Warren Allmand

[Radio-Canada International, December 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, many Canadians are upset by the announced closure of Radio-Canada International.

I would like to ask the Minister of Heritage: What is the justification for this closure and how will the government replace this excellent means of publicizing Canada in eight languages in 126 countries for only $16 million per year? What can the minister do to save this important service?

[Quebec's Right To Self-Determination, December 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have read the hon. member's motion and listened to him very carefully. Despite his sincerity I have to tell him and the House in the strongest possible terms that there is no provision in international law which would recognize Quebec's effort to become a separate, independent state.

In the months leading up to the Quebec referendum on October 30, many statements were made regarding international law and the right to self-determination. Unfortunately those statements have led to confusion and especially a false impression that international law gives Quebec the right to secede from Canada.

Quebec has no right to secede from Canada unilaterally either under the Canadian Constitution or under international law. There is no principle of international law according to which Quebec has the right to secede from Canada. This is the conclusion that was reached by five international law experts who produced a study on the question at the request of the National Assembly's 1991 commission on Quebec sovereignty.

As one author put it in that recent study on self-determination, the inhabitants of Quebec "do not have a legal right under international law to secede from Canada".

What then is meant by the right of self-determination? A statement of the right is found in various international documents. For example, the charter of the United Nations states that one of the purposes of the United Nations is to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and the self-determination of peoples.

The 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights state that all peoples have the right of self-determination. Affirmation of a people's right of self-determination is also found in the United Nations 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations.

We must note immediately that these documents speak of people's right to self-determination, not the right of a province, not the right of a county, not the right of a city. In Quebec there are several peoples: the descendants of New France, the aboriginal nations, the Inuit, the descendants of the British settlers and many

immigrants who simply call themselves Canadians. We have to be very clear on that point.

Within the Canadian federation there is one province of Quebec but there are many peoples in that province, a point to which I will return in a moment. The first question to be answered is what does the right of self-determination mean? This is a difficult question which may be best answered by first looking to what is not included within a right of self-determination in international law.

Most important, a people's right of self-determination is not the same thing as a people's right to secede from an existing state. In most situations the right of self-determination must be exercised without causing any detriment to the territorial integrity or political unity of existing states.

The United Nations 1970 declaration on friendly relations states that the exercise of the right of self-determination must not dismember or impair, totally or partially, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent states. This means that a right of self-determination must, except in unusual circumstances where a people is subject to a non-representative government, be exercised within the context of existing states. A people's right of self-determination then means the ability to participate fully and freely in the democratic process of governing the existing state. Certainly the population of Quebec participates fully and freely in the democratic process of governing Canada. This was the conclusion of the five international law experts who prepared a study for the national assembly's 1991 commission.

Canada is a federal state in which the province of Quebec has its own national assembly that exercises exclusive powers under the Canadian Constitution over such important subjects as property and civil rights, natural resources, education, health and social services and the administration of justice, among other things.

At the federal level, representatives from the province of Quebec hold roughly one-quarter of the seats in the House of Commons. Many of Canada's prime ministers, including the current Prime Minister, have come from Quebec. Quebec is and has long been well represented in the federal cabinet. The Leader of the Opposition is also from Quebec. Quebecers, therefore, play a large role in governing the nation both through their own national assembly and through their representation in the federal Parliament and government.

Quebec has its own legal system, based on French civil law. Quebec is always represented by three of the nine appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada. The current chief justice is also from Quebec.

Quebecers also benefit from a strong set of cultural and linguistic guarantees under the Canadian Constitution, under federal legislation, such as the Official Languages Act, and through various programs and activities. Cultural initiatives are strongly supported by Radio-Canada, the Canada Council, the National Film Board, Telefilm Canada and other Canadian institutions. Therefore, the population of Quebec enjoys everything that a right to internal self-determination implies.

Since self-determination is a right of people, there has never been a consensus exactly on what the term people means. To some, people is synonymous with the population of a state, such as the Canadian people, especially where the entire population of the state participates fully and freely in the governing of the state. Others take a broad view that the term people means any group that meets certain basic criteria, such as common language and history, along with a sense of collective identity.

Given these different views of what the term people means, it is not self-evident that the political entity known as the province of Quebec, which embraces a diverse range of people and a diverse range of cultures and linguistic groups, would qualify for the spectrum of people able to assert the right to self-determination.

Quebecers have had a direct say on their future within Canada through two referenda held in Quebec in the last 15 years. In both 1980 and 1995 a majority of Quebecers reaffirmed their commitment to Canada and rejected attempts to break up the country. Even had the result of the referendum been yes to the question formulated by the Parti Quebecois government, international law would not have recognized the yes vote as a legal basis for the creation of a new state.

International law demands that a political entity meet several specific criteria before it can be considered a state. Along with satisfying these criteria, a political entity trying to achieve statehood must also receive international recognition. Recognition by other states is both an acknowledgement that the new state meets the criteria of statehood and an expression of willingness to enter into relations with the new state.

Therefore, any movement toward the independence of Quebec would not only be without legal foundation in international law, it would have to meet the legal criteria for statehood and the practical necessity of international recognition, which in both cases would be extremely difficult.

In conclusion, and in response to the motion before the House, there is no right in international law for Quebec to secede from Canada. To imply otherwise, as this motion does, is to depart from international law in contravention of Canada's right to continued existence.

Those who support such a proposal as is before the House today are living in an unreal world of illusion and misrepresentation. I suggest the House reject this motion.

[Violence Against Women, December 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on December 6 the House remembered the 14 women who were murdered with an automatic rifle at l'École polytechnique six years ago.

While Parliament has taken an important step by strictly controlling all firearms, the struggle against spousal violence is far from over. Last week four women were murdered in Montreal, one of them a young mother with the Montreal police. During the summer in one week three women were killed by men in Calgary.

According to Statistics Canada, nearly one out of four wives has been assaulted at some time in her life by her spouse. This must stop. What is needed is a wide range of measures directed at both the symptoms and the causes.

All governments should copy the excellent program announced by Quebec yesterday. Let us continue to apply the same political will that we used for gun control.

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

Mr. Speaker, to repeat the resolution, we are today debating the government's proposal to recognize Quebec as a distinct society within Canada.

According to the resolution, this distinct society is defined as including a French-speaking majority in Quebec, which is certainly distinct, since there is no other province in Canada that has such a French-speaking majority; a unique culture in Quebec based on the French language, which is also unique and distinct in Canada; and a civil law system, which no other province has. These are not exclusive traits of the distinct society but simply the high marks.

Let me point out that these three distinctive features that are in the resolution were first recognized and granted by the British in the act of cession of 1763 and in the Quebec Act of 1774. These distinctive features that are attributed to Quebec in this resolution are not new. What we are doing here today is simply restating this distinctiveness in a different way in this century.

Distinct society does not mean superior; it means different. We have in Quebec the civil law. Those in the other provinces have the common law. Neither is superior. They are different. That is what the distinct society clause means.

The distinct society clause does not mean special status. Quebec and all provinces have some special provisions in the Constitution relating to them, and they all in some way have special status, but this is not the meaning or the purpose of the distinct society clause.

Finally, the distinct society clause does not mean more power to Quebec. I submit that those who suggest this are being mischievous, destructive, and misleading. I found it extremely hurtful to hear one Reformer after another continually refer to this resolution as a constitutional amendment with constitutional consequences.

The source of the federal and provincial powers is in the constitutional act of 1867 and the Constitution Act of 1982. In particular, the powers of the federal and provincial governments are in sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution of 1867. The only way those powers can be changed, abridged, increased or diminished is by a constitutional amendment. That is the only way they can be changed.

This resolution before the House is not a bill. It is a resolution. It is not a proposed constitutional amendment. To suggest otherwise is misleading the Canadian public, which almost amounts to dishonesty in the House. This is a resolution of the House of Commons. It is not a bill that will lead to legislation. It is not a proposed constitutional amendment. In no way can this resolution augment the powers of Quebec, nor can it reduce the powers of the federal government or any other province. This or another government might want to some day change those powers, but it is not doing it through this resolution.

If the purpose of this resolution is not to grant special status or to give additional power, then what is its purpose? The purpose of the resolution is to assure Quebec that despite its different language, despite its different culture and legal system, we want them with us; we honour and respect them with their uniqueness, with their differences, with their distinctiveness. It is a formal commitment by the Parliament of Canada, representing all the people of Canada, that we recognize they are distinctive and we want them as they are. We do not want to assimilate them, we do not want to blend them. Once passed, the resolution is also meant to be a guide, but it is not legally binding; it is simply a guide.

In many respects the resolution is like the great rally in Montreal on October 27. By that rally Canadians from all over the country, at great expense to themselves, came to Montreal to say that they wanted Quebec to stay in Confederation, that they respected Quebecers as they are, with their differences. But the rally had no legal or constitutional consequences. It did have very strong symbolic and political consequences-not legal or constitutional consequences, but symbolic and political consequences. It is the same with this resolution before the House.

The distinct society clause is saying to Quebec that we recognize its distinct institutions and culture and because of them Canada is a better country. Its consequences are political and symbolic but extremely important, considering the atmosphere of this country today.

I say it makes Canada a better country because Canada with two official languages and two cultures has a great advantage over other countries. These two languages and cultures are great assets, not burdens. Unlike the United States, unlike France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Germany and Japan, which only have one official language, Canada can do business in English and French, can do diplomacy in English and French, research in English and French, write plays, novels, and poetry in English and French, produce television, films, and songs in English and French. It has great universities, libraries, and centres of research in English and French.

This resolution alone will not do the job, but with the veto bill it is a very good start to assuring Quebecers that we accept them as they are with these differences referred to in the resolution and we want them to stay with us.

I urge Canadians and I urge my colleagues in the House to put themselves for one moment in the shoes of French-speaking Quebecers. Here we have an island of approximately 8 million francophones in a North American sea of about 350 million anglophones. Put yourself in that same situation. Reverse the languages. We have 8 million anglophones in a sea of 350 million francophones. They see this situation as putting their language and

culture at risk, their distinct language and culture threatened by the overwhelming majority of the anglophone provinces of the population of North America.

Under the Quebec Act of 1774, French-speaking Quebecers were the majority in that state, although it was a British colony. Under the Constitution of 1791, with Upper Canada and Lower Canada, it was one to one: the French Canadians were equal in population more or less with the Upper Canadians. It was the same under the act of the union; up until 1867 it was Upper Canada and Lower Canada.

Now they are one out of ten provinces and they are a much smaller percentage of the total population. Would my colleagues try to understand this situation, put themselves in the shoes of the French Canadians in Quebec? Try to understand how they might believe with great credibility that their unique institutions would be at risk in that situation.

That is why assurances are required, and the distinct society clause is such an assurance. I urge my colleagues to give it some thought and support it.

[Recognition Of Quebec As A Distinct Society, November 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat intrigued by the hon. member's sudden concern for the minorities in Quebec. When we look at the platform of the Reform Party, one of its principal proposals is to repeal the Official Languages Act. As a matter of fact, it is not only to repeal the Official Languages Act but to replace it with a policy whereby Quebec would be for the most part French speaking and the rest of the provinces would be English speaking.

I can recall debating in the official languages committee time after time with the Reform representative on that committee, what I consider to be a very hostile proposal to the minorities in Quebec. It is a geographical type of bilingualism where Reform would recognize, maybe in the city of Montreal, bilingual rights, or in some other small part of Quebec, but for the rest of Quebec it would be entirely French speaking. By the way, it would sell out the French speaking minorities in the other provinces as well.

I am intrigued but not totally surprised by the approach of the leader of the Reform Party today. He seems to jump on any opportunity for political gain.

Does this mean that he is withdrawing his platform proposals to repeal the Official Languages Act and his proposals for geographic linguistic rights to now adopt a policy for all of Canada whereby we will recognize bilingualism?

The Official Languages Act has a balance within it whereby we recognize the rights of anglophones in Quebec and we recognize the rights of francophones outside Quebec, including Ontario, the west and the Atlantic provinces. Is that what he is now proposing or is he simply proposing this provision today for Quebec minorities but tomorrow for something else?

I also want to remind him that this is not an amendment to the Constitution or to the legislation; it is put forward as a formal resolution of this House and a commitment to the Quebec people, but it is not a constitutional amendment or legislation. Consequently, his proposed amendments to the Official Languages Act would be more harmful to the minorities in Quebec than what he is proposing as an amendment to this resolution.

[Canadian Pacific Railways, November 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

Would the minister say whether the CPR consulted with or advised the government before cutting 700 jobs in Montreal yesterday and shifting its headquarters to Calgary? If so, what reasons were given? Does the government have a plan to deal with this additional loss of quality jobs in the Montreal area?

[Mining Exploration And Development, November 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on September 29, 1995, I asked the Minister of Justice whether he and the Canadian government supported the proposal for an international criminal court and, if so, what they were doing to advance this proposal. While the minister gave me a very positive response on that date, I want to pursue this further in order to put more details on the record of the House with respect to the proposed international criminal court.

Right away I should clarify the difference between the International Court of Justice, that is, the world court presently sitting in The Hague, and the proposed international criminal court.

The existing International Court of Justice, the world court, deals with disputes between the states; in other words, a dispute between the United States and Nicaragua or a dispute between Canada and Spain. If a country breaks its obligations under an international treaty a group of countries or another country may sue the accused country, the state, in the International Court of Justice. However, the International Court of Justice does not deal with international offences committed by individuals which are in violation of the same human rights treaties passed by the United Nations.

For example, although it has been 50 years since the Nuremberg trials following the second world war, nothing has been done to set up courts which can do what the Nuremberg trials did. The Nuremberg trials tried individuals who had committed war crimes during the second world war and held them responsible for their acts before the international community.

While there was a lot of talk following those trials that we should set up a permanent international criminal court, nothing was done until 1953. In 1953 a draft statute was prepared to establish such an international criminal court but it fell victim to the disputes of the cold war and never went anywhere.

However, times have changed and there has been a new initiative in recent years to once again establish an international criminal court which would hold individuals responsible when they commit crimes against humanity, crimes of genocide, crimes of international terrorism and crimes of international drug trafficking. Although such individuals might be charged before their own domestic court or before the court of the country in which the victims were found, there is more credibility if there is a standing international criminal court in which such individuals can be tried.

We can recall a few years ago when certain Libyans were accused of putting a bomb in a plane which blew up over Scotland, killing many people. There was an attempt to bring the Libyans to trial in Scotland but there was a credibility question because many individuals doubted whether the Libyans would get a fair trial in a Scottish court when the passengers were killed in Scotland. It is much better that we have an international criminal court for those kinds of offences in which the judges are from many countries, not necessarily from the country of the victims, and therefore there is a semblance of credibility and fairness.

This matter has advanced quite far. In 1994 the United Nations set up a special ad hoc committee on the establishment of an international criminal court. The ad hoc committee has met twice since last December and the whole matter seems to be well on its way.

My purpose tonight is to ask the parliamentary secretary, since the very positive response of the minister in September, whether the ad hoc committee has completed its work and has reported to the sixth committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations.

When does he expect we will see agreement to a statute setting up such an international criminal court? It will be a great step forward when this is done. I congratulate the Canadian government on the work it has done so far. I hope this whole project will soon see the light of day.

[International Criminal Court, September 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. At the International Conference of Appeal Judges which took place in Ottawa this week there was a serious discussion to establish a permanent international criminal court. Such a court would try individual cases of war crimes, international terrorism and crimes against humanity that are not now handled adequately by domestic courts or ad hoc tribunals.

Would the minister say whether the government supports such a proposal for an international criminal court?

[Points Of Order, September 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, during question period the member for Calgary West referred to a letter which I had sent to one of my constituents who had asked me questions about the referendum. As a matter of fact, that letter was one of several letters exchanged with this same constituent.

Since the hon. member for Calgary West only referred to part of a point I was making to the constituent, I would like the entire point to be on the record and I quote from the letter:

I might say in closing that the results of the referendum will not be binding and have no legal consequences. It is simply a plebiscite in which the people of Quebec will be expressing their preferences. As such, even with the best result, the PQ government could only use it to negotiate a constitutional amendment and even then the federal government has no obligation to respond.

I would ask the hon. member for Calgary West that since the letter he sent over to me is incomplete, would he table the complete letter in the House so that all members can read it.

[Capital Punishment, September 20th, 1995]

My hon. colleague says that is government by opportunism, and that is what it is: if you think you can win a referendum you hold one and you do not call for it when you think you will not win. For example, would this Parliament or the people of Canada be willing to have a referendum on the GST or unemployment insurance or other difficult issues?

The Reform member spoke about keeping horrible murderers in prison at public expense. When we take the total number of inmates and divide it into the total cost of our prison system, it comes to about $50,000 or $60,000 a year for the most serious criminals. I know Reform members understand arithmetic. This does not mean that if one criminal is executed we would save $60,000, because there are fixed costs in the system. If we are really going to save money we would have to execute about 100 criminals a year, I would surmise. Then we could close a prison. Most of our prisons hold about 300 or 400 inmates. If we were really going to save any money we would execute about 100 a year to save a decent amount of money. If we were to start doing that we would rank with the Republic of China in executions. The countries that led the world recently in executions were South Africa and China. We would join that select club if we were to simply execute people to save money.

If we in the House are really serious about protecting the public from violent crime then we have to concentrate on preventive measures, concentrate on measures directed to the causes of violent crime. Capital punishment is a measure to be applied after the murder has taken place. It is a post factum penalty. Penalties are necessary in our criminal law. As I said, we should not have this extreme penalty because of the many objections to it. While penalties are necessary, they will not solve the crime problem. We will solve the crime problem by concentrating on measures to prevent crime and measures directed at the causes of crime.

In conclusion, we cannot convince a society that it is wrong to take a life when the state is ready and willing to take lives.

There are many more arguments and many more aspects to this debate, but we cannot cover them all in 10 minutes.