Keith Martin

[Supply, June 13th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, as I illustrated in my speech, I acknowledge that in times past the English industrial complex abused the majority French speaking people in Quebec, as did the church and their own politicians.

Out of that has come, unfortunately, an inferiority complex among some French Canadians, a second class citizen complex, which is unfortunate and sad. The French Canadian people are not second class citizens even though they believe they are in the eyes of others.

French Canadians are as beloved and respected in Canada as any other group and they are equals in Canada.

[Supply, June 13th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. I would like to commiserate with him on a couple of facts.

We understand completely the fear French speaking people have in their culture and language being diluted in a sea of English speaking people in North America.

I find it hard to imagine that the hon. member feels the rest of Canada has been somehow against French speaking people or has somehow prevented the province of Quebec or the people of Quebec from living their culture and their language.

We in the Reform Party have continued to put forward to give culture and language to all provinces, including Quebec. Today Quebec has the right to preserve and deal with its own French culture and French language.

The responsibility for maintaining French language and French culture in Quebec is entirely the responsibility of the province of Quebec. Whether it lives or dies is its responsibility and not that of any other province.

Nonetheless, this government and previous governments have poured billions of dollars trying to further help the province of Quebec and the French speaking populations in Quebec preserve their language and culture.

I find it passing strange that no other culture in this country, which is made up of so many, not the Italians, not the Scottish, not the East Indians, not the people from Africa, has asked for protection to preserve its culture and language. What do those cultures do? They come to Canada and say to themselves "we will take it upon ourselves to preserve our culture and language and teach the rest of Canada and Canadians about our cultures, our languages to enrich us all". That is what they have done.

They have made this country stronger by doing that. It makes no sense to me why this member feels his people have been somehow hard done by when in my speech I gave illustration after illustration after fact that shows the French culture and French language have taken a preferential place within Canada. Their culture and language have received preferential treatment for decades. If anybody should feel hard done by it is the rest of Canada. The rest of Canada by and large does not because of the tolerance and understanding it has shown to the people of Quebec.

I would be happy to speak to that member or any other member in the Bloc Quebecois, as I know my colleagues would, to understand them better in the hope they too will try to understand us better.

[Supply, June 13th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on this motion. It gives us an opportunity to dispel once again the myths that have been put forward by the separatist politicians, not I might add by the people of Quebec.

The motion by the member for Québec-Est reads:

That the House encourage the federal government to acknowledge the urgency of the situation of francophones in minority situations in Canada, and take the exceptional steps required in order to counter their assimilation and allow their development.

I was on a debate with the member for Québec-Est who put this motion forward. That debate was televised this past weekend. After the cameras went off our debate continued and was quite heated. I said to the member for Québec-Est: "If Quebec separates, the French speaking people in the rest of Canada are very concerned that they will disappear. By virtue of separation the people you will affect the most are your French speaking brothers and sisters outside of Quebec because their language and culture may truly disappear".

He shrugged his shoulders and said: "Who cares?" The member who put this motion forward said: "Who cares what happens to the people who speak French outside of Quebec." That shows the selfishness of this individual and as far as I am concerned he has absolutely no credibility whatsoever in putting this motion forward because it is completely and utterly hypocritical.

In his speech the member for Québec-Est said: "English people hate French Canadians". Let us take a look at the facts. Let us show what the rest of Canada thinks about Quebec. Let us show the tolerance and accommodation that the people outside of Quebec have shown to the people of Quebec for decades.

In 24 of the last 26 years, our prime ministers have been from Quebec. The Supreme Court has three reserved seats for people from Quebec. In my province of British Columbia the French speaking population, la francophonie, represents 1.5 per cent of the population. Yet what percentage of jobs do they get? They occupy two and a half per cent of the federal jobs in British Columbia.

Ottawa has sent to Quebec at least $2.6 billion more than what it has taken in from Quebec every single year for the last 30 years. Quebec has received over $160 billion more than what it has given to Ottawa. These facts are never acknowledged by the separatist politicians. They close their minds to them. They do not acknowledge the favourable position Quebec has received in Confederation.

Let us talk about the referendum. Let us talk about the attitude the rest of Canada has toward Quebec. Tens of thousands of people descended on Montreal to extend their love, their compassion and their strong desire to keep Quebec in Canada as an equal. If that is how the rest of Canada deals with Quebec I would profess that is not hate, that is love. That is what the rest of Canada feels about Quebec. If the member for Québec-Est believes otherwise, I would suggest it is that member who has hate in his heart, not the rest of Canada.

We talk about the French. The Bloc members have often labelled the Reform Party as being anti-French. I suggest that the Bloc members look at their Internet site. The Reform Party has more French services on its Internet site than the government or the Bloc. Is that hating French? Is that not promoting French? Is that not trying to build bridges of understanding and tolerance between Quebecers and the rest of Canada? If that is abuse, then sign me up.

Let us counter the member's argument about assimilation of la francophonie outside of Quebec. Let us look at the efforts of Canadians outside of Quebec to try to preserve and ensure that the French culture survives not only inside but also outside Quebec. There are many issues.

Official bilingualism is a concept we do not agree with. We believe that regional bilingualism would be more effective. The official bilingualism policies are disagreed with by the majority of people outside of Quebec and interestingly enough by the majority of people in Quebec. It is not what Quebecers want.

The government claims it is costing $600 million per year to preserve official bilingualism but the facts are much different. It costs about $4 billion, money which is taken away from hospitals in Quebec, from health care in the rest of Canada, from welfare, from unemployment insurance, from pensions. That is where that money should go. Preferably we would like to use the money to get our debt and deficit down to ensure that Canadians are employed in the future. It costs $4 billion for official bilingualism.

There is $2.7 billion which goes into government services such as translation. Canadians would be appalled to know that it costs the taxpayer 27 cents per word to translate every single document, not on the basis of need but on the basis of official bilingualism which has been rejected by the people of Quebec as well as people in the rest of Canada.

Let us talk about government jobs. In British Columbia, as I said before, the francophonie represent 1.5 per cent of the population

yet they receive 2.5 per cent of the jobs. They represent 35 per cent of the population and receive 38 per cent of federal jobs in Ontario.

Let us look at what happens in Quebec. Let us see how Quebecers, the separatist politicians in the provincial government, feel about preserving minority rights in Quebec. Anglophones represent 13 per cent of the population in Quebec and what percentage do they receive in terms of jobs in the provincial government? One per cent. Thirteen percent of the population in Quebec receives one per cent of the jobs. That is discrimination against the anglophone population in Quebec. That shows how the separatist leadership in Quebec cares about minority rights.

In Quebec the anglophones represent 15 per cent of the population yet they only receive 5 per cent of federal jobs. Why? Again it is favouritism.

These are facts which have come right out of a Treasury Board report. It states that the government must be very concerned about the minority rights of English speaking people in Quebec because repeated actions by separatist politicians, the Parti Quebecois and its current leader, have done everything in their power to trample on the rights of minorities. They make them unwelcome in Quebec. They want them to leave so they can have a yes vote in the next referendum. Those are the facts.

Why is there such a thing as a language policy in Quebec? I will ask this question of my hon. friends from the Bloc Quebecois, and some of them are my friends. Why do they have language police in Quebec who go around making sure that only French is being spoken and not English? The purpose of language is to communicate. The purpose of communication is to understand each other in order to live together in peace and harmony and in an environment of tolerance and understanding.

When we interfere and squash the ability of people to communicate with each other, we separate populations and breed intolerance and misunderstanding. It allows myths to start and it polarizes communities. When I was in Montreal a month ago I found that was happening unfortunately. It was very sad to see that the yes and no communities were polarizing and separating from each other. In doing so, myths are building in both of those communities. It is engendering hate, intolerance and I fear, violence. This can be averted if the federal government puts forward a constructive plan based on listening to the concerns of the people inside and outside Quebec.

If Bill 101 was put forward in Ontario, Newfoundland or British Columbia, we would hear the words bigot and intolerant screamed all across the country. We would never do that in British Columbia because we recognize that kind of legislation prevents people from communicating with each other. However, the rest of Canada has turned a blind eye to a lousy piece of legislation, Bill 101 in Quebec which is only being used to separate populations and make the non-French speaking people unwelcome in Quebec.

What was done after the referendum? Hospitals were closed in the allophone communities in Quebec. Mr. Landry also blamed the immigrants on the failure of a yes vote in Quebec. That is absolutely racist. The people within Quebec, the allophone and anglophone populations, voiced their displeasure but chose to stay in Quebec to build a stronger province and a stronger country. They deserve a great deal of credit for their courage in standing up for their rights in the province.

The financial adviser to the premier of Quebec told Mr. Bouchard that if there was a yes vote the financial penalties paid by the people in Quebec would be horrendous. What happened to those facts? They were deliberately buried and that individual was muzzled. That does not serve the people of Quebec at all. In fact, it is hiding the truth from them. Those individuals ought to be ashamed of themselves.

It is true that French Canadians were discriminated against in the past. Historically the church, their own politicians and the English speaking minority industrial complex served to discriminate against French speaking people in Quebec. They tried to keep them down. They discriminated against them, their language and their culture. There is no denying that. They should be ashamed of themselves because that kind of intolerance has no place in this country.

However, for the past 30 years the strength of the French people in Quebec has increased dramatically. Policies have been put forward by successive governments to ensure that discrimination against them does not occur. These are good policies. It is good to fight against discrimination on this level. We must not create a situation where one group is elevated above another. We must create a situation where all people are treated equally, where all people have the right to enjoy their culture and speak their language free from interference.

The situation now and the zeal to pursue separation has nothing to do with the holy grail of developing and preserving the French culture in North America. It simply has to do with power. The premier of Quebec has one goal and one goal only. It is not to carve a better deal for Quebec and French Canadians in the federation called Canada, it is to create a separate country called Quebec where he can be the president. That is what he is pursuing. Let there be no doubt about it.

That is why any efforts by the Prime Minister to offer distinct society or veto powers to Quebec will fall on deaf ears. Preserving the French culture is not the primary goal of the BQ and PQ; separation is and they are not interested in negotiating with the federal government. The Prime Minister has to work with all members of Parliament to create understanding and tolerance

between groups in Quebec and the rest of Canada and to dispel the myths that have been created over so many decades.

When I speak with members of the Bloc Quebecois it is interesting trying to understand where it is they are coming from. It is interesting to hear the myths they subscribe to. Those myths need to be torn apart. If they believe them, then other people in Quebec believe them. The people who live in Chicoutimi, in northern Quebec, in east Montreal and in the small towns of Quebec are getting a very distorted view of the world.

The propaganda getting to the people is not changing. It will not be changed in this House. It will not be changed by the separatist leaning media in Quebec. The only way to dispel those myths that have been supported for so many decades in Quebec is for members of the House and the Prime Minister to go into Quebec and meet directly with the people.

The Prime Minister must also have a plan. It is increasingly disturbing that in spite of the last referendum the Prime Minister has demonstrated that the government does not have a plan on the national unity issue. There is no plan for a renewed federalism. There is no plan to strengthen the powers of the government and the provinces in areas where they can both do their jobs better. The Prime Minister has not democratized the system. He has also failed to tell the people of Quebec what the terms and consequences of secession will be.

Many separatists in Quebec are under the delusion that they are going to engage in some kind of Maastricht treaty situation such as in Europe and that it will somehow give them more autonomy than they have now. The cold, hard fact is that the Maastricht treaty, if that is what they want to pursue, will give an independent Quebec less power than it has now. Quebec will not accept any fiscal and monetary policies dictated by Ottawa but that is what will happen if there is a separate Quebec and a Maastricht treaty situation is pursued.

It is sad that our country has come to this point. Many people in British Columbia and Quebec are fed up with the national unity issue.

Efforts by such people as the member for Québec-Est with his hateful, spiteful, intolerant comments such as English Canadians hate French Canadians only seek to polarize communities. I know that is what he is trying to do. He is trying to polarise communities. He is trying to get us mad because in getting us mad he is hoping the rest of Canada will say to Quebec "get lost", but that will not happen.

Canadians are a tolerant and understanding people who want Canada to stay together for the betterment of all Canadians, French Canadians and Canadians outside of Quebec. They want the country to stay together because they believe in their hearts that a united Canada provides a stronger, better, safer future for all people in the country.

Some time ago I spoke to a French Canadian separatist who said to me she did not understand. She thought she would have more in common with the people of France than with Canadians outside of Quebec, but that was simply not true. She has a greater kinship with people in Canada than with any other person in any other country. I think it is wise for our fellow Canadians and the Bloc Quebecois to understand that.

Bloc members should look in their hearts to see if the course they are pursuing will truly be better for the people they profess to represent and whether it will truly make their people stronger. Put themselves in our shoes and try to understand that the rest of Canada has for decades continued to tolerate situations which if they occurred in other parts of Canada the people of Quebec would find intolerant.

Whether we are speaking of bill 101 or situations such as the Jewish food importers prevented from selling their product because they were only labelled in English, if those situations occurred outside Quebec they would rightly scream intolerance.

I urge the government to look at the Reform 20-20 principle. We have laid the terms down of a new and stronger federalism for all Canadians and have stated the cold hard facts about the terms of secession. I encourage it to do that before it is too late. If we do not, the country will surely fracture. The Canada we know and see today will not be the Canada we will have tomorrow.

[Supply, June 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there are some things members from the Bloc Quebecois should understand. The purpose of language is communication. It is not to be used as a political knife to wreak havoc among communities and separate one community from another. Language should not be used as a political tool to destroy a country and divide people who are otherwise tolerant, understanding and who truly care about each other and want to live together.

I would like to ask the hon. member about a few facts from his party and the Treasury Board. In Quebec anglophones represent 15 per cent of the population but receive only 5 per cent of the jobs. Treasury Board has said this is a deplorable situation and must be rectified to provide a balance. For years the anglophone population in Quebec has been trampled on under the guise of official bilingualism. The reality is the anglophone population has its rights, and its ability to communicate is being destroyed.

I ask the hon. member what he will do to rectify the situation of English speaking people representing 15 per cent of the population in Quebec but receiving only 5 per cent of the jobs in the federal government. Those are his own statistics.

[Supply, June 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for the minister.

Hahamovitch Kosher Imports of Quebec was being investigated by the l'Office de la langue française in Quebec for abrogating French language laws.

The French language police in Quebec have dropped those charges, yet this government through the Minister of Justice is continuing to pursue charges against this group, this religious group importing religious foods from overseas.

I ask the minister why her government is continuing to pursue charges against the Hahamovitch kosher food company when l'Office de la langue Française has dropped its charges.

[Supply, June 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I like French Canadians.

I find the hon. member's intervention quite intriguing. He is trying to polarize Canadians with comments such as English Canadians hate French Canadians. Comments like that are engendered to further the separatist cause, not to develop peace, understanding and tolerance between groups. Its primary reason is to engender hate, intolerance and misunderstanding between these groups.

I debated with this member on television a week and a half ago. I asked the hon. member that if Quebec separates, what will happen to the French speaking people outside of Quebec. The response of the member, who raised this motion, was a shrug of the shoulders: "Who cares?" This from the member who professes to fight for the rights of French speaking people outside of Quebec and who brought forth this motion.

I ask the hon. member why he said that. What is his explanation for that?

[Oceans Act, June 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-26 and the motions in group No. 11.

Motion No. 70 deals with how to pay for some very important factors of fisheries and oceans. One of these is the coast guard. It is of particular importance in my riding of Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, which has a large coastline and where thousands of boaters are on the water in inclement weather and need coast guard services. These days the coast guard is under tight fiscal constraints and is finding it increasingly difficult to provide those necessary services in our waters.

We in the Reform Party believe in the principle of Motion No. 70 which states that services by the coast guard are most effectively paid for on a user fee basis. That is common sense. Why should somebody who is not using the service pay for it?

Another ancillary problem I have in my riding, which I would ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to look at, is what is happening to the volunteer rescue services on our coasts. They are

having an increasingly difficult time paying for the important services they provide, given the length of coastline and the limited number of coast guard. Often they are the first response team to arrive at situations where people's lives are at stake.

In Sooke, British Columbia in my riding, it is of particular importance. The people there save dozens of lives every year, yet that service may close down. I ask the minister to look at one of the solutions that has been discussed in my community. Perhaps a surcharge could be established on moorage fees that could be used locally to provide the funds necessary to maintain search and rescue services in the community. Bear in mind this is a cost effective way of doing it because the people who man the search and rescue service are essentially volunteers and the moneys they use go into the infrastructure they need; the rigid hull zodiacs, fuel, training, et cetera.

I would ask the minister to look at that and remind him of the desperate need of these volunteer departments across the country for funds. Some way has to be found to enable these rescue services to fund themselves. I know there is no more money in the pot to do this. There are alternatives and I would suggest he look at them.

Motion No. 71 is very important and Reform opposes it. It seeks to limit the minister's marine protection areas to fisheries alone. We oppose it because the protection of the fish extends to their habitat. The creatures that live in the sea depend on their habitat in order to survive. Therefore preservation of the species without preservation of the habitat makes no sense. They are two parts of the same whole, and it is absolutely essential that habitat be protected.

I mention again my riding of Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. One of the problems, particularly with forestry, is the large amount of degradation of habitat up and down the coast. As a result, many species are being devastated, particularly salmon and crustaceans such as shellfish.

This is not solely a problem of poaching or overutilization, but a problem of habitat destruction. Regardless of what species one is looking at, whether on land or in the ocean, the primary reason these species are coming down in numbers and why species around the world are threatened is habitat destruction.

I hope that the minister will rethink Motion No. 71 and in the future extend this to involve not only the fisheries, but also the habitat. He only needs to look at the salmon fishery on the west coast to see the devastation that habitat destruction has wrought.

A constructive way of improving this is to go to the people who actually destroyed the habitat in the first place. Many of the companies on the west coast, particularly some of the forestry companies, are primarily responsible for the destruction of this habitat and have got off scot-free. The minister should work with these groups and try to have a co-operative arrangement with them to try to improve the habitat and get it back to where it was before it was destroyed. It can be a mutually beneficial situation that can improve the communities and the commercial sector.

Motion No. 73 deals with research. We support this, because research, not only in fisheries but in other aspects of our industrial and environmental complex is quite fundamental.

I would like the minister to look at a couple of areas. There have been a number of criticisms from other countries. I will take one specific example. It deals with aquaculture.

As members know, Canada used to lead the world in aquaculture. We do not lead the world any more. Chile does. Why? It is in part because we have failed to be aggressive in the utilization of our resources. We used to be on the cutting edge of aquaculture, including research, but we are not there any more.

We were handed an opportunity to continue to be leaders and also to take our position as the number one country in the world in aquaculture, with who else but Iceland? Iceland has approached this government, and previous governments, to make co-operative interventions in the science of aquaculture in ways in which we can maximize the resources within our oceans in a sustainable fashion.

The people in Iceland came to Canada on many occasions with open arms, with good ideas and basically were told to go away, that Canadians were not interested. That does a huge disservice to our fisheries and to the people whose livelihood is dependent on fisheries and oceans. This country has a huge opportunity in fisheries and in aquaculture and we need to capitalize on that.

Part of the way we can capitalize is to invest in research and development, primarily through co-operative arrangements with the private sector. There is no new money, but money could be found in the private sector. The government can take a leadership role in this important area. It will lead to greater employment in our country.

In short, the Reform Party supports Bill C-26, the oceans act. Some of the motions we are going to support were not in Group No. 11. I would ask, with the constructive criticisms that the minister has heard today, that he takes them home with him and looks at them carefully to build a better bill.

[Referendums, June 5th, 1996]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should, in accordance with international law, be willing to consider negotiating with any secessionist claim in the event of a future referendum, if and only if the following criteria are met: (1) the secessionist unit be comprised of a "people" meeting international standards;

(2) the people must have been subject to a denial of political freedom or human rights in a discriminatory manner; (3) the seceding unit must demonstrate in practical terms that it has and can create a practicable and governable state which can assert effective control over a reasonably well defined territory; (4) a clear and precise question is asked as to whether the population in question wishes to secede from Canada; and (5) two-thirds of the population vote in favour of the clear and precise question.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to introduce Motion No. 206 today. This motion would be unnecessary if the government had had a plan to deal with the national referendum issue that still haunts us to this day.

The national unity issue that we thought would be finished at the end of last year is unfortunately in front of us once again. The separatist leadership in Quebec continues to pursue a course and is trying to carve up this beautiful country that we know as Canada. The separatist politicians in Quebec are trying to seduce the population in Quebec, to try to lead them to the holy grail of separation.

The purpose of this motion is to put forward some terms of secession, some identifiable groundwork for the criteria for secession. What is patently evident from last October 30 is that the federal government did not have a plan A or a plan B. It did not have a plan if it was a yes vote and did not have a plan if it was a no vote. Sadly, after discussions in the House over the last two weeks and on questioning the government, it has repeatedly demonstrated that it still does not have a plan as our country moves inexorably toward the edge of a cliff of separation.

I have put forward Motion No. 206 in which I have tried to use the criteria under international law that is commonly respected throughout the world. The premier of Quebec has said that international law will be respected over internal law. The Prime Minister has said that international law will be respected. The attorney general of Quebec has said the same thing. No one has defined what it is in international law that allows an area to secede.

That is what Motion No. 206 is all about. It states that an area in Canada can secede if it meets the following five criteria: (1) that the secessionist unit be comprised of a "people"; (2) these people have been subject to a denial of their political freedom or human rights in a discriminatory manner; (3) the seceding unit must demonstrate that they can create a government; (4) that a clear and precise question be asked; and (5) that the question be passed by a two-thirds majority.

Those are the terms of secession. Those are the criteria which are required if the international community is going to recognize a new country. It is being applied all over the world. It was applied in the case of Czechoslovakia. The Slovak Republic could not secede from Czechoslovakia because it could not meet these criteria.

If Quebec or another part of this country wishes to secede it will have to fulfil these five criteria also. If it does not then it will not be recognized as a country in the international community.

I am appalled that the government chose not to make my motion votable. Incidentally, this is the only OECD country in the world that has non-votable private members' motions. What a waste of time and money. It costs the taxpayer $25,000 an hour to keep this place open, and for what? I caution the government in the future to be democratic, give members the power to represent their people and make these private members' motions, all of them, votable.

This motion came from the lack of desire, will and courage by the government to demonstrate and define for the Canadian people what it takes to secede. Does Quebec meet the five criteria that I mentioned? Let us take a look.

Part of the criteria is that the rights of the people in Quebec have to be abrogated. They claim that their rights have been abrogated. They claim that somehow they became second class citizens. One can only become a second class citizen if one allows it to happen. I am completely fed up with the whining that takes place from the separatist politicians and I know the members of this House are also.

Let us take a look at the facts. Are Quebecers second class citizens? Have the people of Quebec had their rights abrogated? For 24 of the last 26 years the prime ministers of this country have been Quebecers. Three out of the ten supreme court justices are from Quebec. Quebec's separate civil code is respected by the rest of the country. Quebec is allowed to have its own pension plan. It has opted out of the CPP. It is tolerated by the rest of Canada.

Let us take a look at the cold, hard economics. Members of the Bloc have said that the people of Quebec have not received their fair share. Let us look at the facts.

Since 1972 the province of Quebec has received $2.6 billion, at least, in excess of what it has paid out. From 1961 to 1991 the province of Quebec has received net transfers of $160 billion, funded by the rest of Canada. It is funded by the same part of Canada the separatists believe they are being abused by and treated as second class citizens. If that is being treated as a second class citizen, count British Columbia in.

Firms have been encouraged to operate in Quebec. Eighty-five thousand people in Quebec work in federal government jobs. A further 25,000 work in Ontario. Is that second class citizenship? Is that having their rights abused? I challenge anybody to name another country in the world where the people are supposedly having their rights abused because they receive economic and constitutional benefits. Those are the facts that Quebec has had to endure.

I ask the separatist politicians who keep complaining about their lot in life as a part of Canada to put themselves in the shoes of those living outside Quebec. They should put themselves in the shoes of the people who live in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario or Newfoundland. How do they feel about having to give their tax dollars to Quebec? That is a measure of tolerance. What we have seen in this whole debate is a measure of great intolerance. If we demonstrate that, this country will surely fracture.

What has been the response of the separatist politicians in Quebec? What did they do after the referendum? They blamed their defeat on the immigrants. They closed down hospitals in the immigrant populated areas of Montreal. That was not by accident; it was done deliberately to drive out the immigrant population that voted for a united Canada. That is absolutely disgusting.

Imagine a bill similar to Bill 101 being implemented in Ontario or in British Columbia. The people of Quebec and in fact non-English speaking people would be absolutely furious, and rightly so. It is discrimination.

That has been the response of the separatist politicians in Quebec to the non-francophones in that province. Is that care and consideration? Is that showing tolerance? Is that showing understanding? Is that trying to build a united country that is fair to all its members? I think not.

I presented Motion No. 206 because of the muddled, unco-ordinated approach made prior to the referendum by the federal government. Its lack of understanding continues to spiral on the national unity issue. I want to add an element of understanding and define the rules of the terrible game we are playing.

What must we do to keep Canada together? The first thing is the Prime Minister has to understand that the separatist leadership has no interest whatsoever in being a part of Canada. The separatist leadership wants only one thing: a separate country called Quebec. If we recognize that, then we also have to accept the fact that negotiating with the separatists will not keep this country together. The Prime Minister can stand on his head and spit distinctive society clauses all he wants but it will not keep Canada together because the separatist politicians do not want to be in Canada.

What must the Prime Minister do? He has to go directly to the people with a plan for a new federalism. He has to build bridges of tolerance and understanding between the people of Quebec, not the politicians, and the rest of Canada. He has to build bridges of tolerance and understanding between Quebecers themselves.

A few weeks ago I was in Montreal for a national unity rally and I was shocked, saddened and appalled. There is a polarization between the yes and the no sides. These individuals are reacting violently toward each other. Bridges of understanding are not developing.

The Prime Minister must go into Quebec with all members of Parliament who want to keep the country together and bring forth a plan for a new federalism. It must involve a decentralization of powers to the provinces including Quebec. By decentralization I do not mean making a weak federal government, but being intelligent about it. Powers should be given to all the provinces in areas that they can manage more efficiently and cost effectively. We should keep within the federal government in Ottawa the powers that a strong federal government can manage better. That is for the sake of all Canadians.

The Prime Minister has to dispel the myths which have developed between the separatists and people in the rest of Canada. In the last referendum half of the people who voted yes believed they would still have Canadian passports. They believed they could send members of Parliament to this House. They believed they could use the Canadian dollar. They believed they would be part of NAFTA and that business would continue as usual. That is a complete distortion of the truth.

In Mr. Bouchard's speech on television on October 26 he stressed in English that the vote was about sovereignty and the rest of Canada must be prepared to recognize the results. In French he emphasized that the offer of political and economic partnership be made to the rest of Canada. Those are two very different ideas on the same very important topic. This has to be dispelled. The Prime Minister must outline very clearly to the people of Quebec what separation means and dispel the myths coming forth from the separatist politicians.

Mr. Bouchard likes to say that the economic situation in Quebec is going to be better than it is currently with Quebec as part of Canada. That is simply not true. Before the referendum his own financial analyst said that in the event of separation the people of Quebec would suffer dire economic and social consequences. That information was deliberately suppressed by the separatist leadership in Quebec. The Prime Minister must explain in no uncertain terms to the people of Quebec the consequences of separation.

The premier of Quebec likes to say that the people in an independent Quebec would enjoy a situation such as exists in Europe under the Maastricht treaty. The fact is the Maastricht treaty would provide Quebec with less monetary and fiscal control

than what it has today. In fact, I cannot see an independent Quebec taking its monetary and fiscal orders from Ottawa but that is exactly what a Maastricht treaty would provide for a separate Quebec.

I fear if the national unity issue is left up to the politicians, Canada is going to fracture. The Prime Minister has muddled through this issue. He is not prepared to lay it on the line, not only to the people in Quebec but also to the rest of Canada. If he believes he can muddle through this, if that is what his advisers are telling him, he is dead wrong because this country will fracture.

The Prime Minister must deal with the people and work with all other politicians in this House. He must go into the trenches. He cannot stay in Montreal and Quebec City and deal with the separatist media there and expect to get his message across. He has to go eyeball to eyeball, flesh and blood, right into the rural areas of Quebec. He must meet with the people, understand their concerns and get the good ideas from Quebecers. He must address their concerns and their needs to preserve their beautiful language which is an integral and important part of the Canada we all know and love.

It is important to preserve Quebec's distinctiveness and culture. If the Prime Minister gives the responsibilities of language and culture to the province of Quebec, then Quebecers are going to be the masters of their own cultural and linguistic destinies. Whether their language and culture survive will be entirely up to them. Personally, I deeply hope they do because they enrich all of us.

The Prime Minister must also understand that if he is going to put forth ideas that are somehow unequal and are only for the people of Quebec and not for other Canadians, he faces the risk of having other areas in Canada fracture and separate.

British Columbians are absolutely fed up with pandering to Quebec. They want equality for all people. They want Quebec to stay in Canada because from the bottom of their hearts they believe that the culture, language and contributions Quebec and Quebecers have made are invaluable to the definition of our country. Quebec's beautiful language and culture enriches us all.

British Columbians do not want Quebec to stay in Canada as a group with special privileges and special laws and regulations that the rest of Canada does not enjoy. One of the problems we see in the world is that any time one group is given special privileges over another, disunity rather than unity is created.

The Prime Minister will have to show a great deal of statesmanship if he is going to keep this country together. It could be his legacy if he is effective in doing that. He must put a plan together on the national unity issue. I encourage him to look at the Reform 20-20 plan which has a plan A and a plan B. It has a sensible plan on the devolution of powers from the federal government and the separation of powers for all the provinces.

We need to bring Canadians together. We are standing at a crossroads. The Prime Minister must lay down the guidelines for secession. I hope he uses this motion to define the terms of secession for the people in Quebec and outside Quebec. He must state the consequences of secession for all Canadians. He must include all MPs in this House. He must define and describe a new federalism. He must dissipate the intolerance that is taking place within Quebec. Mark my words. The intolerance that is brewing now is going to ultimately boil over in violence. That is not Canadian. If he does not realize it, I challenge him to go back on the streets and find out.

I challenge people across the country, inside and outside Quebec, francophone and anglophone, to put themselves in their neighbour's shoes and understand where they come from. Together and united, we will build a stronger future for all of us. We must use our differences with respect and understanding to build a stronger country for all of us.

[The Environment, June 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this is National Environment Week.

This government and others continue to ignore the single unifying cause of the destruction of our agricultural lands, water quality and ozone that combine to make our environment increasingly compromised. The primary cause of the environmental degradation I speak about is our own population growth rate, with its increasing consumption of our dwindling resources which produces environmental degradation and populations under stress. This is a vicious cycle that no one is looking at because they are not prepared to deal with the politically incorrect topic of our own reproductive growth rates.

Our own reproductive success is destroying the beautiful home we call Earth. The response from governments on the environment have been motherhood statements and a nibbling around the edges. Even domestically the government has failed to act on a number of important issues, including the Taro dump site in Hamilton, the clean-up of 24 hazardous toxic sites in Canada, and our endangered species.

If this inaction is indicative of the government's response to the environment, then we are all in big trouble.

[Tobacco Products Control Act, June 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I brought these ideas forward two years ago.

We support Bill C-24 as a first step. However, I take issue with the hon. member when he said the initiatives of the government have worked.

As we have mentioned before in the House, tobacco consumption among youth has increased dramatically since the tobacco tax rollback. Statistics from the ministry of health showed conclusively six months after the tobacco tax rollback that consumption by youth was increasing alarmingly. That proves the tobacco tax rollback has had a terrible effect on consumption by youth.

I will acknowledge that the hon. member was correct when he said that previous initiatives did work. In the 15 years before May of 1994 tobacco consumption had been progressively decreasing. However, as soon as the tobacco tax rollback took place consumption skyrocketed. They are directly related.

While I say Bill C-24 is a welcome initiative, why is the government pursuing little initiatives which are to have little effect? Why does it not pursue the big issues and the big initiatives which will have a big effect on the health of Canadians? As we stand here and pussy foot around the issue, every single day more youth are taking up smoking and more people are consuming of this lethal product.

Tomorrow if the government wishes, it could bring back those tobacco taxes. It would not find disagreement in the House. Also, it should put tobacco in the Food and Drugs Act. Then the government would have the legislative ability to do the things it ought to be doing.