House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 50% of the vote.
Minister Of Intergovernmental Affairs November 27th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Yesterday, the minister said that the 1995 referendum question was phoney, fraudulent and would never be repeated.
Are we to understand from the minister's remarks that the federal government intends to prevent Quebec from holding another referendum?
Calgary Declaration November 26th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, over 93% of people voted, and I am certain they knew what they were doing, even if he does not.
Many people are starting to call for amendments to the Calgary declaration: First Nations, francophones in Ontario and in Newfoundland, and even their new ally, the Reform Party, is jumping on the bandwagon.
My question is therefore as follows: What exactly does the minister want to consult the people of Quebec about, when support for the Calgary declaration is eroding daily?
Calgary Declaration November 26th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, fortunately Quebeckers have much more judgement than the minister. They understood what was at stake, even if he did not.
Other provinces have been so efficient at consulting their citizens about the Calgary declaration that certain of them have had to cancel consultation days. In Calgary itself, the people questioned during a CBC broadcast said they had never heard of the Calgary declaration.
So how can the minister talk about consulting the people of Quebec when the very folks who signed the Calgary declaration are not even able to carry out consultations properly?
Quebec's Partition November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
On November 21, in Minneapolis, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs stated, and I quote: “Nationalism in Quebec is a civic rather that an ethnic issue”.
Why is the minister speaking from both sides of his mouth since he stated the opposite last week, in his letter to Mr. Jacques Brassard, speaking of an ethno-linguistic cleavage to describe Quebec's plan?
Supply November 25th, 1997
So it is. We were criticized for the same thing earlier, but we can see that there is a family quarrel of much greater magnitude in that corner of the House.
Before putting a question to the Reform Party member, I would first like to explain to him that, when Quebeckers see his leader, whose campaign advertising blamed Quebec's leaders, with everything we know about his leader, when we see him, Jean Chrétien, and Stéphane Dion hand in hand, this creates a lot of mistrust in Quebec. Furthermore, I can understand why Quebeckers feel this way.
I would like him to explain to me how they can teach us anything about democratic spirit, when we know that there have been three referendums in Quebec in 15 years, that various forms of consultation were held on the constitutional issue, that we engaged in the highly democratic exercise of referendums.
Why does he not share the view of his NDP colleague that the ball is clearly in the federalists' court and that they should first of all agree among themselves on what they can offer Quebeckers? The first step before any consultation of Quebeckers is to agree among themselves on what they can offer. Why does he not share the opinion of his NDP colleague on this issue?
Supply November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I am going to step into this disagreement between Conservative and Reform Party colleagues.
Supply November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to remind my Conservative Party colleague that the Meech Lake accord is not something I was promoting. That was an agreement between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party of Quebec. If people did not learn about the conditions of that agreement, it is more or less their fault, not mine.
When people voted in the 1995 referendum, they knew what they were deciding on. He himself says that he was a member of the commission on the future, which discussed the matter thoroughly.
I would like to ask him a question concerning a letter written by his leader on the eve of the Calgary meeting. The letter states “As I have pointed out, a successful meeting would include—and here he names things—a draft definition of an action plan for Canada. The statement could set out the following points: the need to rebalance the roles and responsibilities of the federal and provincial governments”.
He also speaks of spending power. He says “The measures limiting this power should focus on the long term common good”. He speaks of a reform of institutions that ought to include an indispensable reform of the Senate.
I repeat the first phrase: “A successful meeting would include the following”. Is the hon. member in agreement with his leader, then, and can he conclude, as he must, that the Calgary meeting was a failure?
Supply November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, in 1995, barely two years ago—and these people do not know, because they are told all sorts of things by the federal government—a consultation process was held through the commissions on the future of Quebec. The process was criticized by this government, which claimed that it was a phoney consultation from which nothing would come out. Yet, during these consultations in Quebec, more testimonies were heard than in the best consultation process under way on the Calgary declaration. So, I hope they will reconsider, apologize and recognize that the process was in fact a great democratic exercise in Canada.
This being said, the ball is clearly in the federalist camp. In the last referendum, 49.5% of Quebeckers voted in favour of sovereignty, along with a partnership offer. It is not true that Quebec will now support meaningless proposals that have no constitutional value and that are simply meant to gain support for Daniel Johnson in the next election. Federalists want the Quebec government to go along with this so they can ultimately put the blame on Quebec by saying “in any case, Quebeckers do not want it. Therefore, we will not support it because they do not want it”.
Federalists from all parties and from the other Canadian provinces should start by agreeing among themselves. They should act while Quebec is still a province, because the countdown has begun. Let them agree on a substantial offer to Quebec and then we may have a debate. Otherwise, in the next referendum, people will have to choose between the insignificant Calgary declaration and its principles—some people even trivialized Quebeckers' unique character by comparing it to Pacific salmon—and sovereignty with a partnership offer. I am pretty sure which one of these two options will prevail.
Supply November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the minister says that I chose passages from people who support the Calgary declaration. As far as I know, Alain Dubuc's editorial—I will send him a copy—contained little support for the Calgary declaration.
Ms. Bissonnette did not appear to be giving much support to the Calgary declaration. Jonathan Sauvé of the Liberal Party did not give it much support either. I will send him a copy because I imagine he has some free time and that he will take the time to read it in between two speeches on separation.
As regards what is happening in Alberta and the fact that a number of people responded, I remember a report we heard on a CBC radio station. They were doing man-in-the-street interviews in Alberta. Of ten or twelve people, two or three thought it involved a labour dispute, the others had no idea what they were talking about and knew nothing about the Calgary declaration.
That said, before we go calling that support, let us wait and see. I suggest he be prudent, because he knows very well that, before it gets support in Alberta and B.C., the Calgary declaration would have to be put to a referendum if it were to become a constitutional amendment. Then there would be a real debate, and I am sure that the minister and many members of his government would find the results most surprising.
Supply November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I too would like to say a few words on the Calgary declaration. In my statement, I will elaborate on some of the points that have just been mentioned.
First of all, we are discussing this issue today following an initiative by the Reform Party, which wants Parliament to endorse the Calgary declaration. It also wants to blame the Government of Quebec for not holding consultations on the Calgary declaration. Behind all of this, we can also see that the Reform Party is starting to look for a way out, on this issue.
There are four aspects I would like to deal with quickly: Why the Calgary declaration, the consultation process, the absence of consultations in Quebec, and, finally, the reasons behind the Reform Party's initiative.
Why the Calgary declaration? I have to go quickly and I will not have enough time in ten minutes to cover all the history behind this, but I will point out some main events. It should be remembered that following patriation in 1982 of the Constitution, which was not signed by Quebec and where Quebec was isolated, attempts were made to remedy this extraordinary error by the Liberal Party of Canada, but also with several premiers, some of whom are still around today.
Later, Brian Mulroney, the Prime Minister of Canada, and Robert Bourassa, the Premier of Quebec, tried in their own way to resolve this issue. Their argument was “Quebec has to be brought back in with honour and dignity”. As we all know, this led to the Meech Lake accord, which failed, and then there was the Charlottetown accord, which was rejected by the population. I do not want to spend too much time on these events that have been dealt with at length by others. This led to the arrival in the federal Parliament of regional parties, a trend that was maintained following the last federal election.
But above all, this led to the 1995 referendum. Very often, federalists forget to mention that there were two referendums in Quebec, even three. In 1992, Quebeckers refused to endorse the Charlottetown accord, by which Quebec would have signed the patriation of the Constitution under the Charlottetown conditions. We must always remember that Quebeckers said that no, under those conditions, they would not sign. This is an important issue in this debate. It seems that federalists have a selective memory and that they forget that episode.
In 1995, with a participation rate of over 93%, 49.5% of the population voted yes on the proposal for the sovereignty of Quebec accompanied by a offer to form a partnership with the rest of Canada.
In a panic, faced with this result, Ottawa did not know exactly how to react and took a hard line, with everything that implied under plan B, to attack Quebec, to make people think that the question was not understood, nor the issues, and everything else, and to come up with the greatest scare tactics that were ever used, on territory, etc.
In fact, we know that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is now the leader of the partitionist movement in Quebec. He is spreading the idea everywhere, not just in Quebec, but outside the province too. All this led provincial premiers to say “We must do something”. But how can they do something when they have hardly any room to manoeuvre, when just about everything has been tried in the negotiations that led to Meech and Charlottetown? Still, they feel they must do something symbolic because there will be an election in Quebec and, should the Parti Quebecois win, another referendum will be held.
Under the circumstances, the premiers decided to find a way to send a message to Quebec to the effect that they may be prepared to do something to please Quebeckers, because they do not want—and the Calgary exercise is primarily the result of this concern—the federalist party in Quebec, that is the Quebec Liberal Party, going into an election campaign with nothing but a promise to renew federalism and no concrete measures to support it.
So, the idea is to create the illusion that there will be a follow-up to this promise. That is why the premiers took a piece of paper on which they wrote great principles. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs himself said earlier, among other things, that should the agreement become part of the Constitution, these values would guide us in an eventual decentralization of power and so on. At the rate things are going, we better not hold our breath, because it could take a long time before anything comes out of this. The minister also talked about manpower training, which is a prime example of federalism at work, given that it took over 30 years to come up with a solution. This administrative agreement may be short-lived, because we never know what the federal government may decide.
Furthermore, we, as members of Parliament working in their ridings, know that the federal government is launching all kinds of youth training initiatives, but that it does not even respect the spirit or the lofty values by which it says it is guided. It obviously has no interest in them whatsoever, nor in that agreement. This is not a lofty principle, but a small administrative agreement to fool people into thinking that this system can evolve, can change.
But I do not want to look like the only one criticizing the Calgary declaration, so I am going to quote from a number of newspaper articles I have come across recently. I will start with Lise Bissonnette of Le Devoir , who gives a bit of the context in which the Calgary declaration was arrived at, and I quote “It confirms, nonetheless, that the stumbling blocks of the past are still with us and are crystallizing into three points that have always been viewed as essential in Quebec circles that believe in the renewal of federalism”. And these three points are: the concept of political pact between two peoples, constitutional recognition of the distinct character of Quebec and its real significance, and the division of power between the two levels of government.
She goes on to explain that there has been failure on all three counts. But I know that members opposite will say that Ms. Bissonnette is a nasty separatist, a sovereignist and whatnot. I will therefore continue.
According to an article in Le Soleil , after a tour by the then premier of New Brunswick, Frank McKenna, the specific nature of Quebec was too much for the West to swallow. The article refers to the non-inclusion of Quebec institutions as part of its unique character. They did not want to use the word “institution”. Frank McKenna said “I tried, but there was too much resistance in the West”.
One of the best articles, headlined “A path filled with pitfalls”, is by Alain Dubuc—whom one cannot classify as a sovereignist unless he has undergone a recent conversion, and if so someone should let us know. Allow me to quote from this article:
It is normal, however, for Quebeckers to welcome this initiative with as much circumspection as the premiers put into formulating it. Quebeckers, leery after the failures of recent years, are sceptical and want to know where all this is headed before they voice an opinion.
Alain Dubuc himself says that we need to watch what happens elsewhere before we voice an opinion ourselves.
He continues:
The way the premiers started off this new round, there was nothing to stir up any enthusiasm. In their palpable discomfort, their careful language, their way of paying lip service to their love, the nine premiers bore less resemblance to politicians beginning to rebuild their country and more to nine men in a waiting room waiting to be called in for vasectomies.
The author of this article is Alain Dubuc, senior editorial writer at La Presse . He goes on to list a series of traps, concluding with this:
The fourth trap is love. Some premiers have expressed their love for Quebec. But since it was obvious how terrified some of them were of public opinion, this message did not ring true, just as it did not ring true on the eve of the referendum. Recognition and respect would be more credible and more than sufficient.
The text probably never made it to the Power Corporation office.
I have here another article headlined “Bones without flesh: Jonathan Sauvé urges his party to be wary of the Calgary declaration”. Who is Jonathan Sauvé? He is the president of the Quebec Liberal Party youth commission, who made this statement a few days after the Calgary declaration was issued. I hope he will stand by this statement during the provincial election.
“Bones without flesh”. “The Calgary declaration: opening or setback?”. This is followed by a quote from Claude Ryan, saying that the declaration reflects mistrust of Quebec. This is Claude Ryan, the former Quebec Liberal Party leader, who is not known to be a staunch sovereignist either.
There is also this document in which the Government of Newfoundland clarifies what is at stake, and the minister was quite clear on this, but I would like him to repeat this everywhere he goes.
Why use the term “unique” instead of “distinct” to describe Quebec's character?
The answer is found in this guide being distributed to the public.
The word “distinct” is reminiscent of earlier discussions. In many parts of Canada, it has taken a negative meaning. In addition, “distinct” conveys the idea of “separate”, which goes against unity.
On the other hand, the expression “unique character” suggests something that is special but does not adversely affect unity. Accordingly, the expression “unique character” more accurately conveys what we mean.
These people want to play on words. If they want to recognize Quebec for what it is, why do they feel the need to get into a semantics debate to decide what word to use, if not because there is a degree of distrust, fear, apprehension and hesitation in many places?
Mr. Speaker, I know you are about to interrupt me, so I will conclude this part of my speech and then I will answer questions.
Let me briefly touch on the motivation of the Reform Party, which calls on their constituents to make sure this never happens by way of a constitutional amendment recognizing Quebec's distinctiveness. They are telling their supporters to express their views on this.
Now their leader is saying that Senate reform should be included in there somewhere. Preston Manning is looking for a way out and trying to put the blame on Quebeckers because they are not holding consultations. That is what we are witnessing today and we will be discussing what their real intentions are throughout the day.