Paul Devillers

[Speech From The Throne, November 7th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak today in the debate on the Throne speech.

The speech from the throne was delivered on February 27, 1996, approximately two years and four months into the government's mandate. It was an opportunity for the government to confirm its priorities, namely jobs and growth, and to continue on that agenda. At that point over half a million net jobs had been created. Now we are at over 620,000 net jobs created.

The speech from the throne went on to deal with three priority themes: the jobs and growth agenda, the security for Canadians, and the modernization of the federation to ensure national unity. The area where I would like to concentrate my remarks is national unity.

When we speak of national unity, invariably we end up speaking of the Quebec situation. Canadians are aware that national unity is a much broader question than simply the wants and desires of the province of Quebec.

We end up concentrating a lot of our effort and time dealing with the Quebec question because the separatist governments in that province have twice called referendums under provincial legislation dealing with the question of the separation of Quebec from the Canadian federation.

Going back prior to the speech from the throne and the time just before the last referendum, Canadians will recall that in the week before the referendum the Prime Minister became very active in the campaign.

Until then the Prime Minister had been a member of the no committee, constituted under the Quebec legislation. There were other members of the committee, federal ministers, the leader of the federal Conservative Party, the leader of the Liberal opposition in Quebec, et cetera.

The strategy that was arrived at was that the Prime Minister would make certain timely interventions in the campaign. As the campaign wore on it became evident from the polling that there was difficulty, that the result was going to be much closer than polls indicated earlier.

The Prime Minister became much more involved. He made certain commitments to the people of Quebec dealing mainly with the recognition of Quebec's distinctness, the question of regional vetoes and the issue of job training. It had been a traditional Quebec demand that job training be turned over to the provinces so that they would have more jurisdiction in that field. The Prime Minister made those commitments.

In December 1995 the House of Commons passed the motion on distinct society, passed the bill dealing with regional vetoes and in the course of its employment insurance reforms it has been dealing with the job training issue.

As far as the federal government and the Prime Minister's being able to honour those commitments without the participation of the provinces, they have done so.

The government has also indicated and continues to indicate its willingness to entrench the recognition of Quebec's differences in the Constitution as well as the regional vetoes. Of course, that cannot be done unilaterally by the federal government and requires the participation of the provinces in accordance with the amending formula of the Constitution which requires seven provinces representing at least 50 per cent of the population.

The speech from the throne sets out what the government's plan on national unity is. Basically it is a plan of reconciliation, to reconcile all of the concerns of all of the provinces and all of the regions of Canada and to modernize the federation to take those concerns into account.

Much progress has been made with respect to the modernization of the federation. At the first ministers conference in June, steps were initiated and negotiations were undertaken. At the premiers conference in August, there was a resolution passed and agreement arrived at by the premiers that they would work with the federal government in its efforts to try to make arrangements so that the jurisdictions between the provinces and the federal government could be worked out to the satisfaction of all parties.

The federal government has acknowledged that there are certain areas where definitely there should be more provincial involvement. I have made reference already to the job training areas. Another area is the administration of social housing. There are also the forestry and mining sectors. Measures have been taken in the Fisheries Act to allow for the delegation to the interested provinces of responsibilities for management of freshwater fisheries habitats.

Later this month there will be more meetings in the field of the environment. The provincial ministers of the environment will be meeting with the federal Minister of the Environment to try to negotiate the terms of subagreements on environmental assessment to eliminate duplication and the mixed jurisdictions in those areas.

As well, the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Health are negotiating with their provincial colleagues. They are trying to come to arrangements where perhaps the provinces would have more say in certain areas of jurisdiction and maybe certain other areas of jurisdiction would be turned over to the federal government or their role would be heightened in the appropriate cases.

On the question of future referendums the speech from the throne also indicated the following: "As long as the prospect of another Quebec referendum exists, the government will exercise its responsibility to ensure that the debate is conducted with all the facts on the table, that the rules of the process are fair, that the consequences are clear and that Canadians, no matter where they live, will have their say in the future of their country".

That commitment is in the speech from the throne. The government has acted upon it with the intervention in the Bertrand case when the Quebec provincial government was saying that the rule of law had nothing to do with the right to self-determination, and also with the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Inevitably, as I indicated at the beginning of my speech, we end up speaking of Quebec when we speak about national unity, even though many of the other provinces share many of the same concerns that Quebec has with the operation of the federation and the need for its modernization.

Canada today is not the same place it was in 1867. Much has changed and obviously there is a need to modernize the workings of the various levels of government. We come back to the Prime Minister's commitment on the question of recognizing Quebec's distinctiveness.

In today's debate I heard one of the members from the Reform Party mention Charlottetown and that the concept of a distinct society was rejected when Charlottetown was rejected and that the people had their say. There were so many things in the Charlottetown accord. No one can say with any degree of certainty which of the components of the accord people were voting against when they voted no. If they were voting yes, they had to agree with every component. It was a flawed process and I think we have learned our lesson.

The Prime Minister has indicated on several occasions in this House that his strategy is to deal with these issues separately one at a time so we will know exactly what the acceptance of a particular concept is. It is not correct to say that the people of Canada rejected the distinct society because it was one of the components of the Charlottetown accord.

The polls tell us that 60 to 65 per cent of Quebecers feel an attachment toward Canada and want to see the difficulties that are being expressed by many of the provinces and not just Quebec resolved within the Canadian context. We need to determine why then did we have a referendum result with 49 per cent voting yes? Was the question reasonable and fair? Did the people understand it precisely?

I think it was more than that. There has to be some other explanation as to why, if only 30 to 35 per cent of people are committed to separating, as high as 49 per cent would vote yes. We need to look at that and determine the reason for that and for those of us who want to see the country stay together, what we can do to deal with that.

That is where we come back to the question of the recognition of Quebec, its difference by reason of its French language, its French culture and its French institutions. Those are the facts. Quebec is the only province in Canada that has a predominantly French speaking population, a predominantly French culture. It has le droit civil. It is one of two jurisdictions in North America that has le droit civil legal system as opposed to the common law system. There is an indisputable difference I would submit and we need to deal with that. A recognition of that difference needs to be entrenched in the Constitution.

People may have noticed that I am not using the term distinct society. When that concept is discussed there is a fear in the provinces other than Quebec that it means there is going to be some advantage, right, power or privilege given to Quebec that the other provinces will not enjoy. That certainly is not what is being proposed by this government. This government is simply proposing a recognition of Quebec's difference by reason of its French language, culture and institutions without granting to it any further rights, powers or privileges.

That begs the question: Of what value is it? Is it simply symbolic? It is not going to fill the bill. It is not going to address the concerns of the Quebec people who are looking for some reason to remain in Canada. I submit it is more than symbolic because it would entrench in the Constitution the existing constitutional convention.

Mr. Justice Brian Dickson, the retired chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, recently published an article in the Globe and Mail . It indicated that presently the Supreme Court of Canada in interpreting grey areas of the Constitution takes into account Quebec's difference by reason of its French language, culture and institutions.

We would be guaranteeing what is existing now. On the one hand we would have something substantial which Quebecers could feel secure about. On the other hand we would not be granting any rights, powers or privileges that the other provinces do not now enjoy. In other words, there would be no preference given.

There is certainly room for that type of discussion, not by our friends in the Bloc Quebecois and members of the PQ government in Quebec because they want a separate country. Offering them any form of guarantee or recognition in the way the Constitution is interpreted today will not be of any benefit to them because it will not lead to separation.

We have to address the other 60 to 65 per cent of Quebecers who are looking for that. It is also a way for Canadians outside Quebec to express to their fellow Canadians in Quebec that they are prepared to assist in the preservation of the French language, culture and institutions which are prevalent in Quebec. It is a way to support them and to alleviate their insecurity.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has said that if Quebec is the only predominantly French speaking province or jurisdiction in Canada and in North America, it creates a natural insecurity and a legitimate concern with respect to the preservation of the French language, culture and institutions. If we Canadians outside Quebec can show that we are prepared to support them in that preservation, it would have an influence on their desire to remain a part of this country.

As part of my duties for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs I have travelled to different regions of Canada. I was in three of the four maritime provinces this past summer. I have been to British Columbia and Alberta. I have spoken with people who have formed Canadian unity groups, Canadian citizens who are concerned about Canadian unity. They have expressed frustration at not being able to do anything about the preservation of unity in Canada. They have come together in an effort to become involved in the process.

When I speak to them in the terms I have just outlined, I get very little opposition to the concept of recognizing Quebec's differences by reason of its French language, culture and institutions when it is presented to them in a way that gives them some assurance that it will not lead to any additional rights, powers or privileges. Once the term distinct society is put into the equation however, then there is all of the baggage that comes from the constitutional wrangling of the previous government with the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords.

There is a way to develop that support and to act on it. The government is on the right track. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has spoken to most of his provincial counterparts. In certain provinces he gets a warmer reception than in others. However, we must continue to work on it.

[Supply, October 24th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I am pleased to inform him that I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, who is from Montreal. That should make him happy.

Furthermore, what I said in my speech clearly shows that the Port of Montreal is doing very well. The hon. member asks me questions as if I could forecast the future, as if I knew what will happen after a certain bill becomes law. He has no arguments to refute what I said in my speech, that the Port of Montreal is doing fine, better than last year, despite all the cuts made across the country, and not only at the Port of Montreal.

[Supply, October 24th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce.

My remarks will deal with the Montreal port, a major element not only in this country's shipping industry but also in intermodal tranportation and international trade.

The Montreal Port Corporation was created in 1983 by the federal government as a local port corporation, under the Canada Ports Corporation Act. In keeping with the national shipping policy, this port has been designated a Canadian port authority.

Our government's national shipping policy will ensure that the Canadian shipping industry continues to contribute significantly to the Montreal economy, by allowing the port to become even more commercially orientated.

Montreal is one of the busiest inland ports in the world and one of the main transatlantic traffic transfer centres. With its port, its international airport, its road and railway networks linking it to every corner of North America, Montreal is undeniably one of the hubs of transportation in the world.

Every year, the Montreal port contributes $1.2 billion to the economy of Montreal, Quebec and the country as a whole. It accounts for 7,400 direct jobs which, coupled with indirect jobs, amount to 14,000 jobs.

These economic benefits are more obvious with regard to the North Atlantic ocean. Of all the eastern seaboard ports, Montreal provides the most direct and fastest access to the main Canadian markets, as well as to American markets in the Midwest and the North East.

This is where transatlantic routes interconnect with the rail and freeway networks thus reducing the time and cost of door to door transportation of goods. Traffic back and forth is so important that it promotes economies of scale and allows shipping lines to offer regular and frequent services. Importers and exporters can fully profit from all the advantages of just in time delivery.

The Montreal Port Corporation is financially independent. Between 1984 and 1995, it generated total net profits amounting to $148.4 million. During that time, thanks to internally generated funds, the corporation invested $180 million in capital expenditures.

In 1987, the Government of Canada approved a transfer to the equity of the Montreal Port Corporation in the amount of $231 million, comprising $133 million in annuity certificates and $98 million in accrued interests on those certificates.

Therefore, between 1986 and 1995, the government wrote off part of the debt and accrued interests for a total of $231 million and the Montreal Port Corporation contributed $108.7 million to the consolidated fund of Canada in the form of a special contribution and dividends, so the net result was a positive difference of $122.3 million.

In 1995, the Montreal Port Corporation paid six million in grants in lieu of municipal taxes. On the other hand, tenants of the port paid directly $7.7 million in property, municipal and school taxes. Therefore, in 1995, the Montreal Port Corporation and its tenants jointly paid $13.7 million in grants in lieu of taxes, municipal taxes and school taxes.

Given those data and the economic impact of the port activity, we can conclude that not only is the port not a burden for the Canadian taxpayer, it is a real motor for the Canadian economy.

In the Montreal Port Corporation's business plan, investments or capital expenditures of almost $110 million are expected for the five-year period from 1996 to 2000.

With containers on top of the list, the total traffic of goods handled in the port of Montreal during the first six months of 1996 reached 9.3 million tonnes, an increase of 1.3 million tonnes or 16 per cent compared to the same period last year. There was a traffic increase in all categories of goods, except one.

During the first semester of 1996, the port of Montreal handled 3.9 million tonnes of various containerized goods, an increase of more than 570,000 tonnes or 17.2 per cent compared to the first six months of last year. We must recall that, for the whole of the year 1995, container traffic had reached an unprecedented level in the main Canadian container port, despite a labour dispute that paralysed activities on the wharves for 16 days last year.

For the first half of 1996, the port of Montreal has increased its share of the container market in a context of fierce competition. It has succeeded to fare better than its competitors on the North American east coast, and there is every indication it will be another record year in this sector.

The growth in freight traffic combined with tight control of administrative and operating costs had a positive impact on the Montreal Port Corporation's financial performance. As of June 30, 1996, the corporation's net profits amounted to $3.6 million compared to $1.1 million for the first half of 1995.

All user fees have been frozen for the fourth consecutive year. Additional improvements were made to the discount program put in place to stimulate container traffic, and rebates aimed at increasing other types of freight have been added.

A highlight of the first half of 1996 was the arrival of three brand-new containerships linking Montreal to northern Europe. Two of these three ships were christened in Montreal. Canada Maritime's Canmar Courage and Canmar Fortune each have a capacity of 2,200 TEU containers, while OOCL Canada, which

belongs to Orient Overseas Container Line, can carry 2,300 TEU containers.

These three deep-draft ships are currently the largest containerships sailing on the St. Lawrence. They are on the leading edge of technology and equipped for winter sailing. The commissioning of these three great vessels is further evidence of shipowners' confidence in the Port of Montreal's future.

The highlights of the first semester include improved carrier services between North America's industrial heartland and northern Europe and the Mediterranean, as well as the opening of a new fruit terminal operated by Logistec Arrimage Inc.

This shows the positive economic impact of port operations in the Montreal area on all trade activities linked to shipping.

[Yukon Quartz Mining Act, October 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address Bill C-6, an act to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act. I am pleased to speak in support of this legislation.

With this legislation we have a rare window of opportunity to establish environmental conditions in which mining in Yukon can take place. I urge hon. member to take advantage of this opportunity to support the bill currently before the House.

Bill C-6 is a compromise, a made in Yukon solution to a unique Yukon situation. I would like to take a few minutes of the House's time to explain how this legislation came about and to highlight the extensive consultations that have resulted in a consensus to proceed at this time.

I am sure hon. members of the aboriginal affairs and northern development standing committee would agree that consensus is the key word. They heard from many witnesses about the compromises that were reached in this bill. Witnesses included the Yukon Mining Advisory Committee, known as Y-MAC; the Yukon Chamber of Commerce; the mayor of the village of Mayo; the Yukon Placer Miners Association; and the Yukon Chamber of Mines.

This bill is not being imposed on an unsuspecting public or industry. There is clearly a recognized need for the environmental

regulation of mining in Yukon, both to ensure protection of the environment and to provide certainty for industry.

Yukon is the only jurisdiction in Canada that does not currently have land use regulations that apply to mining claims, although the environmental record of the territory's mining industry is good.

Some of the problems we have today could have been avoided with proper regulation.

The YMAC Committee, a group created in 1990 to bring the stakeholders together, was asked to develop an acceptable environmentally friendly system. I would like to join the minister in congratulating the YMAC for its good work. Bill C-6 is the direct result of this committee's work and of the determination of its members to find compromises that would benefit the Yukon economy and environment.

Without their dedication, we would not have reached a global agreement on the way to proceed. And, without such a significant agreement, it would have been extremely difficult if not utterly impossible to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act.

We must also recognize the contribution of the Yukon First Nations to reaching a consensus. The Yukon First Nations are not against development; in fact, they often support it, because they recognize that resource development projects can benefit their members.

However, the First Nations are also deeply attached to the environment. By taking part in the works of the YMAC, the Yukon First Nations Council made sure that native concerns were considered.

Finally, the representatives of the federal and territorial governments who sat on the YMAC Committee contributed to ensuring a balance between the interests at stake and a land use system that will support mining exploration and development without threatening the environment.

Bill C-6 was the result of a report prepared in April 1992 by the YMAC. The underlying object of this report was, and I quote, "to ensure the development of a healthy, durable and competitive mining industry, whose operations support the fundamental social, economic and environmental values of the Yukon".

When the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development received cabinet approval to draft Bill C-6, special arrangements were made to consult with YMAC throughout the drafting of the bill and the accompanying regulations. Such arrangements are extremely unusual, however, without them it would not have been possible to reach the general consensus on this legislation.

Beginning in early 1994, YMAC initiated a series of meetings to discuss drafts of the proposed legislation and regulations. The committee met as a group more than 10 times during 1994 and 1995 specifically to discuss this issue. Also over the past years, these legislative proposals have been reviewed and discussed at such mining industry forums as the Geoscience Forum in Whitehorse, the Cordilleran Roundup in Vancouver, the Prospectors and Developers Convention in Toronto and the Gold Show in Dawson.

In July 1995 with the endorsement of this government, YMAC took its consultation to another level by mailing out a summary of the legislative proposals and regulations to more than 600 individuals, organizations and companies. Public information sessions were subsequently held in four Yukon communities: Dawson City, Mayo, Watson Lake and Whitehorse.

Close to 150 people attended the hearings announced in the newspapers, on the radio and on posters in the offices of the mining companies and other public buildings. The committee as well as the federal government and the government of the Yukon also received a certain number of written comments on the proposed statute.

We especially tried to get the First Nations to participate, at the grass roots level, in the consultation process.

In addition to being represented on the YMAC, the 14 First Nations of the Yukon received a summary of the bill and the related regulations before public information meetings were held in July 1995.

The hon. members of the House should know that the minister initiated discussions on an even broader range of issues regarding First Nations during the consultations conducted by his department on the regulations on the use of mining property, which is being developed.

In October 1995, two dozen First Nations groups and organizations received a copy of the summary of the bill and the proposed regulations with a request for comments.

Officials of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have contacted these groups directly to arrange meetings to discuss the proposals and receive feedback. At least one meeting has been held with representatives from each Yukon First Nation. The minister is very interested in hearing aboriginal people's views on the proposed regulations, in particular whether the First Nations want their own legislation or this act to apply to their settlement lands.

Once the draft regulations are finalized, the government will follow the normal process of publishing them in the

Canada

Gazette at least 60 days prior to their proclamation. This will provide a further opportunity for public input into the mining land use regime.

Also, in close consultation with the full range of stakeholders, separate regulations are now being developed for hard rock production and mine site reclamation. These will be brought into effect after the land use regulations are promulgated, which is expected to occur at the same time or shortly after Bill C-6 is proclaimed.

Based on the wide ranging and extensive consultation that has been undertaken, we have before us a bill which reflects a broad consensus of the key stakeholders connected to the Yukon mining industry. Although there are some issues on which YMAC could not reach an agreement, all stakeholders have demonstrated flexibility and a willingness to compromise. Hon. members should be aware that Bill C-6 is very much in keeping with the YMAC report of April 1992.

As recommended by the committee, the government is proposing to establish a multi-tiered classification system for land use operations. The government has also accepted the committee's recommendation for a completely separate set of regulations from the territorial land use regulations so as to better reflect the unique operating requirements of the mining industry in Yukon.

Another characteristic of the proposed program is the short delays given the government to make decisions concerning mining activity applications. This is in accordance with a committee recommendation taking into account the short placer exploration and development season in Yukon.

The bill also proposes a well defined responsibility and accountability framework. The chief of placer land use will administer the regulations and will make decisions concerning most of the projects. The only exception will be for projects concerning hard rock, which will require a permit issued by the minister. The decisions of the chief of placer land use will be subject to appeals to the minister.

Inspectors will have clear, reasonable and effective powers allowing them to give regulatory approvals. They will have the power to enter any mining site or building, except dwelling places.

They will also have the power to take samples and to examine books, records or documents and make copies thereof.

The inspectors will also have the power to order the cessation or modification of any activity, when it results or may result in danger to persons or the environment. The inspectors' orders will be subject to an appeal to the chief of placer land use.

Hon. members will be pleased to learn that this bill should not increase costs for operators using approved mining practices that are safe and respectful of the environment. In fact, the additional administrative costs that could result from the regime will be only minimal.

Bill C-6 also provides for mechanisms to ensure maximum harmonization and co-ordination with other statutes, such as the Yukon Waters Act and the Territorial Lands Act. Hon. members are aware that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act contains provisions for co-ordinating the efforts of all federal bodies taking part in an environmental screening and assessment. This would have the effect of further reducing duplication and overlap in the administration of the regime.

The mining industry has a long and proud history in Yukon, a history of contributing to economic development, income generation and job creation. By putting in place environmental regulations that have already been accepted in the rest of Canada, this legislation will ensure that the industry can continue to make these vital contributions for many years to come.

Bill C-6 is the latest in a series of initiatives undertaken by this government to ensure the viability of the mining industry and economic growth and security in Yukon. In February 1995 the Yukon First Nations Land Claims Settlement Act, the Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act and the Yukon Surface Rights Board Act were proclaimed.

These acts were required to implement the Council for Yukon Indians umbrella final agreement and the four Yukon First Nations final agreements that have been negotiated to date. These acts establish certainty of land ownership and rights so the resource development can go forward. Decades of uncertainty concerning land title and rights will continue to disappear as each one of the outstanding claims is resolved.

Bill C-6 will add to the legal certainty that has been put in place through the land claims settlement process. These amendments are consistent with the umbrella final agreement and will compel decision makers to ensure that projects are properly reviewed and assessed and that mitigative measures are in place.

The development assessment process, DAP, legislation which we intend to introduce to the House in 1997 is now being developed in consultation with Yukon First Nations. Bill C-6 which fills a gap in the regulatory system will facilitate the objectives of the development assessment process.

Already, we are seeing the positive results of the land claims settlement process. The signing of definitive agreements has raised new interest in the Yukon's mineral resources. Some 13,000 mining claims were staked in 1995, raising the number of duly registered

claims in the area to over 55,000. The amount spent on exploration should exceed $40 million this year, and spending on development could exceed $60 million, a high for the decade.

At least five companies have expressed their firm intention to open, re-open or expand mining sites in the Yukon in the next two years. Several others have indicated that they would be interested in operations if they would come up with the necessary capital and if feasibility studies are favourable.

The introduction of the amendments in Bill-C-6 will allow us, where necessary, to put these proposals for mining sites through a complete environmental screening, and to ensure that these sites are operated using safe environmental practices, in accordance with the regulations for the sound and effective use of mineral lands. In the long term, this should be in the best interests of the industry, of all Yukoners and of all Canadians.

Given the opposing points of view on mining and the environment, it is quite remarkable that we have achieved such a degree of consensus and reached such a compromise, as evidenced by Bill C-6. We must not miss this opportunity to regulate the development of mineral lands in the Yukon and I urge hon. members in this House to vote in favour of this bill.

[Petitions, October 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions from my constituency to present pursuant to Standing Order 36. The petitions contain 75 and 58 signatures respectively.

The petitioners request that Parliament regulate the longstanding Canadian practice of marketing generic drugs in a size, shape and colour similar to that of their brand name equivalents.

[Impaired Driving, September 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the House's attention to the problem of impaired driving, a serious social problem which unfortunately still manifests itself in our society with all the negative consequences it entails.

Many have proposed solutions to this serious problem, without giving proper thought to their degree of success. Impaired driving is a complex issue that cannot be resolved by adopting ill-considered half-measures.

The problem of impaired driving requires comprehensive, not piecemeal solutions. Dealing with impaired drivers requires efforts in the social as well as the legislative arenas. Only then will we succeed in our goal to eradicate this criminal and socially unacceptable behaviour.

[Negotiation Terms Of Separation Act, September 26th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-230 tabled by the member for Okanagan-Shuswap is aimed at giving Canadians the impression that the Reform Party has a serious, carefully thought out plan for preserving national unity.

While our government is pursuing a positive strategy of renewing the federation and giving all Canadians hope for the future, the third party is telling Canadians to throw in the towel, to launch themselves into a negotiation process in the wake of a referendum that has not and may not take place.

This demonstrates yet again that the Reform Party does not have a real strategy for national unity. To put it simply, it has no vision for national unity and no vision for the country. The third party has patched together a series of third rate ideas and calls it a plan.

At a certain level I think I understand why this bill is being brought forward today. My hon. colleague, like many Canadians, was shaken by the last referendum. He is trying to respond to the concerns of Canadians but has chosen a misguided approach.

Our government's strategy is, above all, to deal with the real issues concerning all Canadians: economic growth, job creation, maximum government efficiency, as well as the protection of our social programs and our environment. But the federal government is also committed to providing certainty and legal clarification regarding the issues arising from Quebec's possible secession.

Earlier this year, we became involved in a case submitted to the Superior Court of Quebec by Guy Bertrand. We were forced to do so partly because of the Quebec government's position in this case. That government claims that the issues related to Quebec's secession do not come under the jurisdiction of the courts, that they have nothing to do with Canada's laws or Constitution, and that

Quebec can unilaterally determine how it will secede without taking Canada's Constitution or its judicial system into account.

Given the Quebec government's position and Judge Pidgeon's ruling, our government announced that it would refer to the Supreme Court the basic issues raised by the Pidgeon ruling.

Under that procedure the federal government is submitting to the supreme court questions of law and fact that it deems important for the court to hear and consider. We made this decision because the federal government owes an obligation to all Canadians to provide social, economic and legal stability. This obligation requires the federal government to provide certainty and legal clarification regarding the issues surrounding Quebec's possible secession.

Now is the time in this period of relative calm, with a future referendum not immediately looming, to seek judicial clarification of these issues.

By referring these issues, we are asking the Supreme Court to establish a legal framework and a common understanding that will allow us to address certain fundamental issues surrounding Quebec's secession.

Our decision to use this approach at this time does not in any way bring into question the right of Quebecers to express their views on their own future through an advisory referendum. We are appalled by the Quebec government's decision to place itself above the law and outside the jurisdiction of Canadian courts.

As for the result of the reference, the most important outcome will be that we finally have some certainty on the fundamental legal issues arising from the Quebec government's plan for secession. Nevertheless, the Government of Canada is pursuing its commitment to renew the federation through a wide range of constructive, well thought out initiatives.

In the February speech from the throne, our government indicated its willingness to withdraw from areas such as labour market training, forestry and mining development, social housing and recreation. Further progress was made during the constructive discussions and the first ministers meeting in June. This work is ongoing and we are on track with our plan.

At the first ministers meeting it was agreed that our government would continue to work with the provinces in the coming months, building on the work of the ministerial council on social policy reform and renewal to develop a new partnership for securing and modernizing the social union.

In the weeks following the first ministers meeting the federal and British Columbia governments agreed to a full bilateral review of the responsibilities and roles of the federal and provincial governments in the management of the Pacific salmon fishery.

These are the types of measures that build goodwill, measures brought about through partnerships based on mutual respect and the desire to enter the 21st century as a renewed, united federation.

These measures may not be flamboyant enough for my colleague across the way, but they show that the Canadian federation is flexible and benefits all its partners.

We are proving that Canada works and that separation is not a solution. We are proving that another choice is available, namely the renewal of our federation, and that it is a best choice. Polls show that most Quebecers favour this option. I would therefore urge the third party to support this option.

This is the kind of positive attitude we need, in Canada, to see us into the 21st century, all the while remaining united. This is the attitude we, in the Liberal government, have. We do not sink into negativity; we are not afraid to take positive measures.

We want to unite Canadians, not divide them. We are also resolutely committed to a national reconciliation process.

We are putting in place initiatives that will lead to greater co-operation among governments and will reinforce the economic union and social fabric of this country. We are taking a step by step approach to bring about real practical changes. In so doing we are demonstrating the flexibility of the federation and undermining the myths that build support for separatism. This is how we will achieve national reconciliation.

The Premier of Quebec himself, Lucien Bouchard, has realized that he had better set his separatist designs aside and focus on concerns regarded as priorities by Quebecers: the economy, job creation and putting the fiscal house in order.

According to a Gallup poll released earlier this month, no fewer than 45 per cent of employed Quebecers are afraid to lose their jobs. That is the kind of concern that must be looked into and that we, in our government and our party, are presently looking into.

Quebecers want their government to take part in the discussions with the federal government and the other provinces, so that the interests of Quebec are represented.

They want change, of course, but change within Canada. That is the message they conveyed in the October referendum and this government, our party, is in the process of acting of on this message.

The bill proposed by the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap does not respond to this message, nor does it correspond to the wishes of Quebecers and other Canadians who are asking their politicians to work together constructively to renew the federation, promote economic growth and work toward creating a climate suitable for job creation.

It is a far cry from the measured approach our government is taking to clarify issues and allow for a constructive dialogue to take place well in advance of a future referendum. The leader of the third party may believe he has 20-20 vision on national unity issues but this bill shows he has a big blind spot.

For these reasons I cannot support Bill C-230.

[Commercial Signs, September 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to draw the attention of the House to the issue of commercial signs in Ottawa, which has an impact not only on the francophone community in Ottawa but also on national unity.

Must we always remind the stubborn people on both sides of the linguistic war that Canada is a bilingual country with two official languages? Ottawa business people are certainly not required by law to put up signs in French. Still, simple courtesy requires them to put up signs in both French and English, just as Montreal shop owners ought to have signs in both official languages as they are allowed to under the law.

Canada prides itself on its ability to adapt to the differences between people. Everyone must contribute, otherwise the Canadian ideal will die.

[Petitions, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present to the House pursuant to Standing Order 36.

The petition contains 119 names of constituents of Simcoe North and requests that the House regulate the longstanding Canadian practice of marketing generic drugs in a size, shape and colour similar to that of the their brand name equivalents.

[Petitions, June 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition contains the signatures of 48 constituents of Simcoe North. They request that Parliament regulate the longstanding Canadian practice of marketing generic drugs in a size, shape and colour similar to that of their brand name equivalents.