John English

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, the situation that exists in Canada is not one where we are satisfied with the status quo. We are changing the country. We have social security reform. We have a major budget coming forward. We have programs in the area of foreign affairs. We have programs in many areas that will affect very much the way the country is organized and the way it functions.

We are not committed to a federalism that is static. We have a flexible federalism. That is the kind of country we intend to work with.

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, several points and several questions have been raised. I will try to respond briefly to them.

In talking about the role of the official opposition, I did not comment precisely on what was being done in this Parliament. I was encouraging the members to work together with all parties to strengthen the Canadian nation. There are many opportunities to do so; in committees, in Parliament and in the legislation that is brought forward. By working together we could face the many challenges we all admit this country is facing. The role the hon. member suggested of monitoring or supervising the process that occurs here I think is a limitation on the possibility of what a parliamentarian can do.

The hon. member and his colleagues would do well to consider the greater possibilities that reside in this Chamber, possibilities that can lead to a strengthening of the interests of all Canadians and Quebecers as well.

The constitutional failures of the last 30 years were discussed by the hon. member and he asked were these not sufficient proof of the need to consider separation. In Mr. Parizeau's declaration of December 6 he opened with comments about what had been achieved apart from the Constitution.

I would like to talk about what Quebec and Canada have achieved apart from the Constitution but in terms of what Quebec has achieved according to Mr. Parizeau. He said:

"Together, we have made the past 30 years a unique period in our history."

This is extremely important in the view of the premier of Quebec. In the 1960s a vigorous cultural life was built in the province and a modern state was built. In the 1970s the democratization of education of the society occurred. In the 1980s:

[Translation]

"-in spite of a severe recession, we attained economic power-"

He goes on to talk about the widening of Quebec's presence within the world.

Rather than focus on the limitations and the failures, following on the words of the prime minister of Quebec, one could look at the accomplishments of our country which are truly magnificent. They look to the future. They look to the importance of co-operation and they also point to the necessity of keeping the country together.

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in the debate on the opposition motion and indicate why I cannot support the motion.

I cannot do so because I believe that together we are a great nation, a strong, vibrant and wealthy nation that is inclusive, a nation and a society that knows how to accommodate French and English, native peoples and cultures from the four corners of the world.

Quebec within Canada has accomplished an extraordinary amount. To quote Mr. Parizeau:

"-what our people has accomplished in 30 years is remarkable."

To go further into the speech he gave on December 6, he talked as the minister did earlier about the accomplishments of Quebec, a society which lacked a ministry of education that now has a technology so advanced that it exports the majority of it, a society which did not have a business culture, which:

"-has produced internationally renowned industrial and financial giants. A society which was said to be without a history and without a literature now has its own films, singers, dancers, writers who travel the world."

It is an extraordinary accomplishment. In his speech of December 6 Mr. Parizeau said that the preamble to the declaration would be a declaration:

"-like the American Declaration of Independence of which we still hear echoes more than 200 years after it was written."

Exactly. I had a chance to look at the Declaration of Independence of the United States following Mr. Parizeau's comments. I read from that declaration:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them one with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

What are the causes? The Declaration of Independence goes on:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

The Declaration of Independence has the advantage of listing the causes for separation and for breaking the bonds, indicating why there was respect for the opinions of mankind. The causes are listed:

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of absolute Tyranny over these States.

Canada has not been tyrannous and with due respect to the official opposition it has not said it is. The Declaration of Independence declared that the facts should be submitted to a candid world and we ask for these facts. What were their facts? The King of Britain, and I quote:

-has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

In Canada despite the power of the federal government to have disallowance of legislation of the provincial legislatures, it has not been used in the case of Quebec in recent times. Indeed it has not been used over the last half century.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained-He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

No legislature in Canada has been dissolved.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

There may be a point there. I think you will agree, Madam Speaker, that whatever the complications and burdens that

members suffer, it is not so unusual and uncomfortable that it represents a great burden. It goes on:

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies with the Consent of our legislature.

We have heard recently from the official opposition that rather than complaining about standing armies within the province of Quebec, we hear the request that existing institutions which represent the Canadian military be sustained in that province. It goes on:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

We heard earlier today the official opposition speak about the importance of the free trade agreement with the United States, indeed taking some credit as a province, not as a party obviously, for having that particular agreement sustained in the Parliament of Canada. Far from cutting off trade, we have increased the possibility for Quebec, not only through the free trade agreement, but also through the WTO, recently approved. It goes on:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

That has not been done.

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

Or:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

Canada is not tyranny. Separation would be weakness. If we would be weak and not just as a country, the weakened soul as a society, separation would enfeeble all of us.

Out of alliances come strength. Out of separation comes disintegration. Out of inclusiveness comes tolerance. The success of our history to date is proof that it is not necessary to break up a country to satisfy our mutual aspirations.

Since this is our national Parliament, I assume that all of us here have the best interests of the country at heart. I sometimes forget that the agenda of the official opposition is not in the best interests of the whole country but rather the separation, the dissolution of the country.

Where else in the world would a country and a political system be sufficiently flexible to tolerate an official opposition whose only goal is the breakup of the country? That is not tyranny.

Only in Canada, you say? Absolutely, and that is true. The presence of the official opposition of the Bloc Quebecois in Parliament speaks louder than any words. It is a living expression of Canada's deeply rooted and unshakeable commitment to democracy. Our political system respects the wishes of Quebecers and demonstrates that our system can accommodate the expression of the views represented by the official opposition which we hear daily in this assembly. If the opposition truly had the interest of the constituents at heart it would use its presence in Parliament to take every opportunity to strengthen not to diminish the gains acquired over the generations.

Approached constructively this Parliament could be used to further the interests of Quebec. Instead of taking this opportunity to secure Quebec's place in Canada, the official opposition too often undermines Quebec's strong place in Canada as a full partner in the country.

As the official opposition the Bloc has a responsibility to assist in the governance of the country. Its obligation not just to Quebec but to the rest of the country is to work constructively to build a greater and even stronger nation.

As the opposition the Bloc has a legitimate role to play in ensuring that the government does not overlook the interests of anyone. It could keep a watchful eye on the interests of Quebec and at the same time help build something larger. It could ensure that as the country goes from strength to strength, Quebec is along enjoying the benefits too.

We heard earlier today comments about the status quo but surely in Canada, in Quebec, everywhere in the world there can be no status quo today, as the member for Rosedale indicated a few moments ago.

Status quo is to stop growing. To stop growing is to stagnate. There can be no status quo in the modern world. Since its inception Canada has been a nation that has changed. We are changing today. We are changing in the life of this Parliament. For example an historic breakthrough occurred when the first ministers of this country agreed on a process to begin the elimination of internal trade barriers, an agreement that was of great importance and will be built upon and is supported I believe by members opposite.

We did not need, it must be said, a constitutional amendment to do this. When common sense and our own self interest told us that it no longer made any sense whatever to be part of the largest free trade bloc in the world and still maintain internal barriers which are an obstacle to prosperity, we found a way out. In the same spirit we will find a solution to other problems. For example the two territories and eight of the provinces have signed action plans with the federal government to reduce overlap and duplication in a host of areas.

Yesterday the minister of Indian affairs signed a milestone agreement with the native peoples of Manitoba opening the way to full self-government. This is the product of negotiations and a willingness to come to an agreement. It was not necessary to

rewrite the Constitution and this is not preservation of the status quo.

What we are offering Quebecers and Canadians is not the status quo. We are offering a country in evolution that is gearing itself to prosper in the next century. In that next century we expect and we hope that Canada with Quebec will play an even more prominent role. It is obvious to everyone that current political, economic and technological developments around the world are leading to an era of globalism where individual nation states play a lesser role. The previous speaker for the Bloc paid attention to that very concern.

Countries which are not integrally tied into a larger alliance are going to be bypassed. This is not the time to set up borders. It is the time to bring down borders.

The Europeans, for example, have come to realize that the nationalist balkanization of the continent will not be sustainable in the future. They are moving inexorably toward the creation of a European federation. They have a long way to go but the development of the federation is now in sight. Last evening I heard a Frenchman and a German speaking to each other, talking about the common cause co-operation which they have built. I thought to myself, what an extraordinary accomplishment this is, for two nations that have literally killed millions of each other's citizens in the twentieth century, within living memory of many French and Germans. But they have accomplished a lot and that is what they emphasized to each other.

They still have a long way to go but the development of the federation will take place and is taking place. Canada, we must remind ourselves, is light years ahead of the Europeans on this count; it is one of the oldest and most successful federations in the world.

In conclusion, the adventure we have had together in building the country is the best guarantee we have that once again, together, we can continue to build a country for ourselves and for our children that is envied in all the world.

[Bankruptcy Act, December 7th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question and for the concern he has shown for the situation of Indo-Chinese boat people throughout southeast Asia.

As the minister has already stated, Canada has also played an important role in the development of the comprehensive plan of action in 1989. Under this international agreement Indo-Chinese asylum seekers are screened under U.S. auspices.

Persons who are determined to become convention refugees are eligible for resettlement in a third country such as Canada. Persons who are found not to be refugees are expected to return to their country of origin. Most of the people who remain in the camps in Hong Kong have been determined not to be refugees and are expected to repatriate to Vietnam.

The non-refugees have been offered voluntary repatriation to Vietnam under United Nations supervision with an additional inducement of reintegration assistance paid by the international community.

Since the inception of the CPA in 1989 Canada has contributed $9 million for maintaining the camps and for returnee programs; 60,000 have returned voluntarily. Unfortunately approximately 50,000 Indo-Chinese remain in the camps in southeast Asia, the vast majority of whom have been found not to be convention refugees after examination under the CPA.

The international community and Canadians expect that humane methods are used to ensure the safe return of these people to their own countries. However in a removal situation, particularly when the individual being returned is not co-operative, some force unfortunately has been employed.

Canada's response to the Vietnamese refugee crisis has been exemplary. During the first 10 years of the Indo-Chinese movement from 1979 to 1988 over 79,000 Vietnamese were resettled by Canada from the camps of southeast Asia. Since the implementation of the CPA in 1989, Canada has resettled over 19,000 Vietnamese refugees from the camps of southeast Asia. In addition, under regular immigration programs directly from Vietnam, Canada has resettled nearly 50,000 Vietnamese.

I congratulate the hon. member for London-Middlesex for raising this important question and for his concern.

[Organization For Economic Co-Operation And Development, November 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome the decision by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development to appoint Donald Johnston as the secretary general.

Mr. Johnston's five year appointment will represent the first time in the OECD's history in which a non-European has been chosen to lead this major policy forum for the world's industrialized countries. Candidates from around the world were vying for this position and yet in the end it was a Canadian who was chosen.

It should come as no surprise that this longstanding member of Parliament, former cabinet minister, Montrealer and resident of Quebec should be chosen as the new leader of the OECD. He is a highly respected lawyer with a strong background in economic issues. Mr. Johnston will bring to the organization a wealth of experience with a truly Canadian perspective.

By tradition the OECD leadership is a consensus decision. Given the outcome of this announcement-

[Credentials, November 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, one of the priorities of this government is the training and adjustment needs of youths.

Until recently two job finding clubs were in operation in the Outaouais region offering many of the same services. Given budget limitations and based on the needs of the local labour market in that area, the local Canada Employment Centre in consultation with the Outaouais community has chosen to finance La Relance which has a 75 per cent success rate in helping participants find a job within a three month period.

This choice will enable us to serve 25 per cent more clients than we would have had we kept both contracts with reduced budgets. This decision was supported by the community. L'association des services alternatifs de développement de l'employabilité de l'Outaouais unanimously proposed that there be only one job finding club in the area and supported La Relance job club proposal.

With respect to the hon. member's accusations, the department of human resources is responsible to Canadians as to the use of their tax dollars. Because of this responsibility, it must purchase the most effective programs available for its clients.

When referring UI claimants for training, employment counsellors ensure that the needs of the clients are met. Counsellors always try to be flexible in order to accommodate their client's wishes.

The local Canada Employment Centre will no doubt continue to refer some UI claimants to Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi. Even though the club's primary objective is focused on non-UI claimants, each case will be examined individually.

It will be noted that for 1994-95 Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi is receiving more than $550,000 from human resources development to offer other training and job finding services to disadvantaged youth. This funding has been maintained.

This government is committed to assisting Canada's youth through programs and services that will help them integrate into the labour market as quickly as possible.

[Credentials, November 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the characteristically eloquent and excellent question asked by the hon. member for Oakville-Milton on the tourism industry in Canada.

As the member has indicated, the government has recently announced a tourism strategy that recognizes the importance of this industry. Tourism is big business in Canada.

As the member has also stated, it is an industry that provides hundreds of thousands of jobs and produces billions of dollars for our gross domestic product.

We believe that tourism also has the unique ability to create jobs not at the entry level alone but, contrary to the perception of some, in higher skilled, higher paid categories.

The Prime Minister's special advisor on tourism, Mr. Buchanan, stated in his report that a Team Canada approach is essential in the tourism industry. As the Prime Minister said, the federal government for its part accepts Mr. Buchanan's recommendations.

Mr. Buchanan and the Minister of Industry will work together to establish a Canadian tourism commission by the new year. This commission will be a partnership of the industry and both levels of government with the board of directors made up of

representatives of the tourism industry, provincial and territorial governments and the federal government. It will help us to co-ordinate our efforts and get the most out of limited resources.

We agreed with Mr. Buchanan and the hon. member that for the tourism industry to be able to create new jobs the federal government should increase its spending on tourism promotion at home and abroad. The federal government is increasing its spending on tourism by $35 million to a budget of $50 million. The goal in this new partnership is to create a $100 million marketing fund that will re-establish Canada as a force in the global tourism industry.

When we fully achieve the partnership between government and the industry that the Buchanan report has recommended we will create many thousands of new jobs for Canadians all over the country. We will generate considerable new revenues for companies, for Canada and for all levels of government. I might add that we will substantially improve our balance of payments.

[Criminal Code, October 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question. It is quite an extended question and is obviously a subject of considerable debate.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for whom I am answering believes that the Constitution Acts do not provide any rules or procedures for secession of one of the provinces.

The argument which has been presented by the hon. member for Calgary West that the amending formula can be stretched to include the secession of a province is a point of view. However as the hon. member suggests there are many points of view on constitutional questions. Colleagues of mine have expressed constitutional views. Members of the opposition have as well.

It is very clear that when the time comes there is international precedent and their is domestic precedent in this regard. However, what I think the record shows internationally is that in cases of secession what is likely to occur is so much confusion and trouble that it would be impossible to proceed in an orderly and fashionable manner and indicate what goes before.

It seems to us that the premise of the member's question is that we should say: You cannot leave unless we let you go. That does not seem to be a very helpful approach at this time. Our approach is to argue to Quebecers that the case for secession cannot be sustained. It involves costs and risks that are unnecessary and that this country is too precious to be destroyed.

We want the question to be put fairly and quickly. We agree with the leader of the Reform Party who has expressed that point of view. I do not intend to talk on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, but I believe he said this morning in Toronto that he is a democrat and we are all democrats. Certainly we in this Chamber are all democrats and a democratic decision is appropriate and will occur we hope promptly and with a clear question.

[Department Of Industry Act, October 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in his earlier comments the hon. member spoke about the lack of an industrial strategy in the bill. I am curious. Does this mean the member believes we should have an industrial strategy for Canada?

The hon. member talked about C. D. Howe and the war period and about how C. D. Howe kept the industrial structures in Canada working. Does he not recognize it was C. D. Howe in co-operation with the private sector, that is the state in co-operation with the private sector, that created the modern Canadian industrial structure which lasted to the 1960s. In fact the state played an important part in that period?

[National Patriots' Day, June 20th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to address the House on Motion No. 257 to establish a National Patriots' Day.

While I agree with my hon. colleague from Verchères that it is important to celebrate the individuals who have helped to establish our system of responsible government, I have several difficulties with his proposal. The first is the lack of inclusiveness of the proposal. Another is the duplication of what already exists. The third is the peculiar interpretation of the development of responsible government in Canada.

In the first place, as my colleague pointed out earlier, there is the possibility of additional cost.

We do not need a new national holiday to highlight these achievements. Canada Day provides us with an opportunity to celebrate the contribution of many Canadians to the establishment of our democratic system of government.

Thousands of Canadians currently celebrate Heritage Day in February and Canada Day in July. They organize events that draw the attention of Canadians to the cultural diversity of this great country and to the patriots of our past. They celebrate its past, present and future.

I find the motion most peculiar in that it links responsible government directly to the actions of the reformers and les patriotes of 1837. It is a linkage that Papineau himself would not have accepted. If we recall our history lessons it was the Durham report, which followed responsible government, that was the direct result of the 1837 rebellions. The Durham report called for responsible government and the union of the Canadas. Papineau opposed both.

The Durham report indicated:

I entertain no doubt of the national character which must be given to Lower Canada. It must be that of the British Empire, that of the great race which must, in the lapse of no long period of time be predominant over the whole North American continent.

That was Durham's hope. His hope was assimilation but it was fortunately not to be. That it did not occur was the result of the moderate reformers. The Liberal Party was the original and true reform party, and it was the work of Lafontaine and Baldwin. Professor Careless has said:

The idea of responsible government was taken up in the 1830s in British North America by loyal admirers of the British model, who sought both to remedy discontent with unyielding local oligarchies and to keep the provinces securely, though freely, within the Empire. Radicals such as William Lyon Mackenzie and Louis-Joseph Papineau preferred American elective patterns, but Joseph Howe in Nova Scotia and Robert Baldwin in Upper Canada showed far better comprehension-better even than Lord Durham-since they realized that an organized party system was vital. Howe in Nova Scotia, and Baldwin and Louis Lafontaine in the Province of Canada, built up strong, moderate reform parties to gain responsible government, and by 1848 saw it fully operating, accepted by a Liberal, imperial Britain.

Indeed it was Howe of Nova Scotia who first achieved responsible government. Let us never forget that responsible government was not fully democratic. Should we not honour those other great Canadians such as Nellie McClung and Thérèse Casgrain who fought for the franchise for women in the first four decades of this century?

I do not disagree with my hon. colleague that we have national patriots. I accept that Papineau and Mackenzie were patriots. Mackenzie was the grandfather of the founder of one of the great prime ministers of this great party that I represent.

I agree that Baldwin and Lafontaine merit special recognition. They worked together to achieve responsible government in a remarkable demonstration of tolerance shown by Canadians of that day.

In 1841 Lafontaine lost his seat in an election of that year and Baldwin found one for him in the heart of Upper Canada, Canada West, in Newmarket, Ontario. Two years later Baldwin lost his seat and Lafontaine had him elected in the constituency of Rimouski which was 99 per cent francophone. I suggest to my hon. colleague we may switch some day in the same fashion. That was the spirit of the times and the spirit of the toleration and co-operation that created this great country.

There have always been those who had doubts about this country and its future. Joseph Howe, it must be admitted, doubted that Confederation would work. He opposed it in 1867 and called it botheration not Confederation. Within a few years he became caught up in the vision of a great nation from sea to sea. So did Wilfrid Laurier, who had opposed Confederation in 1867, and so did W. S. Fielding of Nova Scotia who opposed Confederation in the 1880s in a campaign for premier that he led for the Liberal Party. Ten years later Fielding was in Ottawa as a part of Laurier's cabinet.

Is it not possible that 10 years hence the hon. member for Verchères and indeed the Leader of the Opposition himself, who has shown such a willingness to change his political views in the past, might together with all of us on this side celebrate Canada Day and Heritage Day in Ottawa?