Michel Bellehumeur

[Referendums, June 5th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, before speaking directly to Motion M-206, I would like to set the record straight regarding an aberration often heard in this House. It originates with the member who moved Motion M-206, the member for Esquimalt-Juan-de-Fuca. He said something to the effect that nearly only in Canada, a beautiful and democratic country, are sovereignist groups allowed to have a say.

I would like to remind him, just in case he does not know, that in Belgium there is a right wing Flemish party, called Vlaams Blok, which promotes independence for Flanders. Out of 150 members sitting in Parliament, 11 advocate independence. In Italy, the Northern League has sent separatists members to the Parliament. They number 59 out of 630. In Spain, there are three separatist sovereignist parties. Taiwan and the United Kingdom also have sovereignist parties. Canada is not the only country where this is allowed. This is democracy.

If there is something totally undemocratic, it is Motion M-206. If you were to ask me to describe this motion in a few words, I would tell you that it is useless, it lacks intellectual rigour and is provocative.

It is useless, because when you read it, you see it has only one purpose, namely to impose the will of the majority, not of Quebecers, but of Canadians, on Quebecers. This is not the first time we have said this, and I will say it again very calmly, Quebec sovereignty will be decided by Quebecers alone, not by English Canada, not by the rest of Canada. Quebecers will decide.

This motion does not make any sense, especially when everybody uses the expression the "people" of Quebec. Even the Prime Minister, last week, answering a question I had put to him, used the expression the "people" of Quebec. Everyone in this House, except perhaps for a few Reformers and a few Liberals sitting in front of me but who would probably feel more comfortable sitting beside me with Reform members, recognize that Quebecers are a people.

It is obvious that the secessionist unit is comprised of a people meeting international standards, as stated in the motion, but it is also obvious that Quebecers are a people. So this motion is unnecessary in that regard.

This motion lists five criteria, and I will go over each of them. The first criterion is that the unit be recognized as a people. This is unnecessary, as everyone in this House recognizes that we Quebecers are a people. We also showed in the last referendum that we were a responsible people, since we proposed the term "partnership", which is very fashionable these days in the House.

I am not saying that we invented it, but I think it was the first time the term "partnership" was used in this House. The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister then turned around and used it at every opportunity. All this to tell you that we are a responsible people and that we have already proposed a few things.

The motion says that the government should consider negotiating with any claim. Again, this is unnecessary because, if the hon. member had followed the referendum campaign a little more closely, he would have seen that this is in the standards, in the concrete measures proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, the Parti Quebecois and all the sovereignists in Quebec. They propose that some things be negotiated to benefit Quebec, of course, but also the rest of Canada. There are major issues to be negotiated.

The third criterion in this motion is also quite ludicrous and unnecessary. I think this motion is wasting the very valuable time of the House. I would also say that, on the basis of the points I raised earlier, this motion lacks intellectual rigour. Indeed, this motion addresses several issues, including democratic rights and international law.

This motion makes a grab for powers vested in legislative assemblies, as-and I think the hon. member did not make any secret about this-its sole purpose is to prevent Quebecers from voting again on their future, or at least to try to put up roadblocks by imposing an endless selection process. All this just for Quebec, to grab powers belonging to the Quebec National Assembly, among others, to try to subvert set rules and to interfere with the political judgment of a people.

I think that these are extremely important criteria and that trying to legislate and put them down on paper results in the kind of nonsense we have here in Motion M-206.

I also smiled when I read the second point, which says that "the people must have been subject to a denial of political freedom or human rights in a discriminatory manner".

If I am not mistaken, until there is evidence to the contrary, Canada is a democratic country. I think that everyone agrees to say this is one of our finest values, to which the people of Quebec, Ontario and the other provinces have all contributed. Correct me if I am wrong, but it is the democratic people of Quebec who will achieve sovereignty and, similarly, it is the democratic people of the rest of Canada who will negotiate a partnership with the newly-formed country called Quebec.

It is also to lack intellectual rigour to try, through a motion, to interfere with the judgment passed on the wording of the referendum question. I am referring to here to item 4 of the motion, which states: "a clear and precise question is asked as to whether the population in question wishes to secede from Canada".

If anything was made clear in the last referendum, this was it. The issue of sovereignty has been discussed extensively, and not just since 1995. I can remember, when I was elected in 1993, making speeches on sovereignty and promoting Quebec's independence; that was part of my mandate. Come on, this is really to ascribe to us intentions we do not have.

The question will be clear. In fact, it was clear. But the important thing is that it is not up to the federal Parliament, to the Ontario Legislative Assembly, or to other provincial legislature to phrase the question. It is up to the Quebec National Assembly, as in the case of Newfoundland. Indeed, referendums are not held only in Quebec. Over the years, some also took place in other provinces. Never did the federal government, or a provincial government, interfere in the process.

In 1948, Newfoundland joined Confederation with 52.34 per cent of voters supporting the idea. Did anyone claim it was not enough? If we can join Canada with 52.34 per cent of voters supporting the idea, we can certainly leave it with the same number. The Avalon peninsula said no to Confederation in a proportion of 67.18 per cent, but eventually joined it. There was no talk of partitioning.

As you can see, this motion lacks intellectual rigour, to say the least. More importantly, it is pure provocation. To say that 66.6 per cent of the population must vote in favour of sovereignty is to provoke Quebecers. In the last federal election, some members in this House got elected with barely 35 per cent of the votes. Do we question their legitimate right to represent their riding? No, because this is democracy.

When democracy speaks, there is not a parliament, an MP, or a constitution that can oppose the will of the people. This is what democracy is all about.

Motion M-206 goes squarely against this principle. Fortunately, it is not a votable item and we will not see how many Reform members, and perhaps Liberals members, would have been tempted to support it. We would have voted strongly against the motion.

[Questions Passed As Orders For Returns, June 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, still for the same reason. I also rose on May 27, 1996 and I do so today with respect to Question Q-19, a question on the Order Paper for over 45 days, since I tabled it on March 6.

Yesterday, I met the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in committee, he appeared to be very knowledgeable when answering

my questions. Since this is a question that relates directly to his area of responsibility, it does not take a rocket scientist and 200 officials to research it.

I would simply like to know if, in the past five years, there existed-within the Privy Council, the Department of the Solicitor General of Canada, or elsewhere in the federal government-an emergency measures co-ordinating unit, and if so, who and what are its past and present members, budget meeting dates, and subjects of discussion at each meeting? Has this unit drawn up plans for emergency situations or not, and, if so, what are those plans?

This sort of thing, in a department that spends millions of dollars, ought to be easy enough to answer quickly.

I ask the government opposite when it will answer my question. These questions are easily answered. Millions of dollars were spent on the referendum, and on Canadian unity. Surely they can calculate figures and do accounts. They should be able to answer such simple questions.

I warn the representative of the Liberal government, that I will ask this question every week. Perhaps that will not please the minister before me, the member for Hull-Aylmer. Perhaps you do not find it pleasing because some of the money was spent while you were Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Perhaps we should find out how you spent this money, and how much you spent in Quebec. Answer the questions, if you have nothing to hide. Instead of answering me directly, while your microphone is not on and we cannot hear your stupid remarks-

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada, May 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, before question period, I was saying that the leader of the

Bloc Quebecois and I met with the premier of Newfoundland and with the Leader of the Opposition and a third person, the leader of the third party in the Newfoundland legislature, to discuss the proposed amendment to term 17 in the Canadian Constitution.

This meeting was held May 29. We discussed two issues: first, the recognition of the democratic process and, second, the protection of francophone minorities. I think no one will be surprised that we in the Bloc Quebecois have always been concerned about the rights of francophone minorities across Canada.

We discussed in very broad terms the democratic process and the rights of francophones. We know how they proceeded in that province; we know that, when the referendum question was drafted, even some of the Liberal government members were opposed to its wording because, in their opinion, it was not specific enough, it was too ambiguous, it very much favoured the yes side at the expense of the no side. We also know that, when the referendum question was adopted by the Newfoundland legislature, the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the third party were against it. Furthermore we know that religious authorities in Newfoundland had major concerns about the wording of the question, which they deemed not specific enough. They thought the amendment would reduce their jurisdiction and powers. We are aware of the low rate of participation in the referendum. However we in the Bloc Quebecois simply recognize the democratic process, which was discussed at that meeting.

For us, the question was legitimate since it was chosen by duly elected members of the legislature. This referendum was also held in accordance with good practice, in that both the yes side and the no side agreed to express their views and to work to publicize the approach they favoured in relation to the amendment of Term 17 in the Constitution. This was a legitimate project, a very clear process in that province.

We, as members of the House, must acknowledge that. Whether or not we support denominational schools, whether or not we approve the proposition made by the Government of Newfoundland, the population has rendered a clear verdict: 54 per cent of Newfoundlanders said yes to the constitutional amendment proposed by their provincial government. In other words, the Government of Newfoundland had its political decision confirmed through a referendum, and this is sacred for the Bloc Quebecois.

We must not interfere with the democratic process. This is why we support the proposed amendment to Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada. Following our meeting with the Newfoundland premier and the others I mentioned earlier, the Bloc Quebecois leader immediately sent a letter to the premier, to inform him of our support.

I will take the time to read this very short letter. It is, of course, addressed to the Hon. Brian Tobin, Premier of Newfoundland.

Honourable Premier,

The federal government is about to table in the House of Commons your province's request to amend Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada, so as to restructure Newfoundland's school system.

Your government proceeded by way of a referendum and a majority of voters supported the amendment.

The Bloc Quebecois has decided to support Newfoundland's decision, since it was made in compliance with recognized democratic rules.

However, we are concerned about the inadequate school rights of Newfoundland's French speaking minority. Therefore, we strongly hope that your government will take the opportunity provided by the restructuring of the school legislation to give francophones in your province, through legislative and administrative means, full responsibility for the management of their schools.

This letter accurately reflects the discussions that took place during the meeting with the Premier of Newfoundland.

As you can see, this is a far cry from the issues referred to by Mr. Tobin regarding this meeting, as reported in various newspapers, including Le Devoir , in its issue of Thursday, May 30, 1996. I was stunned when I read the article in that newspaper, since I was present at the meeting.

The title read: "Constitutional amendment for Newfoundland: Tobin pleased by the Bloc's position. According to him, the sovereignist party recognizes the rule of law under any circumstances in Canada". I do not know where the premier got such information. This issue was certainly not discussed during the meeting. As I said, we talked about the democratic process, the referendum and the fact that the population had clearly expressed itself through that referendum.

A bit further on, we also read: "The Bloc Quebecois and, by extension the sovereignist movement as a whole, shows that the rule of law must prevail in Canada, whatever the circumstances, according to Brian Tobin". There is even an allusion to the fact that, since the Bloc Quebecois endorses the approach that the Government of Newfoundland wishes to take, it is even saying that the Canadian federation is working well, that it is far from being a prison, that it is possible to amend the Constitution.

These topics were not discussed, as I said earlier. And, by the way, how do you expect that we in the Bloc Quebecois, we who represent the people of Quebec, can recognize the rule of law of a Constitution that we never signed? Has everyone forgotten that Quebec did not sign the Constitution Act of 1982. Mr. Tobin must be aware of it. If not, I hope he is listening today, but I am sure he knows it full well. I am sure he was just trying to score political points on an issue that is nonetheless very important.

We in the Bloc Quebecois have not stooped to this sort of political trick. We have simply bowed to democracy, which expressed its view of Term 17.

I will conclude as follows. If Mr. Tobin and the Government of Newfoundland's approach works, it is no thanks to the Constitution, but rather to the fact that the people of Newfoundland spoke democratically and that certain responsible members of the House of Commons are acting accordingly.

The person making irresponsible and inflammatory remarks and acting like the warder of the Canadian Constitution is not a member of the Bloc, he is none other than the Prime Minister of Canada. If the supreme Constitutional gaoler, the source of Canadian truth, listens to the democratic expression of the people, this precedent does not mean that the Constitution is flexible and effective, but rather that the democratic choice of a people in a referendum is decisive and irreversible.

The history of Newfoundland is and will be useful to us in Quebec. As I said at the start of my speech, the people of Newfoundland became Canadians in 1948 with only a small majority, with only 52.34 per cent in the second referendum. Today, in 1996, with only 54 per cent, the government of Newfoundland will throw the whole system of education into a state of upheaval, thereby causing fear, anxiety and questions.

The best part of the democratic process is when Newfoundland taxpayers spoke, their decision was heard. Newfoundlanders have changed this fear and anxiety and these questions into a coalition among themselves aimed at meeting challenges.

Elected officials worked, as they did in 1948, as responsible statesmen, independent of party affiliation-I saw it when I met the premier of Newfoundland with the two other party leaders-and will work in the future to advance the people of Newfoundland and to improve their future.

I truly hope that the Bloc Quebecois' action in this matter will inspire the view taken by certain individuals of the democratic choice the people of Quebec will make in the very near future, I hope.

[Goods And Services Tax, May 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member did not understand my question and has certainly not understood the request by the premiers of Canada's two largest provinces that this be included on the agenda of the meeting of June 20 and 21.

In response to the consensus forming among the provinces swindled by this agreement, will the Acting Prime Minister suspend all agreements and negotiations with the maritime provinces?

[Goods And Services Tax, May 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.

Yesterday, when Mr. Harris and Mr. Bouchard, the premiers of Ontario and Quebec, met, they together asked the federal government to include compensation for the harmonization of the GST on the agenda of the conference on June 20 and 21. On May 27, the Minister of Finance relegated the issue to a meeting with his colleagues.

Will the Acting Prime Minister confirm, given the importance accorded this particular issue by the premiers of the two largest provinces, that he will put the GST on the agenda of the June 20 and 21 meeting?

[Constitution Amendment, May 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak to the motion the justice minister has just tabled. This motion reflects faithfully the amendments requested by Newfoundland regarding its education system as set out under Term 17 of the Terms of the Union of Newfoundland with Canada.

I think the minister spoke very eloquently of the concerns surrounding the consequences of the amendments, especially the sense of security this amendment may provide with regard to the situation in this province as it stands for minorities among others.

As members of the Bloc Quebecois, a sovereignist party and the official opposition in this House, we will naturally consider this amendment to the Canadian Constitution in a broader context. Indeed, to understand what this amendment is all about, one has to look at the history of how Newfoundland joined the Confederation, under what terms it joined, and how it is now asking for these amendments, which are raising a lot of concerns and questions on the part of the people of Newfoundland.

Everybody in Canada knows that Confederation has been in existence since 1867. Through the years, provinces and territories have joined Canada. In 1949, Newfoundland entered Confederation. How and under what terms?

How? Through a referendum. Quebecers did not invent referendums, they have been part of the Canadian Confederation for many years. Therefore, on March 15, 1948, the government in the United Kingdom passed an act paving the way for the referendum process. It asked three questions and provided for a second referendum should none of the proposals made by the government receive the support of the majority during the first referendum. Of course, since there were three proposals, the one with the least support from the public would be dropped.

Therefore, in 1948, there was a referendum on an extremely important issue: Would Newfoundland adopt a new constitutional status? Would Newfoundland enter the Canadian Confederation?

It should be noted that neither Ottawa nor the other provinces which were already part of the Canadian Confederation intervened to choose a date, draft the question or dictate the rules. Moreover, the federal government even had reservations regarding the wording of the question. Even then, the federal government argued about the percentage required to come into the Canadian Confederation. Things never change, do they? We have the same concerns today about a province that wants to leave Confederation.

Let us look at history, let us see what it tells us. In Britain, since Newfoundland was part of the United Kingdom in those days, they immediately recognized that 50 per cent plus one would be enough for Newfoundland to become part of the Confederation. We will see that Ottawa upheld that decision, and quite properly so.

So Newfoundland held its first referendum on June 3, 1948. It is important to know about the three proposals to evaluate the impact of the amendment before us in an historical context. Let me briefly review with you those elements of history.

The wording and the order of the questions in the referendum act were as follows. First, it proposed to the Newfoundland population a commission of government which was to govern for a five-year period; second, a confederation with Canada; and third, a responsible government, as it existed in 1933.

Obviously, there were pros and cons for all three. Some criticized the text saying it was biased in favour of the commission. The federal government did not agree with the wording of the proposals and was very reluctant. Ottawa condemned the fact that nothing was said about Great Britain no longer being able to financially support Newfoundland. The Canadian High Commission said the terms of the question were ambiguous and equivocal. I feel I have heard that same comment recently, but that was in 1948. The high commissioner even wrote: "The Confederation entered the battle with a great handicap and even if it were to win with a majority, it would probably be necessary to review the bases of the union".

All this goes to say that, according to Ottawa, the question submitted to the constituents on June 3, 1948 was unclear and ambiguous and nobody knew the ins and outs of the plan. There were reservations regarding the process.

However, there were good reactions. On the whole, the media said that, yes, Newfoundland should join Canada under certain conditions. The Church played a very important role and that is why, today, we should look correctly at the amendments. It must also be pointed out that there were very strong sentiments against joining the Canadian Confederation.

In any case the campaign in Newfoundland, in June 1948, was democratic. Each side had a chance to express its point of view. It is not clear whether Ottawa got directly involved or not in the referendum debate in 1948, and it is not clear either whether Ottawa actually invested money in that debate. One thing is certain, agreements, with the Americans in particular, favoured the

federalist option, and in the end Newfoundlanders decided to join the Canadian Confederation.

What were the results of the first referendum? For responsible government, 44.55 per cent; for Confederation, 41.13 per cent; for commission government, 14.32 per cent. As you can see none of the three options had the absolute majority recommended by the United Kingdom, that is 50 per cent plus 1.

Therefore, a second referendum was held within 30 days. It was held on July 22, 1948. It was identical to the first one, that is to say that each party exposed its program and tried to convince voters, presented the pros and the cons, the reasons why Newfoundland should join Confederation or why it should choose a responsible government, etc. The result of this new referendum was: for Confederation, 52.34 per cent and for responsible government, 47.66 per cent.

What we should note today, and what might explain the fears or some points raised by various denominations concerning religion, with regard to the amendment to Term 17, is that 67.18 per cent of the people in the Avalon peninsula voted in favour of responsible government. At the time people in the Avalon peninsula, which is now part of Newfoundland, voted massively in favour of responsible government and not for joining the Canadian Confederation.

If we look at Quebec today, it is roughly the island of Montreal voting no in a referendum and the rest of Quebec voting yes to Quebec's sovereignty. But, at the time, the Avalon peninsula voted by a margin of 67.18 per cent in favour of a responsible government. It did not want to join Canadian Confederation.

The vote, when analyzed, seemed to follow denominational lines. That is why it is important to analyze what we have before us today. Note that the Avalon peninsula was for the most part roman catholic. In fact, the archbishop had taken position against Canadian federation.

The results were interpreted different ways, of course. The people of Newfoundland decided to join Confederation by a margin of 52.34 per cent, and this was interpreted all sorts of ways. Some were even concerned about disturbances in Newfoundland because of the narrow majority margin. Yet, that was not the case.

Government members, democratically elected people had voted against the project to join Canadian Confederation, but they went along with the wishes of the 52.34 per cent majority and worked to build Newfoundland within the Canadian Confederation. What I am saying is, if a 52.34 per cent margin is enough to join Canadian Confederation, I should imagine a 52.34 per cent margin-a minimum in any case-would be enough to leave it. At least in my view.

Furthermore, the Avalon peninsula rejected Canadian Confederation by a margin of 67.18 per cent, and I want to emphasize that. Was there any mention of partition? Did anyone say the results were too low to have Newfoundland join Confederation? Was anything said about a two-tier democracy, public disturbances, instability, or even about two kinds of referendums in Canada, about different values in referendums? No, nothing was said about that.

I have not checked, but I imagine that, at the time, in 1948, Canada, and Ottawa in particular, had a very responsible Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, because he did not challenge these results. No, the minister and the government acted responsibly because democracy had spoken. By a margin of 52.34 per cent, the majority had made its position known.

What did this result lead to? To negotiations between the Government of Newfoundland and the Government of Canada on the terms of their union. Negotiations were held between October and December 1948 to finalize the terms of the union, which, among other things, resulted in Term 17 before us today through a government motion, a motion that faithfully reflects the Newfoundland government's position on amending, among other things, the school education system in that province.

Everyone knows that Newfoundland joined the Canadian Confederation on March 31, 1949. But when Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949, the clause on education in the terms of the union, which is part of the Canadian Constitution, specified that the Newfoundland legislature would not have the authority to pass legislation infringing on the rights or privileges of denominational schools as they were in 1949.

There have been many changes since 1949. In order to save money, to modernize the school system, or for other reasons, the people of Newfoundland decided in a referendum to give the government a mandate to amend Term 17 in the Canadian Constitution.

History is once again repeating itself. On September 5, 1995, a referendum was held in Newfoundland. In studying this matter, I became aware of the similarities between Newfoundland and Quebec, which hold periodic referendums to help their people move forward by seeking their opinion on some extremely important issues. I think education is extremely important, because our progress as a people and as a country is based on education, on the training of young people in our society. I think the amendments proposed by Newfoundland are worthwhile; they are not insignificant, as I read in the newspapers, but extremely important because they will have an impact on all future generations of Newfoundlanders. I think this needs to be said.

But on September 5, 1995, the people of Newfoundland were presented with a referendum question, a question selected by the Newfoundland government and written by the Newfoundland government, asking them if they agreed Term 17 be amended so as to reform the education system.

Only 52 per cent of Newfoundland voters participated in this referendum, which means that about half the population voted on deciding that future. So be it. That is democracy. There is nothing we can do about it.

Of this 52 per cent, which represents approximately 201,710 voters, 54 per cent said yes to the proposed reform, to give their government the mandate to reform the education system, while another 45 per cent said no. The Newfoundland government derived the mandate to submit constitutional amendments, which we are debating today, from a yes majority of 19,941. That is a rather slender majority. But the people have spoken, democratically. For the sake of argument, let us round off these 19,941 votes to 20,000. With a 20,000 vote majority, the people have given the Newfoundland government the mandate to initiate amendments and reform the system.

The question approved by the legislative assembly of Newfoundland was a legitimate question. It was selected by lawfully elected MPPs. Those who complained about the wording, those on the yes side and those who took issue with the question all participated in this referendum, each in support of their own position. In this case, 54 per cent of the people of Newfoundland who voted said yes.

An information campaign was conducted. A proper referendum was held. The result was a democratic one.

I read in the newspapers that some thought it was strange that the opposition, the Bloc Quebecois, would agree with the action taken by Newfoundland Premier Brian Tobin. As a responsible official opposition in this House, we acknowledge the result, and we will act upon the wish of Newfoundlanders by supporting their request. We do not support the motion of the justice minister or of the government opposite, we support the motion tabled by the Minister of Justice as the spokesperson for Newfoundlanders regarding a decision they arrived at in a democratic fashion.

Indeed, we support the motion before us because it reflects the wish of Newfoundlanders. In so doing, we are only acting like a responsible opposition.

We would have liked to get absolute guarantees, including for French speaking minorities, because we have always protected the rights of francophones outside Quebec. No doubt about that. We would have liked to see the Government of Newfoundland provide full guarantees.

We did not get such guarantees, but we got some assurance that these minorities would continue to enjoy the same rights, following the amendments proposed by Newfoundland to Term 17.

We carefully reviewed the proposed amendment and we came to the conclusion, as did the Minister of Justice earlier, that this amendment, which we support, takes nothing away from minorities. Obviously, we would have liked to get more, to have things in writing, including things that do not currently exist but relate to the amendment. It goes without saying that such guarantees would have been beneficial.

Newfoundland's education minister, with whom I met on Wednesday, gave me an assurance. He told me about the funding and management of French speaking schools by francophones. I trust him to be true to his word. We did everything we could possibly do. We defended the rights of francophones within the limits set by our jurisdiction. Let us not forget that this is the federal government. We, Bloc Quebecois members, are respectful of the various jurisdictions.

Unfortunately, we read and heard comments in the newspapers, as well as here in this House and in the Senate with which we do not agree. We have to set the record straight. Some said the rights of minorities are sacred and must be protected when threatened by the majority. These people claim that the rights of the religious minorities will be challenged by the proposed measures to amend the Constitution of Canada.

I have heard some people say and I have read in the papers that the amendment before us would stifle or rather threaten the rights of religious minorities. According to their arguments, we have to vote against the motion before us, nip this dangerous precedent in the bud, because if we do not, other religious and linguistic minorities will be threatened by all the referenda other provinces may hold on various issues.

Their reasoning does not withstand close examination. These statements are unwarranted. The changes proposed to the education system in Newfoundland, however major or important they are, as I said earlier, do not threaten the fundamental rights of religious minorities, or for that matter linguistic minorities.

In fact, the goal here is not to abolish the separate school system, but to no longer impose a school system on a majority that does not care for it anymore. I would urge the ultraconservatives and the tale spinners to show a modicum of intellectual honesty.

Although I agree with the initiative he has taken, I would also invite the premier of Newfoundland to be fair, because from what I read in the newspapers about the meeting he had with the Leader of

the Opposition, where I was present, his account does not fully reflect the discussion we had.

I think Captain Canada should put away his hero's attire when he meets the official opposition. When he wants to inform the public, he should put aside his political options and talk clearly about what was really said during these meetings, because he put words in the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition that the Bloc leader never uttered.

Also in attendance at that meeting were the Newfoundland premier, naturally, the Newfoundland leader of the opposition and the leader of the third officially recognized party in Newfoundland. This is to show you, Mr. Speaker, that when the people express themselves, everyone gets behind the victor to move democracy forward, to make the people progress.

In the Newfoundland legislative assembly, the leader of the opposition and the leader of the third party were against amending term 17. On the 29th, the three leaders stood side by side to show their support of the democratic will of the people.

This is exactly what will happen in Quebec. Some may have their doubts about this, but after a yes vote in Quebec, the leaders of the main parties will all stand by the decision of the people.

We must remember that that meeting dealt mainly with two things: first, the recognition of the democratic process in Newfoundland and second, as I said earlier, the protection of the French minority.

As I said, the people expressed themselves clearly. Even if a province wanted to challenge in court the decision made by the people of Newfoundland on this constitutional amendment, it could not do it. Even the Constitution itself could not stand in their way. The people decided to accept this amendment.

To show how important democracy is, a Liberal member of the legislative assembly, Walter Carter, said that the wording of the referendum question was too complex. Even the opposition, as I said earlier, was against the question and the amendment. According to the Church, in Newfoundland, the wording was biased in favour of the yes side. The participation rate was not high, and that could raise questions.

But the wording of the question was decided upon by the democratically elected representatives of the people. Everyone was able to make himself or herself heard. This was a legitimate initiative and we, as members of the House of Commons, must accept it, period. The people of Newfoundland have spoken and we must accept the verdict wether we favour pluridenominational schools or not. Is my time up, Mr. Speaker? I still have points to make.

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I find that somewhat deplorable. I am surprised that the opposition parties are in agreement for this motion to be votable, but that our government friends, the Liberals across the way, refuse to allow this extremely important motion to be voted on. It is important to know where the $54 million spent in 1991 have gone. It is important to know why the Senators do not want to come and give the committee an explanation.

I have a hard time understanding the Liberal members' coming out from behind the curtains to vote against this proposal. I think there could have been unanimous consent. We could have had a vote, and that would have given an indication to the Canadian taxpayers that, yes, these are hard times, yes everyone will have to contribute, but those who benefit from tax dollars will at least have to come and explain themselves to the elected representatives, those who represent the people, for the senators are not the ones who represent the people, it is the members elected to the House of Commons. They have a clear mandate. They are the true representatives, not the other place.

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

A million for every day they sit. Perhaps that is why they do not wish to appear before the committee to explain. There are all sorts of other expenditures: VIA Rail, travel, points to travel anywhere in Canada that are transferable to anyone. These are all the things the senators do not want us to know.

But what is it all for? Why do we have a Senate? There are 295 of us here. Our country has too many levels of government: federal, provincial, municipal, school boards, churches. Where does the Senate fit in? Churches? Mr. Speaker, you laugh. But the government of Newfoundland is now realizing that the churches still have power over some people. There are elected officials, but where does the Senate fit into the system? I think it is surplus to requirements.

As my hon. colleague said earlier, it is unusual for the Bloc Quebecois to support motions presented by the Reform Party. To my knowledge, since 1993, I believe this is the only time, but we can see when something is good. I think this is an extremely important motion. I see that my time is running out and I will end here.

Given the importance of this motion, I believe that, if you were to seek it, there would be unanimous consent to make the motion votable and we could thus make our views known. I therefore propose:

That the motion be made votable.

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the motion before us is extremely important. I think it is worthwhile to look at it a little more closely. This motion put forward by the other opposition party reads as follows:

Given that the Senate has failed to respond to a message from this House requesting that a representative of the Senate Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration appear before the Standing Committee on Government Operations to account for $40,000,000 of taxpayers' money-

The motion is longer, but I think we already know the most important part. It is a little strange that the Senate refuses to discuss the budget allocated to it by the House of Commons. This is a very considerable amount of money.

The current system is made up of the House of Commons on one side and the Senate on the other side. Taxpayers elect a government with a platform, a program, an ideology. They know to whom they are giving the mandate to spend their money, to administer a province or the country.

The people's democratically elected representatives are now asking the Senate, an institution that receives $40 million a year, to account to a committee, but their request has gone unheeded. No senator has come forward to give us the information we want. This in a way is a flaw of our current political system.

I think that, in everyone's mind, it is the House of Commons that holds the decision making authority and that is responsible for using taxpayers' money. If the Senate does not want to be accountable and to answer our questions, it is perhaps because they have things to hide. There may be some things senators do not want taxpayers to know. If they have nothing to hide, they should come forward and justify their expenditures.

I know the system is set up that way, but any system can be improved, especially when the Minister of Finance says that we are going through some very difficult times and that we must all pitch in and tighten our belts. It is time for the Senate to start doing its part.

Let us ask our constituents if the Senate is useful. I can tell you that if, tomorrow, a referendum was held in Quebec on whether or

not to keep the Senate, the result would be very clear. Quebecers have no use for senators who are there only to spend taxpayers' money, to all intents and purposes.

The motion mentions the figure of $40 million but, as I said earlier, it should really be closer to $54 million. The auditor general said, regarding the 1990-91 budget, that total costs for the Senate are closer to $54 million taking into account the cost of services provided to the Senate by certain government agencies, which are estimated at $11.4 million. This is a considerable amount and we still wonder whether the Senate is profitable or not, whether to keep it or not. In the current context, the least we could expect is to have a representative of the Senate appear before the Standing Committee on Government Operations.

Earlier, I said that if they do not want to be held accountable, it may be that they have things to hide. Let me tell you about certain things we learned about from newspapers and other sources. It appears that, a few years ago, I believe it was 1992, senators had renovations done in the foyer. It was not nice enough. So, they spent money to decorate it with black, green, salmon and grey granite, with mahogany, etc. The foyer is very grand, but it cost $125,000.

Perhaps the senators do not want the general public to know about that. Perhaps that is why they do not wish to appear before a committee to explain their spending.

There is also the story about the senator who wanted a better view of the Hill and who decided to have the entire floor of his office raised. That is also perhaps some of the spending that they do not want the general public to know about.

Earlier, my hon. colleague made a very good point. It is apparently true that the average number of sitting days for senators is around 45 to 50 a year. Perhaps if the senators appeared before a committee and were asked questions like: How is it that you sit for only 47, 45, 50 days a year and it costs $54 million? Do you not think those are some rather expensive days?

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening all day long, as Reform Party members discussed this very important motion dealing with Senate expenditures and the fact that the Senate refuses to testify before the Standing Committee on Government Operations. This is very serious and Canadians must know about this.

Since this morning, I have been hearing Reformers complain about the lack of control over Senate expenditures and the fact that the Senate refuses to account for the $40 million budget it was given. Incidentally, according to the auditor general's report for

1991, the actual amount would be closer to $54 million, when certain other expenditures are added to this $40 million. The Senate is also described as haven of patronage, and Senate appointments as political rewards.

My question is as follows: If that is the case, why does the Reform Party not recommend that the Senate be plainly and simply abolished, as advocated by the Bloc Quebecois? That it what I ask myself.