Debates of Dec. 15th, 1999

Employment Insurance Act

[Some hon. members]

Now.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When you recognized my seconder, Mr. Bernier, you forgot to name his constituency and there are two members named Bernier in the House.

I would like all the members and the whole population to know that it is the member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok who supports my demand for reform of the employment insurance program.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member is absolutely correct.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when you introduced this bill in the House, you very kindly asked when we wished it to be called for debate the next time and we respectfully requested that it be now, but you seem to have ignored our request, so—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Yes, I did hear that, but I also heard members on the other side ask that it be at the next sitting of the House. When there is much noise on one side, it may be difficult to hear what members on the other side are saying but the Chair can hear everyone.

Criminal Code

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-406, an act to amend the Criminal Code (proceeds of crime).

Mr. Speaker, there is a lucrative business in Canada of smuggling people into our country for profit. Drug enforcement has the ability to seize cash, goods and property of smuggling rings. Yet immigration authorities are not awarded the same power. Proceeds of crime are there for smuggling drugs but not for people.

My bill, which would amend section 462 of the criminal code, would allow immigration to seize the profits of people smugglers. With any underworld activity it is difficult to catch the kingpins of smuggling operations. However it is essential that we allow the greatest amount of resources available in order to begin decreasing the financial incentives for such activity.

Therefore I encourage all parliamentarians in the House to examine my bill. It is time we put an end to the large inconsistencies within the Canadian criminal code and go after proceeds of crime for all crimes.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-407, an act to amend the Criminal Code (judicial review).

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have always been frustrated that a life sentence in this country is in fact not a life sentence. For example, Clifford Olson murdered several children yet had a chance for a review at 15 years, called the faint hope clause.

My bill would simply repeal section 745 of the criminal code including any relevant sections. However, since previous attempts at repealing this section have raised some constitutional debate, no part of my bill would be retroactive. The faint hope clause has no legitimate place in Canadian law.

I encourage all members to rethink the position of this issue, following my amendment to remove any retroactivity and simply remove 745 from the criminal code.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-408, an act to amend the Criminal Code (prostitution).

Mr. Speaker, constituents of mine are deeply concerned with the plaguing problem of street prostitution. They remember when the law was different and we did not have the pervasive street trade.

The way the criminal code now reads, public communication to obtain sexual services carries only a penalty of a summary conviction. In most cases the offender is given a summons like a traffic ticket which might result in a small fine.

The bill would amend section 213 of the criminal code making the penalty of communicating either an indictable offence or a summary conviction. It makes the section a hybrid or elective offence, in other words flexibility in the circumstances.

The amendment would give the system a procedural option, something the police have been asking for. I urge the minister and all members of the House to strongly consider this vital improvement for liveable communities.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Committees Of The House

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House that the second report of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages tabled earlier today be adopted without debate.

[The Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent of the House to adopt the second report?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That the first report of the Standing Committee on Finance, which was presented on Friday, December 10, 1999, be concurred in.

I have moved that the report of the Standing Committee on Finance be concurred in for the following fundamental reasons. We travelled across Canada and heard from many witnesses regarding the use of the surpluses—which do not belong to the minister but to all taxpayers—in the coming years. We in the Bloc Quebecois feel that a number of important consensuses have been completely ignored. I would like to discuss it here and I would like the report to be adopted after this speech. Let us take, for example, the social transfers. The whole issue of social transfers was debated in the finance committee and was raised by some of the witnesses. This question was fully discussed, as the Minister of Finance slashed social transfers.

The committee report does not even mention the possibility of employment insurance reform, even though it now covers only 42% of the unemployed.

They have also turned a blind eye to the recommendations made by my colleague from Québec on the fight against poverty in Canada. As for the issue of taxes, this major issue was minimized, yet the Minister of Finance has surpluses coming out of his ears.

I would like to touch upon these issues in the next few minutes if I may.

As far as social transfers are concerned, since 1994 there has been a drop in federal transfers to the provinces for funding of social assistance, post-secondary education and health to the tune of $22 billion, $6 billion for Quebec alone.

The report by the Liberal majority in the finance committee ignores these cuts and their devastating effects on the poverty level in Canada and the situation in the health system.

I would also like to point out in passing that since 1994 Quebec has absorbed 37% of all cuts to Canadian social transfer funds for post-secondary education, health and income security while accounting for only 24% of the population of Canada.

This has had disastrous results for Quebec. It has had harmful effects on Quebec public finances as well. There is a parallel to be drawn.

By slashing social transfers to the provinces, the Minister of Finance has hurt Quebec. A few years back, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs made a number of statements to the effect that it was necessary to hurt Quebec economically.

That brings me back to the bill recently introduced by the same minister. This is a bill against Quebec and against Quebecers. It is a case of one Quebecer going after Quebecers. This Quebecer can now act in collusion with the Minister of Finance, another Liberal member from Quebec.

We now have a very unusual alliance that really hurts the province of Quebec, an alliance between the Minister of Finance, who fiddles with the figures, and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who fiddles with democracy.

These two devious individuals can now rely on 24 other Liberal members from Quebec, 24 docile Liberal members who are ready to crawl on their knees in front of English Canada in order to hurt Quebec. It is a sad thing because throughout history there have always been individuals who agreed to fight against their own people, to do the dirty work for their leaders.

There are 26 such individuals in front of the House, 26 Liberal members from Quebec who have agreed to spit on Quebec and to deny Quebecers the freedom to decide their own future. They typify docility at its worst, kow-towing to their masters and conquerors.

It is a good thing we can count on the 45 members of the Bloc Quebecois. It is a good thing that we can count on these members to unconditionally defend Quebec, its national assembly and the freedom of its people and that we are not in the same situation as in 1982 when we had 74 Liberal members from Quebec in this House who supported the unilateral patriation of the constitution initiated by Mr. Trudeau. They ignored the national assembly's near unanimity against the unilateral patriation of the Constitution.

We, in the Bloc Quebecois, will stand up to fight on behalf of Quebecers for their right to freedom, to freedom of choice, and their right to democracy, a healthy democracy the government is trying to tarnish in this House with the complicity of 26 Liberal members from Quebec who are willing to help the English Canadian majority do its dirty work.

The report of the Standing Committee on Finance's Liberal majority is also weak in that it makes no reference to employment insurance, as I said in my introduction.

People came to tell us that EI eligibility requirements have become so restrictive that it is virtually impossible for 58% of unemployed workers, who pay premiums when they are not unemployed, to receive EI benefits.

Some people also came to tell us that as unemployed workers they were considered as abusers and cheaters and that they were harassed day after day and treated as if they were criminals.

This government has become the government of chronic and institutionalized impossibility. Again, I want to make a parallel with the bill introduced by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to establish a framework for the Quebec democracy.

For example, the bill provides that following a referendum in Quebec the House of Commons, which is made up of a majority of representatives from English Canada, will determine whether there is a clear majority of Quebecers who support secession. To that end, the House of Commons will take into account the “size of the majority”. Will there ever be a majority large enough to be acceptable to this government? No.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs even repeated today that, whether the question is clear or not, the federal government will not allow Canada to be broken up.

What is the point of tabling a bill requiring clarity when the government will not recognize the result of a Quebec referendum, even if the result is clear?

The bill also refers to the percentage of voters who will have voted and to any other matters considered to be relevant. This provision really opens the door to a very broad interpretation which will ultimately make it impossible to recognize the result of a Quebec referendum.

The bill also provides that the views of the political parties and the Senate be taken into account. Can you believe it? Senators would be consulted to give their opinion on a democratic process when they are not even elected? This bill is truly Kafkaesque and the end result is that it will be impossible for the House of Commons to recognize the referendum result.

It provides that the House of Commons will take into account any other relevant views on the majority. Are they going to ask Howard Galganov, Keith Anderson, Guy Bertrand and, while they are at it, Youppi, for their opinion on such an important issue, an issue that has to do with the free and democratic choice of Quebecers to create an independent country? This makes no sense.

It bears a strange resemblance to the way the EI system has been run for two years. What we heard in the Standing Committee on Finance was that the government disqualified most people who normally should have received benefits. The government is going after unemployed workers.

Here again the situation is similar. First, the government goes after unemployed workers and then it goes after all voters in Quebec. Their right to choose is being taken away. The exercise of democracy in Quebec's referendums is being devalued. Quebecers are being treated like children, as are unemployed workers when they are monitored day after day and identified, almost as though they were setting out to cheat the system. It is becoming ridiculous.

There is another similarity between what witnesses had to say about the EI system and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs' bill.

People told the committee that they were viewed by the system and by those enforcing it across Canada, based on decisions made here in the House, as cheaters. This is another big similarity with the bill introduced by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville.

The Liberal members accuse unemployed workers of defrauding the system and now, with the bill introduced by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, they are assuming and insinuating—and this is serious; members should listen carefully to what I am about to say—that all Quebecers are doing the same thing with democracy. Government members are insinuating that Quebecers are not playing by the democratic rules.

[An hon. member]

That is terrible.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

They are considered minors, immature children who need adult guides such as the federal Liberals and the federalists in general, children who need guardians and those supreme possessors of the truth, which the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the Prime Minister and the federalists in general are, to help them make a free choice within a democratic system.

In short, the federalists in this House have turned into the neo-colonialists of Canada. They have become the leaders of what is becoming more and more like a banana republic, who are all excited at the prospect of crushing those whom they still consider the “white niggers of America”, to borrow the expression of Pierre Vallières.

I have a bit of news for them. The Quebec people are too proud to stand for such treatment. The Quebec people are too proud to allow themselves to be crushed. They will stand up against this with the help of the Bloc Quebecois here in this Chamber.

In order to be certain that my message is properly understood I will quote, if I may, two excerpts in English from statements made by René Lévesque in May 1980 after the Quebec referendum and by Robert Bourassa after the failure of the Meech Lake agreement.

Regardless of the result... it is now undisputed and indisputable that Quebec constitutes a distinct national community able to choose its constitutional status for itself, without outside interference. This right to control their own national destiny is the most fundamental right the people of Quebec possess.

That is the end of the quote from Mr. Lévesque's statement of June 11, 1980, after the first Quebec referendum.

After that came the failure of the Meech Lake agreement, in which considered Quebec as something very minor, a distinct society, but rejected totally by Canada. Not only was there the death kiss of Clyde Wells and the actions of the present Prime Minister, but Canada too rejected this minimal agreement. In economics we say “minimum minimorum”, and there is nothing smaller than that.

Here is what Mr. Bourassa had to say after the failure of Meech.

“English Canada must clearly understand that no matter what anyone says or does, Quebec is and always will be a distinct society that is free and able to control its own destiny and its own development”.

Those are the words of Mr. Bourassa. In other words, Quebec alone will decide its future and neither the people across the way nor the English Canadians are going to come and tell us how to vote in the next referendum on sovereignty.

When the Prime Minister is faulted for this, he who has been involved in dirty dealings with Quebec since the beginning of his political career, that little guy from Shawinagan, the member for Saint-Maurice, he always comes back with the same quote, which we have heard a good 40 times in the 6 years we have been dealing with him: only the weak resort to insults.

I agree with him on that, and I would point out that if that is so then he must be very weak indeed. Do you know why? On five significant occasions during his political career, this man insulted millions of Quebecers. He insulted them all.

First, in 1980 Quebecers were told that to say no to the referendum on sovereignty was to say yes to renewed federalism. We found out later on what it really meant. It was a pack of lies. This man was involved in this first fight against Quebec's legitimate aspirations.

Then in 1981 there was the night of the long knives. Taking advantage of the absence of Quebecers, especially Mr. Lévesque, the current Prime Minister plotted against Quebec in the kitchens of the Château Laurier Hotel together with representatives of other provinces—it has been called the night of the long knives—to isolate Quebec, to hurt it again. Already they were talking about unilaterally patriating the constitution. This was the second insult to Quebecers.

The third insult came in 1982 when the Canadian constitution was indeed patriated in spite of the nearly unanimous opposition of the national assembly. This was yet another insult to Quebecers.

In 1990 there was the failure of Meech Lake. The other day I heard the Prime Minister say “I was not there”. Negotiations were going on and this charming gentleman was standing in the corridor talking on his cellphone to Sharon Carstairs, the then leader of the opposition in the Manitoba legislature, who was fighting tooth and nail against the Meech Lake accord.

A few weeks after the failure of Meech Lake, he embraced Clyde Wells. I do not know if he embraced him for reasons other than his fierce opposition to the Meech Lake accord and his crusade against Quebecers. If so, he should tell us.

In 1997, during the referendum on sovereignty, he organized an extraordinary love-in saying once again “Quebecers, you will be recognized if you vote no to sovereignty”. What happened since 1997? They still spit on Quebec and people across the way still work against Quebec. The same man is once again insulting millions of Quebecers.

Finally, in December 1999, this month, the little guy from Shawinigan found the worst insult possible by putting seven million Quebecers under some form of custody, under mandatory supervision, as if they were cheaters, dishonest people whose enlightened choice of sovereignty was a crime.

How weak must the Prime Minister be to resort to such measures. As the old saying goes: insults are the weak man's weapons. Since the beginning of his political career he has constantly insulted millions of Quebecers.

Considering this bill in light of the way parliament and the governor in council operate and thinking of the influence enjoyed by the Prime Minister's Office and the Prime Minister himself, we have to ask ourselves if this man is a megalomaniac. Is it possible for such a man, under our current political system, to have exceptional power and a veto on the future of Quebecers, on the future of a whole nation?

It is the Prime Minister's office that decides. This means that under this process, under this bill that sets so many strict criteria for recognizing the result of a referendum or the clarity of a question, it is the Prime Minister, the little guy from Shawinigan, who will decide the future of seven million Quebecers. This cannot be. I cannot believe that we have reached that point in Canada, that we have practically become a banana republic, that the destiny of a whole people will be determined by one person.

Once again we have news for the Prime Minister. He may think and do what he wants but he will never prevent Quebecers from controlling their destiny, from choosing in a free and democratic way. There is nothing more democratic than the election and referendum process in Quebec. These people will not decide for Quebecers.

There are rather interesting things, particularly in international law. Among others, there is the 1975 Helsinki charter signed by former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. What does that charter say? It says that participating states, those that signed the charter, including Canada:

—respect the equal rights of peoples and their right to self-determination, acting at all times in conformity with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, all peoples always have the right, in full freedom, to determine, when and as they wish, their internal and external political status, without external interference, and to pursue as they wish their political, economic, social and cultural development.

The participating States reaffirm the universal significance of respect for and effective exercise of equal rights and self-determination of peoples for the development of friendly relations among themselves as among all States; they also recall the importance of the elimination—

Canada signed that agreement and we are lucky enough to have not only that charter but a whole series of international laws that make it easier for people to achieve sovereignty. In Quebec, we are also lucky to have 44 Bloc Quebecois members who, contrary to the 74 federal Liberal members elected in 1982, will stand up and fight against a government that has the audacity to deprive Quebec of its freedom and to restrict its democratic spirit.

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his brilliant remarks, my colleague mentioned the 26 Liberal members opposite who are about to pass an anti-Quebec bill.

In this prebudget context, does he think the estimates should provide for their 780 pieces of silver, that is 30 for each one of them?

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I said, it is unfortunate that throughout the history of mankind some people have knowingly collaborated with the conquerors against their own people.

We have the same situation right now in Canada: 26 Liberal members from Quebec agree when the intergovernmental affairs minister and the little guy, the very little guy from Shawinigan, the Prime Minister, introduce a bill limiting the freedom of choice of Quebecers and preventing them from going through a normal democratic process that has been used many times in the past.

Do members opposite think democracy is lacking in Quebec and that Quebecers are flouting democracy? These 26 Liberal members from Quebec seem to think so. If this is not what they think, if they believe Quebec will abide by the democratic process and that the national assembly will ultimately be responsible for the referendum question and the interpretation of the results, they will not support this bill.

The foreign affairs minister keeps repeating that he is working very hard for Quebec. He yelled to members of the Bloc Quebecois that we are exaggerating, that we do not speak the truth, that Canada should have its say in the decision on Quebec's political and constitutional status.

It is unfortunate that 26 Liberal members have joined forces with the English speaking majority in Canada to deny their own people the right to choose legitimately and democratically the future of an independent Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for his speech.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs talks about clarity. Is he not in fact imposing his vision of clarity, imposing his question, and above all blocking Quebec's horizon in such a way that we will have no other choice but to decide between the status quo and a totally indefensible option, when it comes right down to it?

Has he not decided in the end to put aside what all Quebecers want, an option allowing them to become sovereign and to have a modern relationship on this planet for tomorrow, an appropriate relationship allowing Quebecers to make all the decisions concerning themselves, to have their voice heard in the community of nations and to have a correct relationship with Canada, instead of the nasty climate the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs obstinately persists in creating with his current attitude?

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has been very eloquent and has put the finger on the problem.

Indeed, yesterday the cat was let out of the bag. When the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said that, whether the question is clear or not, he does not want Quebecers to decide democratically on sovereignty, what is the point of introducing a bill?

It is not the question and its outcome that bother the government, and particularly the little member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. What bothers him is the content. What bothers him is the possibility that Quebec might become a sovereign country.

Besides, that man has changed his mind. Here is what the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs had to say in 1994. He said that the 1995 referendum was sufficiently clear.

Still in 1994, he added “Ottawa's insistence on using the term separation in the question has no basis in law”.

The third thing he said, again in 1994, was “Ultimately, the terms sovereignty, independence, separation and secession are synonymous”.

Today he tells us “We will consider the clarity of the question, the terms used, so that they are the real terms, secession, the breakup of Canada”. If these are not scare tactics, I do not know what is.

Let us be frank. This is what is going on on the other side of the House, as we have seen and as Quebecers will see as we bring all this out. Let them admit that they have just sold out Quebec, that they are going to prevent it from using a democratic process to attain its independence. Let them admit it. That is the real purpose of this bill. This is the beginning of the pre-referendum campaign and the scare-mongering. They are telling Quebecers that they will not have the backing of the law if they answer this question.

What is even sadder, and we saw this recently, is that during the 30-day period after they have forced the question out of the national assembly, they will debate the clarity of the question when Quebec is already fully launched into a referendum campaign.

Yes, it is sad. We will be right in the middle of a democratic process and these people will be imposing a process on us that smacks of apartheid.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take advantage of the rationality of our colleague, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. I believe this bill was not introduced for very noble reasons.

I would like to know his opinion on the following. Is it possible that this bill was introduced for purely political reasons?

The Prime Minister reads the opinion polls. He has seen the outcome of provincial elections in the Atlantic region: three Tory governments out of four. He sees the polls in Ontario. He sees the relatively good showing of his long time enemy, Mr. Clark, who is certainly doing better in the polls than one year ago.

Would my colleague agree with my analysis, which, albeit superficial, is logical? That strategy reminds me of the declaration the Prime Minister made two weeks before the 1997 election, when he talked about 50% plus one. I say this for the benefit of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues.

Unfortunately, at the time we lost several ridings to the Bloc in Quebec. I suspect the Prime Minister is now using exactly the same election-minded strategy and is thinking “I need at least 40 Bloc members in Quebec and 60 Reform members in western Canada so that we can squeeze through with 38 or 40% of the vote”.

I have a feeling this bill was introduced for very practical reasons and not for reasons relating to the referendum.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

My dear colleague from Chicoutimi is right. Moreover, this has always been a basic fact about the career of the Prime Minister of Canada. When the government starts to drop in the polls, the best way to raise its popularity quotient, in Canada in particular, is to dump on Quebec and Quebecers. Heaping scorn on Quebecers is the right approach. The more a Liberal member dumps on Quebecers the higher the Liberals go in the polls.

I agree with my colleague. Probably he too looks at the polls relating to the Bloc Quebecois members and the rise in popularity of his leader, which has gone up constantly for the past year and a half. This I think is what motivates him to get tough with Quebec and to continue the dirty tricks he has always been up to.

I have referred to the patriation of the constitution. He was there. The Prime Minister, that little little guy from Shawinagan, was there. He is the one who cooked up that procedure one night at the Chateau Laurier, a concerted effort by the federal government and nine Canadian provinces to crush Quebec, to marginalize it, to strong-arm it.

He was also, along with Mr. Trudeau, behind the unilateral patriation of the constitution in 1982, despite the near unanimity of the national assembly against it. Then there was Meech, as I have said before. Though he says “I wasn't even there for Meech”, that is not true. We were here. We walked around. We saw the Prime Minister in a corridor with his cellphone, and Sharon Carstairs, one of his buddies, was there working against the accord.

How about Clyde Wells, the embrace—and I am not familiar with the habits of the Prime Minister—but yes I agree with the hon. member. This was electioneering. Dumping on the Quebec to score better in the Canada-wide polls.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but the time for questions and comments is up.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the interests of the short time we have left before Christmas and the fact that a number of petitions have been given to us for presentation to the House, I wonder if we could get through the usual Routine Proceedings. I suggest that we present petitions at this point. It is my understanding that if we could get the unanimous consent of the House, we could present some petitions. My hon. colleague from Calgary Centre has a number of petitions to present and so do I.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed with petitions at this time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.