Patrick Gagnon

[Leader Of The Opposition, November 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that Quebecers will once again have to pay for the lack of courage and conviction of the person who let them down almost one month before the failure of Meech. In a speech befitting a never ending soap opera, the leader of the opposition said once again yesterday that he will not support the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society.

The Bloc Quebecois leader refuses to accept Canada's offer to co-operate, preferring to concentrate on his emotional speeches, in which he keeps crying over old stories of humiliation and rejection. Quebecers are discovering, regretfully and somewhat late, that the person who is asking them to put their confidence in him is only interested in his career and imminent crowning as Quebec's Premier. Unfortunately, he refuses to acknowledge the consensus among Quebecers to be recognized as a distinct society and to have a veto power within the Canadian federation.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, November 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member opposite for his openness and his generosity and I hope other members will follow suit.

There is no doubt that, in all this, Canada has been able to follow a peaceful approach where other countries resorted to violence. What I find extraordinary in our country is the fact that it is because we have a flexible system that we are always in the middle of some negotiations.

Unfortunately, things are different in France and even in the United States. When it is time to make changes, to move on as a society, these countries are unfortunately stuck with constitutions which often are inflexible and very difficult to change, especially if the changes are to reflect the reality we face at the turn of the century.

The previous speaker just said again what all Quebecers know already, which is that the Leader of the Opposition, once he becomes Premier of Quebec, will reject every constitutional agreement with Canada. One thing is clear: his only objective is the separation of Quebec, the end of Canada.

One of the highlights of the last century has been, of course, a true political and economic feat, which will endure only if we can rely on the support of the opposition and the Leader of the Opposition and next Premier of Quebec, in order to recognize Quebec as a distinct society and to recognize its veto within the Canadian federation.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, November 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out regardless, and particularly to bring it to the attention of our viewers today, that this is a historic day for Canadians and for all Quebecers as well, of course.

Yesterday the Prime Minister announced recognition of Quebec as a distinct society. Of course, we spoke about a resolution. Today it was decided that we would speak of a veto right for Quebec, as well as for three other regions of the country, of course.

Quebec has also experienced in recent months, in recent years in fact, a debate which has forced the population to make a choice. And the choice Quebecers made in the referendum on October 30 showed that they want to remain within the Canadian federation.

I count myself among those who acknowledge that discussions were stressful at times and that, unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition did not hesitate to divide Quebecers.

Several conclusions may be drawn, I believe. What people want is change. But some, Quebecers in particular, want change without a break-up. This is undeniably the conclusion reached from the referendum, its results and the interpretation we have made of them after consulting the pollsters. Very nearly two thirds of Quebecers want the Government of Quebec to reach agreement with the Government of Canada in order to move ahead with change, not only changing the Constitution but also, and above all, addressing economic and job creation issues.

I listened with a great deal of attention and interest to the speech the Leader of the Opposition gave yesterday afternoon in this House. I found it regrettable that the Leader of the Opposition, who has always claimed to be a spokesman of sorts for some of the people of Quebec, does not wish to acknowledge that Quebec is a distinct society and is not prepared to support us, the Government of Canada and the people of Canada, in finally recognizing Quebec as a society that is distinct by virtue of its language, laws and culture. I find it unacceptable that a leader, a member from Quebec like the Leader of the Opposition, will not line up on our side to defend the true interests of the province and of those whom we represent.

For some time now, and today in particular, I have had the impression that a number of opposition members will again put federalism on trial, but will unfortunately not take into consideration the progress Quebec has made within the Canadian federation in the last 130 years.

We are well aware that there are only seven million French speakers in Quebec. I have also learned that there are nearly 800,000 or a million allophones, anglophones and so on, who are, of course full fledged members of Quebec society.

However, within the Canadian federation, despite our constitutional differences over the years-which I have had nothing to do with-we are well aware that the average Quebecer has made incredible gains in contrast with individuals in other societies and other countries, which are less well off than Canada and the people of Quebec.

I believe the Canadian federation has, nevertheless, helped build the bases of our distinct society. We have created a telecommunications network, through all sorts of federal offices, Radio-Canada in the 1930s and the National Film Board. We nevertheless allowed Quebec to look after cultural matters and especially to sign agreements not only with other provinces, but even with foreign countries in order to strengthen and guarantee French where I come from, that is, in Quebec. With the close co-operation of the Canadian government, we have assured the influence of the francophone culture not only within Quebec, but elsewhere in the country as well.

We must not forget that francophones may be found in other regions of the country. I am back from a business trip to western Canada. I met francophones in Alberta and in Manitoba. The communities there are dynamic. They depend a lot on the presence of the federal government and on good relations with other communities, including the anglophone community.

I find it unfortunate that, during the referendum, there was an effort to exclude and isolate the French fact outside Quebec.

You know, there is close to one million francophones outside Quebec. Close to 450,000 young anglophones are in French immersion. I believe that this presence was intentionally minimized by the opposition for purely symbolic reasons, but mostly for political expediency.

I believe it is important to tell Quebecers that we are not the only ones, that there are other francophones in Canada. As a matter of fact, we had the privilege to hear one of those, a member from Manitoba, speak in this House, in both official languages, of course. I often have the opportunity to listen to members either from Ontario or New Brunswick. I find it remarkable that, in this country, and especially in this House, there is an increasing number of members, not only anglophones but people of Italian descent or of other ancestries-we have members from all over the world, I believe-who speak French fluently.

If we look at Canada today, especially the make-up of this House of Commons, particularly on this side, it is obvious that bilingualism has allowed French to gain ground across Canada, which is an important breakthrough. I got a note telling me not to hesitate to speak about francophones, indeed, encouraging me to do so.

I noticed, during the referendum campaign and increasingly in the media, that Quebecers have come to one important conclusion. Increasingly, they have come to recognize the presence of francophones outside Quebec, who have a very significant role to play. I admit that I am digressing, but I wanted to show that Quebecers are not the only francophones in Canada. We must support and work in close co-operation with those who are promoting French throughout the country.

I truly believe that, with the help not only of the people of Quebec, but also of people outside Quebec, we are finally going to recognize Quebec as a distinct society. With this in mind, we are inviting the Leader of the Opposition to support us. It is very important, not only for Quebecers, but for francophones outside Quebec, who, from now on, can rely-and why should they

not-on the Quebec government taking an active part in the Canadian federation. This is what we are seeking.

I believe that Quebecers, and Canadians as a whole, are sick and tired of constitutional debates, but I believe that we must seize this opportunity to recognize Quebec for what it is and, of course, Mr. Speaker, before you rise-

[Regional Economic Development, November 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House of an excellent initiative put forward by the Federal Office of Regional Development, in co-operation with the Business Development Bank of Canada.

Indeed, the setting up of a new fund called Idée-PME, with some $25 million in capital for commercial loans, is a remarkable example of the positive results that can be achieved when we put the expertise of two agencies to work in an innovative partnership. That partnership, and this is a word which our friends opposite are fond of, confirms the federal government's will to improve the performance of economic agencies in Quebec, whether public or private.

It also confirms that Liberal members are committed to fostering a business climate which will promote economic development and job creation, which are so important for Quebecers and their province within the Canadian federation.

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

Mr. Speaker, even if the hon. member opposite raised several issues, we will not support the motion as tabled by the third party.

But the hon. member still raised some points. We should remind Canadians, in particular the hon. members opposite, that the commissioner may terminate the protection provided if, in his opinion, the witness provided false information, omitted to provide important information, or deliberately failed to meet his obligations under the protection agreement.

I think that the hon. member did point out some issues, such as the cost of producing an annual report. Normally, information would be provided on costs and on the number of participants in the program. Of course, certain criteria will established.

In reference to the member of the third party, we on the government side will not be supporting this motion. However, it is not necessary to enact a provision requiring the annual report to be referred to the justice and legal affairs committee.

Reports which concern matters relating to justice and legal affairs are presently referred to the justice and legal affairs committee.

With respect to the motion which specifies the content of the annual report to be tabled by the solicitor general before Parliament, many pieces of legislation require the tabling of an annual report without listing the specific information the report should contain.

The list of items provided in this motion is extremely helpful and will be referred to the commission for its consideration. It is important that care be taken to ensure that the information included in the report does not inadvertently compromise any witnesses in the program or the program as a whole.

Members of the justice and legal affairs committee will have the opportunity to review and assess the first report to ensure that the appropriate balance has been achieved in terms of informing the public without compromising the integrity of the program.

Therefore we will not be supporting the opposition motion presented to us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the member for Saint-Hubert that the bill as tabled by the solicitor general stresses the importance of guaranteeing sources and witnesses the best possible protection.

Among the changes that should strengthen the program, we find a clear definition of the eligibility criteria for witnesses and a more transparent program management structure that would require greater accountability from all those in charge. I want to repeat, to be sure the situation is quite clear, that we will not support the Reform Party motion.

I would like to add that pursuant to the RCMP Act, the Solicitor General can provide advice to the commissioner of the RCMP concerning matters of policy. The commissioner or his delegate is in the best position to make these decisions concerning the day to day running of the witness protection program.

Since 1984 the RCMP have provided protection to witnesses to such a high professional level that there has never been an individual killed or seriously injured while under their protection.

As a result of the bill, this highly effective program will operate in a much more open and transparent manner, as I have just indicated to the hon. member for Saint-Hubert, thereby ensuring that all participants are aware of both their rights and their obligations under this program.

In conclusion, we will not be supporting this motion.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, November 23rd, 1995]

True. True.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, November 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, the bill has nothing to do with jurisdictions. It has everything to do with people. It is aimed at helping Canadians and, of course, Quebecers in remote areas to find jobs.

The bill is designed to allow young people, older workers, single mothers and low income individuals to acquire the skills they need in our ever-changing economy. It is also aimed at bringing communities, businesses and all levels of government together to look at the human aspect of regional economic development.

This means that other forms of agreements and partnerships between the federal government and the provinces are possible. Quebec talked a lot about partnership during the referendum campaign and we are willing to go in this direction. As a matter of fact, partnerships with local and regional economic development

authorities in the area of social and labour programs are highly desirable. That is certainly the way to go.

If we really want to pursue this discussion in a positive manner, it is important that we adopt this bill now and start working towards establishing new and improved partnerships with one another.

While some members are worrying about the federal government taking powers away from the provinces, the Department of Human Resources Development is doing its job with Quebecers and, of course, with the Quebec government. Using jurisdictional considerations as an excuse, members of the Bloc would want us to do nothing. Let us say this: in the name of the progress and of the changes that are obviously wanted in Quebec, let us find better ways of doing our job.

Canadians, as well as Quebecers, are well aware that the federal government has a legitimate role to play in development and manpower. So let us get things straight.

We had a case, the other day, that showed the urgent need for federal involvement, through its agencies, its community development organizations which play an active role in every regional county municipality and through the Federal Office of Regional Development, which is always there to give a welcome and desirable helping hand to stimulate small businesses in Quebec. There are other examples, such as the Federal Business Development Bank. When there is a need for a partner, to set up a small business in Quebec, especially in remote areas, this additional financial help from the federal government is always welcome.

I would like to talk about a particular case that occurred in my county a few weeks ago. Throughout the referendum campaign in the riding of Bonaventure, the minister of agriculture, who happens to be my provincial MNA in Quebec City, asked for the participation of the federal government in order to stimulate, or create if you will, a dairy industry in Gaspésie. Following pressure from that minister, it was agreed that the federal government would invest in the establishment of a cheese-making operation in that region. Now, the day after the referendum, that very same minister who had challenged us to invest reneged. He decided, on the basis of provincial programs and on the advice of his provincial bureaucrats, that the agreement was no longer valid. I find that most unfortunate, but fortunately the federal government remains present even if the Government of Quebec went back on its commitment to develop an important industry in Quebec, and especially in my region which is said to be a depressed area.

The federal government is also committed to helping people who are victims of particular circumstances that do not apply only to one province. This is the case of senior workers whose jobs are being jeopardized by the restructuring of the economy. It is also the case of some workers in fisheries. We have all heard about TAGS. In Quebec $100 million was spent to support those who were hard hit by that moratorium. There are still considerable investments being made to find new markets for underdeveloped species. As we know, however, fortunately it is the federal government that manages fisheries in the Gulf and elsewhere, but once the fish gets to the docks it is the responsibility of the province from then on. It is then up to Quebec to issue fish processing plant operating permits, but unfortunately Quebec is still refusing to invest the amounts necessary to give our local entrepreneurs a chance to diversify, particularly into underdeveloped species such as mackerel and herring.

There are lots of similar examples in Quebec, unfortunately demonstrating Quebec's intransigence and the fact that it is not necessarily attuned to the true needs of the population. When I heard the opposition saying "All we want is decentralization, all we want is for Quebec to make a final decision", were they referring only to the SQDM? Mention has never been made of the fact that there are people who are what the Bloc would probably call "Quebecers of the majority", old-stock Quebecers, working for the federal public service, who come from the Magdalen Islands, Bonaventure of course, or elsewhere in Quebec, and that these people are seeking, not only as federal employees, but as concerned individuals, to provide the public with proper services.

And in all the speeches I have heard this morning, there was not a single member of the Bloc, not a single member of the opposition, came forward with a good idea. The only thing that was said is that everything that happening in Quebec at this time is the federal government's fault. What I find regrettable, however, is that no one is listening to the voice of the people. There is already talk of a third referendum in Quebec. Mr. Speaker, let me state here to you, here before my constituents, before eastern Quebec, before all Quebecers, that the winning side this past October 30 was the no side.

I believe that what will be expected of the outgoing Leader of the Opposition, when he is premier of Quebec as he surely will be-and let me, in passing, wish him luck-is a commitment. He must make a commitment. In fact, he did, and people in the PQ government have announced they are prepared to work together with the Canadian government. I think Quebecers are fed up with constitutional discussions that fail to provide any answers. We want to put Quebecers back to work, and this will happen within the Canadian federation.

Throughout the referendum campaign, we made it clear that if Quebec left Canada, it would lose several billion dollars worth of federal investment. Losses would be considerable and would be felt by everyone, but especially by the most vulnerable people in the province of Quebec. I think we have reached a point in our history where we should look at what we have in common, instead of being

divided and dwelling on the past like the Leader of the Opposition did throughout the last referendum campaign.

I challenge the future Premier of Quebec and members of the opposition to lay down their arms and say: "We are willing to work with everyone. We are willing to work with the federal government, the municipalities and, of course, the other provinces". I think it is really too bad that the Quebec government, which claims to be anxious to promote regional economic development, tends to boycott agreements and federal-provincial meetings and conferences.

I think that is too bad, and it is unfortunate that in several sectors, including fisheries and agri-food and agriculture, we see this refusal to meet Minister Tobin and officials and ministers from the other Canadian provinces. I think the Quebec government and especially members opposite will have to consider that people want development, but not if it means Quebec has to separate, not if it means breaking up and destroying the country.

I think that people, especially in Quebec, want to build a fair and credible society, and this will happen within the Canadian federation. In concluding, I would urge opposition members to suggest alternatives, to work with us, but even more important, to work with and for their constituents. I am convinced and confident that their constituents feel it is up to them to work with us to strengthen the economy of Quebec and Canada.

[National Child Day, November 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, November 20 marks the third anniversary of the National Child Day. That date was chosen to recognize two historical events, namely the UN ratification of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child and of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

This convention is aimed at ensuring the survival, protection, development and participation of all children and was ratified by Canada in 1991.

We have a responsibility to preserve the well-being of those children who could be victims of criminal acts, abuse or neglect. By investing in child care from the early stages on, we will ensure that children do not have to go through some of the adjustment problems associated with the teenage years. This, in turn, will have the effect of reducing the financial burden associated with welfare, crime prevention and remedial education.

In conclusion, I invite all Canadians to join us in celebrating this day.

[The Member For Frontenac, November 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, my friend the Bloc member for Frontenac again demonstrated his complete ignorance of Canada and its people.

The hon. member implied that the National Citizens Coalition speaks for the real English Canada that came to demonstrate at a rally in Montreal a few days before the referendum.

This statement shows how far removed separatists are from the real Canada. First of all, he ought to know that the vast majority of the 150,000 participants in this rally were from Quebec.

Second, unlike the separatists, the participants in this rally will not renege on their commitment to recognize Quebec as a distinct society.

There was no Jacques Parizeau in the crowd to say: "I could not care less about your distinct society".