Pierre Brien

[Dna Identification Act, May 11th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to point out that the group of amendments containing Motion No. 8 was initiated by my colleague, the member for Charlesbourg. As he is busy with other duties related to his role as an MP today, he is unable to move the motion and I will therefore do so on his behalf. I am pleased to do so because this is not the first time this kind of amendment has been introduced by the Bloc Quebecois. I will go into further detail later. The motion has primarily to do with the intended procedure for passing regulations related to legislation.

I would like to point out briefly that we are still talking about Bill C-3. For those unfamiliar with the bill, it allows genetic fingerprinting in certain cases in order to establish a DNA databank for identifying individuals who have committed crimes.

It is a way of taking more modern scientific and medical technologies, which have made enormous strides, one step further. There is already a similar structure in place for fingerprints. According to the scientific information we have been given, DNA testing is very accurate and has a very high success rate.

To a certain extent, this bill represents that approach. It is important to understand that this is a first, that it represents something new and different, which demands a degree of caution. It is to be expected that the public will ask questions and that there will even be some reluctance. Some kind of legislative and regulatory framework is required.

This is what worries us a bit in this particular case, giving latitude to others than this House, this Parliament, when the time comes to define the type of regulations which will accompany an act like this one.

The use of DNA samples for identification, or for ultimate use in evidence being a relatively recent development, a great deal of caution is needed in our approach. At this point, it is the House which has the opportunity to debate the matter.

We are at the report stage. The bill has been debated at second reading and in committee. Situations may crop up when the powers will need to be expanded, or restricted. a little, and this requires much care and much follow-up. Parliamentarians should have some control over the regulations.

People expect us to be the ones in society with the power to make decisions on legislative measures, and they do not want to see others—even a well-intentioned minister—making use of departmental employees or ministerial staff to define practices, particularly if these are new practices. This would give them the sole power to make the rules and to have them passed by cabinet. All these powers, the way the bill is set up at present, are concentrated in the hands of a single individual, and do not lie with this Parliament as a whole.

This is not the only case where this is happening. It is a frequent occurrence. Without referring to any specific case, I would just say that this is a general government trend, this desire to get their hands on as much power as possible One way of doing so is through regulations. So, yet again the role of members is being reduced because their impact in the formulation of regulations is being restricted.

It is all very well to talk about the stages in committee and so on, there should still be a formal process providing for the consultation of the House in the passing of regulations. In our parliamentary system, that includes the other House to some degree and that is why the motion refers to it. You are no doubt aware of our opinion about the usefulness of that House, and when I say “that House” I mean “the other” House. It is an obstacle we can do without. We could even save some money. However, since they are still there, the motion refers to the usual course of legislative process and thus approval by the other House of amendments to the regulations.

All members of Parliament should be in agreement with this. I do not know how any member, regardless of political stripe, in the government or in opposition, can object to being consulted, to having a say and to taking a larger part in the legislative process.

We must never lose sight of the fact that a member of Parliament has a role to play in the legislative process, first and foremost. This is why we were elected, why people sent us here. People have expectations. Who gets the ultimate blame if things go wrong? We do. So it is only right that we be included as much as possible.

The tendency is to always put regulatory powers in the hands of the executive, cabinet, in other words, and the tendency must be stopped somewhere. Perhaps right here. I have trouble seeing how members, particularly Liberal members, could oppose this motion, Motion No. 8, in Group No. 4, in a series of amendments.

It is in this spirit that my colleague, the member for Charlesbourg, introduced his amendment. He is an expert and could have gone into much greater detail about Bill C-3 than I have, and he will perhaps have another opportunity to do so depending on how debate goes.

What I have tried to do right now is to explain the purpose of Motion No. 8 in Group No. 4 and to say that the member for Charlesbourg will obviously be able to count on the support of all his colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois. I hope he will also be able to count on the support of colleagues in other parties, including the member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges, who I am sure will give us his support, and other members of the Liberal Party who are listening very closely today.

I therefore conclude my remarks and hope that members will be persuaded by the argument that we should play a greater role as lawmakers, and that all parliamentarians will pass this amendment, which is Motion No. 8.

[Calgary Declaration, May 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, before they are consulted, they have to know what it is about, because 90% of the people have no idea what the Calgary declaration is about.

It was to be a sort of lifebuoy for the Quebec Liberal Party and federalist Quebeckers.

How can he now claim that a parliamentary commission to look into it suddenly amounts to a trap for the current head of the Liberal Party, Jean Charest?

[Calgary Declaration, May 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

When we asked the Prime Minister about the sometimes odd approaches the provinces took in consulting on the Calgary declaration, he said it was not his concern and they could choose how they went about it.

What explanation does the minister have for the Prime Minister's statement on the weekend that the parliamentary commission established by the Government of Quebec was nothing more than a trap for Jean Charest? Are we to understand that the federal government has suddenly decided that what the Government of Quebec does is of concern?

[Legal System, May 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, the people of Taschereau in Abitibi—Témiscamingue joined together in protest against our legal system, particularly the practice of releasing people without bail. Close to 5,000 signatures were gathered in three days in support of their action.

This protest was triggered by a tragic event. Christine Bertrand, 17 years old, and Laurie Lefebvre, who was just 18 months old, lost their lives when they were struck while on the shoulder of the highway in Taschereau. The driver responsible for this terrible accident fled the scene.

I wish to assure the people of Taschereau and the surrounding area that they can count on me to support their petition and to bring it to the attention of the House of Commons. They can also count on me to make the necessary representations to the Minister of Justice.

In closing, I wish to express my condolences to the families of the victims and to the community of Taschereau, whom this tragic event has brought together in great solidarity.

[Calgary Declaration, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is confusing wishful thinking with reality. At the time of Meech and of Charlottetown, the minister was an attentive observer of the Canadian political scene. He noted that each of these initiatives led to total failure.

Now that he has become a front line player in the creation and follow-up of Calgary, is he not just reshooting the same old film, with the same old actors, and the same old predictable ending, in other words the Calgary declaration, which is not enough for Quebec and far too much for Canada?

[Calgary Declaration, May 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Seven months after the Calgary declaration, a Léger & Léger-COMQUEST survey reveals that no one, or virtually no one, knows what is in the declaration, and that those who do have an idea of its content say it will not lead anywhere.

The minister was concerned about the lack of consultations in Quebec compared to elsewhere, so what is his answer today, now that we know that 90% of the people of Canada are unable to say what the Calgary declaration contains?

[Negotiation Of Terms Of Separation Act, April 27th, 1998]

Our own laws deal with this. The quality of democratic exercises even serves as a standard around the world.

Do they know that we also have, on political party funding, something that will not be found here in this House? Do they know that the provisions of referendum legislation permit the yes and the no camps to spend about the same amount? Do they know that?

Do they know that, normally, people should not intervene in these referenda with money from Ottawa, which comes and meddles in a process where Quebeckers are deciding their future? No. According to their rules, Quebec's future will be decided here in Ottawa, either by the supreme court, or the Liberals, the Reform members, Senate friends appointed by the Prime Minister. And we should say to Quebeckers: “Don't worry, some wise people in Ottawa will take care of properly defining our future”.

This is a bit too much, and we have had enough of all these approaches, of this race against the clock to determine who will play the hardest.

This morning, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs arrived with a series of highly partisan polls. Did members notice that several of them were conducted on behalf of the Council for Canadian Unity?

Every one here knows what the Council for Canadian Unity is about, but perhaps not all our viewers do. This council's purpose is to ensure that Quebec will never be sovereign, to keep Canada as it is, in a permanent, unchangeable status quo. It is becoming a federal propaganda tool. They took a few elements of a poll and threw them in our face this morning.

But let us take a closer look at reality. Let us take a somewhat historical perspective. In the 1960s, I was not yet born, but from what I heard, there were a few sovereignists in Quebec. There was the Rassemblement pour l'indépendance nationale. There were a few groups, and no one talked about a movement of over 10% of Quebeckers. During the 1970s, a political party was born. At first, it was the Mouvement souveraineté-association, and then it became the Parti Quebecois. Support began to increase, and soon reached 25 or 30%.

The first referendum, the first time where intentions were measured in a referendum was in 1980: 40% of the people said they were in favour of sovereignty, or in favour of giving the government a mandate to negotiate sovereignty and then come back before the people.

Later, in the 1980s, after this referendum was defeated, we were told there would be no more talk about sovereignty, it was over, archaic, and so on. Fifteen years later, we had another referendum and 49.5% of people voted yes.

If we look at it from a historical perspective, not according to some poll conducted yesterday or the day before yesterday, we see that Quebeckers' willingness to take their destiny into their own hands is on the rise. Their number is increasing day after day, year after year. It is an irreversible trend, which explains why Reform MPs and Liberals alike are so panicky.

Since I have only 30 seconds left, I want to say this to members of the government party and Reform MPs: our desire to choose et decide our own future is not negotiable. Whether they like it or not, Quebeckers are going to choose their own future. They said it very clearly. Our specialist on polls should look at those conducted in February, during the reference to the supreme court; they show that over 80% of people think it is for them to decide, not the court, not the Reform Party, not the Liberal Party, and certainly not the Senate.

[Negotiation Of Terms Of Separation Act, April 27th, 1998]

That might just be fine, but there would be a serious problem.

The title of the bill was a step in the right direction, but there is a contradiction between its title and the bill itself. It is entitled “an act to provide for a national referendum to authorize the Government of Canada to negotiate terms of separation with a province that has voted for separation from Canada”.

It refers to a province and not various regions, parts of territories, and so on. However, further on in the bill, the approach changes and becomes much more radical, like that of Guy Bertrand and other excited Quebeckers who are in a lather over this issue, incited by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Now the Reform Party is giving it its full support.

One very negative aspect of this bill is that a federal party is not just flirting with those who favour partition for Quebec, but sleeping with them too.

As I said at the start of my remarks, what bothers me the most is all the baggage. The bill states the following at page 3:

(2) If a province holds a separation referendum and the Question is answered in the affirmative, the Senate and House of Commons shall determine whether a ) the question that was put was a simple and direct question—

They are even going to decide whether a majority of people voted affirmatively in the riding. Do they know there is a chief electoral officer in Quebec? Do they know that elections and democratic exercises are governed by Quebec laws? Do my Reform colleagues know that? Where do they live?

[Negotiation Of Terms Of Separation Act, April 27th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is quite clear that no member of the Bloc Quebecois can support a bill such as the one introduced by the Reform Party. Even though the government says it will not support this bill, that is in fact exactly what it is doing.

My remarks will be directed in equal measure at both parties and I will return to a few of the points made by the parliamentary secretary in his speech. I am surprised, moreover, that the minister, who is always right, is not here himself to speak on this topic so dear to his heart. He has been strangely silent for some weeks now.

I will begin with what the member for Okanagan—Shuswap said were his bill's objectives. He said that he wanted to describe the conditions that had to be met before a province could become sovereign, even pointing out that there was growing support for such a move in his own province, British Columbia. We all know perfectly well that there is a sort of race on between the Liberals and Reformers to see who can adopt the toughest policy towards Quebec and thus boost their political ratings.

Having seen the Liberals come out with a very hard-line Plan B, a reference to the Supreme Court, and flirt with partition, and not wanting to be left behind, the Reformers, with this bill, are now very clearly supporting all the partitionist actions in Quebec. Never has a political party gone so far. Liberal members must surely be amused to see their colleagues taking matters a little further than they have, although ultimately they are echoing the same sentiments. They have encouraged this discourse.

They say that their primary objective is to ascertain the real will of the public. They want to make certain that this will is clearly understood, clearly identified and clearly gauged, as though Quebeckers were incapable of making their own decisions about their future, of determining if a given approach is clear and understandable.

These people claim that we are incapable of understanding what happened in the 1995 referendum because, if we had, so many of us would not have voted yes. This is the assumption behind everything they have done.

The Liberals are saying that they are going to look for a new way, and use the Supreme Court as an authority in deciding whether Quebeckers exercised their judgement properly. The Reformers are saying that another way has to be found. Today, they have come up with two new approaches.

It is the House of Commons that will determine in legislation whether the process was clear, whether it was acceptable, and whether people were properly informed. However, such determination will not be made only by the House of Commons, but also by another institution. Indeed, our dear senators will also determine whether the process was clear and understandable to all Quebeckers. The first problem with this is that the government would have to first find and then repatriate the senators, so they could be in the Senate to review the issue. This alone would imply some rather extensive delays. Who knows, if a referendum were held during the winter, perhaps senators would hold their meetings in Mexico. This issue will have to be taken into consideration. As I said earlier, it is all a matter of finding out who is prepared to go the furthest.

However, the bill includes some positive elements, and I will mention them immediately, because there are very few.

There is a thought process currently taking place in Canada, particularly outside the Liberal Party and the Reform Party. That process concerns the possibilities of a partnership between Quebec and Canada. What kind of relationship will it be?

Even the Reformers' proposed legislation shows that a thought process is taking place on possible and eventual ties between Quebec and Canada. For the first time, Reformers do not question the fact that Quebec could use the Canadian dollar, otherwise they would obviously have mentioned it.

There was talk of the possibility of using some other Canadian instruments, but there is no longer any mention of the Canadian dollar, thus recognizing that sovereignists were right all along, as we already knew, along with most of the credible people who expressed their opinion on this issue.

Second, while the bill recognizes the democratic rule of 50% of the ballots plus one vote, its interpretation is very distorted, since it is based on electoral districts and not on the whole territory.

This means that, according to the logic of Reformers, I should no longer be here. Indeed, since my riding voted yes in the last referendum, it should be part of a sovereign Quebec made up of all the ridings that voted yes. Let me say in passing that this would be true for many regions in Quebec, including the riding of Sherbrooke and including the Prime Minister's riding. There would be a serious problem. The Prime Minister would no longer be in his present riding.

[C. D. Howe Institute, April 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Finance admit that there is an imbalance between what people are paying and what they are receiving, and that this could not be otherwise with a federal government which has imposed huge cuts on the provinces in recent years, particularly in health and education, while continuing to collect more and more tax from those very same people?