House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 45% of the vote.
First Ministers' Conference May 27th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, will the minister admit on behalf of the government that, as long as the government is not clear in what it is saying, and as long as they use improvisation as their strategy, any meeting with the first ministers aimed at trying to reach agreement is doomed to failure, because unfortunately the federal government does not know where it is headed?
First Ministers' Conference May 27th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the minister's reply is again evidence of the government's great talent for improvisation, particularly as regards meeting promises made before the referendum and in the throne speech. I will just point out that in this case, rather a long time later, six months, they are still trying to set an agenda.
Since the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs' travels to the various provincial capitals have not resulted in any consensus whatsoever for the June 20 meeting, what basis is the government planning to use for its proposals?
First Ministers' Conference May 27th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, in his throne speech the Prime Minister clearly announced his government's intention to bring down specific proposals for renewing Canadian federalism, and those commitments have been repeated by government ministers on various occasions.
In keeping with the commitments made in the throne speech, what proposals does the government intend to submit to the provincial first ministers at the June 20 meeting?
Capital Gains May 16th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, for the past two weeks the opposition finance critic has been calling for the committee to sit, and the government is interested in having it sit only for minor matters.
I do not know if the minister of revenue is aware, but we are talking about dollars leaving the country untaxed, billions of dollars leaving the country untaxed. When ordinary people are involved, there is a great rush to nab them, but when billions of dollars are involved, there is no cause for alarm.
Given the urgency of acting and as a show of good faith, will the minister of revenue, the Minister of Finance or a responsible minister in this government undertake to put a stop to these flights of capital in order to stop billions of dollars going to the United States?
Capital Gains May 16th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about billions of dollars, and the minister of revenue talks about the previous government and about convening the Standing Committee on Finance, but not in any hurry. That takes the cake.
This morning the auditor general said action had to be taken immediately, whereas the deputy minister of finance thinks September will be time enough.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Since this is a matter of urgency and the decision by Revenue Canada has yet to be suspended, who is the Minister of Finance going to listen to: his deputy minister or the auditor general?
Capital Gains May 16th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, last week the minister of revenue refused to suspend the decision of Revenue Canada on the taxation of capital gains, which led to the transfer of $2 billion to the United States tax free. In total contradiction with the deputy minister of finance, the auditor general said this morning that action in this matter was urgently needed in order to prevent the loss of millions of dollars in tax revenues.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Will he acknowledge the urgency of acting to prevent the flight of capital on the basis of the precedent set by Revenue Canada?
Supply May 16th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to get a question from the minister of Indian affairs because, for once in an exchange between the two of us, an answer will be given.
It is unacceptable for a politician, all the more so one invested with ministerial responsibilities, to continually disrupt major political debates with remarks which do not make any sense. Let me explain.
First of all, Quebec is an entity, Quebec is a territory, and Canada is made up, as far as I know, of ten provinces and two territories. When Canada was founded, it was not by the reunion of pieces of land to form Canada, leaving the rest to form a separate country. Recognized territories in their own right, provinces joined together to form the Canadian confederation. The last example is Newfoundland. Newfoundland joined as one, not as separate pieces, even though it had to go through a second and third referendum which passed with a majority of only 52 per cent.
When the Minister brings up the concept of partition, he knows full well that, should he venture on such grounds, what is true for Quebec would also be true for the rest of Canada. Canada is a collection of entities, Quebec being indivisible, just like Newfoundland and Ontario are indivisible. These complete entities constitute a whole, they are not the amalgam of small pieces of regions which form Canada.
When Newfoundland held a recent referendum to put an end to denominational schools, did the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, with his wonderful logic, rise to say that we should not take religion out of all Newfoundland schools? Some regions voted for it, some massively against it, and others where almost evenly divided. Did he rise to say: There is a problem in Newfoundland, we cannot take religion out of all schools, because there was not a majority everywhere?
He should understand that, in Quebec, the same logic applies. The people of Quebec, as his leader said on several occasions, has the right to decide its future. Should it decide to separate, so be it. Besides, what we are asking him to support is what his own leader said: "That the House endorse the declaration of the Prime Minister of Canada, who stated in 1985: 'If we don't win, I'll
respect the wishes of Quebeckers and let them separate". The Prime Minister did not say: "I will accept the separation of small parts of Quebec", he said "I will-let them separate.
I quoted that statement on several occasions, and the Prime Minister always said the same thing. If the Indian affairs minister has difficulties with his leader's statements, that is his problem, but I would simply remind him that, on October 25, 1995, not long ago, his leader said: "Dear friends, Canada is now at a decisive moment in its history and people throughout Canada know this decision is in the hands of their fellow citizens in Quebec". The Prime Minister never used the logic of the minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and he never said Canada's future was in the hands of some citizens in some small parts of Canada that will go. Never. This is only the minister's logic.
The referendum that brought Newfoundland into the Confederation brought the whole province into it. The last referendum in Newfoundland to make schools non-denominational will bring about measures throughout the province of Newfoundland, even though there are some places where people did not vote in favour of that.
And the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development would want it to apply to only bits and pieces. That does not make any sense.
Supply May 16th, 1996
Indeed, there was no objection from anyone when I did it. Moreover, the hon. whip raised his point after I had finished speaking. If he had any objection, some of his colleagues were there across the way when you agreed to my request and everybody thought it was all right.
Why all of a sudden, once I have finished my speech, would I no longer be allowed to do it? Mr. Speaker, I am asking you to take these elements into consideration in your ruling.
Supply May 16th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, since this concerns me primarily, I would like to make a few points for your consideration. First, our Standing Orders are full of provisions which, when used properly by the House, shorten debates or prevent the taking of a vote, make it compulsory to have a debate or prevent debate.
The Standing Orders are full of provisions which, when used properly by parliamentarians, as is usually the case here, have an impact on the nature and the course of the proceedings.
Therefore, it is not justified to strike this particular provision from the Standing Orders or overturn the ruling already made, otherwise the Standing Orders would have to be reviewed entirely and many provisions amended. If the hon. whip wants to embark on such an operation, he should consult his House leader, and we will see. But for the time being, this cannot be taken into account, otherwise it would also apply to a lot of other provisions.
Second, I would like to respectfully point out to the hon. government whip that, before going ahead in this manner, mindful as I always am to follow not only the spirit but also the letter of our Standing Orders, I consulted the Chair and the Principal Clerk of the House, and they both confirmed, rightly I must say-they could just as easily have ruled otherwise-that the ruling already rendered and the practice of the House allowed me to ask that we all share our time.
Therefore, I followed the directive of the House, on the recommendation of its principal officer and on your recommendation, Mr. Speaker, and therefore I do not know why-
Supply May 16th, 1996
moved:
That the House endorse the declaration of the Prime Minister of Canada, who stated in 1985, "If we don't win, I'll respect the wishes of Quebeckers and let them separate".
Mr. Speaker, to begin with, as the Standing Order allows, I would like to request that all speeches from here on be split into ten minute segments.
Now, to explain the context of this motion before the House, let us say that, recently, the Prime Minister has acquired the bad habit,
if I dare describe it as that, of going back on his word about certain things he has said, explaining to the public that, of necessity, in political life sometimes commitments cannot be met, and that politicians must not be required to keep their word.
We have seen that in the GST matter, where the PM had promised to scrap the GST and where, finally, the government's decision was quite different. It was the opposite, in fact: to expand the GST. Since the federal government is digging itself further and further into a constitutional hole by cosying up to Guy Bertrand in contesting the legitimacy of a Quebec referendum, we thought it worthwhile to review the statements the Prime Minister has made.
For this reason, we are submitting the matter to the House, and are asking our hon. colleagues, both those in the Reform Party and more particularly those in the Liberal Party, to join with us in ensuring that the House deals with a statement made by the Prime Minister, when he said in 1985 that "If we don't win, I'll respect the wishes of Quebeckers and let them separate".
This is a quote from Straight from the Heart , written by the Prime Minister himself. In 1985, the Prime Minister waxed most eloquent, saying: We'll put our faith in democracy. We'll convince the people that they should stay in Canada and we'll win''. It is normal for a politician to believe in what he is proposing, normal for him to think that he can win in his political undertakings. But he ends up saying:If we don't win, I'll respect the wishes of Quebeckers and let them separate''.
That is the quote, and the book, behind today's motion. The question being asked of our colleagues across the way is this: Are we going to take steps to ensure that the House in its entirety, through a majority vote or, who knows, even by a unanimous vote, endorses these words by the Prime Minister? Is what the Prime Minister promised, stated, in 1985, still endorsed, first of all, by himself-something we might well wonder-and then by his ministerial colleagues, of whom solidarity is required, and his caucus colleagues, who are also supposed to be in solidarity with their Prime Minister on a matter as basic as this?
To facilitate the decision, I shall be making use of some more quotes by the Prime Minister, for this is not the first time the Prime Minister has made a statement on this matter. Doing so may perhaps help them see that this was not just an unfortunate slip of the tongue that got past the Prime Minister in an angry moment, or in some speech or other, but indeed something that he felt profoundly, or at the very least, something he wanted to get across to his fellow citizens by writing it down and repeating it in a variety of ways.
During the proceedings of the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, on December 17 1990, which is even more recent, the Prime Minister declared, and I quote: "I am a democrat. I said in numerous speeches in 1980 that if we had not recognized that Quebec had the right to opt for separation, we would have acted differently. There were powers we could have used but we decided not to".
Therefore the hon. members across will appreciate that the Prime Minister formally recognized for a second time that Quebec has the right to separate. By saying that there are powers which could have been used but were not, he also excluded resorting to legal guerilla warfare as a means to challenge the referendum.
We feel concerned because unfortunately the Prime Minister went back on his word, on this point. We all know that this government decided to team up with Guy Bertrand in a legal war which could result in denying Quebecers the right to make a decision on their future. In 1990, the Prime Minister repeated his statement of 1985 according to which Quebec has the right to separate.
Even more recently, on October 24 1995, the Prime Minister declared in the speech he delivered in Verdun on the eve of the referendum: "Next Monday we will have to decide if we are ready to abandon a country which personifies them better than any other country. Think twice before voting". This means that the Prime Minister explicitly recognized that the referendum vote was decisive. Indeed, he declared: "Think twice before voting. Next Monday we will have to decide if we are ready to break away from our country". Therefore, on the eve of the referendum, on October 24 1995, the Prime Minister repeated what he had written in 1985 and reiterated in 1990.
On October 25 1995, in his address to the nation, the Prime Minister said: "The vote on Monday will determine the future not only of Quebec but also of Canada as a whole. This is a serious and irreversible decision". Once more he recognized what he had already admitted in 1980, 1985, 1990 and on the previous day, on October 24 1995: "Canada, our country and heritage, are in danger. Breaking Canada apart or building this country, remaining Canadian or becoming foreigners, staying or leaving, those are the issues at stake in the referendum. When we make our choice, we all have the responsibility and the duty to understand the impact of our decision".
In the mind of the Prime Minister, therefore, a referendum in Quebec is legitimate and its results are binding. The outcome of the referendum must be respected.
The Prime Minister has the support of one of his colleagues in cabinet, the super minister of the Quebec referendum, the present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who said: "We have always said that Quebecers were entitled to have their say on Quebec's future inside or outside Canada. Ours is a democratic country, and we will respect the outcome of the vote". So the minister supports the Prime Minister.
In closing, since my time is running out, any doubts the Liberals may have had as to a vote in favour of this motion calling for the House's endorsement of the Prime Minister's declaration: "If we don't win, I'll respect the wishes of Quebecers and let them separate", are fading.
I will close by saying that, if it might reinforce their conviction that they must support what the Prime Minister has said, I will quote his speech to the nation on October 25, 1995.
In this last quote, the Prime Minister said, and I suggest they think about it: "My friends, we are facing a decisive moment in the history of our country. And people all across Canada know that decision lies in the hands of their fellow Canadians in Quebec".
In all that he has said since 1980, in 1985, 1990 and 1995, he has been consistent repeatedly. He has always said that Quebecers had the right to decide their future themselves and that a referendum would be decisive, binding and would change the nature of things in Canada.
Accordingly, there is no reason for the Liberal members to think the House will not endorse the statement he made in 1985. We could have taken all the ones he has made since then, but we chose 1985: "If we don't win, I'll respect the wishes of Quebecers and let them separate". We will see whether the GST is the only issue where the Prime Minister reversed himself or whether, in the constitutional matter as well, he will suddenly deny all he has said on different occasions over a very long period of time.