Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-110, part of the unity package by the Liberal government and the Prime Minister, which appears has created more disunity than any recent package.
As minister Petter from British Columbia recently said, it not only fails to promote national unity but it has impaired national unity, a position with which I heartily agree.
In the north, in particular Yukon and Northwest Territories, and I hope my colleagues from Western Arctic and Nunatsiaq will speak up on this issue, this bill will make it even more difficult for the creation of new provinces. I find it difficult to understand why
those two important members of the Liberal government would not be speaking out strongly against this proposal.
The west, as we know, feels alienated. Quebec says no. Clearly this bill is not creating unity. As has been said recently, when you have painted yourself into a corner, you walk out on the paint. The Prime Minister has really walked out on the paint in this case. The footprints are causing reverberations right across Canada. They are not reverberations of unity but of discontent with the actions of the government prior to the referendum in Quebec and with its actions to address issues since then.
I will talk about three issues: the purpose of this bill, the process surrounding this bill and the other two aspects of this package, and the content. As good New Democrats always do, I will give some specific suggestions to what should be done with this bill.
I have listened very carefully to various members who spoke before committee, in particular the Minister of Justice, about why it was important to have this bill. I am left wondering whether there has been someone out there hiding behind a rock, excuse the expression, waiting to leap out and spring some kind of constitutional proposal on us that somehow the federal government has to be protected against and enshrined in legislation such as Bill C-110 so it will know what to do. Maybe that is one purpose, but it was something that was certainly a surprise to most of us.
Bill C-110 instructs the government on how it will use its power to accept or not accept constitutional amendments. It does not change the Constitution. Therefore that was obviously not the purpose of the bill.
The leader of the Liberal Party in Yukon, always with constructive comment, said in the Whitehorse Start of December 5 that the Prime Minister is trying to fulfil his promise of coming up with a plan that will satisfy the people of Quebec. He clearly has not done that.
What could be the other purpose? The Minister of Justice said in committee hearings: "This bill is just a bridge to the April 1997 constitutional conference on the amending formula. It can be changed. It is just in place temporarily". Again, we have to ask why. If it is there temporarily, it is satisfies no one, what is the real purpose?
The leader of the New Democratic Party, Alexa McDonough, called this constitutional package a fly by the seat of its pants response to yesterday's polls and today's editorials. That about sums up the purpose of this package, in particular this piece of legislation under discussion today.
The Minister of Justice said in terms of purpose that Quebec is acting and so we have to act. I guess by that sense of logic if someone decides to leap off a building, they will decide to leap off a building. There does not seem to be any comprehensive reason for this package other than for the Prime Minister to save face. He has not succeeded. It is a heck of a way to run a country if the government and the Prime Minister are simply putting proposals forward to keep a promise. These proposals do not keep that promise and they alienate not only the province to which they are destined but the other provinces and territories.
What about the process? There was no consultation with provinces, territories or aboriginal people. Apparently there was no obvious consultation even with members from British Columbia on the Liberal side.
It is fair to say that the process generally in place for constitutional discussions was totally circumvented. Those of us who have been a part of many constitutional endeavours in the House know how difficult it is and are empathetic to it. However, no process is not a substitute. No process is no democracy. That cannot be the essence and principle on which constitutional change is made.
The Prime Minister said that he responded to British Columbia, that it would now have the veto it requested. He added in a recent television interview that he knew the country well and had travelled it for 32 years. If the Prime Minister knows the country and the people so well, why does he not listen beforehand rather than act in an ad hoc manner?
I have to say, because I want to be fair to the government, that there was not a complete lack of consultation. In the same article of December 5 in the Whitehorse Star the president of the federal Liberal association is quoted as saying that she received calls from the prime minister's office and was reassured that changes would not be a hindrance to Yukon. The president went on to say that she felt very reassured after speaking with officials from Ottawa.
I would only say: "It should be so easy". If we have Canadians and members of the Liberal Party in other parts of the country who simply by making a phone call to Ottawa can be reassured by the Liberal government that everything they are doing is fine and there is no worry, I have to say we are in big trouble.
To the people of Yukon and elsewhere I say that a simple reassurance will not do it. It has not done so in this package. It has not done so in Bill C-110. Clearly the Minister of Justice has difficulty defining for Canadians and members of the House what purpose it will actually serve. The process was clearly not respected in any way in the development of the legislation.
In terms of process, the Liberal Party brought in closure on debate. It is something we have great difficulty with because we feel in a democratic system everyone should have an opportunity to speak. Although my party and I did not support closure, in this case I suppose the Liberals are only talking to themselves anyway. We have to wonder how serious that will be.
Now I will refer to the content. How does Bill C-110 relate to section 38 of the Constitution? That is the real question. Section 38 talks about the amending formula of seven provinces with 50 per cent of the population. This legislation would require over 80 per cent of the population to make change. It is clearly a very different intent from the actual Constitution.
The Minister of Justice says that it does not matter, that it is only temporary. Again I ask if there is someone out there lurking, wishing to spring something on us, from which we have to be protected. Why can we not have a process that people are involved in, with full consultation involving all the provinces, territories and aboriginal people?
We ask whether the formula being proposed under Bill C-110 will be the position of the federal government in the talks in April 1997 on the Constitution and the amending formula. The government has been very unclear about that and has not committed at all to what it will do.
In the generosity of spirit for which my party is known I should like to make some recommendations. The first one is to withdraw the bill. It is ill advised. It is not achieving any objective. The process has been illegitimate and the content does not address the real issues of Canadians today.
The second one is to undertake consultations with the provinces, the territories and the aboriginal people to reach a consensus.
The third and most important one is if the bill is simply for the Prime Minister to save face and to be seen to keeping his promises, he should keep his promises and create jobs. Last month 44,000 Canadians lost their jobs. If the Prime Minister wants to keep his promises, he should create jobs and help the youth to participate in the economy. The participation rate of youth in our economy is the lowest in 20 years. He should put in place the 50,000 child care spaces promised by the Liberal Party and ensure cash transfers are maintained so that the national health care system is preserved.
In other words, unity will be achieved by what we do to ensure economic security, safe communities and the rights of Canadian citizenship, which surely must mean good health care, jobs, security for the elderly and the eradication of child poverty. Instead of trying to devise formulas for 50 ways to say no, the Prime Minister must create unity by creating a country in which every Canadian wants to say yes.
