Ed Harper

[Petitions, December 13th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.

The first group of 200 petitioners requests that Parliament pass legislation to strengthen the Young Offenders Act, including publishing the names of young offenders, lowering the age of application and transferring serious offenders to adult court.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 12th, 1995]

No thanks to this government it did not. It was thanks to the Canadian people that it did not. Had those 20 questions been responded to the people in the province of Quebec that voted no thinking they were going to have it all ways would have known better.

It was interesting that the don't worry, be happy response is still being used by the Prime Minister. It was used in response to my leader's question today about how the government is going to ensure that the question will be fair in the next referendum, about what powers the government is going to use. That question must have been asked three times today with the standard response of don't worry, be happy. Don't worry about it.

Canadians have had that don't worry to the point that the country was almost lost. I do not know when the time is to start worrying but I suggest that it is long overdue.

Not only did the government not respond to the what ifs, the share of the debt, boundaries, dual citizenship, passports, but at no time did it accept Reform's challenge to put forward a positive agenda, to give the people in Quebec who wanted to reject the separatists a reason to do so and not try to fight the leader of the Bloc Quebecois' dream with a bunch of negatives.

I am proud to say that we put forward 20 proposals for positive change that would have gone a long way to addressing the concerns of Canadians inside and outside of Quebec.

The other tragedy in the referendum was the failure of the government to respond to the 50 per cent plus one which was first introduced by Mr. Johnson in Quebec. He was prepared to accept the democratic will of the people of Quebec and was going to accept 50 per cent plus one, as was the Minister of Labour, the government's point person in the referendum. They were both prepared to accept 50 per cent plus one as the democratic will of the voters of Quebec.

The Prime Minister was not prepared to accept that and without indicating what he was prepared to accept, he made it easy for those people to vote no on the basis that there probably was a better deal coming. That was one of the tragedies of the referendum which the government did not address. The Prime Minister played right into the hands of the separatists in not drawing a line in the sand, in making it clear to them what the consequences of separation were. As a result of that failed tactic, 30 per cent or one-third of the people in Quebec voted thinking that they were going to have it all ways.

Canada is a blessed country. That was indicated in an article in the Globe and Mail just a couple of weeks ago. The headline was that Canada is blessed but stressed. All Canadians are stressed both inside and outside of Quebec. This bill just adds to that stress. It does nothing to address it. It is a disunity bill and not a unity bill. Make no mistake about it, we must change because Canadians are demanding change. The 1993 election, when 205 new members were elected into the House, and the referendum on October 30 were strong messages that Canadians want change. More than that, Canadians want a voice in what that change will be. However, this bill denies that Canadian voice.

The separatists were given 30 days to spread their break-up Canada message. In the House because of closure the Canadian voice has been given three days. The separatists had 30 days. Because of closure, after only three days of debate the government is cutting off debate and ramming it through in spite of the Canadian people, who have already rejected it. The Liberals tried this at the front door and Canadians said they do not want it. Now they will bring it in through the back door. So much for open

government, listening the people, freer votes in the House of Commons and members of Parliament who represent the people in their ridings.

The majority of Canadians do not want this bill. Quebec does not want this bill. Who are we doing it for? The bill will not unite us. The bill gives a veto to a separatist government. It is unbelievable that the government would do this. If it is to give a veto, give it to the people of that province. Trust the voters. That is what has been missing in this place. We need to restore the level of trust that has been lost. This bill does nothing to restore that trust. It alienates the voters.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 12th, 1995]

Yes indeed.

Ontario feels very strongly about what is happening here and I am pleased to be able to stand up and represent that voice. We are here because of a promise that was made in panic, a knee jerk reaction. It was a reaction to what was a dishonest question. It was a dishonest question that never at any time had the Canada response. What was Canada's response to the dishonest question that was being posed by the separatists?

To indicate how much of a panic the government is operating in, the fact that British Columbia was originally excluded from this bill is unbelievable. However, it is testimony to the complete lack of thought and planning that went into this and attests to the fact that all of this has been nothing but a knee jerk reaction to the separatist agenda, rather than standing up to them.

I would like to go back and cover a little of the history that has brought us to this point. In June 1994 Reformers wrote a letter to the Prime Minister asking 20 questions that needed to be answered in advance of a separatist referendum. The Prime Minister never answered those 20 questions and when we raised them in the House they were dismissed as hypothetical, "it isn't going to happen, don't worry, be happy".

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak against Bill C-110.

[Recognition Of Quebec As A Distinct Society, December 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak against the motion to recognize Quebec as a distinct society. We are talking about a promise or a commitment and I will talk about some promises and commitments that have been made.

I will start with a promise that was made in the eleventh hour. It is a reluctant promise. It is a promise that was made in panic and desperation. It is a promise that had to be made because the government was out of touch with the people of Quebec. It is a promise that was made with no reflection on the past or no vision of the future. It is a promise that is out of touch with Canadians as a whole. As a matter of fact 55 per cent of Canadians outside Quebec oppose the recognition of a distinct society.

We are trying to bring in a promise the Canadian people already rejected at the front door. I am talking about Meech Lake and Charlottetown. The Canadian people had a say and they rejected the concept of a distinct society. Yet here we are trying to bring it in through the back door, top down, with no consultation. The government has imposed closure to push it through. The attitude is that it knows best what the people of Canada want. This is a Quebec promise, not a Canada promise.

In October 1993 there was a cry for change in the country from both inside and outside Quebec. The message I heard in October 1993 was that Canadians were worried. They were concerned. The response of the government since the election has been don't worry, be happy. After two years of blissful ignorance and a do nothing approach we almost lost the country on Monday night, October 30.

It is interesting that during the referendum the separatists had 30 days to spread their unchallenged version. The destroyers of Canada were given 30 days to get their message out. The government brings in closure so that we who want to speak for Canada, to get the Canada agenda out, are given 30 hours. We have 30 hours to debate what is probably one of the most significant motions before the House in the two years we have been here.

So much for open government. So much for government responding to the voters. We should not be surprised. This is the government that actually had to appoint candidates because it did not have confidence in the Canadian voters to select the right candidates. This is the government that shows its so-called true concern for the democratic process. This is the government that has shown its arrogance time and time again in the two years we have been here, with the rebuke of government members who stood to speak against gun control.

We were dealing with a promise of desperation. Let us now deal with some promises or commitments that have been made to the Canadian people. What about the promise of jobs, jobs, jobs? Two years ago we heard about jobs, jobs, jobs, and today we have an unemployment rate of 9.4 per cent. In the month of November, 44,000 jobs were lost in Canada. Where are those jobs? What happened to the much heralded infrastructure program that was to kickstart the economy and create jobs? It was another failure. All it did was put us $6 billion deeper in debt with no jobs. Now we have a cabinet committee looking at the job creation problem.

It is also interesting that the only jobs we have right now are because of free trade. This is a government that opposed free trade, but it is a pleasure to stand today and recognize the jobs that free trade created.

What about the promises of dealing with the deficit? Nothing has been done in two years in spite of warnings from Moody's and the IMF. Government members were shooting the messenger when Moody's warned the finance minister that he was not going far enough in dealing with the deficit. We have since learned that the IMF has issued the same warning to the government, that it has not been serious in attacking the deficit and that Canada is in great jeopardy.

What about tax relief? Smokers are the only ones I know that received any tax relief from the government because it gave in to the smugglers. Canadians as a whole have not had any tax relief. In fact Canadians who drive cars are paying additional taxes which they can ill afford, although there was a commitment to tax relief.

The statement in the red book on criminal justice was that fighting crime and violence required tough measures. We have not seen tough measures. Tough measures are lacking. We still have section 745 of the Criminal Code that allows those convicted of first degree murder back on the streets after 15 years and we still have no victims' rights.

The government has not addressed the issue of political reform. We all experienced the level of cynicism and mistrust out there between the voters and the politicians. It still has not addressed the problem. It has done nothing about recall. As a matter of fact a private member's bill on recall was defeated in the House. The government does not believe in referenda, in letting Canadians have a say on major issues that affect their lives.

The GST was to be replaced. In two years it has done nothing about the GST. The Deputy Prime Minister was to resign if the issue was not dealt with in two years. The last time I looked she was still in the House of Commons.

I am highlighting these promises because they were made to all Canadians. If these promises had been kept, they would have gone a long way to addressing the unity crisis we face in the country. The people of Quebec are just as concerned as the people of Ontario and the people of B.C. about the fact that we have a government that is not getting its spending under control, that is not dealing with the criminal justice system, that does not respond to victims and that is not responding to elected politicians who represent the people in their ridings.

We could see the people of Quebec during the referendum looking at Ottawa and asking: "Could it be any worse if we went on our own?" They were looking at a federal government that is failing to deal with the major problems of the country. It is conceivable some of them could very well have said to themselves: "Why not leave? What we are looking at in Ottawa is a situation that is taking us deeper and deeper into debt. There is no indication they have learned from the past and will do anything about it".

It is evident we have not learned anything from the past. I recall the b and b commission that originated back in 1965. It was to deal with the greatest crisis in the country. I supported that in 1965 because I thought it would address the unity problems we were having and would bring the country together.

After 30 years it has been an utter and complete failure. All the government has to do now is look across the aisle and staring it in the face are 53 members of Parliament elected from Quebec to tear the country apart, living testimonial to the failed policies of the past, the status quo.

There is no question we must change. That was the message in October 1993. I am proud to say Reformers put forward 20 positive proposals for change that had strong support both inside and outside Quebec.

The 20 proposals for change did not require opening up the Constitution. They could have been done by a willing government. We saw it as a win-win situation. It was to go a long way to keeping our country united. It was to go a long way to addressing our overspending because many of the changes dealt with a realignment of powers, decentralization, eliminating duplication and bringing governments closer to the people they were serving.

We also missed the message in the Spicer commission report. The Spicer commission criss-crossed Canada and spoke to over 400,000 Canadians, 300,000 elementary and secondary school students. In the report there was strong support for equality of provinces and of people. There was also strong support for the recognition of Quebec's differences, but there was little support for two-tier citizenship. That is what the bill is dealing with.

During our break in November I held a series of town hall meetings across my riding. I wanted to get the feel of the people about the situation we would be dealing with, the possibility of another referendum or the possibility of recognizing Quebec as a distinct society.

I supplied the people at the meetings with a questionnaire. At the end of the meeting I asked them to answer this question: Would you support distinct society status for the province of Quebec if it meant granting special powers not available to the other provinces? Ninety-eight per cent of those who responded to the questionnaire said no to any special status in recognizing the province of Quebec.

It is time the government stood up to the separatists and called their bluff. It is time to stand up for Canada and speak for Canada as a whole.

This country is a great country. It can only continue to be a great country if it is based on equal provinces and equal citizens. I call on all members of the government to oppose recognition of one province. Otherwise they are destroying our great country, the country our children and grandchildren are looking forward to.

[Petitions, December 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition involves section 718.2 of the Criminal Code.

The petitioners are concerned that naming some groups in legislation will exclude other groups from protection and that sentencing based on the concept of hatred is very subjective and will undermine our justice system.

[Petitions, December 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions I wish to present today on behalf of the residents of Simcoe Centre.

The first group of petitioners are requesting that the Government of Canada not amend the Human Rights Act to include the undefined phrase sexual orientation. The petitioners are troubled about not defining the phrase sexual orientation. They have a legitimate concern that such a broad term could include all kinds of sexual behaviour.

[Points Of Order, November 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, during question period, in an answer to a question from the member for St. Albert, in a very feeble attempt to justify the infrastructure program the finance minister said that it was justified on the basis that the member for Simcoe Centre kept writing letters requesting money.

While we cannot call a minister a fibber, I think we have to make sure that the truth comes out. The truth is that there was one letter written and it involved the private sector. That is the only letter that was written.

[Petitions, November 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the second group of petitioners request that the Government of Canada not amend the human rights act to include the phrase of sexual orientation.

The petitioners are concerned about including the undefined phrase of sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act. Refusing to define this statement leaves interpretation open to the courts, a very dangerous precedent to set.

Parliament has a responsibility to Canadians to ensure that legislation cannot be misinterpreted.

[Petitions, November 22nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, today I have two petitions to present on behalf of the constituents of Simcoe Centre.

The first petition concerns section 745 of the Criminal Code. The petitioners request that Parliament repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code so that convicted murderers have to serve their full 25-year sentence behind bars.