House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2000, with 60% of the vote.
National Unity February 16th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, on September 30, 1997 the Prime Minister said he would consider mailing a copy of the Calgary declaration to every household in Quebec once he had seen what was happening with the consultations in other provinces.
Canadians from all across this country have been consulted and have expressed their desire for a united Canada.
Will the Prime Minister now commit to consulting with all Quebeckers by mailing a copy of the Calgary declaration to every household in Quebec?
The Senate February 13th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs stated that Reform's attempt to have an elected Senate would result in gross under-representation of the west in Parliament.
Since British Columbia is already the most under-represented province in both this House and the upper house, will the minister assure British Columbians that this government will take steps to remedy the inequities before the end of this Parliament?
Calgary Declaration February 13th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, yesterday when the B.C. unity panel released its report, it showed that British Columbians are prepared to support the Calgary declaration “A Framework for Discussion”. However this support is based on the entire declaration especially the equality aspects.
While this government has strongly embraced the unique character aspects of the Calgary declaration, it has virtually ignored the equality provisions. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, does this government have any initiatives to promote the equality provisions of the Calgary declaration?
Supply February 10th, 1998
Madam Speaker, it is obvious a question was not posed. It was just comments. However I agree with the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.
It is a very serious issue. It is something that Canadians are very able and wanting to address. Canadians want the issue settled. They do not want to be dealing with the unity issue 20 years from now.
I urge my hon. colleagues to let us get on with settling the issue once and for all.
Supply February 10th, 1998
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity. I have spent the last three months working with the B.C. unity panel going around the province of British Columbia discussing the issue of Canadian unity. I am very aware of the emotions that run to a high level when we talk about this issue.
The motion the Bloc has introduced is “that this House recognize the consensus in Quebec that it is for Quebeckers”—and it was amended to read—“alone to decide their own future”. I think the question is can they make that decision on their own without consideration from the rest of the country.
It would appear to me that this motion has arisen because of the three questions that have been put before the Supreme Court of Canada to make a recommendation on. I want to clarify what those questions are for the Canadian public listening to this debate.
The three questions that have been put before the Supreme Court are:
One, under the Constitution of Canada can the national assembly, legislature or Government of Quebec effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?
Two: Does international law give the national assembly, legislature or Government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?
Three: In the event of a conflict between domestic and international law on the right of the national assembly, legislature or Government of Quebec to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally, which would take precedence in Canada?
I would suggest that the question is not whether or not Quebec can raise the issue of separation, that Quebeckers are not in a position to say by referendum that they want to secede from Canada. The question is do they have the right to do so without the input from the rest of the country.
I know the analogy has been made before but the analogy of a divorce is very apropos in this case. A member of a marriage can state that they want to leave the marriage, that they want a divorce but there are laws in our country that help that process to proceed, that have to be followed for that divorce to go through.
There has to be a mutual agreement on the division of assets and liabilities. If a mutual agreement between the two parties cannot be reached, then the intercession of the courts is required. One partner cannot say that they are taking the house and the kids and walk away from the marriage. If it is not agreed upon, the courts enter the situation and the courts decide whether it is fair for one spouse to take the house and one spouse to take the children.
If there was not law in this matter and in all other matters, then what we would have in this country is anarchy. I do not think anyone wants to see that happen.
Quebeckers can decide whether they want to leave, but the laws must be followed. Even the former Quebec premier, Jacques Parizeau, understood the rule of law when writing the draft bill that he introduced in 1994. I would like to quote two sections of that draft bill.
In section 10 he acknowledged that laws passed by the Parliament of Canada shall remain in force until amended or repealed by the national assembly. It is very clear that he believed in the existence of laws to give some direction.
The second thing that he acknowledged and which I want to quote was, “In so far as the negotiations unfold in a positive fashion, the national assembly will declare the sovereignty of Quebec after an agreement is reached on the partnership treaty”. After an agreement is reached.
It is very clear that he did not mean an unilateral declaration when he recognized the need for an agreement with the other partner. I do not think it is possible for the Bloc to suggest that Quebec can separate unilaterally and not allow or extend that to parts of Quebec that could then unilaterally separate from Quebec.
My colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona brought up the aspect of the aboriginal communities and others who have specifically indicated that they do not want to leave Canada and that they would make the decision to stay in Canada given that option. For the Bloc to suggest that Quebec has the right to unilaterally leave Canada but not extend that to members of the Quebec province, be they the Cree in the north or other municipalities, is hypocrisy in the least.
Unilateral declaration of independence would set a precedent for the Quebec Cree, for the Outaouais and the island of Montreal to vote on partition. If separatists wish to ignore the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, they set the precedent for the partitionists to ignore any Quebec court ruling. If Quebec separatists believe that this is purely a political decision to be made solely by the people of Quebec, they are setting a precedent for the partitionists to make purely political decisions made solely by the people in the affected regions of Quebec.
There is a real myth that there is this thing called the rest of Canada that Quebec could negotiate with. Separatists are living a pipe dream if they believe that an independent Quebec would be able to make a negotiation and an agreement with the rest of Canada. If Quebec were to separate there is no guarantee that the rest of Canada would remain intact. No one can predict what would happen in the aftermath of the breakup of the country, but none of the realistic proposals include a rosy scenario.
I assure separatists that if they were to be successful in separation there would be very little willingness in British Columbia to welcome Quebec as an equal partner. However British Columbians are more than willing to accommodate Quebec within Confederation.
Hopefully the country will never come to a point where Quebec decides to leave. Hopefully the separatists will never get a majority. It is clear to me and others that people in Quebec are looking at a third option. People in Quebec are realizing that separation is not the answer to getting rid of the status quo. It is clear to me that people throughout the country, including British Columbia, feel very strongly that Canada is worth fighting for and Canada is worth making changes so that all provinces, all regions, have a much greater say in their future.
Although maybe not perfect, the Calgary declaration was brought by nine premiers to the Canadian public to talk about other options: the devolution of power, the equality of citizens and the equality of provinces. Hopefully this attempt by Canadians to talk about the unity issue in a positive way, in a way that all regions including Quebec can benefit from, will be successful.
As a result of my work with the B.C. unity committee I can say that Canadians are willing to talk and make concessions. Canadians are willing to accommodate the differences in our societies and in our country under the understanding that all Canadians are equal and that all provinces have equal status within Confederation.
Supply February 10th, 1998
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My hon. colleague from Edmonton Strathcona before he started his debate announced that he would be dividing his time with me, the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley and I am ready to speak in this debate.
The Budget February 10th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, sometime soon the government will introduce its 1998-99 budget.
One of the major points of interest will be what this Liberal government intends to do with any budget surplus. Liberals appear to want to put 50% of any surplus into increased government spending with the rest being divided between debt reduction and tax relief.
But the question is what do Canadians want? I put this question to my constituents and their opinion differs vastly from the Liberals' plan. With over 2,000 responses to my survey, the average response of the people of South Surrey—White Rock—Langley was to have 55% of the surplus going toward debt reduction, 36% going to tax relief and less than 9% going to increased government spending.
Once again Liberal fiscal priorities are completely out of step with average Canadians.
Supply February 10th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member from across the way why the government was not interested in bringing before the people of Quebec the Calgary declaration as proposed by nine of the country's ten premiers. Why did the Liberal government not choose that opportunity to go before the people of Quebec and get a feeling from them on how they felt on those seven points that the rest of the country are prepared to consider with the issue of unity?
Criminal Code February 4th, 1998
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-305, an act to amend the Criminal Code (selling wildlife).
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce this private member's bill which would bring the offence of selling wildlife parts under the Criminal Code. This is a concern that many Canadians have with regard to the protection of endangered species and the illegal taking of wildlife and the selling thereof of parts such as horns et cetera for whatever reason.
This bill would have the penalties for the illegal killing of wildlife and the selling of parts brought under the Criminal Code.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Questions On The Order Paper February 2nd, 1998
Could the Minister responsible for Status of Women Canada list all expenses incurred by the coordinator for Status of Women Canada for the period January 1, 1995 to August 25, 1997?