Pat O'Brien

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 12th, 1995]

I have been in western Canada many times. I have an uncle in Quesnel, B.C. I have an aunt in New Westminster, B.C. I converse with them frequently. I know their views on this situation as people living in British Columbia now.

There is some knowledge of western Canada on this side of the House. All wisdom, all logic, all knowledge and all defence of western Canada, thank goodness, do not rest with the party opposite.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 12th, 1995]

The last time I checked, I thought the United States of America was a state. I thought it was a democracy. I thought the President of the United States had a veto power. I invite the hon. member for Fraser Valley West to enrol in some basic courses in political science and Canadian history. I would be very happy to recommend some for him.

The United States of America empowers one person, its democratically elected president, with the right to veto legislation. It is incredible for me to hear an elected member in the House say that no democratic government in the world has a veto power. I will put it down to a bad day for my colleague from Fraser Valley West.

The last point I will address from the hon. member is the characterization of Quebec as a spoiled child. The attitude that somehow Quebec is a spoiled child, to generalize and make the blatant characterization of Quebec as a spoiled child on the basis that 30 per cent of the people are separatists, is part of the problem we have. It is ignorance of the real demographics in Quebec. It is ignorance of what the people in Quebec really believe. It is a dangerous generalization that the most basic student of history is taught not to make. Because 30 per cent of the people of Quebec are very hard core separatists, we should not be foolish enough to characterize the people of Quebec as spoiled children.

What makes that all the more dangerous is that the people applauding the loudest secretly when members like the member for Fraser Valley West make these blatant generalizations are the separatists. Every time a member in the House of Commons spews that kind of logic, every time a Canadian anywhere in Canada makes that kind of ridiculous comment, it only advances the cause of separatism in Quebec. It only makes the job of the Bouchards and the Parizeaus easier in Quebec.

It is a pity we have elected members saying that. I know the member for Fraser Valley West does not like to hear these truths and that is why he interrupts me, even though I did not interrupt him when he made these comments. That is okay. I will debate him now on the point that he does not have his basic facts correct. I will debate him here on the point that he does not have his basic facts of Canadian history straight. I will debate him anywhere he chooses. He does not have the facts of Canadian history, the history of this veto power, or the knowledge that the United States has a veto power.

I am shocked. I am disappointed. Most dramatically, I am alarmed that an elected member would come into the House of Commons and make the kind of statements, the twisting of facts, and display the ignorance I have heard.

I say these things in kindness. I offer them as constructive criticism. I think we can help the member for Fraser Valley West to learn more Canadian history if he has an open mind. That is the problem. One wonders if the attitudes are not so ingrained in some members of the House, if they do not bring the kind of attitudes and the lack of knowledge of Canadian history in such a visceral way into the House that perhaps they are not willing to listen to facts, not willing to learn some Canadian history and not willing to change.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 12th, 1995]

He is now saying that is right. I am sorry to see him lead with his chin like that. Let me introduce him to a nation to the south called the United States of America in which one democratically elected person, the president, has a veto power.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 12th, 1995]

I listened very carefully to the member for Fraser Valley West without interrupting him. I would appreciate if he would do the same for me, as that is the nature of democratic debate in the House. We can disagree without interrupting each other as we speak.

The current Government of Quebec unfortunately is a separatist government. We all know that. We do not need to be rocket scientists to know that. However, the mistake made by the hon. members opposite is they assume we will have a separatist government forever in Quebec. That is ridiculous. All we have to do is review the history of the province of Quebec to know there have been very few years when a separatist was in power.

The bill proposes to give to the province of Quebec, as it does to the governments of four other regions, a veto power. It is not to the people or to the separatist Government of Quebec in a sense that it will be there ad infinitum.

The hon. member mentioned that the six Liberal MPs in B.C. like to say they have influenced the government's change of mind in recognizing B.C. as a region. I think my colleagues did have an influence in that change of decision. One thing I do know for sure is the Reform Party certainly had no influence in changing the mind of the government in giving B.C. a regional veto.

The ignorance of Quebec and the situation in Canada in terms of our veto power from some members opposite is unbelievable. As a Canadian and someone who taught Canadian history, the degree of ignorance, even by certain members of the House, about our history alarms me.

Where did this idea of veto power for four regions come from? Was it dreamed up out of thin air? It was not dreamed up out of thin air. In the early 1970s at a conference in Victoria a decision was made to give veto powers to four regions in the country. That Victoria formula was endorsed by all 10 premiers of all 10 provinces, including the province of British Columbia at that time, as well as by the Government of Canada.

It is ignorance of Canadian history to suggest that somehow the government and the Prime Minister have dreamed up this plan. It is based in fact and it is based in history. The lack of knowledge of Canadian history by some members in the House is appalling.

My colleague from Fraser Valley West said no democratic government in the world provides a veto. I am almost quoting him directly.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I understand I have only 10 minutes, unfortunately. I wish I had an hour to respond to the remarks I just listened to very quietly, as difficult as that was.

I heard so much fiction from the member for Fraser Valley West, so many dangerous interpretations of our history and society that I feel compelled to respond to at least a few of them.

The hon. member and members of the third party are repeatedly saying that in the veto bill the federal government is giving the separatists a veto. That is patently nonsense.

[Employment Insurance Act, December 11th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, as the member for London-Middlesex, I represent many Canadians of Arab origin who are very proud to be Canadian citizens.

Many of these constituents of mine are very successful small business people in their own right. They were so in the Middle East and they have continued that success here in Canada.

They have met with me a number of times to indicate they feel to an extent they are perhaps being under used as new Canadians in the sense that they have great knowledge and expertise of their former countries in the Middle East; an expertise and a knowledge they are very anxious and prepared to share with the Canadian government and with Canadian business people looking for opportunities for business overseas.

These constituents of mine have made it clear they are extremely pleased and happy that at long last it looks as though the Middle East has entered a new era of peace. There will be a tremendous amount of rebuilding and reconstruction needed, particularly in the area of infrastructure of all types.

It pleases me as a Canadian and as their member of Parliament to hear them speak so highly of the Canadian leadership role in peacekeeping in the Middle East. They are well aware this dates back to Lester B. Pearson and the Suez crisis and his tremendous actions then for which he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

It seems to these friends of mine that somehow Canada is missing an opportunity to capitalize on the tremendous goodwill that exists in the Middle East toward our nation.

What they mean by this is simply that they feel Canada is not being as proactive or aggressive as we might be in pursuing business opportunity which really are enormous in scope. Most Middle Eastern countries would welcome Canadian business with open arms. While we are pursuing such opportunities, many of these friends and constituents of mine feel we need to be more proactive and aggressive.

To that end, there is one interesting idea that has been proposed to me a number of times. It is the establishment of permanent Canadian trade centres in the Middle East.

These people would see such centres as being run and financed by the private sector, by private business with help from the Canadian government in terms of protocol and business contacts, that sort of thing, government to government contacts which the Canadian government could provide.

They certainly see the costs of such trade centres as being shared by Canadian businesses. They point out that such a cost sharing arrangement would be much cheaper than various Canadian businesses year after year sending their own representatives to the Middle East at a greater cost and probably with a less efficient result.

I asked my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, two or three specific questions. Is such an idea feasible? Where has Canada tried such an idea? Does the parliamentary secretary agree that Canada can be more aggressive and proactive in pursuing trade opportunities in the Middle East when these countries are so anxious to welcome Canadian business people?

[Tobacco Products, November 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for London-Middlesex, I wish to add my voice today to those countless numbers of Canadians who are calling on the federal government to take more stringent action against tobacco products. Such actions could take several forms, including declaring tobacco to be what it is: a hazardous substance.

It is my belief and that of many of my constituents that the use of tobacco represents the most serious avoidable threat to the health of Canadians today. In fact, this is much more than a belief; it is a proven fact which should cause governments at all levels to take whatever positive steps they can to address this enormous health threat.

I call on this government to enact legislation that will designate tobacco products as hazardous and strictly regulate its manufacture, marketing and distribution.

[Intervener Funding Act, November 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House in support of Bill C-339 sponsored by the hon. member for Oxford.

In so doing I need to address the question of exactly what is meant by intervenor funding. I would characterize intervenor funding as up front funding to assist Canadians before they participate in a process, to assist Canadians who have real interests in matters of public concern before a board, commission or an agency.

One needs to reflect on the question of who should receive such intervenor funding. The strongest argument can be made that such funds should be available to landowners first and foremost, to people whose properties are impacted by a decision of government and who have every right and responsibility on behalf of their families to participate in a decision by this government or by any government. They have the right to participate to make sure the best possible decision is made and that their rights as property owners and as Canadians are respected.

My colleague has previously spoken about making sure we do not fund frivolous objections. I would certainly support that. All too often people are quick to make frivolous objections and want to intervene in the process. I would not support funding for those kinds of objectors, but certainly there are many legitimate concerns that need to be raised by Canadians and we ought to fund such individuals.

The funding needs to be up front. People need to know they will have an opportunity to hire counsel and various other experts to assist them in their presentations. They need to know that before the fact and not after the fact. To me it really is not legitimate intervenor funding and proper if it is not guaranteed to people up front.

In supporting the bill I do so with some firsthand involvement in the process. As the member of Parliament for London-Middlesex and as the chair of the southwestern Ontario Liberal caucus, and as my colleague for Oxford well knows, I have been directly involved along with him and other members in our region in issues of this type in southwestern Ontario.

We have had several instances of the building of interprovincial pipelines through our region which have involved the public in protracted disputes, the most recent one before the National Energy Board. Landowners are laying out thousands of dollars of their own money having to organize themselves without the help of counsel unless they pay for such counsel. Why? It is because a company

wishes to use their lands supposedly for the public good but certainly for the good of the company. Yet the people involved have to make sure their rights are respected.

In the latest example the people went before the National Energy Board some months ago and won the argument they put forward. They made a very good case. Yet the whole question of funding is up in the air for these people and we need to address that.

Perhaps the biggest inequity is that in Ontario there are two sets of rules where landowners are concerned. The first set of rules comes under the provincial government. If a pipeline comes under provincial jurisdiction such landowners are guaranteed that they will have funding provided to them under the provincial rules. However, if the pipeline involved comes under federal jurisdiction there is no such guarantee. It is a very clear and obvious inequity.

In the case of some of my constituents, farmers have two pipelines on their land barely feet apart, one coming under provincial jurisdiction and one coming under federal jurisdiction. When they are involved in hearings before the National Energy Board or other agencies or commissions, they are funded when they go to provincial hearings but are not funded when they go to federal hearings. This seems patently unfair and certainly an inequitable situation that our government needs to address.

I fully support my colleague from Oxford and his Bill C-339. As a Liberal I believe it is the role of government to ensure the little guy has full opportunity to participate on a level playing field with big corporations in society. We have to do everything possible to facilitate that.

It is not enough to say to people that they can appear before the National Energy Board and argue for their rights as citizens. It is simply not enough to do that if they do not have the means to do so, if they do not have the wherewithal to make that presentation. That means funding and that is why I fully support the bill. I think the member is on the right track. The government needs to make sure the playing field is level, that this inequity is addressed and that a landowner, particularly in the province of Ontario, does not have to play under two different sets of rules. The only way we can ensure that is to have meaningful, up front, intervenor funding available to serious Canadians, certainly landowners, who have a legitimate concern and who want to argue that concern before whatever board, commission or agency.

I fully support the bill and applaud my colleague for bringing it forward. I hope the bill will pass.

[Small Business Loans Act, October 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's questions and comments on this program. I do not think he used the phrase but I think he is questioning the efficacy of the whole concept of regional economic expansion.

I come from southwestern Ontario, which is a rather successful part of Canada when we look at the full nation, although we certainly have some problems to solve such as unemployment. We are doing our best in that regard.

My colleague opposite comes from the province of Saskatchewan and he understands that his part of Canada is quite successful. However there are some problem as well.

The question my colleague puts is an either/or. Should we put all of our attention on to the small business loans approach or should we continue with the concept of sharing economically through a regional economic sharing of resources? Frankly, as a Canadian I reject the choice. I do not think it is an either/or. The answer to my colleague is that we should do both. I believe there is a place for both.

The people I represent by and large understand and appreciate that they are economically in an advantaged part of Canada. They are quite prepared and magnanimous enough to share with other Canadians as part of the price to pay to have a nation from coast to coast.

I will be candid and say that we had a little dispute recently about the idea of some workers coming from Cape Breton. The question was never where the people came from. We have thousands of Atlantic Canadians and Canadians from all other provinces living and contributing to the community. The only question was to what degree the trip would be subsidized.

As far as the concept of sharing and being open to Canadians to come to our city or sharing our resources with people from coast to coast, the people I represent endorse that. They see it as an important part of being a Canadian. It is a small price to pay to be part of the great nation we all live in.

[Small Business Loans Act, October 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments.

He addressed my remarks about the outpouring of affection-I think that is the right word-and concern of other Canadians that Quebec remain part of the Canadian family. He spoke about his wish that this would continue. I fully support that. I fully and completely support that as a francophone who for most of my life has understood and appreciated the importance of Quebec in this country.

Every chance I get I emphasize to people in my riding that we need to make clear that we understand and realize the importance of Quebec in this country. I can assure the hon. member that if the vote is a no vote, as I hope it will be, I will continue to say that after Monday. I applaud that sentiment.

I disagree with the hon. member when he spoke about the need to forge a new partnership. I simply ask him and all Quebecers to reflect on the fact that we have had a successful partnership in Canada for a long time. Yes, we have had our problems. We have had our quarrels as families will, but we have been able to work through them. We have worked them out. It was not lightly or easily that Canada was recognized as the best country in the world in which to live.

I ask him and all Quebecers, as the Prime Minister has done much better than I can do, to reflect very carefully on the fact that together we have built the best country in the world. It would be a tremendous risk and gamble to vote to break up our family. I sincerely hope Quebecers will not do that when they vote on Monday.