Yves Rocheleau

[The Constitution, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. It is precisely because we are democrats that we respect the two referendums that we went through in Quebec. We are democrats; we are here after being defeated. If the people had voted yes, we would not be here. We are here because the people voted no and we will continue a process that probably started right after the 1760 conquest.

Quebecers have never accepted defeat. We are part of a great civilization, the French civilization, and we have never accepted defeat. We could give history lessons all day long if we wanted to. There have been many sovereignist movements in the history of Quebec, but they were never as well organized, as powerful as today's sovereignist movement, which first came to power in Quebec and then became the official opposition in the federal Parliament. This is unprecedented and shows the great progress made by the people of Quebec toward full emancipation. This should not be so difficult to understand.

[The Constitution, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on the subject before us today, following the example of my colleagues, particularly my eloquent colleague, the member for Shefford, who is, to top it all, bilingual. I will admit I am a bit intimidated by his performance, but I will do my best.

This motion was presented by the Minister of Justice. It deals with the future establishment of denominational schools in Newfoundland. The denominational system was guaranteed by term 17 of the agreement between the federal government and the government of Newfoundland, when Newfoundland entered Confederation.

In order to amend such a term, it is possible for a province to invoke section 43 of part V of the Constitution of Canada dealing with the rules for amending the Constitution. This is what Newfoundland did, by passing legislation in a particular context. This legislation was passed after consulting the public.

This is where it departs somewhat from the short history of using section 43 of part V of the Constitution of Canada. It was the first time a government consulted the public to give weight to its action. Section 43 has been used on three other occasions in the recent past.

In the case of Newfoundland, the results of this public consultation gave the following results: 52 per cent of the public turned out to vote and 54 per cent supported the government's action. According to what we are told, the Government of Newfoundland has a number of objectives in mind.

First, it wants to rationalize the province's education system and thus save $17 million. Second, it would like to have a single education system, instead of four based on the recognized religions, the last on the list being the Pentecostal Church, which has already been the subject of a section 43 application. If it is successful, Newfoundland will have a single school system serving all denominations. Finally, it would like to reduce the number of school boards from 27 to 10, and make them multidenominational.

Where this initiative is of definite interest to Quebecers is in the lessons to be drawn from the democratic basis of the process as a whole. The federal government, via its Prime Minister, immediately and apparently unhesitatingly recognized the referendum and its result, although the participation rate was only 52 per cent, and support for the government's plan only 54 per cent.

In the context of Quebec's and Canada's political evolution, this is, I believe, an action that speaks volumes, and one that is totally representative of the desire of the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party to recognize the democratic process of what went on in Newfoundland in connection with the denominational schools issue.

You will understand that, as sovereignists, we are legitimately and spontaneously moved to transpose the debate held in Newfoundland, and the government's attitude toward it, to the next steps taken by the Government of Quebec and the people of Quebec concerning its desire-this time, we are convinced, a fulfilled desire-to finally cross the threshold to sovereignty. We are counting on the same spontaneity, the same logic, the same justice from the federal government in acknowledging the democratically expressed desire of the people of Quebec to finally be a sovereign people.

It must be pointed out that, in this undertaking, the federal government did not in any way whatsoever, despite what it is now claiming, intervene in the wording of the question or in the procedure for acknowledging the results only provided there was such and such a percentage-there was none of that. The province of Newfoundland was allowed to consult its population and the democratic process was recognized. We ask no more than that. That is what democracy is.

That is, after all, how a democratic tradition is built. It is by recognizing and recalling the highly democratic events of the past that the rules of the game that have to be respected are built up over time.

In this regard, we have to give Newfoundland credit for doing what it did, for doing what it did in 1949, when once again it taught us something by consulting its people twice and ending up with 52.3 per cent of the population of Newfoundland voting in favour in 1948-49 of joining ranks with Canada and of leaving the United Kingdom behind.

With the nevertheless close result of 52.3 per cent in favour, we can assume that some regions in Newfoundland voted against joining Canada. Was Newfoundland then divided up according to the regions that voted in favour and the ones that voted against? Or did they respect the will of the majority of Newfoundlanders to join Canada in 1949? They respected the whole of Newfoundland as so they should in a democracy, without all the present kerfuffle, particularly on the part of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who, with the least possible subtlety, is advocating the partition of Quebec the day after a vote in favour of sovereignty.

In conclusion, I would like to say that there is in this debate something I find disappointing and aggravating, namely the reaction of Mr. Tobin, the premier of Newfoundland, who was a minister in Ottawa, a seasoned parliamentarian who was elected here when he was 25, and left to become premier at 40; he had 15 good years here in Ottawa. He is quite able to understand Quebec's and Canada's problem. And yet, he stoops to such simplistic reactions as the one reported in Le Devoir of May 30.

I will quote from an article by Jean Dion entitled "Tobin elated by the Bloc's position" which says: "Brian Tobin believes that by supporting the constitutional amendment requested by Newfoundland, the Bloc Quebecois, and with it the sovereignist movement as a whole, proves that the rule of law must prevail in Canada under any circumstance. I believe that the leader of the opposition is stating his faith and confidence in Canadian laws, said Mr. Tobin, adding that it will now be difficult for those who say that the law is not important to prove it. If the law is relevant when Newfoundland requests an amendment, it must be equally relevant when any other province is seeking to amend its constitutional status".

Third quote: "In this respect, he promised that Newfoundland would wholeheartedly support Quebec if it wanted similar changes. He even invited Mr. Bouchard to take full advantage of the amending formula which only requires bilateral agreements in certain cases, and of the nature of the federation to get the changes he wants within the federation".

I am very disappointed by such comments, because they imply that, in order to abide by the rules, there must be rules. But, in the Canadian Constitution, there are no rules on how to secede. How do you expect us to respect the rules? And that explains the whole approach and the ridiculous debate which was launched by Mr. Bertrand and which is increasingly jeopardizing the government position, since the federal government has supported this approach.

The people and the Government of Quebec are ready to abide by the rules, as long as there are some rules. Unfortunately, there are no existing rules, except for the rules of international law that will some day govern Quebec's accession to sovereignty.

The second thing that irritates us is the lack of information, given Mr. Tobin's previous position on the problems between Canada and Quebec. We know that the debate has been going on for some thirty years now. My personal reference point is the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission which as early as 1963 concluded that there were two solitudes.

We have someone here who has had ministerial or similar duties for 15 years in Ottawa and who still treats Quebec as just another province and completely disregards the fact that, when we talk about the people of Quebec and their demands, we talk about a nation, and more specifically one of the two founding nations of Canada.

There is absolutely no comparison possible between a premier who so cavalierly shrugs off a democratic process and talks about bilateral agreements between Quebec and the federal government and the debate we, the sovereignists, have been holding for the last 15 years, since we are talking about the survival of the French speaking nation of Quebec.

Talking about administrative agreements with the almighty central government, especially when it is ruled by the Liberal Party-to whom all the institutions seem to belong, I could give you a lot of examples from my riding-and reducing Quebec's evolution towards its sovereignty to some mere bilateral agreements will not help to elevate this debate. We will use a democratic approach to ensure that Canadians and Quebecers realize how important this issue is and how important Quebec's impending sovereignty is.

[Coast Guard, May 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, a distinction should perhaps be made between a rowboat and a real pleasure craft.

How can the minister justify imposing fees on pleasure craft sailing on lakes and rivers where the Coast Guard does not provide any service to them, that is to say, the vast majority of lakes and rivers in Quebec and in Canada?

[Coast Guard, May 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

The Coast Guard is now holding consultations regarding fees for pleasure craft. The pretext is water safety, but it is clear that the Coast Guard's real objective is to recover $14 million, the objective set by the Minister of Finance in the budget, from recreational boaters.

Will the minister confirm that the Coast Guard intends to impose fees that could go as high as $35 for each pleasure craft, including rowboats, canoes and pedal boats?

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 28th, 1996]

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On March 11, I placed on the Notice Paper four questions addressed to the Minister of Human Resources Development, which dealt with the advisability of relocating the regional Canada Human Resources Centre in Shawinigan rather than Trois-Rivières.

This is the second time I raise this point. According to the Standing Orders, these questions should be answered within 45 days. The 45 day period ended April 27; we are now at the end of May and I still have not received answers to my four questions, answers that would shed some light on this very nebulous matter.

I am counting on the Chair to make the necessary representations. It is a simple matter of respect for elected members, who have a right to question the executive.

[Supply, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, some questions are made to seem basic but they mean nothing. The people of Quebec have always had respect for the democratic process. When a question is decided by a 50 per cent plus 1 vote, as it was just recently, we accept the referendum results.

What we hope and expect is for Canada to do the same, should a referendum result in a majority voting in favour of achieving sovereignty.

I also detect in the remarks made by my hon. colleague from out west a lack of understanding of how the sovereignist movement has developed. Sovereignty is nothing new in Quebec, it was being contemplated long before 1993. The movement emerged in the early 60s. In 1963, the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission, chaired by two distinguished Canadians, concluded that two solitudes coexisted. At that time, there were a few hundred Quebecers who advocated Quebec's sovereignty.

From a few hundred, our numbers have grown to thousands and now a few hundred thousands. When asked to vote on the matter, millions of Quebecers vote for sovereignty.

It would be wise not to apply the Ostrich Principle and think that Quebec's will to become sovereign is something that sprang up overnight, a creation of the mind. Probably ever since the events on the Plains of Abraham, there has always been a desire in Quebec to self-govern and to take charge of our destiny, throw off our shackles, our British shackles in this case.

[Supply, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am both proud and sad to take part in today's debate on the motion moved by the official opposition, which reads as follows and quotes the prime minister: "We'll put our faith in democracy. We'll convince the people that they should stay in Canada and we'll win. If we don't win, I'll respect the wishes of Quebeckers and let them separate." This is the subject of our motion based, you will have understood, on a quote from page 150 of a book written by the Prime Minister entitled Straight from the Heart.

I am proud because this is a very important debate, and sad because this debate is part of the constitutional debate, which today takes a threatening turn, as it has for some weeks now. Indeed, the situation is extremely serious and these are difficult times for the Canadian democracy.

Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice told us these past few days that, in the event of a yes vote in a democratically held Quebec referendum, the Canadian government would not recognize it because the present Constitution makes no provision for one part of Canada to secede.

What is important to remember is the underlying meaning of such statements. This means that, in the mind of the Prime Minister of Canada, the wishes expressed by Quebecers will be subject to an amending process requiring the unanimous consent of the provinces in order to be recognized. This means that the wishes of Quebecers will eventually be subject to the will of Canadians, and this supports the argument in favour of not recognizing the existence of a Quebec people on this planet.

This is in keeping with the evolving federalist thinking. Over the last 30 years, we have been a bit annoyed by the growing sovereignist movement which English-speaking Canadians have a hard time explaining and understanding; then there were different theories like cooperative federalism, flexible federalism, asymmetrical federalism, cost-effective federalism, the age-old renewed federalism, which the Prime Minister mentioned again recently, and now we have carping federalism. Carping federalism is based on confrontation, on the B plan we could now call the Bertrand plan.

This confrontation is the antithesis of the other movement which briefly prevailed and which, after referendums in Quebec, could have created a momentum whereby English Canada would have found ways to implement the changes promised by Pierre Elliott Trudeau in 1980 and by the present Prime Minister in 1995. They would have come up with offers acceptable to the majority of Quebecers and would have made space for Quebec in the new 1982 Constitution. But that movement did not endure.

There were a few efforts, like the distinct society, but it was a distinct society without any content or powers. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said it himself after a conference in Vancouver where he almost whispered to his audience that the expression "distinct society" meant nothing. Maybe he forgot he was being filmed, but we saw him on TV in Quebec. This killed the rose in the bud because Quebecers quickly caught on that the distinct society concept was an empty shell.

There was also the term "principal homeland" which appeared, again through the initiative of the new minister, but it was short-lived. Right from the beginning, it sounded fishy.

Finally there was a vote on a veto, but giving a veto to each and every province meant essentially that they were refusing to acknowledge the specific characteristics of Quebec and to recognize Quebecers as a people.

It is very important to keep in mind the significance of plan B. With plan B, instead of encouraging Canadians to think, the federal government prefers to attack Quebec. It prefers to attempt to make Quebec smaller. It prefers to attack its institutions, its laws, its democratic traditions, its right to self-government, which is, once again according to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, only valid within Canada. We see he has studied the issue for a long time and is very generous toward Quebecers.

With plan B, the federal government prefers to go to court instead of going to the people of Quebec, especially to a court that does not fall under the Quebec government, but under the federal government, even though it is called the Superior Court of Quebec, a court where judges are appointed by the federal government. So, given the process by which judges are appointed, these people are part of the federal government and of the federal system. These judges will have to make a decision based on the Canadian Constitution, which was almost unilaterally repatriated by Ottawa without Quebec's consent, a Constitution Quebec does not recognize and which it did not sign. By this Constitution, these non elected and non accountable judges are being given, no doubt sometimes against their will, major political and decision-making powers.

Conversely, when a referendum is held democratically, the opposing forces, both from the yes side and the no side, have equal financial means, at least when Quebec law is respected. When it is violated, as the federal government did in October 1995, we get the results we have seen.

So, a referendum held democratically is called a consultation exercise, the will of the people being subjected to the colonialism of the courts.

It should be pointed out that, for Guy Bertrand, the new ally of the federalists, the mere idea of holding a referendum on Quebec's future would be illegitimate, undemocratic, abusive, immoral, fraudulent and anarchic. With such allies, who needs enemies. This is as quoted by Mrs. Lise Bissonnette.

I will conclude by quoting an editorial writer with La Presse of Montreal, who is far from being a sovereignist. Mr. Alain Dubuc wrote on May 14, two days ago, in his last paragraph: ``Beyond their disagreement on Quebec's future, Quebecers agree on believing an honest referendum is not merely a consultation exercise and also, that Canada cannot legitimately prevent Quebec from leaving Canada if it chooses sovereignty. It is this consensus the federal government has attacked through its silences and contradictions.''

Given the attitude the government has taken by sanctioning plan B, the Bertrand plan, I dare hope the Liberal Party of Canada will pay the political price one day.

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that four questions to the Minister of Human Resources Development and one to the Minister of Public Works have been standing in my name on the Order Paper since March 11, 1996.

The government was supposed to answer these questions within 45 days, and that period expired a good 15 days ago. In the public interest, I would like to know when the government will answer these four questions, which will shed new light on a rather controversial issue, namely the transfer of the human resources development department regional management centre from Trois-Rivières to Shawinigan, an issue where the public interest has not been taken into account.

[Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act, May 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by repeating the remarks I was making concerning the establishment of a coast guard fee structure.

Before the ink has even dried on this internal trade agreement, supposedly designed to stimulate commercial activity, hence strengthening economic and trade ties between various parts of Canada, a fee structure is imposed by the coast guard for services provided by ships operating in Canadian waters, which will only create division at a time when efforts are made to effect economic unification once and for all. As a result, three main regions will be created-the western region, the central region and the maritimes-with three completely different tariffs. This in itself flies in the face of the political will expressed at the time the agreement was signed.

This goes to show how difficult it is to run this country-it is a virtually impossible task-and the lack of a cooperative spirit.

In conclusion, one can say without fear of being mistaken that the federal government is dealing a blow to Quebec, to the people living along the St. Lawrence, to all the ports along the St. Lawrence, where 85 per cent of Quebecers live, without consulting even the most influential of stakeholders, who come from the City of Montreal, for example, from the entire urban community in both Montreal and Quebec City, who made representations again last week, in addition to the private users who came to testify and the representatives of aluminum plants and logging operations.

They told the government: "Do not impede our ability to compete with foreigners". The government retreated into silence and arbitrary measures. They continued in that direction, deciding last Thursday to impose the first stage in the new fee schedule, $20 million, and in the process sacrificing the political will that was supposed to exist in this agreement.

In spite of the fact that there was no real consultation, and this was strongly criticized, the minister is relying on a study called IBI, which is in fact a survey. This study was condemned by all those who appeared before the committee. Of 49 witnesses, 37 asked for a moratorium, so that the situation can be examined to find out once and for all the economic impact of this measure on users and to make a true description of services provided to users, given that the government wants to tax them. Make no mistake about it: this is a tax. It must also be demonstrated that the Coast Guard did undergo a self-imposed streamlining exercise, as it claims to have done, given that the majority of the witnesses doubt that this is the case.

In conclusion, signing this agreement and imposing this new fee structure both confirm, yet again, this government's lack of vision.

[Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act, May 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I join my colleagues today in speaking to Bill C-19, an act to implement the agreement on internal trade in Canada.

I am proud to participate in this debate, as this is a very important legislation, however arid and technical it may be. The bill affirms the principle, with which we agree, that internal trade should be liberalized as much as possible and that any kind of tariff barrier that exists should be removed as much as possible.

I must say that it was about time that Canada, as a political and economical entity, and that Canadians come to an agreement because it was becoming increasing obvious that Canada was getting along better with its neighbours than with its own provinces. Canada successfully negotiated a free trade agreement with the U.S. and, later, NAFTA, while it was having a great deal of trouble coming to an agreement on interprovincial tariff barriers.

We agree with the principle of the bill. Especially since, as you probably recall, there was a huge irritant in that clause 9 used to give the federal government enormous powers that it had more or less assumed. Without consulting anybody, at a meeting held in western Canada, the federal government announced its intention to make all legitimate efforts to persuade a province whose attitude is deemed less co-operative than that of another.

At the time, under clause 9, the government had given itself sweeping, excessive, disproportionate powers. As you probably recall, this prompted the then premier of Quebec, Jacques Parizeau, to describe this clause in particular and the bill as a whole, since it all hinged on clause 9, as "trade war measures taken by Canada against Quebec's government in particular".

Mr. Paillé, the then Quebec Minister of Industry, Commerce and Technology, made the appropriate representations to his federal counterpart, asking him to exercise moderation and see to it that clause 9 and federal powers in this area be cut down to reasonable proportions instead of being so ridiculously excessive. If I am not mistaken, that is how the Quebec minister described the attitude of the federal government, which was taking advantage of the situation to increase its powers.

As for us, we condemned as strongly as possible, both in the industry committee-of which I was then vice-chairman-and here in this House, the federal government's tendency to give itself inordinate powers. I do not want to brag but we succeeded at the time in talking some sense into the government and making it understand that the extent and ambiguous nature of the powers it was giving itself did not meet a real need and were out of line with what Canadians then expected in this matter.

We now have a clause 9 in which federal powers are more restricted, more reasonable, and in which all the parties, including the Quebec government, agree that an arbitrator is indeed needed in this area, thus giving the federal government some legitimate, consistent powers.

Even if we agree with the bill in its present form, there are still two provisions that we are deploring but which have been maintained despite the representations made and the amendments put forward by the official opposition.

The first of the two provisions we deplore is, again, clause 9, which provides that "pursuant to Article 1710 of the Agreement, the Governor in Council-that is to say, the cabinet-may, by order" and so on. This means that, in any tense situation or dispute between any two parties in Canada, the cabinet gives itself the right to settle the matter by issuing a direct order without going through the House. On the sly.

We would have liked-we even moved an amendment to this end, but it was unfortunately rejected by the government-the representatives of the 10 provinces and 2 territories in Canada that signed the agreement who sit in the House of Commons to be able to participate in the debate, either on behalf of the defendant or on behalf of the plaintiff, to publicly present the arguments of each party in the public interest and for historical purposes so that, at the end of the day, there is a debate before the federal government can come down with a sledgehammer or with sanctions, as it is now entitled to do.

We would have liked a debate to be held so that the elected representatives of the two parties involved-let us imagine, for example, that there is a dispute between Alberta and British Columbia-who sit in the House of Commons at the same time can participate in the debate and perhaps have some influence or ultimately put forward proposals. The dispute could then be settled in the best way possible and not by order, not on the sly, not in an arbitrary manner, as suggested by the current formula favoured by the government in this very important matter.

It must be understood that we are talking about a recourse against an injuring party. Traditionally, there has been a manpower mobility problem here, at the Quebec-Ottawa border, since workers from one side of the river could not work on the other side, and vice versa. These are sensitive issues.

The more discussions there are, the greater the chances of finding the most appropriate solution. Resorting to orders in council and acting on the sly or arbitrarily will certainly not improve the chances of finding the fairest possible solution.

We generally support the bill, but we are also disappointed with clause 19, the wording of which is very expeditious. It reads as follows:

1. Part III of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987 is repealed.

This may be a short sentence, but it has enormous consequences for a group of Quebec workers who made a lot of representations. These workers appeared before the industry committee to give their point of view. They also contacted the offices of the transport and industry ministers. Unfortunately, their efforts were in vain. I am referring to Quebec's bulk hauling truckers.

After a long struggle, they managed to get a law finally passed in Quebec to regulate bulk transport. The province did a good job and things have been going smoothly in that industry for many years now. This is quite an improvement given the heated confrontations that took place before, including in the streets of Quebec City at one time, to develop public awareness regarding the issue of bulk transportation.

With the repeal of Part III of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act of 1987, there will now be two jurisdictions in the same sector of economic activity. Currently, bulk transport permits are issued by the Government of Quebec and conditions are quite strict. This is why things are now quiet in that sector.

Part III of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987 being repealed, Quebec will now have another type of permit coming out of the woodwork. In other words, some people will have a federal bulk hauling permit without being subject to Quebec regulations.

What is worrying some people, and justifiably so, is that there will be two types of shipper, with two types of permit, federal or Quebec. For your information, the Quebec permit is subject to very stringent regulations, and it has been eminently satisfactory to everyone since its inauguration several years ago. It suits truckers because it has restored tranquility, whereas from now on there can be people who are federally licensed and not subject to Quebec regulations. There is a huge risk of anarchy, because truckers subject to the Quebec regulations will be competing with others who are not.

We have, however-the trucking companies even more than ourselves-tried to make the government, the industry and transport ministers, see reason on this. The Minister of Health was not involved in this debate unfortunately. He would no doubt have understood the situation, judging by the openmindedness we have seen in him.

Unfortunately, we had to settle for dealing with the industry minister, the same one as today, as well as with the former Minister of Transport. These negotiations were fruitless and the bulk haulers will now have to live with this legislation, which-and we are only too pleased to repeat this again and again-will jeopardize the peace there has been until now in this sector.

There is a risk of anarchy, because there will be two types of operator: the ones subject to the unstructured and unregulated federal law and the ones with a permit from the Government of Quebec and covered by Quebec regulations, which to date have proven their worth. It most unfortunate once again that the government was not more open to representations from the official opposition on this.

We support this bill, because we sovereignists feel it confirms the existence of and acknowledges the need for good economic relations and the future need for a partnership between the economic entities of Quebec and Canada, after sovereignty is achieved.

The ties are so close, on this continent, between the economies of Quebec and Canada that it would make no sense not to equip ourselves to recognize the importance of these ties, first, and to make our economies competitive with the foreign economies we trade with and the strong economies challenging us, second.

If I may, Mr. Speaker, I will continue later on. I will try to show the superficiality of this coast to coast agreement. It does not take long once you have to consider the interest of this entire economic territory for you to run out of breath and it leads to policies like the one just proposed by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on the fee structure of coast guard services. With this policy, there is no hesitation dividing Canada into three and setting fees arbitrarily without basis or consultation of the parties involved.