Paul Devillers

[Divorce Act, December 8th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I move that the House suspend until 12 noon the commencement of Government Orders.

[Jacques Parizeau, November 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and comment on the remarks made by Jacques Parizeau during a university tour in Alberta Tuesday.

Although he has an unfortunate habit of blaming the ethnic communities for the defeat of the separatist option in 1995, Mr. Parizeau was astonishingly frank when he clearly stated that francophone communities outside Quebec would have trouble surviving if Quebec were to separate.

I for one am delighted at Mr. Parizeau's frankness. I must, however, point out the blatant contradiction between Mr. Parizeau's frank remarks and the remarks of Bloc Quebecois members, who are, after all, in the same political camp.

According to the Bloc Quebecois, francophone communities outside Quebec would be better off if Quebec separated. Would one of the members of that party be so good as to explain this contradiction to us?

[Supply, November 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it must be emphasized that as soon as the Liberal government took office in 1993, it started working to renew the federation. There are many examples in the area of manpower and a number of other social programs where we have worked to renew the federation to meet the needs not only of the Province of Quebec but also of the other provinces that felt that federal and provincial areas of responsibility had to be reviewed.

In today's debate, there were some members, even on this side, who criticized the government because it has gone too far. They feel that there has already been enough decentralization in this federation, but I am sure we will be continuing our efforts, because it is always possible to reach an understanding. There will be another premiers conference in December which will deal with the issue of youth employment and other important issues for the provinces and the federal government.

I agree with the member that efforts have to be made to ensure that the Constitution and the sharing of responsibilities will meet the needs of all the regions.

[Supply, November 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure today that I join in this debate on the motion proposed by the Reform Party. I appreciate the non-partisan spirit in which this motion has been put forward. Certainly I encourage all federalist members of the House to support the motion.

I believe the Calgary declaration goes in the right direction. It is a provincial initiative which nine premiers and two territorial leaders have set out. It is a declaration of principles which I think all Canadians who are interested in the country thriving, growing and remaining united should be prepared to support.

There are two major principles in the Calgary declaration that I would like to mention: the first one is the recognition of Quebec's specificity, and the second is the equality of the provinces.

During the 1995 referendum campaign, the Prime Minister made several commitments. Following these commitments, the House of Commons passed a resolution on the recognition of Quebec's specificity, distinct society. Unfortunately, the federal government cannot adopt alone amendments to the Constitution; this requires the participation of the provinces.

To provide for this, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs travelled to all provinces to discuss this issue with the premiers and his counterparts in all the provinces to determine whether amendments could be made to the Constitution so that it would include recognition of Quebec's specificity.

We are pleased to see in the Calgary declaration that the nine premiers and the two territorial leaders are in the process of taking a step forward by determining whether there can be such a recognition. The wording is not the same. The declaration talks about the unique character of Quebec society instead of distinct society, but it is nevertheless the specificity of Quebec that is being described.

As for the equality of the provinces, we have always argued that it is possible to recognize the specificity of Quebec while respecting the equality of the provinces. Equality does not mean sameness. I have three children and I always try to treat them equally, but not always in the same way. They all have their own needs and at times I treat them differently.

Consultations with Canadians are not an invention of the Reform Party. I heard during the debate this morning, when the debate was slipping a bit from its non-partisan nature or intention on behalf of some of the parties, that the grassroots movement was something the Reform Party was promoting.

At the request of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs I have been travelling through practically every province in Canada since my appointment as his parliamentary secretary. I have been meeting with Canadians in all regions of the country at the grassroots level. These Canadians organized themselves into unity groups to try to become engaged in the debate on the future of Canada. A lot of them reached that point by being frustrated with the constitutional wrangling that had been going on up until the Charlottetown accord failed.

These groups of Canadians, grassroots organizations, were very supportive of the fact that their Canada contains a province that is different by reason of its majority language, its institutions and its culture. They are very willing to support and recognize that, so long as it is very clear the recognition does not result in any special rights, powers or privileges granted to any province. In other words, the equality of provinces is respected.

This is essentially what the Calgary accord is speaking about. I am confident from my travels and reports that I have made to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs that there is broad support in all regions of the country for recognition of Quebec's differences so long as the equality of provinces is respected.

That is not very different from what exists already. I make reference to a retired chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Chief Justice Brian Dickson, who said at the present time, prior to any constitutional amendments for the recognition of Quebec, that Quebec's difference is already taken into account by the Supreme Court of Canada when it is interpreting grey areas of the constitution. A whole list of things are taken into account, but the difference of Quebec by reason of its language, culture and institutions is taken into account at the present time.

What is now a constitutional convention, if there is willingness among the provinces and the federal government, could be made a constitutional provision which we hope would give assurances to people in Quebec concerned about their language and culture that within the Canadian federation there is a place for that recognition and that the other provinces in the Canadian federation are prepared to support them in the maintenance of that position.

Today's motion also requires that the Government of Canada go to Quebec to consult Quebeckers on the Calgary declaration. This is an issue on which the Prime Minister has already spoken and he has said that there is a possibility for such consultations.

I would like to point out also that there are some 30 federal members from Quebec in this House already working on this, returning to their ridings every weekend, and every week when the House is not sitting, and discussing with Quebeckers the Calgary declaration and all other issues that concern Canada and the Constitution.

I hope all members of the House will be able to rise above partisan politics and find a way to support the motion.

I can understand that the Bloc Quebecois is against this motion, but I ask all members in this House who are federalists to support this motion.

[Questions On The Order Paper, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the other questions stand.

[Questions On The Order Paper, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, today we will answer Question No. 12. .[Text]

[Government Response To Petitions, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 36.8 I have the honour of tabling in both official languages the government's response to 10 petitions.

[Wye Marsh Wildlife Centre, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Mr. Bob Whittam, retired executive director of the Wye Marsh Wildlife Centre. The Wye Marsh Wildlife Centre located in my riding is a non-profit organization committed to promoting an understanding of the vital role wetlands play within the environment.

Mr. Whittam, affectionately known as Mr. Wye Marsh, was recently honoured at a banquet attended by more than 300 family, friends and dignitaries. He has been the driving force behind the Wye Marsh Wildlife Centre through good and bad times. Were it not for Mr. Whittam's leadership, it is quite doubtful that the Wye Marsh Wildlife Centre would have survived a cut in federal funding in 1984.

I again thank Bob Whittam on behalf of all citizens of Simcoe North for his tireless dedication and commitment in contributing to the Wye Marsh Wildlife Centre's success. Have a good retirement, Bob.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Quebec), November 17th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member says I indicated that the Catholic bishops were in favour. I did not say that. I said that they were not opposed and I am going from the evidence that was before the committee, letters that were filed before the committee. I think I very accurately stated what their position was as it was presented to the committee.

However, I am not saying that at any time did they say they were in favour of it. They were saying that they were leaving that to the state to deal with.

With respect to the member's final point dealing with minority rights, I very clearly stated in my presentation that I believe constitutionally entrenched minority rights can only be dealt with when there is a very clear demonstration that the majority of the minority who are affected are in favour of it. I believe that is what we are dealing with in this case.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Quebec), November 17th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, the member asked why in my speech and in the minister's speech we did not list the witnesses who were opposed. I think the report of the committee which was tabled in the House goes through that very, very clearly and in much detail.

No one is suggesting that the consensus was unanimous. The committee heard that it is pretty well unanimous on the question of moving to a linguistic school system. But the consensus is far from unanimous on whether it should be accomplished by the proposed amendments to section 93. There is no question and nobody was trying mislead any member or the House. There were a lot of witnesses who gave testimony that they were not in favour of the amendment that we are debating here today proceeding.

However, from evidence I heard and from weighing the representations of the various witnesses, there is no question in my mind that there is a very strong consensus that the amendment proceed. Members of the committee asked witnesses specifically, given the fact that we are removing entrenched rights, did they still favour it being proceeded with. In my opinion and in the opinion of the majority of the committee, that consensus was very clearly demonstrated.

If the member feels that I was misleading anyone, I certainly wish to assure him that is not the case. There is no question of attempting to mislead anyone. It is still my very strong opinion that there is a strong consensus in the Province of Quebec that we proceed with this amendment.

The member says that reference has been made to this being a 30-year old debate. He is partly correct. We have not necessarily been talking about amending section 43 of the Constitutional Act of 1982 for 30 years. The process is not 30 years old, so we obviously were not talking about using section 43 of the Constitution Act of 1982 for 30 years. However, the whole question of managing the school system in Quebec is a debate that has been going on for approximately 30 years.

The issue has been studied by commission after commission, all of which is referred to in the report dealing with going from a denominational to a linguistic school system. In recent years the question of the process of using section 93 has been reviewed and proposed. There were committee hearings and the Quebec legislature has dealt with it.

In his final question the hon. member asked me about the position of the Catholic Bishops. I think I quite correctly stated in my comment that the Catholic Bishops were not opposed to the amendment. They did not appear before the committee but there was correspondence filed which set out their position which simply stated is that they are not opposed to the amendment. The amendment removes denominational school boards. However, they still favour denominational schools.

I have tabled an excerpt from an interview with a Quebec Bishop saying that he was satisfied to leave it to the state to decide how to implement the required changes and he was satisfied that there were measures in Quebec law, the Quebec Charter of Rights and the Quebec Education Act that would ensure their conditions were met and that there would be denominational schools.

The committee heard evidence that it is a very strong position in Quebec society that people want to retain denominational schools. I think the political realities will ensure that.