have been locked out and not told honestly what the declaration says to them.

As for us in the Reform Party, we cannot be satisfied with the Liberal government's inertia. We will therefore take the initiative in Quebec to show Quebeckers that, despite the stereotypes of the Reform Party perpetuated by the Quebec elite, we believe passionately in a Canada that includes Quebec. We believe in a strong and flexible Confederation comprising ten provinces and in which all Canadians can achieve their goals.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to hear the member's comments. There are many items that we could discuss, but I want to raise with him the specific issue about the proposal to convert cash transfers to tax points.

The member will well know that under the former system of CAP, cash transfers were made for health, post-secondary education and welfare. He will also know that the cash was running out in a couple of these areas which would mean that the government would have absolutely no recourse in terms of enforcing any national standards that may be in place. As a result the government converted the former CAP program to the CHST, the Canada health and social transfer, so that there is sufficient cash in the umbrella of the full transfer so that our standards for instance under the five principles of the National Health Act can be enforced as well as other standards with regard to welfare.

The fact is that the cash element of the transfers between cash and tax points is critical to the national governance, to the federal government's ability to enforce national standards. I wonder if the member would care to explain to the House what mechanism the federal government has available to it to enforce national standards when provinces like Alberta decide to privatize health care.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Reform

Jason Kenney Reform Calgary Southeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, the whole point of a large part of my speech and the platform of the Reform Party with respect to reforming the federation is that we are talking about areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. In their wisdom the Fathers of Confederation assigned certain areas, such as health care, education and welfare as areas best managed by those governments closest to the people. It is called the principle of subsidiarity and it makes a lot of sense.

That is precisely why we propose providing the provinces the flexibility they need to deliver those programs in a way that suits their citizens and not the bureaucrats and politicians here in far distant Ottawa.

The conversion of cash transfers to tax points qualified by national standards agreed upon co-operatively by the provinces would ensure a national network of social programs administered by the provinces but for all Canadians. Let us trust people locally. It does not take bureaucrats and politicians in this town to deliver programs. The provinces can do it for their own citizens very well thank you very much.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Bloc

Daniel Turp Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Mr. Speaker, first, on behalf of my colleagues who are present, I would like to congratulate the member for Calgary Southeast on the quality of his French. We are always grateful in hearing our Reform colleagues speaking French for their open-mindedness in doing so, and we will say this as often as need be.

However, this does not preclude our disagreeing fundamentally with the Reform Party's view of the future of Canada and the future of Quebec within it.

I have two questions for the member for Calgary Southeast. The first is fairly simple. Does the Reform Party agree with the content of the Calgary declaration? Second, does the party the member represents in the House wish the declaration changed to include reference to the Senate and Senate reform?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Reform

Jason Kenney Reform Calgary Southeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for those two very thoughtful questions. I know my French is far from perfect but I promise to continue working on it. I think we all have an obligation to do that as a symbol of our mutual affection for this country.

To the first question, the Reform Party does not formally have a position on the content of the Calgary declaration because we only take positions formally as a party in our assemblies. Our next one will not be held until next June. In the meantime, our leader and our unity critics have commented positively on aspects of the Calgary declaration emphasizing their support for the process of consultation launched therein. In my speech I personally spoke in favour of all of the elements outlined in the Calgary declaration.

Do we want to see it amended to include institutional reform? I would like to see some inclusion in the Calgary declaration at least a recognition of the need to reform federal institutions to make them more reflective of the new reality of democracy in Canada, the emerging west and the shift in population. However, it is a very tricky balance because as we know the Calgary declaration is not a constitutional vehicle and some would argue that measures like Senate reform do require multilateral agreement on an amendment to the Constitution.

At the very least there ought to be a parallel track of Senate reform, reform with respect to other federal institutions parallel to the Calgary declaration. However, if we can find a way to include it in the declaration so that all Canadians feel that their legitimate aspirations are being represented, I would find that very satisfactory.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

We have two more questions. We have a very short time so I would ask that you keep the comments very brief.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the member for Calgary Southeast for delivering most of his speech in French. He did it, I believe, because our friends in the Bloc Quebecois do not know there are francophones outside Quebec. I have a short question for the member for Calgary Southeast.

The member suggested that he had an interest in certainly upholding the notion of the principle of equality. I am interested in hearing his definition of equality. Does he refer to equality as equal treatment, equal powers, equal opportunities for each of the provinces?

Because we have very little time, perhaps I could throw into that other question the question of consultation. If the tables were reversed and Alberta for instance had this kind of difficulty, would the member support the federal government getting involved directly with the people of Alberta on an issue that may not necessarily meet with the accord of its provincial government?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Reform

Jason Kenney Reform Calgary Southeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, on the first question, I dwelt at some length in my remarks on what we would consider the equality of provinces. It would be a constitutional framework wherein any powers available to one province would be available to all provinces. We recognize that in the founding of the country this was not necessarily the case. However we believe that in a modern confederation it is appropriate that any new powers made available to one province be made available to them all and that no province be given any special status or rights, or for that matter obligations in the constitution.

With respect to the second question, it is a hypothetical question which is really not relevant. Albertans are federalists. They believe strongly in Canada. Even though they have sometimes been slapped around by Ottawa, and at times have been treated in a not very pleasant way, Albertans have remained loyal to this country, fortunately. I believe they will continue to remain loyal. The provincial government in Alberta has been committed to the consultation process. I cannot imagine the circumstance.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Bloc

René Canuel Bloc Matapédia—Matane, QC

Mr. Speaker, I too want to congratulate my colleague for speaking French so well, but I would like to remind him that words do not matter any longer, we want action now.

For the past 30, 40 years I have heard fine words: equality, independence, fraternity. That is not what we want. That is just fine for Prince Edward Island, British Columbia, Ontario, Vancouver, etc. But that is not what we in Quebec want. We want to be recognized as a people.

We do not want unique society status. We do not want distinct society status. That is not what we want. I am asking my colleague, who is very open-minded, if he is able to recognize us simply as a people, as a founding nation and as a modern people.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Reform

Jason Kenney Reform Calgary Southeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, we believe that a modern constitution of a modern, liberal, pluralistic democracy does not have a place for ethnic divisions or divisions predicated on nationality, bloodlines or creed. We believe that our Constitution ought to be colour blind, it ought to be blind with respect to race and ethnicity and it ought to incorporate all Canadians within the framework of the provinces.

My response to the member, and I will close with this, is we are suggesting that provinces should have jurisdiction over matters of culture and language so that the francophone majority in Quebec can protect those institutions which are so important to it. We are allies of reasonable Quebec nationalists on that point. I wish the member would open his ears to that.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Clifford Lincoln Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to split my time with the member for Simcoe North, the parliamentary secretary to the minister.

Regarding the member for Edmonton—Strathcona's motion, I would like to make three points. First, the failure of Meech Lake has left bad scars in Quebec.

The second point is that all surveys show that, if asked a clear question, a vast majority of Quebeckers will answer they want to stay in Canada.

The third point is that in spite of all the tricks and mirages used in conjuring up an imaginary partnership as a viable option for Quebec, in spite of all these tricks and the vague questions in two referendums, the majority of Quebeckers chose to stay in Canada.

To this we must add another reality. The majority of Canadians outside Quebec definitely want Quebec to remain a vibrant, active and very significant part of Canada.

Outside this majority of people across Canada, and certainly in Quebec, who, provided the option and the question are clear, hope that Canada's destiny will include Quebec, and that Quebec's destiny and that of the rest of the country will complement and strengthen each other, there are two small dissenting groups.

One is the Quebec independentists who want their province to separate at all costs. Regardless of what we could offer, say or do, these people will never accept the idea of a Canadian federation. With them, it is like talking to the deaf. Whatever we say or do, they will never accept it, because they want Quebec to separate from Canada. We have to face this reality and accept it, because it is the option proposed by the Parti Quebecois in Quebec and by the Bloc Quebecois here.

Similarly, there is another small minority in Canada that will never accept any concession to Quebec and oppose any reasonable and fair arrangement making it possible to include Quebec in the Canadian Constitution.

But there is also a vast majority of Canadians, including Quebeckers, who would like to find a fair, reasonable and deliberately made arrangement that would get Quebec to join the Constitution of 1982. In light of this, I think the Reform Party's motion—given its wording and its sober and conciliatory tone—represents a step in the right direction. It is positive and proactive.

However, we would have to be very careful in asking Quebec to urgently hold consultations on the Calgary declaration. It is too soon yet to hold such consultations in Quebec. Let us not forget past failures. We must avoid making the mistakes that were made during Meech and Charlottetown.

The process has only just begun. We must first create a synergy in the rest of Canada and have the provinces, other than Quebec, fully endorse the Calgary declaration, after consulting with their citizens. Then they will be able to tell Quebec “We are now unanimously prepared to accept your fair and clear claims”.

I think we should use the utmost caution and whatever time is necessary before we consult with Quebeckers. We must prepare ourselves properly to make sure that we do not repeat Meech Lake and Charlottetown.

I happen to agree fundamentally with the member for Winnipeg Transcona regarding the essential inclusion of our First Nations so that early in the negotiations they should feel they are a real part of the process.

Indeed and ironically, there is a striking correlation between the feeling of First Nations and the feeling of many Quebeckers which I share. Just as we tend to ignore our First Nations, in the processes that have taken place before, maybe not enough time and patience was given to listen to the fair demands of Quebec to join the constitution.

Beyond the written documents, the spoken words and the constitutional provisions, there is above all the attitude, the friendliness and the openness to what the other person is saying. There is also the deliberate and genuine desire to show that the other party is not only accepted but welcome as a wanted and needed partner.

If Meech and its aftermath left some scars in Quebec, and it is undeniable, it was not because of the texts and not because of constitutional provisions, which were quite reasonable in my opinion; it was because many Quebeckers were left with the feeling that the rest of Canada had closed the door in their faces.

Therefore, the resolution before us must be construed as the will to go forward. It is a positive, proactive measure which goes beyond partisanship. I see it as a positive gesture on the part of a Reform member who, through his attitude, his behaviour and his determination, stepped away from the traditional, rigid position of the Reform Party on these issues. That party is the same one that generated some negative publicity for Quebec's political leaders during the federal election campaign, that voted collectively against distinct society in this House and that would very much like to abolish the Official Languages Act.

At the same time, I think that the motion put forward by the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona must be seen as a step in the right direction; it is a positive and proactive resolution that I will support. Therefore, I thank the member for putting it forward.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Bloc

René Canuel Bloc Matapédia—Matane, QC

Mr. Speaker, I praise the openmindedness of my colleague who was elected to the Quebec National Assembly and who saw the Meech Lake accord die. We were not able to have the Meech Lake accord agreed to, with five very acceptable conditions that were even more reasonable than what could have been expected from Quebec. Quebeckers wanted much more because they want a country.

But even then there was, I would say, a small window of opportunity, and you know how it was rejected. It truly hurts. I do not know what to call this when we see the people who came to tell Quebeckers they love them just before the referendum and when we know that these are the same people who rejected the Meech Lake accord. It is nothing but a joke.

My very experienced colleague says everything would be all right if only we could be recognized. But even the Meech Lake accord, as I said earlier, was not acceptable to Quebeckers. So how can they accept this unique society concept today, in 1997?

I would like my colleague to explain to me how Quebeckers could accept this unique society concept when nobody can say what it means. We first had the distinct society concept, and it means more to me than the word unique because we know everybody is unique. In my opinion, this unique society concept does not mean a thing. I would like my colleague to explain to me how he could convince my colleagues and my constituents in Matapédia—Matane to accept this concept.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Clifford Lincoln Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Mr. Speaker, I think one has a choice between two positions. One can think that things are set in stone, that they can never change. I personally voted in favour of the Meech Lake accord. Ironically, the Parti Quebecois voted against it. And today they complain about the failure of the Meech Lake accord, but it is those same people from the Parti Quebecois, the independentists, who were opposed to the Meech Lake accord, every bit as much as Mr. Wells and all those who voted against it.

So, it is a fact that we need to acknowledge, and one cannot say that Meech was rejected by all Canadians. The premier and the people of Ontario vigorously supported Meech, as well as the people of British Columbia and Alberta. At the end of the day, only one province was responsible for Meech going under.

Many Canadians considered Meech a positive initiative, but we failed. There are two ways to react to this failure: since we failed, should we close the book? Should we say that Canada cannot go on, because the Meech Lake and the Charlottetown agreements failed? Of course not. We have to work harder and realize that shifts in position are possible, even in the Reform Party, since one of its members has brought forward today a resolution that might not have been accepted before by his party, which is now taking a new position. Like some of his colleagues have come to realize, we need to take new positions. We have to try to find out what brings us together instead of always looking for what drives us apart and could divide us forever.

Here, today, we have a new openness. We hope that the Calgary declaration can bring us together so that we can explain what the unique character of Quebec means and accept it for what it really means so that Quebec can feel welcome within our Constitution. Maybe we can find the kind of openness that has eluded us up until now. This is why we need to work as hard as we can to encourage such positions.

I hope that the Bloc Quebecois will see this as a sign of openness, unless the Bloc members maintain that it is impossible for us to work together. I for one believe that we can work together.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Simcoe North Ontario

Liberal

Paul Devillers LiberalParliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure today that I join in this debate on the motion proposed by the Reform Party. I appreciate the non-partisan spirit in which this motion has been put forward. Certainly I encourage all federalist members of the House to support the motion.

I believe the Calgary declaration goes in the right direction. It is a provincial initiative which nine premiers and two territorial leaders have set out. It is a declaration of principles which I think all Canadians who are interested in the country thriving, growing and remaining united should be prepared to support.

There are two major principles in the Calgary declaration that I would like to mention: the first one is the recognition of Quebec's specificity, and the second is the equality of the provinces.

During the 1995 referendum campaign, the Prime Minister made several commitments. Following these commitments, the House of Commons passed a resolution on the recognition of Quebec's specificity, distinct society. Unfortunately, the federal government cannot adopt alone amendments to the Constitution; this requires the participation of the provinces.

To provide for this, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs travelled to all provinces to discuss this issue with the premiers and his counterparts in all the provinces to determine whether amendments could be made to the Constitution so that it would include recognition of Quebec's specificity.

We are pleased to see in the Calgary declaration that the nine premiers and the two territorial leaders are in the process of taking a step forward by determining whether there can be such a recognition. The wording is not the same. The declaration talks about the unique character of Quebec society instead of distinct society, but it is nevertheless the specificity of Quebec that is being described.

As for the equality of the provinces, we have always argued that it is possible to recognize the specificity of Quebec while respecting the equality of the provinces. Equality does not mean sameness. I have three children and I always try to treat them equally, but not always in the same way. They all have their own needs and at times I treat them differently.

Consultations with Canadians are not an invention of the Reform Party. I heard during the debate this morning, when the debate was slipping a bit from its non-partisan nature or intention on behalf of some of the parties, that the grassroots movement was something the Reform Party was promoting.

At the request of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs I have been travelling through practically every province in Canada since my appointment as his parliamentary secretary. I have been meeting with Canadians in all regions of the country at the grassroots level. These Canadians organized themselves into unity groups to try to become engaged in the debate on the future of Canada. A lot of them reached that point by being frustrated with the constitutional wrangling that had been going on up until the Charlottetown accord failed.

These groups of Canadians, grassroots organizations, were very supportive of the fact that their Canada contains a province that is different by reason of its majority language, its institutions and its culture. They are very willing to support and recognize that, so long as it is very clear the recognition does not result in any special rights, powers or privileges granted to any province. In other words, the equality of provinces is respected.

This is essentially what the Calgary accord is speaking about. I am confident from my travels and reports that I have made to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs that there is broad support in all regions of the country for recognition of Quebec's differences so long as the equality of provinces is respected.

That is not very different from what exists already. I make reference to a retired chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Chief Justice Brian Dickson, who said at the present time, prior to any constitutional amendments for the recognition of Quebec, that Quebec's difference is already taken into account by the Supreme Court of Canada when it is interpreting grey areas of the constitution. A whole list of things are taken into account, but the difference of Quebec by reason of its language, culture and institutions is taken into account at the present time.

What is now a constitutional convention, if there is willingness among the provinces and the federal government, could be made a constitutional provision which we hope would give assurances to people in Quebec concerned about their language and culture that within the Canadian federation there is a place for that recognition and that the other provinces in the Canadian federation are prepared to support them in the maintenance of that position.

Today's motion also requires that the Government of Canada go to Quebec to consult Quebeckers on the Calgary declaration. This is an issue on which the Prime Minister has already spoken and he has said that there is a possibility for such consultations.

I would like to point out also that there are some 30 federal members from Quebec in this House already working on this, returning to their ridings every weekend, and every week when the House is not sitting, and discussing with Quebeckers the Calgary declaration and all other issues that concern Canada and the Constitution.

I hope all members of the House will be able to rise above partisan politics and find a way to support the motion.

I can understand that the Bloc Quebecois is against this motion, but I ask all members in this House who are federalists to support this motion.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Peterborough Ontario

Liberal

Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you would find all-party consent for two motions. If I could present them now, I would be grateful. The first motion concerns the business of the House for tomorrow.

Business Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

November 25th, 1997 / 4:20 p.m.

Peterborough Ontario

Liberal

Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

moved:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, at the time of adjournment on Wednesday, November 26, 1997, there shall be no proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38, but, at that time, a motion to adjourn shall be deemed to have been proposed and the said motion shall be debatable, that during the said debate no member except for the first spokesperson for each party, the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition shall speak for more than ten minutes, with a five minute question and comment period, and that during the said debate no dilatory motion or quorum call shall be received, and that, when no Member rises to speak, the motion shall be deemed to have been adopted.

Business Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

Business Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

4:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.