Marcel Massé

[Referendums, May 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, again, it is not a matter of depriving the Quebec people of their fundamental right to decide their own future.

What is essential in this desire for change is that governments, whether it is the Government of Canada or the provincial governments, put in place policies that are more in line with the needs and expectations of their people.

If you look at our government's throne speech, you will see that we indicated our intention to effect the changes needed either in the economic union or in the social union to better meet the needs of Canadians. That is what a good government does and that is what we did in the past and will continue to do in the future.

[Referendums, May 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, the Bloc Quebecois thinks that insults are their best argument today. In fact, it is their best argument, because if they are saying that they have recognized the peoples living in Quebec, such as the native peoples, then why do the native peoples not have the right, through a referendum as they are saying, to become sovereign themselves?

We can see only too well that their arguments make no sense and that it is therefore necessary to have a law setting out citizens' rights and the manner in which they may be expressed.

[Referendums, May 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there is a people of Quebec like there is an Abenaki people, a Cree people and an Inuit people. I hope Quebecers will not deny the existence of the Abenaki or Inuit people.

The will of the public must clearly be subject to the laws of a national assembly and to a constitution. When there is a constitution in a country, the first democratic duty of citizens it to comply with the law that dictates the major policies in their country. This is what I am asking the Bloc Quebecois to do.

[The Constitution, May 13th, 1996]

It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government respects any wishes clearly expressed by the people.

It is also obvious that two referendums were held on the issue of Quebec's separation. Each time, the people of Quebec clearly indicated they did not want to separate.

If the idea is to get a definitive answer, I cannot help but wonder why the no vote does not constitute a definitive answer. Why does the Bloc Quebecois not accept the will very clearly expressed by Quebecers? They should stop fostering political uncertainty in Quebec, promoting unemployment across the province and causing problems to all Quebecers on something on which they have expressed their will twice already, both times voting no.

[Referendums, May 13th, 1996]

I see that the Bloc Quebecois is reduced to negative slurs. Unfortunately, I must point out that when they say we are getting into bed with Mr. Bertrand, they are insulting one of their own former colleagues who saw clearly that PQ doctrine did not correspond to the needs of Quebecers. This is what makes us federalists, and Mr. Bertrand very clearly realized that the Bloc Quebecois's goals and policies run counter to the interests of Quebecers.

[Referendums, May 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, our goal has always been to reconcile Quebecers of all stripes with the rest of Canada, and to pass legislation and implement policies that will allow us to improve the well being of Quebecers and Canadians alike.

As a Quebecer, I must say that it is clear-

[Referendums, May 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government recognizes clearly that referendums are a

means for the public to express its opinion, and there is no doubt that democratic means such as referendums are open to Quebec, as they are open to Canada.

It is also clear that the Constitution of a country is not and cannot be amended through a referendum in just one part of a country, and that constitutional law and the internal law of a country are the laws that govern popular decisions and that allow constitutions to be changed. In this case, the Constitution and internal law indicate what means we may take to change the Constitution.

[Federal Public Servants, May 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, in the years to come, the government and unions will have to take their responsibilities to Canadians, and the best way to ensure that they do so and that the government is directly account-

able to the House for its decisions is for the government to remain responsible for approving the outcome of negotiations and to be accountable for the outcome before our colleagues in this House.

[Federal Public Servants, May 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this year, Bill C-31 provides for the resumption of collective bargaining and for possible wage increases for our employees. This was well received by our employees.

We are suspending binding arbitration, because, in the years to come, we want to be directly accountable to Parliament for wage increases granted to public servants, so that we can meet our fiscal objectives.

[Public Service Of Canada, April 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we put in place a range of adjustment tools such as the early retirement incentive, which provides a waiver of pension penalties for public service employees who are 50 and over with 10 years of service, and the early departure incentive, which facilitates through cash incentives the voluntary departure of employees in those departments which have been hardest hit by expenditure reductions.

We have also established joint adjustment committees across the country in partnership with the unions. We have implemented a policy of alternates which permits a number of people who want to keep their jobs to change jobs with people who want to leave the public service.

All in all, we have put into place a lot of measures which indicates that we want the downsizing to be done in a fair and equitable manner. Everybody has recognized this is what has happened.