House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 1997, with 41% of the vote.
Indian Affairs March 15th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of Indian affairs.
On February 28, the community of Kanesatake voted a resounding no to the following question: "Do you want Jerry Peltier as grand chief and chief negotiator?" Yet, the minister seems torn since Mr. Peltier wrote him that he wanted to remain as chief.
Since the minister has long supported the principle of Native self-government, when will he recognize the Kanesatake community's inalienable right to choose its own leaders?
Indian Affairs March 1st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, will the Deputy Prime Minister ensure the House that, from now on, the Minister of Indian affairs will give proper attention to the urgent issues for which he is responsible, rather than generate violence with his irresponsible remarks on Quebec?
Indian Affairs March 1st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs.
Two years ago, the Liberal government pledged to take immediate action, and I emphasize the word "immediate", to improve the lot of the Innu living in Davis Inlet, notably by relocating the community in a healthier location.
Can the Minister of Indian Affairs tell us when his government will make a decision on the relocation of that community, which continues to live in conditions comparable to that of third world countries, as witnessed last week by the hon. member for Saint-Jean?
Mirabel International Airport February 28th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, on September 9, 1995 an article appeared in La Presse under the heading ``Mirabel, an airport appreciated only outside Canada''. According to a survey of 30,000 air travellers carried out by the International Air Transport Association, Mirabel ranked fifth among world airports for efficiency.
According to this article, Mirabel's problems were a result of the federal government's decision to authorize air connections directly
between Toronto and Europe, thus stripping Mirabel of its exclusive status as the Canadian point of entry for transatlantic flights.
On February 19, the new Minister of Transport blamed Quebec separatists for the failure of Mirabel. I wish to denounce the minister's statement on behalf of all Quebecers, especially the people of Mirabel. This was just one more proof of how easy it is to gratuitously blame the people of Quebec for the mistakes of one's own government.
Constitutional Amendments Act December 12th, 1995
Madam Speaker, I rise in this House to speak to Bill C-110 respecting constitutional amendments. It seems obvious to me that, by its very substance, Bill C-100 cannot meet the demands of the people of Quebec and Canada.
Quebecers have always asked for a real constitutional veto for Quebec, not a mere legislative promise. This veto granted to Quebec through Bill C-100 is reminiscent of the 1982 constitutional amending process. If they disagree, the federal Parliament may overrule Quebec's veto.
Under Bill C-110, it is up to the federal government to determine the criteria governing a province's approval. There are at least seven different ways of doing that: through a resolution from the provincial legislature; through an order in council, which means a simple notice from the government; through a notice signed by the premier of a province; through a notice signed by the lieutenant governor of a province; through a provincial referendum held by a province; through a federal referendum held in the province or in a number of provinces; and, finally, as a last resort, through a vote by the MPs representing the province concerned.
The Constitution Act, 1982 includes specific provisions regarding the amending formula, but the government did not see fit to include them in Bill C-110. There is a strong consensus in Quebec regarding the need, for the province, to have a veto, and Quebec's interpretation of that right is totally different from that of the rest of Canada.
Quebecers always felt that Confederation was a pact between the four original provinces and basically an agreement between the two founding nations. Former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau supported that view in 1967, when he said that the BNA Act of 1867, which was proclaimed by the imperial Parliament, was based on an agreement reached by two parties.
Thus, any constitutional amendment requires Quebec's approval, as one of the two founding nations. The Constitution was patriated with a new formula, in spite of the opposition of Quebec, which was not granted a veto over future constitutional amendments.
In his memoirs, former Quebec premier René Lévesque explained why he accepted the right of withdrawal with compensation, instead of the traditional veto power. He felt that a veto could impede development, and that if Quebec got it, Ontario, and perhaps other provinces, would demand it. His view of things was right, since British Columbia in fact claimed a veto and recently got it.
As my colleague for Joliette said earlier, the Prime Minister opened his veto drawer, pulled out a copy and handed it to British Columbia.
The government of Robert Bourassa, premier of Quebec at the time-and this was before the failure of the Meech Lake accord-then wanted to back both horses on the Quebec veto issue. He claimed for Quebec both the constitutional right to oppose changes to federal institutions and the creation of new provinces and the right to withdraw with financial compensation.
The constitutional question was always at the heart of the debate in Canada and, until 1982, no constitutional change affecting the legislative powers of the Quebec National Assembly was adopted in Canada.
The fact that Jean Lesage's Liberal government dropped the Fulton-Favreau amending formula in 1966 and Robert Bourassa's Liberal government rejected the Victoria charter in 1971 indicated that Quebec, the other provinces and the federal government considered Quebec had a veto on constitutional amendments.
However, the Supreme Court of Canada reminded us in 1982 that Quebec had never had a constitutional veto and thus confirmed that the federal government could, with the support of the Supreme Court, circumvent the opinion of the people of Quebec.
And now for a bit of history, let us go back to the time of Honoré Mercier, who has gone down in history as a great 19th century premier of Quebec. From 1887 to 1891 his concerns were the Constitution, education, the public debt, regional economic development and the challenge of industrial change.
His great idea was to redefine the Constitution Act, 1867 by totally affirming the principle of provincial autonomy, particularly for Quebec. He said, "Our cause is the cause of our nation, the cause of provincial autonomy. It is the cause for which our fathers fought, the cause of patriots throughout history, the cause of those who do not want the province of Quebec to be a province in bondage, who want it to be self-governing in accordance with the wishes of its inhabitants. We do not want to hear our province referred to with disdain any longer. We wish to be masters of our destiny; we wish the voice of the majority to be heard and respected by all".
I should point out that premier Honoré Mercier governed with a two-party government, the Conservatives plus the Liberals, in a national unity government.
In 1887, 20 years after Confederation, premier Honoré Mercier called a provincial conference in Quebec City .Although Sir John A. Macdonald, the Prime Minister of the day, refused to send a representative, the Quebec conference was a success. Twenty ministers, five premiers among them, affirmed the principle of the autonomy of the provinces making up our confederation. They
protested against the centralist approach of the government in Ottawa and that government's tendency to abuse its power of disallowance, as it still does today.
The conference was a milestone in Canada's political history in that it confirmed the political and constitutional rights of the provinces, thus reminding the central government of what should be the very essence of a confederation's constitution.
Today, as the year 1995 draws to a close, what was said by Honoré Mercier, Premier of Quebec from 1887 to 1891, seems as topical as it was at the time.
Bill C-110 takes us back to the sad realization that there are truly two solitudes, two peoples, two cultures, each with a completely different vision of Canada's future.
On November 30, the Leader of the Opposition reminded the House of the disastrous impact of this bill, and I quote: "This leads me to believe and shows us that Bill C-110, in fact, has a pernicious effect in that, since the Canadian Constitution is so complex and twisted in certain respects, this bill, and that is a paradox, will in no way solve the current problems, but will make it even more difficult to transfer the powers that the federal government might be willing to give to Quebec".
Quebec's demands for more powers have persisted since the beginning of Confederation. The post-referendum of promises the federal government appear in this bill, and this veto is just a lot of smoke and mirrors. A real veto should be in the Constitution and be binding on all parties concerned.
The federal justice minister claimed that Bill C-110 was valid federal legislation, and I quote: "Let me express my sincere conviction that Bill C-110 is valid federal legislation. It does not amend the Constitution in any way. Indeed, it is complementary to the constitutional amending provisions".
In its content, the bill remains silent about the manner in which the provinces will be able to express their position.
This bill, which covers a scant two pages, merely indicates what the federal government means by a majority of the provinces. To the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and to most Quebecers, this proposal is a step backward, a proposal that offers far less than Meech Lake or even Charlottetown, which was rejected by Quebec. There has been a succession of offers from Ottawa, but the substance of those offers keep shrinking all the time so that in the end it is just a joke, according to the Leader of the Opposition.
And what about the criticisms from the Reform Party? Reformers are against this bill because it would give a constitutional veto to Quebec's sovereignist government, which should soon be led by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois. Which brings us back to square one, in that it is impossible to satisfy both English Canada and Quebecers.
This vision of Canada compels us to stop these endless demands and deal with the real problems.
Quebec sovereignty will bring about a new climate allowing us to negotiate as equals with the people of Canada. I submit to you that the people of Quebec cannot support Bill C-110. We are still waiting for real, valid offers from the Prime Minister of Canada, in keeping with the promises he made before the October 30 referendum.
I have been a sovereignist for over 30 years and I cannot be happy with a veto that is a mere legislative promise and a total improvisation. That is why I will vote against Bill C-110.
Canada Pension Plan December 11th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, would the minister confirm that one of the cutback scenarios he is considering consists in reducing pensions by 10 per cent and raising contributions to the plan for those who are not yet beneficiaries under the Canada pension plan?
Canada Pension Plan December 11th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the discussions taking place at the federal level concerning the Canada pension plan, as reported on Saturday morning, are making me fear the worst. One of the scenarios contemplated would increase the retirement age from 65 to 67 and cut pension benefits by 10 per cent while at the same time increasing pension contributions.
My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. Are we to understand that, after going after the unemployed, this government intends to hit seniors by raising the retirement age to 67 for CPP pensioners?
Old Age Security December 7th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, after doing a hatchet job on the unemployment insurance system and offloading most of the government's spending cuts on the provinces by reducing their transfer payments, the Minister of Finance is now zeroing on his third target: old age security pensions.
Yesterday the minister announced that he would soon be meeting with his provincial counterparts to consider the future of OAS in Canada. These discussions were to be preceded by the tabling of a federal policy paper. The tabling of this document, originally scheduled for 1994, was later postponed until this fall. However, nothing has been tabled so far, and federal cutbacks are to take effect in 1997.
The minister should at least have the courage to be open about his policies and table without delay a document which senior citizens have been waiting for all this time.
Air Transportation December 5th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, on October 30, the second largest Canadian carrier stopped flying from Montreal to overseas destinations. Canadian International has decided to concentrate its international operations in Toronto, thus depriving Montreal of a direct link to Rome.
It is inconceivable that a major carrier such as Canadian International could stop providing international flights from a city as big as Montreal. This situation shows how flawed the transport minister's international route allocation policy is. In fact, Air Canada offered to provide regular flights between Rome and Montreal. The minister's policy, however, prohibits designating a second carrier for this market.
Through his policy, the minister undermines Montreal's development and helps erode its traditional role as a Canadian transportation hub. The minister must stop putting Montreal at a disadvantage by changing his international route allocation policy and reviewing all routes already allocated.
Old Age Security December 4th, 1995
As a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, will the minister confirm that not only is the federal government set to cut old age pensions but that it will encourage, I repeat encourage, seniors to work part time upon retiring?