Debates of Feb. 10th, 1998

Citizenship And Immigration

[The Speaker]

Sorry to interrupt. The hon. member for Vancouver Island North.

Aboriginal Affairs

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my wife and my children are status Indians. When the minister of Indian affairs accuses us of being motivated by prejudice, she is insulting me and my family. I demand that the minister retract her statements that she made to the member for Skeena.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the circumstances facing the hon. member, but I have to look at the other facts.

I recall very clearly the former member for Capilano—Howe Sound talking about the life of aboriginal people. Yesterday in the House the member for Delta—South Richmond indicated quite clearly his party's position when it comes to issues of aboriginal rights. To them they do not exist.

I have a final point. I am reminded of a Calgary Sun piece of October 30, 1995, written by a man named Ezra Levant, a main adviser—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis.

Canada Day

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

For Canada Day, the minister has organized a huge contest, open to children under 18, that will close on February 27. Each of the 12 provincial and territorial finalists will win a chance to take part in the Canada Day festivities on July 1.

Does the minister think the prize offered is not enough to interest young Quebeckers in taking part in the contest, since that province's winner will be the only one to also receive a computer?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, that is a new one on me.

Points Of Order

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During question period the minister of Indian affairs stated that my questions were driven by prejudice.

This is a totally and completely unacceptable statement for the minister to make and I ask you to ask her to withdraw it immediately.

[The Speaker]

The minister has been named. The minister is in the House. She seems to want to get to her feet. She has the floor.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I was not trying to impugn anything against the hon. member. I was just trying to reflect the facts as I see them. If I have hurt them so severely, I would be glad to apologize.

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

Supply

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to advise you that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from South Surrey—White Rock—Langley.

For all the people out there who just joined us, I would like to read the motion put forward by the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois. The motion reads as follows:

That this House recognize the consensus in Quebec that it is for Quebeckers to decide freely their own future.

This motion seems to deal with the concept of self-determination, which is not without controversy, but is usually considered as being fair and democratic. However, we will not be able to support the principle of self-determination as long as we do not clearly understand what it implies.

It is a well-known fact that, for the Bloc members, self-determination includes the right to a unilateral declaration of independence. Separatists have clearly indicated that they refuse to consult with the rest of Canada, even if the decisions made in their province will have a profound and lasting impact on the rest of the country.

It is also clear that this motion tends to discredit the reference to the supreme court, which will start next Monday. Some people are opposed to any discussion about the possible legal restrictions to secession. This reference to the supreme court to seek the opinion of the highest court in the land on this issue is considered a denial of the right to self-determination. This shows clearly that, when the Bloc Quebecois and others speak about Quebec's right to decide its own future, they are suggesting that the rest of Canada is not entitled to participate in any way.

No change as profound and irreversible as Quebec's secession can be made unilaterally. It can certainly be argued that, after a vote on sovereignty, in which a clear question is put to the public, and as long as 50% plus one of the population is in favour, Quebec will be able to enter into negotiations with the federal government. The people of Quebec have the right to self-determination as long as these conditions are met.

There is no denying that separatist and federalist leaders in Quebec have questioned the government's decision to ask the supreme court to rule on a primarily political problem. However, general agreement within Quebec's political elite does not mean there is broad grassroots support among Quebeckers.

However recent comments made by Quebec's political elite have suggested that self-determination and the right to declare a unilateral declaration of independence are mutually dependent self-supporting rights.

If self-determination includes the right unilaterally to deny the northern Cree their expressed desire to remain Canadian, their expressed desire to continue to be protected under section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, we cannot in good conscience support this motion.

It should be clear that self-determination as it is explicitly understood by Bloc members of the House is not supported by the natives in Quebec. They cannot be counted among those who are said to be in general agreement with the principle of sovereign rule. Self-determination defined in such broad terms with the inclusion of such sweeping political powers is clearly in violation of aboriginal rights and is not supported by this group of Quebeckers.

If self-determination includes the power to unilaterally deny 50 municipalities in Quebec the right to remain Canadian, we cannot in good conscience support this motion.

My colleagues from the Bloc are acutely and painfully aware that there are municipalities across Quebec, each with its own democratic mandate, which have voted to remain a part of Canada should a yes vote unfortunately occur. I hope that these municipalities and the hundreds of thousands of people they represent are not wrongly included in the so-called consensus to which this motion makes reference.

If self-determination is thought to include the right to unilaterally secede from the rest of Canada, it is likely that very few Quebeckers would support this principle. There are censuses on the right to seek separation from Canada through democratic and legal means. Legitimate democratic means would involve seeking a clear indication of support from the people of Quebec in a referendum presenting a clear question.

The legal avenue would necessitate that the province of Quebec be obliged to enter into negotiations with the rest of Canada to determine the terms of separation. Partition, passports, currency and debt allocation are the issues that would require open discussion before sovereignty could be achieved.

It is a tiny minority of Quebeckers who would wish to ignore the legal and moral responsibility to settle on the terms of separation before a unilateral declaration of independence. It is in response to the position of this tiny minority that the supreme court is offering its opinion.

The legal reference does not affect self-determination unless this concept has come to include the right to ignore any legal obligations to the vast majority of Canadians who wish to see Quebec remain a part of Canada. To my amazement it would appear that there are in fact some members of the House who would adhere to this understanding of self-determination.

There is a better solution to our unity problems than to concede defeat and argue over the process of secession. We can all work together in the House to rebalance the federation. This is what we call the third way. Members of the House know it well.

Let us join to make Canada work for Quebec, for Alberta and for the rest of Canada. Members of the Bloc do the country a disservice with their singular focus on secession. Canada can work. I pray that we all can work together for this mutual beneficial end.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Madam Speaker, before asking my colleague a question, I would like to apologize to the Reform Party for getting elected. During the last election campaign, the Reform Party and its leader recommended electing members whose leaders did not come from Quebec. I am even prouder that I was elected with the best leader of all this country's political parties.

Since the thinking is that we will get the courts to sort out the constitutional question, I would like to ask my colleague whether he still agrees with the advertising in the last election campaign that was critical of Quebec's politicians. It cost us at least 25 Conservative MPs in Quebec by polarizing the vote and insulting all Quebeckers and French Canadians.

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, we all learn from our mistakes. The message of what was said in those commercials is simply what we have said from the beginning of Reform's inception, that the west wants in.

We may not use the same way of getting that message across in future and perhaps that could be up for debate. However most people saw that message from Reform's point of view, We need to have all Canadians involved in the constitutional process and in any process that involves changing the constitution. Also the leadership of the country has to come from across the country, not just from one province and not from just one region.

That is the message we tried to get across. We continually fight for the fact that the west wants in. In this case let us try to represent regions effectively. That is what Reform stands for.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to what my colleague from the Reform Party said. I think that he is champion of federalism, especially on the Quebec partitioning issue.

There is much speculation these days around the fact that, if Quebec can part from Canada, it too can be divided or partitioned. The example of the Cree is often given. I would advise my federalist friends to be very careful with this very dangerous argument.

I will ask my colleague two questions. At least Quebec is light years ahead of the rest of Canada in recognizing aboriginal peoples. In fact, there is a National Assembly resolution providing for the recognition of 11 aboriginal peoples. Will the Reform Party join the Bloc Quebecois in recognizing for instance the 50 other aboriginal peoples elsewhere in Canada?

Also, on the issue of partition, if my hon. colleague agrees that Quebec can be divided and the Cree can leave with the northern part of Quebec, the same rule should currently apply to Canada. Can the Nisga'a, Sahtu, Dogrib and 600 communities in Canada afford to leave, each with their little part of Canada? If not, the same is true of Quebec.

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, specifically what I have identified in my speech today is that there have been groups that have not only wanted recognition as the hon. member refers to but want to remain a part of Canada regardless of what happens in the politics of Quebec. I think that is something the hon. member and the Bloc has failed to recognize. There are Indian groups and municipalities that have said that regardless of Quebec's secession, they want to remain a part of Canada.

The fact is that the Bloc has not addressed or talked about that issue at all. Unfortunately, we do not get any details from the Bloc when it even comes to secession.

To answer his second question, the fact remains as I said earlier to a colleague who asked a question, we in the Reform Party are looking at different ways. We know there are problems in Quebec. There are problems in Alberta and right across this country. That is why we are looking at a third option, something that status quo federalists and separatists have not brought to the table. We are looking at rebalancing the powers in this country. We are looking at trying to work with the regions in this country to make the federation stronger.

What I urge my hon. colleague from the Bloc to do is to start looking at realistic options to try to build a stronger nation for the future.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of questions I would like to ask the hon. member. I consider him to be a very thoughtful member.

What this debate actually entails is to find out what the rules are for secession. One fact we do know is that the supreme court ruling will not tell us anything that we do not know already. At the end of the day there are no rules when countries split up either domestically or internationally. There are no 20 points which we can actually put down on a piece of paper and say that they are the rules if there is a yes vote in any referendum.

This kind of debate and this kind of question the government is posing to the supreme court essentially privatizes the political leadership of government.

I would like to ask the member again, because I understand him to be a reasonable and thoughtful individual, about whether he agrees with the ads which the Reform Party utilized in the last election and should they ever be used again.

The second question I want to ask the member is whether he will distance himself away from Ezra Levant's comments in terms of what he stated in the Calgary Sun on October 30, 1995, on the eve before the country could have actually broken up. Mr. Levant makes comments such as “Say no to other special interest groups. Is it any wonder that Canada has so many special interest groups? After all, they see Quebec's payoff for being a constant nag. If we kicked out Quebec, we might then have the fortitude to tackle Canada's other ethnic separatists, natives”.

This kind of extremism is not what actually adds to the political process. I ask the member if he will distance himself away from these comments. Also, if he were the leader of his party, would this person be under his employ?

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think I made myself quite clear when I answered the other question from a member of the hon. member's party. The fact remains that the message was quite clear in those commercials.

Whether the presentation is going to be used again is up for debate. Personally, I was not happy with the presentation, but we learn from our mistakes, as we have seen from many members of other parties.

The key is that the message was clear. It is something that the west wants. We have to try to represent other regions of this country equally in the federal Parliament. That is exactly what we are going to stand by.

To answer his other question, it is interesting that the Conservatives have brought this out of their sack of goodies. The fact of the matter is Ezra Levant was not a part of the party when he was writing for the Sun , like many other journalists in this country when they report on politics. They are allowed to voice their opinions and they are allowed to do so freely.

I hope the hon. member is not suggesting that we should have any censorship on the media or gag laws. That is something which most members of this House would fight against.

The fact of the matter is, regardless of what he said as a journalist, it does not reflect his current work for our party. I am really upset that the member did not paint the proper picture. The fact is that he was a journalist when he made those comments.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Questions or comments. The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Point of order, Madam Speaker. It should be my colleague on debate.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I must tell the hon. member that the information I have is that the member did have 10 minutes to speak and therefore the questions and comments period is 10 minutes.

[An hon. member]

Five minutes.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

No. Ten minutes. The hon. member was speaking for 20 minutes with 10 minutes of questions and comments.

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker I indicated at the beginning of my speech that I was splitting my time with my colleague.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am afraid that I did not hear that. We will have to check the blues and we will get back to the hon. member.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to give our friend from the Reform Party an opportunity to practice speaking French in this House as he does on a regular basis.

He probably noticed recently that, in Quebec, federalists are joining with sovereignists to state that the Quebec people should decide their future, that the supreme court has no business interfering with the freedom of speech of Quebeckers and that it is up to them to settle the matter in a future referendum.

I would like to know what the position of the Reform Party is on this issue in light of the emerging consensus among Quebeckers, including federalists like Claude Ryan and Daniel Johnson.