Pierrette Venne

[Constitutional Amendments Act, November 30th, 1995]

As my colleague just said, the past is indeed the key to the future.

That someone would have such a vision of society is really astonishing, but I do not want to insist further. I think that he just got carried away.

On the other hand, when he asks us if we intend to build a country, then obviously, we say yes. That is our goal. We want to build a sovereign Quebec, an independent Quebec.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, November 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite astonished to hear a member of Parliament tell us that he is not interested in the past. I must admit seriously that this is inconceivable, when we know that analyzing the past allows us to avoid making the same mistakes.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, November 30th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, here is a perfect example of why the Bloc Quebecois has its place in Ottawa. We are here to face a government that is constantly insulting the intelligence of Quebecers. It is with great reluctance that we are debating Bill C-110, which will go down in history as the last insult the federal government will have inflicted upon Quebecers.

Bill C-110 proposes a formula to amend the Constitution of Canada. It is simply a federal statute with all that it entails. It does not change in any way the amending formula since the procedures for amending the Constitution of Canada can only be modified through the procedure set out in section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982. I will come back to this later on.

This bill does nothing but restrict the federal government's discretionary power to propose resolutions authorizing constitutional amendments. All in all, the federal government, being generous as it is, is lending to the provinces its constitutional veto. This bill brought forward by the Prime Minister and his associate, the Minister of Justice, adds to the numerous amending formulas already provided for in the Constitution Act, 1982.

It will take a Ph. D. in constitutional law to be able to understand all that. Let us take a look, if we may, at the amending formulas already provided for in the Constitution of Canada. Four legal procedures for amending the Constitution are set out in sections 38 to 44, Part V, of the Constitution Act, 1982. The most demanding formula applies only to fundamental changes to the Constitution.

Amendments in this category must be authorized by resolutions of the Parliament of Canada and of the legislative assembly of each province. That is what we call the unanimity formula. There is also another amending procedure for changes in the distribution of legislative powers between the federal Parliament and the provincial legislative assemblies.

It is the same procedure that must be followed to amend most of the provisions of the charter of rights and freedoms.

The changes must be approved by Parliament and at least two-thirds of the provinces that have combined populations of at least 50 per cent of the population of all the provinces. This is what we call the seven and fifty amending formula. It provides that major amendments could be made to the Constitution without

Quebec's consent, because if Ontario were among the seven consenting provinces, the population requirement would be met.

The third formula relates to amendments concerning one or more provinces. They include changes to provincial boundaries and the use of English and French within a province.

The fourth procedure is found in section 44 of the Constitutional Act, 1982. It concerns changes to the executive branch of the Canadian government, the Senate or the House of commons.

Now the Minister of Justice is proposing a fifth amending procedure. In the future, one will have to be very clever to be able to amend the Constitution.

Not only is the bill introduced by the Minister of Justice an insult to Quebecers, it is the deathblow to the Constitution.

This minister insults us by pretending to be following up on the promises made by the Prime Minister during the referendum campaign. He takes us for turkeys and is trying to shove his right of veto down our throats. He is debasing the concept and letting four regions of Canada use the federal's right to veto.

If anyone in this House believes that Bill C-110 does more than simply lend something from the federal to the provinces, he or she is sadly mistaken.

Not satisfied with adding to the constitutional jumble, the minister is strutting around saying he has a new formula for us. But it is a rehash, déjà vu.

What the minister is serving up is a diluted version of the 1971 Victoria formula spiced to the taste of the day. Federal mandarins have not waited long before showing their true colours. The only solution found by this hypocritical government was to brush away the cobwebs from the Victoria formula of 1971 and take the right of veto out of it. A new and improved formula. What nonsense.

When the Prime Minister, through the Minister of Justice, introduces a bill proposing a regional right of veto and a motion dealing with the distinctiveness of Quebec, he adds insult to injury. He could not care less about Quebecers.

Neither the present Prime Minister nor his successors will be legally bound by the amending formula. If, God forbid, it should become a law this formula would be an ordinary act like any other act and it could be repealed any time by the federal government.

But how can we debate something we do not want to talk about any more? The Victoria formula was one of countless negotiations on constitutional reform. Those negotiations have been held ad nauseam but to no avail, except perhaps to deprive Quebec of the means it needs to develop itself in the Canadian federation.

Efforts to corner Quebec have been such that the province is stifled and can only survive by acceding to sovereignty. The justice minister is wasting his time and ours. Do you believe that after all the affronts it has been subjected to, Quebec is going to accept such a proposal? I remember. Like all Quebecers, «Je me souviens.»

Let us remember the so-called St-Laurent amendment of 1949, the 1960 Fulton formula, the 1964 Fulton-Favreau formula, Quebec's refusal of the Fulton-Favreau formula, the 1971 Victoria formula, the attempts by Pierre Elliot Trudeau in 1976, the 1978 and 1979 conferences, the Pepin-Robarts formula, the conference of September 1980, the patriation project of October 2, 1980, the infamous patriation of the Constitution in 1982, the 1987 Meech Lake Agreement, Meech II and its defeat in 1990, the Charlottetown accord and its defeat in 1992.

We will remember those 35 years of constitutional setbacks. The most recent affront sustained by Quebec is one too many. The Prime Minister of Canada, through his Minister of Justice, is today signing the death warrant of any possible constitutional reform.

The Prime Minister is swaggering about and boasting about his empty proposals. He has a short memory. He should play the recording of the address he made to the nation four days before the referendum of October 30.

I will never forget the sight of a desperate Prime Minister who did not have a clue about what promises to make next in order to win votes. A contrite and humble man.

Many believed in this Greek tragedy. Many fell for it and believed the Prime Minister's promise to make changes. Today, the Prime Minister is patting himself on the back, but there is nothing to be proud of. Bill C-110 is a big bubble that is bound to pop sooner or later. Everything has its limits.

The real purpose of the Prime Minister is to muzzle Quebec by stopping any future constitutional change. His right of veto is nothing but an illusion aimed at drowning Quebec in the Canadian sea. One people from coast to coast, with a wall to wall nationality.

This bill is a rehash of the 1971 Victoria proposal. In an article entitled "Modifying the Constitution or mummifying Quebec", in Le Devoir of May 15, 1971, Jacques-Yvan Morin had this to say about the Victoria formula: ``You do not have to be a rocket scientist or even a sociopolitical expert to see what insurmountable problems Quebec will experience as soon as it tries to gain some significant change. Not that the amending formula is bad in itself-it would be perfectly acceptable in a homogeneous English state-but it does not take into account Quebec's aspirations or rather, it does, but to quash them''.

I go on with the quote: "All in all, the anglophone provinces and the federal power are telling Quebec it can seek more powers and make as many major plans as it wishes, but it is only through them that it will achieve these goals. The new formula is the antithesis of the peoples' right to self determination. Under a benevolent exterior, federalism is in fact hiding dregs of colonialism".

Although this was written 24 years ago, it is surprisingly contemporary. This is to say that the federal government has not progressed that much since then. It is still intent on mummifying Quebec. Between the Victoria formula and the Meech Lake Accord, Quebec was taken for quite a constitutional ride in 1982.

As we remember, in 1980, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the then Prime Minister, and Jean Chrétien, his trusted lieutenant, had solemnly sworn to renew the Constitution, taking into account Quebec's interests. The Constitution forced on Quebecers in 1982 decreases Quebec's fields of exclusive jurisdiction. Moreover, Ottawa gave itself authority to amend the Constitution without Quebec's agreement. Quebec's right of veto disappeared. As a result, Quebec has had no say on constitutional amendments likely to change its political future.

The unilateral patriation of the Constitution substantially reduced Quebec's legislative powers in matters of education and language. Since the patriation of the Constitution in 1982, the federal government has had a field day. It has continually intruded on matters under Quebec's jurisdiction, especially regional development, manpower training, cable television and several cultural areas.

Then the whole constitutional process got bogged down at Meech Lake.

When we talk about Meech Lake, we talk about the accord signed in June 1987 by the eleven first ministers of Canada. It was aimed at reintegrating Quebec into the Constitution "with honour and enthusiasm". There again, the results reflected the ill will of the federal government and of the English provinces.

Quebec had offered to sign the Canadian Constitution provided five minimum conditions were granted. Namely, distinct society status for Quebec; more power in matters of immigration; limiting federal spending power in Quebec's fields of jurisdiction; Quebec's participation in the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of Canada; and finally, the right to veto constitutional amendments.

In June 1990, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Manitoba reneged on their signature, thereby sinking the accord. Despite last minute negotiations at the premier level, Manitoba and Newfoundland refused to ratify the accord.

The day after its failure, the Prime Minister, who is now pushing a bill which is not worth the paper it is written on, embraced one of the most vociferous opponent to Meech, the Premier of Newfoundland, Clyde Wells. A Canadian version of Judas' kiss. I remember quite well, Madam Speaker.

The failure of the Meech Lake Accord, which was to be the answer to the basic requirements of Quebec and bring the province back into the constitutional bosom with honour and enthusiasm, definitely proved that Canada refuses to recognize, among other things, the distinct character of Quebec. This week, the Prime Minister went so far as to reduce the distinct character to the level of a simple resolution of the House of Commons, without any legal meaning.

We can certainly congratulate the Prime Minister for his consistency. He remains as sly as he has ever been.

Let us continue our constitutional tour. In August 1992, the Charlottetown Agreement was signed by all representatives of Canada: ten provinces, two territories, four aboriginal organizations and the federal government. It was a "made in Canada" response to Quebec's legitimate requests.

That agreement was a watered down version of Meech Lake and Meech Lake number two. Among other things, it recognized Quebec as a distinct society, accepted the transfer to Quebec of all responsibilities in the cultural area and stated that the federal government would withdraw from municipal affairs, tourism, recreation, housing, mining and forestry.

On October 25, 1992, 57 per cent of Quebecers rejected the Charlottetown Agreement. They considered, with reason, that the agreement would give them only crumbs. The rest of Canada also turned down that agreement. English-speaking Canadians voted against it because they thought it gave too much to Quebec. Again another striking example of their love for Quebec.

In spite of his commitment to negotiate on a one to one basis with the federal government, Robert Bourassa agreed to negotiate with representatives of nine provinces, two territories, four aboriginal organizations and the federal government. He even approved the agreement which gave Quebec even less than the Meech Lake Accord.

For 35 years now, Quebec's requests for more power in the cultural, social and financial areas have been constantly rejected by the rest of Canada.

Again today, the federal government is laughing at Quebecers with that bill. I say this to the government: the constitutional circus is closed for good; stop acting like clowns.

[Witness Protection Program Act, November 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the second motion of the Reform member stresses other shortcomings of Bill C-78.

First of all, I would like to say that Motion No. 2, standing in the name of the hon. member for Calgary Northeast, is redundant in the first subsection. I will explain. The hon. member would like the annual report required under clause 16 of the bill to be transmitted to the Solicitor General and either tabled in the House or referred to the justice committee. However, according to Standing Order 32(5):

Reports, returns or other papers laid before the House in accordance with an Act of Parliament shall thereupon be deemed to have been permanently referred to the appropriate standing committee.

This means that once the report of the commissioner has been tabled in the House it is immediately referred to the Standing Committee on Justice. The member of the Reform Party does not have to worry. It is already in the Standing Orders and therefore subsection (3) is superfluous.

Subsection (4) tries to define much more precisely the work of the commissioner. He would have to give a lot of details in the report that he must submit to the Solicitor General every year.

Clause 16 of Bill C-78 requires that the commissioner submit a report on the operation of the program to the minister, who in this case is the Solicitor General. The clause is quite vague as to the content of this report.

All the bill says, and I quote, is: "a report on the operation of the Program during the preceding fiscal year".

Things cannot be put more succintly. The bill does not provide any satisfactory answer to many questions that I think are obvious.

What the government has given us is nothing more than Canada-wide legislation that will be administered by the RCMP and to which provincial and local police authorities will have to adapt.

Today, we still do not know how co-ordination between the different police groups will be ensured, because Bill C-78 is silent on this issue. In fact, the silence of this bill is most certainly its main characteristic. What concerns me is not what is in the bill, but what was omitted.

A series of questions remain unanswered. Once the bill has been passed by Parliament, how long will it take to put the program in place? What budget will be allocated to the program? How does this amount compare with the current budget? How many people are expected to benefit from the program each year?

It is all fine and well to want to protect informers, but we should know how much this is going to cost. Indeed, we do not even know which envelope the Solicitor General intends to take the money from.

As we know, the witness protection program will be a kind of contract between the RCMP and the protectee. Let us examine the respective rights and obligations of the parties to this agreement.

The commissioner's obligations come down to almost nothing. As indicated in clause 8 of the bill, he only has:

-to take such reasonable steps as are necessary to provide the protection referred to in the agreement to the protectee;

That is all. So, I hope that he will take the necessary steps. But what kind of steps are they? Only the commissioner will know because, once again, the bill does not explain what these steps will be. Thus, these "reasonable" steps are the only obligations the commissioner will have to fulfill.

As for the protectee, he must first provide the information or evidence required by the inquiry or the prosecution that has made the protection necessary. Second, the protectee must keep his or her hands clean, that is refrain from activities that constitute an offence against an act of Parliament. Shoplifting could be in this category.

Last, he or she must accept and give effect to reasonable requests and directions made by the commissioner in relation to the protection provided to the protectee and the obligations of the protectee.

If the protectee deliberately contravenes his or her obligations under the protection agreement, the commissioner may terminate the protection, provided that the protectee can make representations concerning the matter.

This bill puts things very succintly. I suppose that to correct these flaws, some practices are going to evolve allowing the RCMP to completely evade the power of supervision of Parliament.

This is the danger with poor legislation. Police forces create their own rules without any respect for the law. In fact, they are the ones who actually write it as circumstances change. I ask you this: When are we going to see the federal government assume its responsibilities and legislate in a detailed and precise fashion so that those who must enforce these laws know how to proceed?

Since the motion of the member from Calgary Northeast tries to fill some gaps, we are going to support it.

[Witness Protection Program Act, November 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague talking about his motion and I cannot help comparing it to a remake of an old B class movie.

What are we debating exactly? A bill and amendment motions which, after all, will not prevent anybody from sleeping soundly tonight. As a matter of fact, Bill C-78 is so boring that I find it surprising that there are still some hon. members around still awake.

The solicitor general has invented nothing. He simply follows the international trend. Other countries have protection programs for witnesses. Programs in place in the United States, in the United Kingdom and in Australia have inspired the solicitor general for his Bill C-78. As usual, Canada is trailing behind other countries. Yet again it has failed to show leadership or innovation.

What is the purpose of Bill C-78? It proposes the establishment of a program operated under the commissioner of the RCMP for the protection of witnesses and informants as well as related or associated persons who might be at risk. The protection may include relocating the person, providing him or her with some accommodation, a new identity, as well as counselling and the necessary financial support for that purpose.

Motion No. 1 moved by the member for Calgary Northeast is by far the best suggestion made by the Reform Party in a long time. Unfortunately it is not new, since it had already been moved by the Bloc Quebecois during clause by clause study of Bill C-78 by the justice committee. It is well disguised but the principle remains the same.

I had proposed to amend the Witness Protection Program Act so as to prevent the Commissioner of the RCMP from being the judge, jury and sole executioner of the program proposed by the Solicitor General.

The idea behind our main and related motions was that the Solicitor General was to be entirely responsible for the program. This is one the numerous problems with Bill C-78. This legislation provides that the program will be managed by the Commissioner of the RCMP, the same commissioner who determines the beneficiaries and the amount of protection they will be given.

How are the authorities who operate the program accountable for their actions? The RCMP both manages the program and is responsible for it. The RCMP is accountable unto itself. It is the judge, the jury and the executioner at the same time.

Not only that, the government wanted to give the commissioner judicial privilege. Fortunately, because of our protests in committee, it did not.

I tried to understand, but to no avail; the explanations given by the Office of the Solicitor General were as nebulous as they were convoluted.

As an aside, I wish to point out the deplorable effort made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General to clarify the question for the justice committee. When he appeared before the committee, the parliamentary secretary did not know how to answer my questions, especially those concerning the problem of codefendents. Unable to answer my questions, the member mumbled a few words before letting his officials do the work for him. The member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine appeared to be out of his depth.

The problem with an indictment dealing with two or more defendents is that the Witness Protection Program can be used as a negotiation tool.

Let us take the case of two accomplices charged with the same murder. If we assume that proof beyond doubt is readily adduced, but lacks a key element to bring about a guilty verdict, the testimony of one of the accomplices could prove crucial to the proceedings. The Crown cannot afford to weaken the credibility of the judicial system if neither of the defendents can be compelled to testify against the other one.

The Crown's alternative is to offer one of the accomplices a reduced sentence or other benefits, in exchange for pleading guilty to a lesser charge.

The other benefits which can be offered, in addition to a reduced sentence, may vary from one judicial district to another.

They generally deal with the length of the sentence and the conditions of confinement. In return, the first accomplice will testify against the second one, and instead of two acquittals, the Crown will gloat it got two guilty verdicts. But there is a catch. With Bill C-78, the Crown will have another present to offer criminals in return for their co-operation.

Both individuals in my previous example are, I believe, equally morally reprehensible. By offering the protection program to one of them, but not to both, our judicial system will once again apply double standards. A murderer could be protected by the program while the accomplice he helped convict will languish in prison. The public will not soon forget the Karla Homolka case.

To get back to the motion of the member for Calgary Northeast, I remind the House that it is based, more or less, on principles presented in committee by the Bloc Quebecois. I submitted several amendments myself, several of them specifying that the solicitor himself should be responsible for the witness protection program and not the commissioner of the RCMP.

The Reform Party did not support any of these amendments and today, they have the gall to make believe it is their idea. Since imitation is a form of flattery, I thank my colleagues of the third party. In spite of the Reform Party's opportunism, especially that of the member for Calgary Northeast, I will vote for motion No. 1.

[Renewal Of Canadian Federalism, November 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, are we to understand that the Prime Minister, as he did in 1980 following the referendum, is in the process of acting unilaterally, attempting to present not only Quebec but the other provinces as well with a done deal?

[Renewal Of Canadian Federalism, November 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, immediately following the Prime Minister of Canada's announcement, the provinces of Canada voiced reservations on both the so-called right of veto and the scope of resolution on the distinct character of Quebec. It was obvious that the premiers of English Canada had not been forewarned of this initiative by the federal government.

How can the Prime Minister have the gall to present his initiatives of yesterday as the end result of his referendum promises when, immediately following his announcement, a number of

provinces in English Canada, including British Columbia and Alberta, voiced serious reservations about the federal plan?

[Gun Control, November 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, last evening, the other House finally voted in favour of gun control.

The work we started six years ago has finally come to a conclusion. We now have a tool to help improve public safety. The struggle mobilized many people who, like me, firmly believed that tighter control was necessary. I would like to thank them for their dedication and their tenacity.

On the eve of the grievous anniversary of the massacre at the École polytechnique, Parliament has heard the concerns of the victims' families. Responsible gun owners like us know that privileges imply obligations, and so the law will be observed. We must, however, remain vigilant and continue to keep close watch on the law and its regulations.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1995]

You are quite right, Madam Speaker, this question has nothing to do with the matter in hand.

I would like to point out to the hon. member that, when I mentioned aboriginal people earlier, it was in reference to the position the Reform Party had taken, again, during the gun control debate. I simply made a reference to them earlier.

As for the question per se, I think it might be answered in a different setting.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, of course I agree with what the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is saying, because that was precisely my point.

Of course, any discussion about victims must include gun victims. And of course, the Reform Party completely ignores them. I also agree that, soon, in less than an hour in fact, the other place will be voting on Bill C-68.

I will go and see how the matter is settled in the other place and I hope that it will not have to be debated all over again in this House. As far as we are concerned, I think that it is clear that every conceivable concession and compromise has been made, ultimately leading to the passage of Bill C-68. I hope that the bill will come back unchanged and that there will be no need to consider it again.