Mr. Speaker, the member should just go to his office and read page 22 of the red book. He will see that we are doing what we said we would do. It is very clear.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 54% of the vote.
Liberal Party May 14th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the member should just go to his office and read page 22 of the red book. He will see that we are doing what we said we would do. It is very clear.
Liberal Party May 14th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, we keep our promises. I will give the member an example. His party is always telling us that we should have free votes in the House of Commons.
When there was a free vote last week members of his party were all forced to vote the way their leader wanted them to vote. These are members of a party that said it would be a new type of Parliament for them. They were so civilized that their leader was in the last row at the beginning. He has now moved to the first row and they throw books on the floor.
National Unity May 14th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, we have a plan. The plan will be presented to the premiers in June. The plan is an extremely important one.
I remember all the people in the previous encounter. It makes me laugh when the leader of the third party gets up. He voted against the Charlottetown plan. Today he gets up and complains because senators are not elected. He rejected that. He could not understand that if you want to do everything at the same time you go nowhere.
For us, we will do what can be done today, tomorrow, or next year. Canada will be changed. Rather than having only speeches and conferences as we have had for the last 10 years, there is going to be action in June.
National Unity May 14th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I gave a long list. I mentioned the spending powers of the federal government.
We have quite a project and a plan when I compare it with the plan of the Reform Party. Probably the desire of the Reform Party is to be left with no Canada. For me, I want a government in Ottawa that can operate for the benefit of all Canadians and give enough autonomy for the provinces to make sure that they serve their citizens in the way they should.
I have a long list. I have discussed it with the premiers. I hope that everybody will look at this list seriously. If everything is rejected before negotiations start, we will go nowhere. It is why the Reform Party is really going nowhere these days.
National Unity May 14th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third party has only to read the speech from the throne where we said very clearly that we want to withdraw the federal government from manpower training. We have talked about other sectors where we should withdraw.
Also, we have said that we have to work to make sure that the economic union in Canada functions better. We have talked about a national securities commission to simplify the movement of capital within Canada and the entry of capital from abroad. We have proposed other initiatives, in food inspection for example.
We want to have a package that will make Canada function better; it is too bad that I will have to send a copy of the speech from the throne to the leader of the third party.
Referendums May 14th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, first of all, if you want to talk about the supremacy of democracy, start by respecting democracy after two Quebec referendums.
Instead of using a straight question, there was a so-called winning question, yet even with that they lost. That is the democratic reality. What the people of Quebec want, like Canadians at this time, is for us to work together to renew the Canadian Constitution.
I have referred to this in my speech. We will be making considerable changes, and I trust the Bloc Quebecois will at least be objective enough to look at our proposals. Of course they will never be satisfied, since they want separation, but that is not what Quebecers want.
Referendums May 14th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, we have no objections to hearing what Quebecers want. We have had two referendums. We have been involved in them, I personally in both. But there is one reality: both times the people of Quebec came out in favour of remaining in Canada.
But, like the Parti Quebecois, the Bloc Quebecois refuses to acknowledge this expression of Quebecers' will. They do not want to accept the choice of the people. Saying they are not pleased with the outcome, they want to start all over.
This is not a hockey playoff here. It is not three out of five, or four out of seven. The will of the people must be respected and the will of the people is that they want us to have a renewed federalism, and this we are prepared to do. It is our hope that the Bloc Quebecois, like the Parti Quebecois, will be prepared to help us renew Canadian federation.
Referendums May 14th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois referred repeatedly to democracy. There have been two referendums where the people of Quebec have decided to remain in Canada. This is what we are asking for-respect of democracy.
They do not want Quebec to be isolated, and this is my greatest wish. I want the premier of Quebec to respect the opinion of Quebecers who voted no in the referendum and who, moreover, in survey after survey say they would like the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec to sit down together and find a solution. This is what we are trying to do.
At the first ministers' conference in June, the federal government will be prepared to make many of the changes sought for years. When I propose change, the Bloc Quebecois does not want change. They are not honest enough to say that their only concern is separation. Obviously, I will always be against separation.
Referendums May 14th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what I said. It is the duty of the government to protect the Canadian Constitution and the vested rights of people of all parts of the country.
As regards the referendum, we have taken part in referendums. We are talking about Quebec's Referendum Act. I have always said, and I have said so in the House of Commons a number of times: some people believe the country can be broken up by a single vote in a referendum. The CSN's constitution requires a two thirds majority to change something in it. The same is true for the FTQ, and apparently the constitution of the Parti Quebecois as well.
We say that the laws of Canada must be respected, that there will be no unilateral declaration of independence and that international law, too, must be respected.
Referendums May 14th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the government meets its obligations. On behalf of the government, the Minister of Justice is defending the constitutional rights of all Canadians.
The debate is currently before the courts and they will make the appropriate decisions. We will advise following these decisions.
As Mr. Bouchard said on Monday, there is no way a government could not be involved in a case like this one. When I offered him to ask the Attorney General of Canada to stay out it if Quebec did likewise, they decided to introduce a motion providing specifically that, at some point, the Constitution of Canada would not apply to the people of Canada. It is the duty of the government to protect Canada's Constitution.