Val Meredith

[Canadian Airlines International, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as Christmas approaches it is a shame that the 16,000 employees of Canadian Airlines International are once again facing an uncertain future. Not only are their careers being jeopardized, but they are also being used as a bargaining chip in the negotiations between Air Canada and the federal government.

While Canadian Airlines employees face an uncertain future, their current dilemma is not of their making. As a perennial underdog in Canada's air industry, these employees were always able to provide top notch service in often trying and adverse conditions.

Today Canadian's employees continue to display their professionalism and dedication as they serve the travelling public.

The official opposition wants to take this opportunity to recognize the outstanding efforts of the employees of Canadian Airlines. We urge the federal government and Air Canada to quickly and fairly resolve their differences and provide these individuals with the stability they truly deserve.

[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, December 14th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I do not think the proposed legislation is imposing a question.

It is quite clear that the province of Quebec can place a question on a ballot. The question this deals with is whether or not negotiations will follow the question and the referendum. I believe it has to be clearly stated as to what question is acceptable.

If the courts have said a clear question and a clear majority, then we have to determine in advance what a clear question is. It is based on the supreme court decision of a clear question that negotiations would begin with the rest of Canada and the province of Quebec or any province that chooses to leave.

This legislation, to my understanding, does not prevent the province of Quebec from drafting its own question. It is a question of whether it will be clear about the question it puts before—

[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, December 14th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, alienation from the rest of Canada is not unique to Quebec. The hon. member should try living in British Columbia on the other side of the Rockies to know what real alienation is all about.

If the Bloc members feel so strongly about the people of Quebec knowing what the issue is, why would they argue about putting a clear question before the people? Why would they feel that there is something wrong with saying to the people of Quebec “Do you want to leave Canada or do you want to stay in Canada?” If they do not have a problem with the discussion they are having with the people of Quebec, then why not put a clear question that everybody can live with?

[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, December 14th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I do not think it is up to the government to tell the people of Quebec what it is planning to do. The Prime Minister has laid out in the legislation the expectations of a clear question.

The Bloc should, through a clear question put by the Parti Quebecois, the Government of Quebec, ask the people of Quebec whether they wish to leave Canada and start a new country. Instead of playing around with the business of sovereignty association and the warm and fuzzy relationship with the rest of Canada, it is not being clear. The issue is about putting the question clearly to the people of Quebec and letting them decide.

[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, December 14th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, if I used the word dishonest, I meant misleading, that the Bloc Quebecois has been misleading the people in Quebec with regard to what the ramifications of a clear question would be.

This legislation would help the Bloc in making a clear question and putting a clear question before the people of Quebec. Let them decide if they agree with the direction the Government of Quebec and the Bloc Quebecois want to take the people of Quebec, which is out of Canada, away from the things we share as Canadians and to have a new nation.

This legislation is a beginning. It does not go far enough. Certainly the government should do more to clarify it.

[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, December 14th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I guess it is a touchy issue as to whether there is a clear message being delivered.

[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, December 14th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that Bloc members are concerned about the government being here, but I think it is more important that the Bloc members be here to understand how the rest of the country feels about their intent on removing Quebec from Canada.

I spent three months travelling in the province of British Columbia listening to how concerned the people of B.C. were that Quebec was thinking of leaving the country. It is not too much to ask that the people from Quebec who are talking about taking Quebec out stay to hear the debate and to hear the emotion and the concern that the rest of Canada has that they reconsider the direction in which they want to go.

There are those of us in this country who feel that there is a better federation and that we can establish better working relations between provinces and the federal government. Yes, it may take a change in government, but it is possible for the provinces to find a better way of working within the federation.

It is equally important that the people of Quebec understand that there is no certainty of the rest of Canada that in the event that Quebec leaves, they cannot depend on the rest of the country remaining intact, they cannot depend on this nice cozy relationship with the rest of Canada. They cannot depend on the 75% of Canadians who live outside Quebec treating them as equals. If they honestly believe that, they are fooling themselves.

It is important that they take reality checks to the province of Quebec so that the people who have to vote on a clear question and the people who have to make up the clear majority, whatever that might be, clearly understand the repercussions of deciding to leave the country.

I do not think that the Bloc members have been honest with the people of Quebec. I do not think that their intent is to be honest to the people of Quebec, because I do not think the people of Quebec would accept the reality that a clear question would put them in.

It is important—

[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, December 14th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is with great respect for the debate that we are having here this afternoon that I am honoured to partake.

We have seen in the House just how emotional this issue is, not only for the people who live in the province of Quebec, but for all Canadians who have lived in harmony for over 130 years, trying to resolve through the democratic process the differences which the provinces have.

We have been faced more than once with a province which has addressed the issue of separation to leave the country we know as Canada. I do not for a minute think that this will not occur again.

In anticipation, the government took the issue to the supreme court and asked it to make a decision as to whether a province could unilaterally leave the country. The supreme court was very clear that it is the democratic right of provinces to address the issue of separation, but that it could not be done unilaterally. It was quite clear that the court felt that if there was a clear question and a clear majority the federal government and the other provinces would have a responsibility to negotiate with that province which chooses to leave the country.

That brings us to the bill which was introduced by the government yesterday. It is a bill which, I presume, tries to strike clarity. It may strike a degree of clarity when it addresses the question, in that it outlines a question that would be considered clear; however, what it does not outline, and perhaps should, is what is a clear majority. It is very hard to play a game, it is very hard to be in a game of this nature, when we do not know where the goal post is. We only find out after the game is finished where the goal post is. Therefore, I would suggest that the government, in looking at this legislation, attempt to reach some clarity as to what is a clear majority. If the government feels that a clear majority of 50% plus one is not good enough to leave the country, then it should state what it considers to be a good enough majority. I think it is unfair to continue this process without that clarity, without the rules of the game being known before the game is played.

I do not think there is anybody in the country who does not agree that the rules of the game have to be laid out in the beginning. The Reform Party tried to lay out some rules with the 20/20 discussion paper of 1994. We took a lot of heat as a party for bringing clarity to what the understanding of Canadians was when we talked of separation. We took a lot of heat for raising the issue at that time. I find it a little ironic that we raised the issue when the debate was hot and heavy and the government waited until everything had quieted down and the separatists were busy trying to run a province, rather than a referendum, to revisit the issue.

One could question the timing, but I do not think one could question the need for establishing clear rules to the game so that there is clarity in the question that is asked and there is clarity in the result that is delivered.

Another concern that I have is that the federal government in the process, for whatever reason, seems to have walked away from plan A; plan A being the reasons that we would give to the people of Quebec to choose to stay in Canada, developing a new relationship between the federal government and the provinces which would enable them to have more control and a greater ability to define what the future of the provinces would be, based primarily on those jurisdictions that were given to them at the time of Confederation.

The federal government had an opportunity with the social union. I would argue, and I know it is debatable, that the federal government blew it. It had an opportunity at that time to show Quebec how we could change the federation to allow the provinces to have greater certainty and greater control over the delivery of social programs without the intrusion of the federal government in provincial jurisdiction through its spending power.

The social union, originally developed by the premiers, developed some controls or guidelines with which they could all agree, a dispute mechanism and an understanding that if a province wanted to withdraw or not take part in an agreed program, it would have the right to do so and still get the dollars that should go to the people of that province.

For whatever reason, the federal government felt that allowing this change in the relationship between the federal government and the provinces was not okay, that it was more important that the federal government retain its control and its power over provincial jurisdictions, primarily through its spending power.

As I said earlier, I think the federal government blew it. I think that it walked away from a prime opportunity to show the province of Quebec that it would be much better to remain in Canada and that in working with other provinces Quebec could achieve the best that is possible for that province.

The government, again for whatever reason, walked away from developing this new relationship with the provinces. Instead it decided to come down heavy with plan B. The timing is confusing to me. I am not sure this is the time one wants to confront the issue. I would have thought this would have been a more appropriate time to talk to Quebec about the division of powers, about respecting what is the federal government's responsibility and respecting what is the provincial government's responsibility.

I would even suggest that it is time to introduce a new concept. There are some grey areas where neither the federal government nor the provincial governments have been given the jurisdiction, and where there is a real need to collaborate and negotiate to come up with some means of working together.

One area is national standards. It is not right for a federal government to impose national standards on the provinces. What is more appropriate is for the provinces to negotiate with the federal government and with each other to come up with those standards they feel are appropriate for all concerned.

Interprovincial trade is another example of the need for provinces to work together with the federal government to overcome the barriers. Because it is province to province the federal government has to be involved.

There are laws like the criminal code which is a federal act and jurisdiction but it is applied through the provincial governments. The provincial governments are the ones that apply the criminal code to their citizens.

It would seem to me that rather than confront the province of Quebec, the federal government should have put more time and energy into trying to find new and better ways of working with the province. But the government decided to go to plan B . Having its concept of plan B of clarity before us, we have to debate whether or not this piece of legislation is going to make it clear to the people of Quebec that if they decide to leave Canada, there will be some consequences in doing so.

During the 1995 referendum I was amazed to see that poll results showed that 25% of Quebecers thought that they would still send representatives to the House of Commons in Ottawa and that there would not be any change in representatives sitting in the House of Commons. Over half of Quebecers thought that they would still maintain their Canadian citizenship.

It has to be very clear to the people who will vote on whether or not to leave Canada just what in fact they are leaving. The Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois owe it to the citizens of Quebec to be honest and up front with them.

Having sat in the transport committee and having listened to the debate in the House and in the committee, it was interesting to see how the Bloc represented the debate on restructuring the Canadian airline industry. Canadians have indicated a bit of concern that Air Canada's headquarters by legislation are located in Montreal. It was interesting to see that the Bloc Quebecois wanted to protect that. It wanted to protect the 10% ownership in Air Canada and leave the foreign ownership at 25% in the airline industry. I do not know if the Bloc Quebecois understands that if Quebec leaves Canada, then any shareholders who own shares in Air Canada in Quebec become foreigners and would be limited to the 25% that it was arguing for. I do not know if the people in Quebec understand that.

I would suggest that the illusion the Bloc members are creating in Quebec that the separation will be like a velvet glove, that there will be no upset and that there will be no extreme changes to the way they deal with Canada is a fallacy. If Bloc members honestly feel that the rest of the country will allow Quebec to leave without any kind of consequences, they are fooling themselves. And they are certainly not doing anything positive for the people of Quebec who have to make that choice.

This legislation is at least a start in the direction the government has to go. The government does have to establish clarity of the question, what question would be acceptable, what result would be acceptable, which is still unclear. The government has to at some point address what a clear majority—

[Airline Industry, December 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the agreement between Air Canada and Canadian Airlines will create one dominant carrier that controls 80% of the airline business in Canada.

The transport committee provided the government with a number of recommendations that strike a balance between protecting the public interest and fostering healthy competition. Now is the time for the government to show that it is truly committed to competition in the airline industry in Canada.

Will the minister indicate to the airline industry and the travelling public that he wants competition in the airline industry in Canada by immediately raising the foreign ownership component from 25% to 49%?

[Nisga'A Final Agreement Act, December 6th, 1999]

moved:

Motion No. 190

That Bill C-9 be amended by adding after line 29 on page 7 the following new clause:

“20.1 (1) On the expiration of four years after the coming into force of this Act, the provisions contained herein shall be referred to such committee of the House of Commons, as may be designated or established for that purpose.

(2) The committee designated or established for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act and, shall within one year after the review is undertaken, submit a report to the House of Commons.”