Marcel Massé

[Committee Chaired By Minister Of Intergovernmental Affairs, November 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted with the interest the hon. member for Roberval has shown in this committee, which is of course a contradiction of his preliminary remarks since, as I said before, the ultimate phoney committee is the regional commissions that were set up in Quebec for the benefit of partisan members only.

In this case, we have set up a committee of ministers who report to the Prime Minister and whose statements are confidential. If the Prime Minister feels it is appropriate to publish the recommendations, he will do so.

[The Constitution, November 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on this very important question I can only repeat what our line has been. It has been that decentralization would happen only when it is shown very clearly that it is more efficient to transfer responsibilities from one level of government to another.

It will be decentralization if it well serves Canadian citizens who pay taxes, but there is no doubt that decentralization for its own sake is not a remedy to any of the problems we now have.

[The Constitution, November 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we will respect the current referendum which indicated that Quebecers want changes to be made and that they want the changes to be made within Canada.

I will repeat what the Prime Minister said yesterday in the House.

"I never said we were going to change the Constitution. I said we were going to make changes to the federation, constitutional changes, if necessary".

That is what we are working on. We will make recommendations to the Prime Minister, and we hope to be able to find solutions that will ensure, once again, that Canada remains as we know it, a united country, a country where we can all make our dreams and aspirations come true, whether we live in Quebec or in another province.

[The Constitution, November 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately it is true that the Leader of the Opposition, thinking about his future role as premier of Quebec, indicated that he would not consider any offers to renew federalism.

However, in saying that the leader was refusing to recognize the result of the referendum where the majority of Quebecers told him that they wanted changes to be made within Canada. He was also refusing to respect the majority of Quebecers who have expressed their views.

We will not do the same thing to Quebecers. We will be in a position to offer ways in which the present problems can be solved.

[The Constitution, November 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the hon. member's statements are wrong. As the Deputy Prime Minister said, the Prime Minister clearly stated in Verdun that we would keep open all other avenues of change, including administrative and constitutional changes.

Yesterday in the House, the Prime Minister said this:

I never said we were going to change the Constitution-I said we were going to make changes to the federation, constitutional changes, if necessary-

There is no contradiction between the two sentences. It is the official opposition that will not abide by the results of the referendum, which showed very clearly that Quebecers want change, but within Canada.

[The Constitution, November 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I should first set the record straight. As I said before, the perfect example of a phoney committee is the Parti Quebecois's regional commissions, in which the Bloc Quebecois took part.

I would like to remind them that there are five million voters in Quebec, not 50,000, and that their commissions were not representative and did not try to find conclusions that would help Quebec and Canada, while our committee is looking at all the options and seeking solutions to our problems.

Once again, we are holding out our hand in good faith to the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois and urging them to soften their stance and negotiate a renewed federalism, as 80 per cent of Quebecers are asking them to do.

[Committee Chaired By Agriculture Minister, November 10th, 1995]

It is because of the Parti Quebecois.

[Committee Chaired By Agriculture Minister, November 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good example of a phoney question, one that has no substance and does not make sense.

First of all, in the Outaouais, in the five Outaouais ridings, the No side received 72.6 per cent of the votes, more than in any region in Quebec. This was more than in 1980.

So obviously, the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie does not know what he is talking about when he indicates the influence we can have on what Quebecers have decided, which is to stay in Canada.

Furthermore, if the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie thinks economic issues are not important enough to warrant consideration, he is abdicating the basic responsibility of the official opposition, which is to protect the interests of Canadians and Quebecers at a time when the majority of Canadians and Quebecers want to see a solution to these economic problems.

[Committee Chaired By Agriculture Minister, November 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, once again, your typical example of a phoney committee is the regional commissions that were set up in Quebec by the Parti Quebecois, with the co-operation of the Bloc Quebecois. They were phoney committees that never accomplished a thing.

In this case, it is entirely normal and appropriate that we should examine and try to solve the problems that exist in Canada today. At least we are trying to provide good government. In fact, all the players in Quebec, including Mario Dumont and the Conseil du patronat du Québec, have told the Quebec government it is time to deal with the real problems: jobs, unemployment and investment. That is what we are doing through the committee chaired by the minister of agriculture.

[Committee Chaired By Agriculture Minister, November 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is high time the official opposition realized we are in the business of governing Canada and that when problems arise with respect to unity and economic issues, we will appoint groups of ministers to make a thorough analysis of the options for dealing with these problems.

This should come as no surprise. It is what any good government would do, and that being the case, I am not surprised the official opposition fails to understand what we are doing.