Andy Scott

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, February 7th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, the bill specifically recognizes the legitimacy of this movement by stating that any province can ask any question it wishes, but it would seek clarity on both the question and the majority. This is a significant act for a democratic country like Canada to propose. As I am sure the hon. member knows, many countries would not allow that.

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, February 7th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I will address two or three points made by my colleague. First, he said that the last question in the 1995 referendum was in fact clear. I suspect that is one of the reasons why we need to take a role in this. I do not think there would be a consensus that it was a clear question at all. In fact, it was anything but clear.

I also remind my colleague that the legislation actually supports the notion that the province has the right to conduct such a referendum and frame its own question. That is contained within the bill. All provinces have the democratic right to conduct their own affairs and express their own will.

As the supreme court has stated, the exercise and the expression of that will can only be achieved if the question is clear and the majority is clear. If 51.1% is a clear majority, then what is an unclear majority?

The government's bill is an important recognition of the right of any province to speak its mind in terms of its will. Our condition of negotiation subsequent to that is to make sure that it is based on a clear question and a clear majority, which what democracy is all about.

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, February 7th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, the bill that has been tabled in the House is a crucial issue for Canada, which is why I wish to speak to it today.

Some members opposite, like members of the current Quebec government, are reproaching us for wanting to clarify the referendum process. They say that the Government of Canada wants to take the place of the legislative assembly of a province.

In the time given to me, I will explain why I believe the Government of Canada has a role to play, as stated in the bill, in giving effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the supreme court on August 20, 1998.

It is important to bear in mind what the separatists never wish to speak about. By playing its appropriate role in the referendum debate, the Government of Canada is in no way encroaching on the prerogatives of the legislative assembly of a province. Any province can ask any question it wants. No one is challenging its right to do so.

The bill reiterates that:

...the government of any province has the authority to consult its voters by referendum on any issue and the right to formulate the wording of its referendum question.

Furthermore, the supreme court's opinion stipulates that the obligation to negotiate secession is closely linked to another obligation, that of obtaining a clear majority in support of secession and in response to a clear question.

Paragraph 100 of the opinion reads:

A right and a corresponding duty to negotiate secession cannot be built on an alleged expression of democratic will if the expression of democratic will is, itself, fraught with ambiguities.

That applies “both in terms of the question asked and the support it achieves”.

In paragraph 153, the court also specifies:

...it will be for the political actors to determine what constitutes “a clear majority on a clear question” in the circumstances under which a future referendum vote may take place.

These two sections of the opinion are highly significant and are more than sufficient to justify the role the federal government intends to play in clarifying the referendum issue. In fact, it obliges the Government of Canada.

Asking for a clear question and a clear majority does not violate the prerogatives of the national assembly.

The Government of Canada is one of the political actors the court referred to in its opinion. How can the separatists speak or ask us to shirk our constitutional responsibilities when the future of our country is at stake?

Our opponents accuse us of flouting Quebec democracy. We have heard a number of politically inspired accusations against us over time but this particular one raises the bar. Since when is it undemocratic to call for clarity? Our shared democratic heritage demands that citizens really have a say through their votes. All we are asking for is a clear question and a clear majority. Otherwise, how can we determine whether the citizens of a province truly want their province to leave Canada and become an independent state?

What is really undemocratic is asking citizens to vote on a deliberately ambiguous question.

The question must allow the people to clearly state whether or not they want their province to leave Canada and become an independent state.

A question on a mandate to negotiate that does not ask the people to state whether they want their province to cease to be a part of Canada or a question for secession mixed with another option would not allow the people to express their will that their province cease to be part of Canada.

For instance, the 1995 referendum question referred to a new economic and political partnership with Canada, an ill-defined, unrealistic partnership that Mr. Bouchard would later describe as “bare bones”. That question posed as a question on secession is patently undemocratic. It was not exactly a masterpiece of clarity.

I am sure our opponents will not accept my judgment on this. Maybe they will believe the polls conducted at the time of the referendum. I note specifically the poll that revealed that one in four yes voters believed they were voting for an option that proposed that Quebec would remain a Canadian province. One sovereignist voter in four.

To give rise to such confusion, the 1995 question certainly did not permit voters to clearly express their will for their province to cease to be a part of Canada.

When we look at facts like that, we get a better appreciation of why the federal government—to use the language of the supreme court decision—is an “actor” in ensuring that a referendum on separation, if we were ever to come to such a sorry state of affairs, would have to be held in an atmosphere of clarity.

There are other reasons for setting out the circumstances under which the Government of Canada would negotiate around a referendum result.

Premier Bouchard has never renounced holding another referendum during his mandate, so we need to be prepared. We need to clarify these issues, not when the referendum campaign is in full swing but well beforehand.

This referendum obsession is still a clear and present danger. Premier Bouchard said so on November 9. Quebec's intergovernmental affairs minister, Mr. Facal, has suggested that the Quebec government may override the supreme court opinion. Mr. Bouchard has also said that the Government of Canada's willingness to have the supreme court's requirement for clarity respected is a sign of bad faith on our part and opens the door to a unilateral declaration of independence.

In all likelihood, it was the former Quebec premier, Jacques Parizeau, who got it right when he pointed out on November 30 how important the allusion was to a unilateral declaration of independence. The translation reads “He's really opened the door. You have to understand how important Mr. Bouchard's statement really is on that. It's really something, that statement”. He added that he himself had never been that clear. Not only is there a real threat of another referendum, there is also the real possibility of a unilateral declaration of independence.

If there was ever an issue that we on this side would gladly stop speaking about it is the prospect of another referendum for the secession of a province. The Quebec separatist leaders will not let it die. It is the first article on their political platform. They are obsessed by it. That is why they rejected the Prime Minister's proposal to stop talking referendum.

We would like to address other priorities but we are duty bound to ensure that the supreme court's requirement for clarity does not fall by the wayside. Our respect for Quebecers requires us to assume our responsibility in that regard.

We did not start the fire and we are not the ones perpetuating this sad state of affairs. We are not the ones trying to break up the country. The separatists leaders are doing that. As long as we have to argue with them to ensure the unity and the progress of the country, we will continue to promote the democratic tradition that is one of the great achievements of Quebec and of all Canadians.

With regard to the bill itself, to those who say “not now”, I say “if not now, when?”

[Committees Of The House, November 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the first report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, October 14, 1999, your committee has considered Bill C-202, an act to amend the Criminal Code, and your committee has agreed to report it with amendments.

[Community Access Centres, May 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to recognize the community access centre in my home of Barkers Point, New Brunswick.

It has been named New Brunswick's community access centre for 1999. It is located in what I have often referred to as the best elementary school in the world, a school that has served my family and friends for generations, a school that has had a recent addition of a gymnasium in the name of my father and where my sister teaches kindergarten. I can say that it has made a big difference in our community.

This centre opened in 1997 at the Barkers Point Elementary School and assists local people who wish to access the Internet and take computer courses.

For his contribution, I would like to single out site manager Jim Wilson for his tremendous efforts. As well it should be noted that Jeff Gagnon, a grade 12 student who works at the centre part time, has designed a system that will forward information directly to Industry Canada.

To Jim, Jeff, teachers and students I say congratulations in 1999.

[Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Day, May 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today is Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Day in the province of New Brunswick. Chronic fatigue syndrome, or CFS, is a debilitating and complex disorder characterized by profound fatigue that is not improved by rest and may be worsened by physical or mental activity. The cause or causes of CFS have not been identified and no specific diagnostic tests are available.

This is a real disease that deserves real research in order to find a cause and cure. Its affects are made worse by the fact it is commonly not recognized within programs that are otherwise available.

In past years in my riding of Fredericton I have participated in the annual elephant walk which raises money and awareness for CFS. This year's walk will take place in the town of Oromocto on May 30. I urge all adults and children in the riding of Fredericton to help this worthwhile cause, because together we can work to make life better for those suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome.

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much that I will be using all the time that is available to me but I want to make a number of points. I have not been able to take in all of the debate so some of them may be a repeat of points already made. They are important in terms of my constituents and my own personal feelings on this issue.

The last exchange between the members of Reform and NDP on the question of where people are on this issue was somewhat confusing. That should not be a surprise to anybody. Ultimately that represents the terrible angst we all feel given the fact that atrocities are being perpetrated and have been perpetrated for many years which are inconsistent with what I consider to be Canadian values.

I do not mean to claim ownership of those values, but as Canadians we can take pride in our history of humanitarianism and in our values of civility, tolerance and respectful co-existence. The things that have been happening offend those values. Consequently we all struggle not with the resolution or the objectives as we refer to them but with how to achieve those objectives.

I do not think anybody should imagine that anybody is participating in this exercise with any pleasure. The reality is that we probably all want the same objective achieved. I think we all want the same outcome and we will debate how to achieve it.

From time to time we will struggle with that debate. We will struggle with the question of when it is appropriate, if ever. I am sure there are those in the House who are absolutely pacifist in their view of the world. I am not one of those. I consider myself to be a pacifist but I can imagine circumstances where I would feel compelled to act in the defence of those values.

Last weekend in my riding we commemorated the Holocaust. One has to realize that there are occasions from time to time when people of good will and civility need to take an action. I do not want to draw a parallel here, but I am simply saying that there are occasions when it would be appropriate.

The point is that the kind of difficulty people have with this debate simply reflects that. This is not about what we want. I caution everybody to avoid language which suggests that somehow there is a moral high ground here. We all want the same thing. We all want the atrocities to stop.

It is just as difficult for me to say this is an occasion when force may be used as it would be for others to say this is not an occasion where force can be used and struggle with that, with what that means to the people of Kosovo who will be there if we are not. This is a very difficult debate. I would appeal to everybody for the use of language that respects the fact that this is difficult for everybody.

There are many people who are on the ground. I think of the people who are actively involved in the NGOs. The language we use has to be respectful of them, the people who are involved. I was engaged in debates at other times in my life. I think back on the things I said about people who were engaged in acts of war and the language I used. I regret it in some cases. People are generally of good will and I would hope that people in the military would not interpret anything that is said as not being respectful of the actions being taken on their part, the bravery and the sacrifice.

I come from a constituency that has a large military base. I know what it means for families who send members off to foreign places far away. In many cases I will receive a letter or a phone call from a kid or spouse asking me as a member of parliament what this is all about while their father or mother is in Bosnia, Haiti or wherever they may be participating. We need to be respectful of their actions and be prudent in our use of language out of respect for them.

It is also important for Canadians to understand that we share similar objectives. I remember the member from Vancouver saying the difficulty was that we would not be able to argue that the objectives had been achieved. That is true. Of course we would not. If the objectives had been achieved we would not be there and the killing would stop.

However, that does not change what the original objectives were. All we are asking now is whether this is the best course to achieve them. We will have trouble with it. Everybody will have trouble with it.

If we decide we should not be doing it, that we will have trouble with it, what are the possible consequences? What would we be allowing that we should not as a civilized country? If we do it, are we not exacerbating it? Are we not making it worse? Are we not doing something that in our minds as Canadians is probably quite unfamiliar to us as a country and people?

It is important for everybody to ultimately cling to the fact that we are all after the same outcome. Regardless of where we fall in the spectrum of how to achieve it, there is not a member of the House who does not want the same thing as me. The terrible things that are happening to the Kosovars and the terrible atrocities being perpetrated in the name of some ethnic objective should cease. They are wrong and as a civilized country we need to say so.

I take the points made by members opposite. We need to do everything in our power not to allow this presently employed strategy to somehow blind us to the fact that we should be pursing other strategies either independent of this one or at the very least concurrent with this one. It may be extremely difficult to have the outcome we want. We cannot become lazy in our civility, in our attempts to achieve the same outcome in more peaceful ways.

We should involve all people of goodwill, notwithstanding the fact that the action is specific to NATO. There are countries which may not even support what NATO is doing in this instance but would be helpful in terms of bringing a solution through other means. Every effort needs to be made by our country and the other countries involved to reach a conclusion as quickly as possible.

I never suffered any illusion that this would be easy or quick. How do we achieve the outcome we would want to achieve? In 1993, the year that I first sought office, I was challenged for the nomination of my party. In the debate that took place in that nomination exercise one of the first questions I received was about what I would do as a member of parliament to deal with the ethnic cleansing being undertaken in the former Yugoslavia. This issue has been there for a long time. We have had a number of debates about it here. We have unsuccessfully attempted in a number of ways to bring forward other types of solutions that are perhaps more familiar to Canadians.

The government has decided that the time has come, in collaboration with NATO allies, to take this rather drastic, unpleasant and unwanted course of action simply because the other efforts have not been successful.

I have a great deal of difficulty and have felt terrible even considering what is happening. I also felt terrible considering what was happening before. It becomes very difficult. If it seems that we are not able to give precision in our answers or to articulate our position with any precision, it is simply by virtue of the fact that as human beings these kinds of decisions do not come easily.

Everyone in the House, regardless of where they may come down in the debate on how to accomplish it, wants the same end. They want to end the atrocities we know have been occurring in the region with haste.

I have great regard for all members who brought forward their personal views. I hope we can be prudent in our use of language, recognizing with respect each person's personal struggle with this issue.

[Epilepsy, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to remind the House that March is national epilepsy month. Epilepsy is a functional disorder of the brain. It can temporarily block consciousness. It can be characterized by seizures, uncontrollable shaking or convulsion.

Approximately 300,000 Canadians, primarily young people, suffer from this condition and in nearly 75% of cases there is no known cause.

Canadian research has made important contributions to the development of effective treatment. New medications have been developed to help control seizures. However drugs are not a cure and often have severe side effects. Furthermore, 20% of seizures are not successfully controlled by current medication.

Continued research must be supported. I ask all members of the House to joint with me in applauding Epilepsy Canada during March, national epilepsy month.

[The Budget, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would share the member's enthusiasm for the infrastructure program and ACOA. I only say the reason the budget did not contain another infrastructure announcement is that the Government of Canada decided to invest in health care, which is where Canadians wanted us to invest. I look forward to the possibility of infrastructure investments in future budgets.

[The Budget, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the member is half right; I think the premier of Quebec was wrong.

The transfers to the provinces around health are very complicated. Either the hon. member does not understand the complexity of these transfers or he is involving himself in the kind of activity he characterized others as being involved in.

We have made a significant shift in the way the provinces receive the funding from the federal government by way of tax credits, tax points. Those tax points cannot ever totally deal with this problem because those parts of the country, such as New Brunswick, that do not have the same level of economic activity would not be able to provide the same level of activity as other richer provinces. That is the reason the system was divided between tax points and cash transfers when those transfers were originally announced. That is also the reason that in some period of time during the course of this, I think it was in 1981, that the cap was put on the transfers to the richer provinces.

I and the province of New Brunswick have taken the position that it is time we took those caps off. I am sure the member from British Columbia would welcome that decision. As for the transfers, it is a lot more complicated than the hon. member would have us believe.