Lawrence Cannon

[Canada Post, November 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, rural Canadians are receiving their mail and progress has been noted on that file.

I have met on several occasions with the president and the chairman of Canada Post to bring forward a comprehensive plan that will necessarily encompass the wishes of this House to continue to maintain traditional rural mail delivery. The purpose for which I am working with Canada Post is to be able to do that so Canadians will be pleased and satisfied that it is done with the utmost safety and concern for the employees also.

[Taxation, November 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that, in recent months, we have consulted the provinces, territories and municipalities. The Minister of Finance did an exceptional job. We will settle the fiscal imbalance issue. I am asking the hon. member to be patient. We are getting there. We are committed to doing it and, as usual, we will deliver.

[Taxation, November 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, first, I think it is very important to congratulate the Minister of Finance on his excellent economic plan, particularly since this document shows that the Canadian economy is doing extremely well. Our economy is sound, it is creating jobs, and the long term forecasts are very optimistic. As for the fiscal imbalance, I should point out that the Minister of Finance said in this House that he will have the opportunity to meet with his provincial and territorial counterparts, on December 15.

[The Québécois, November 24th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member and his party for the support they are going to give this proposal. I would say that Canada has clearly demonstrated over the course of its history, and through its different constitutions, the important role that Quebeckers play. Before, it was the French Canadian community. Then it became the Québécois. In this country, we have a mosaic of people, nations, immigrants and groups that came together and built this strong country.

What we are doing by this resolution is indicating that today, November 24, there is indeed a recognition that has to be given to Quebeckers, à tous les Québécois et les Québécoises quant à leur contribution, and obviously to the maintenance and the commitment. They have done this, I recall, on two occasions. I was there. I fought for Canadian unity in the referendums, as did my colleague, the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie.

Fundamentally what we are saying is that Quebeckers are part of Canada. They are an integral part of Canada and they do want to continue in that way. They voted massively in favour of that and they promoted that.

[The Québécois, November 24th, 2006]

moved:

That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada.

Mr. Speaker, first off, I have to admit that it is with great pride that I propose at this time that the following motion be concurred in:

That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada.

Such pride comes, first, from the fact that this motion was put forward in this place on Tuesday by the Prime Minister of our country and that it has allowed us to share a rare moment of solidarity among all members of this House who believe in Canadian unity and want to help preserve it.

On this occasion, most of us experienced something akin to a moment of grace in the middle of debates that usually divide us along party lines.

We all know that, under such circumstances, there can be no unanimity in Parliament. We have here a caucus whose stated purpose is precisely to break our unity, a caucus that will always vehemently oppose any measure or great initiative designed to cement the historical spirit of cooperation between francophones and anglophones in Canada. The irony of the situation is not lost on anyone anymore.

Here is a party which has been sitting in the federal Parliament for 16 years, yet purports to demonstrate the uselessness of federal ties. Here is a party ensconced in our parliamentary system with the objective of advancing the specificity of Quebec, but when given the opportunity, it will not recognize that Quebeckers form a nation within a unified Canada.

It must be said, more out of sorrow than anger or despair, that unanimity is not possible in this Parliament because there is one party represented here that does not want Canada to succeed. Tuesday's spontaneous show of support by the members of those parties who do believe in Canada for the motion put forth by the Prime Minister is as close to unanimity as we can possibly get. The fact itself should be a powerful reminder of the necessity for us to reflect carefully on what should unite us and what could divide us.

Nevertheless, here in this House, we are all democrats. Every last one of us represents Canadian democracy. I believe that our first responsibility as members is to exemplify and defend Canadian democracy. That is what we are doing and that is what generations of men and women from all across this vast nation have done before us.

I am thinking especially of those generations of members who have brought forward in this House the grievances, questions, achievements and hopes of their fellow citizens from Gaspésie, Saguenay, Abitibi-Témiscamingue, the Outaouais, Quebec City, Trois-Rivières, Montreal, the South Shore and the North Shore. They have come here from our cities, our regions, our plains and our mountains to accomplish something and take something back to their communities. Most of them have been Conservatives or Liberals, but there have also been Créditistes, members of the Bloc populaire and independents. There was even an NDP member from Quebec once.

However, I do not think that there has ever been a group of members in this House, not even a single member from Quebec, who would have been opposed to recognizing that Quebeckers belong to a nation within a united Canada, simply because they all know that they belong to the Quebec nation within a united Canada—even the members of the Bloc Québécois, though they do not want to admit it.

The Bloc Québécois members are a little like Molière's Monsieur Jourdain, who wrote prose but did not know it: they belong to the Quebec nation within a united Canada without even knowing it. Having Quebec members in Canada's Parliament whose goal is for there to be no Quebec members in Parliament is unprecedented.

Bloc Québécois members are also democrats and representatives of democracy. We must recognize that. They sit among us because they were elected, just like the rest of us, by their fellow citizens. They are members of Parliament and Quebeckers, as am I, which gives me the right speak to them frankly.

If I may, I would also like to emphasize how proud I am that the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie supports the passing of this resolution. I have been a great admirer of the hon. member for a very long time. I had the privilege of serving alongside this remarkable woman for five years in the Quebec National Assembly, when we were both part of Robert Bourassa's government.

The hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie and I now sit on opposite sides of this House, but such is life in politics. I feel nonetheless very comforted, even touched, to know that we are still on the same side when Quebec's higher interests and Canada's integrity are at stake.

Like her leader and almost all her Liberal colleagues, and like the members of the NDP, I would like to point out, the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie has chosen to put the interests of the country before the interests of her party. The hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie and I experienced, from the Quebec perspective, the grand adventure of the Meech Lake accords, which, as I recall, inspired tremendous enthusiasm and also caused plenty of anguish.

Yesterday, I alluded to the role of separatist groups in the eventual failure of that promising constitutional initiative. I will not repeat myself here today, except to say the following to my Bloc Québécois colleagues. Nearly ten years ago, you were on the wrong side of history and the majority of Quebeckers were not with you. Please do not make the same mistake again here today. The majority of the people who elected you to serve them are delighted that we are recognizing them for what they always have been and what they always will be. Support this motion. Recognize your constituents for what they are, and not for what you would like them to be—which they have always democratically rejected.

You can always defend your dream of a sovereign Quebec, but do not close your eyes on today's Quebec.

I must repeat what I said yesterday: division has never helped us Quebeckers. This is even truer now. The world is not going to stop while we are stuck in debates on existential issues. A new generation of Quebeckers is ready to take fully its place in the new global economy, and it has already begun to do so brilliantly. Our most fundamental responsibility as Quebec parliamentarians is to open wide the doors to the future for this generation. It is particularly important not to drag it into sterile and fruitless debates.

Since I have the opportunity to mention my past and current cooperation with the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, I would like to warn my Bloc Québécois friends against the temptation to interpret the past in a slanted fashion to justify an uncertain future. For example, yesterday, I heard the Bloc Québécois leader quote, in front of the media, some well-known statements made by Mr. Bourassa, to which I myself referred in my speech yesterday, to support his new resolution on an eventual departure of the Quebec nation.

Out of the respect I have always had for that great man and out of respect for historical truth, I must say this to the leader of the Bloc: when I was a student, I worked in Mr. Bourassa's office. Later, I was a member of his caucus and his cabinet. I am honoured to consider myself someone he trusted. I can say with certainty that Mr. Bourassa never wanted Quebec to separate and never supported separation. In fact, he fought against separation throughout his political career. Mr. Bourassa fought as long as he was able so that Quebec could achieve its full potential within the Canadian family and so that its unique character would be recognized, which is exactly what the resolution before us seeks to do.

I am convinced that those members of this Parliament who respect the memory of Mr. Bourassa will vote for this resolution. I have a friendly word for my friends in the Bloc: stop interpreting a dead premier and listen to a living Prime Minister instead. You will hear the answers to many of the questions you have been asking here for a long time.

For years, you have rightfully criticized the fiscal imbalance that has existed for too long between federal financial resources and provincial and municipal needs. We are going to correct that imbalance. For years, you have demanded that Quebec participate fully in UNESCO; it now does. For years, you have called for measures to prevent misappropriation of public funds; we are putting those measures in place. Since your party was founded, you have been demanding respect for provincial jurisdictions; we are also working on that. It is surprising what you can accomplish when you know who you are and what you want to do.

It is even more remarkable to think about everything Quebeckers have been able to accomplish in Canada. The Bloc would have us believe that “nation of Quebec” and “Canadian unity” are incompatible. In reality, Canada is united because the nation of Quebec is part of it, and the nation of Quebec still exists because it is still part of Canada. That is what I am asking all the members of this House to recognize today.

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I must remind the Leader of the Opposition that at present, there is no chance that his motion as amended will become reality.

There is a federalist political party in Quebec City, right? It has been there for the last six elections. This is why I am returning to this subject. Even if the leader of the Bloc Québécois plays some dirty tricks, the fact remains that tomorrow morning, Quebeckers will not vote in favour of his motion, thinking that maybe they are part of Canada and maybe they are not.

His motion says “maybe, maybe not”. Our motion says that Quebeckers form a nation within a united Canada. This is what we are saying and it is reality. It does not say that maybe they will still be part of Canada in a few years or maybe they will not. That is the Bloc’s real intention. I am pleased that they moved this amendment today because essentially they are telling us exactly what is behind their motion. That is what they are telling us.

In closing, let us recall the Bélanger-Campeau Commission. This exercise was conducted with the utmost respect for Quebeckers’ dignity. I was in Quebec City as was my fellow member from Westmount—Ville-Marie. Two options were presented to Quebeckers: continue to evolve within Canadian federalism or propose sovereignty association. The sovereigntist leader in Quebec City decided to remove the hyphen between “sovereignty” and “association.” The sovereigntists even repudiated what they had done in the Bélanger-Campeau Commission. They even repudiated that. What is their real intention? Now we see.

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, here is what I was trying to explain. And I thought it was fairly obvious. For decades now, Canadians, French Canadians, Quebeckers themselves have defined themselves as they were, as they are. They have not asked the Canadian Parliament to define who they are, what their make-up is, and so forth. They know.

Every time we have tried to do it, who are the ones who have clearly tried to throw up roadblocks. Who? It was the sovereigntist movement in Quebec—in Quebec City; here, it was always the case.

The ones who tried to hamper the evolution of Canadian federalism, who tried to get something out of it, were none other than my friends across from me, it is they who, each time, invoked the humiliation of Quebeckers or other arguments that did not hold water. In fact, they are the champions of the status quo. That is what they are.

On our side, we want to see Canadian federalism evolve, because we believe that federalism is the best political arrangement and the best thing for Quebeckers. In fact, Quebeckers chose us: they chose us six times.

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2006]

I thank my colleague for his question. This calls for a bit of history. On November 15, Quebec’s sovereigntist forces celebrated 30 years—30 years of existence, 30 years of political discussion. So when my colleague asks me to recognize reality, I firmly believe that the resolution that the Prime Minister of Canada tabled yesterday is a recognition of reality.

On two occasions, Quebeckers, by referendum, said no to the proposal for a sovereign Quebec. Four other times, during three elections in Quebec, the federalist forces won, and during the election that brought Mr. Parizeau to power, we should recall that the Liberals got the most votes.

That means—thank you to the Leader of the Opposition for correcting me—that on six occasions, Quebeckers recognized reality. The resolution that the Prime Minister tabled is thus the reflection of the reality that we currently live in. According to the latest straw poll the voters of Quebec say “Canada is where we belong”.

[Business of Supply, November 23rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, despite my youth, I too have had the privilege of serving in the National Assembly with the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean and with the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie on the councils of two different municipalities and now here in the House of Commons. I would mention that I have also heard things which have surprised me in the course of my career. However, I have to say that the motion the Bloc Québécois is asking us to support today, even in an amended form, will remain in my experience as one of the most memorable interventions I have ever heard.

Here we have a political party devoted exclusively and obsessively to the cause of Quebec's separation from Canada asking Canada's Parliament to acknowledge that it is on the right track. The leader of the Bloc is, in a way, calling for a resolution on clarity. Indeed the political about-face is pretty spectacular, even for the Bloc.

Here is what one of the co-founding leaders of the independence movement is asking of Parliament. “Who would you allow us to be?” “What do you want us to become?” No member from Quebec having earned the privilege of sitting here has ever felt the need to ask his peers why he was here. Not Papineau, not Cartier, not Laurier, not Trudeau, not Mulroney nor any other Quebec leader has ever asked his provincial counterparts, “Who am I?”

No. They have each said in turn at various points in time, “This is who we are, this is what we want for ourselves and what we can do together for our fellow citizens”.

I doubt that anybody in a Canadian Parliament ever said to the representatives from Lower Canada, from eastern Canada or from the province of Quebec, that this is who they are and that this is how we will recognize them from now on.

Since 1792, when Canada's first Parliament met in Quebec, right up to the present, we have been called first Canadians, then French Canadians and now Quebeckers. It was not other people who named us, however. We have never asked our partners in the other provinces who we are.

I myself have no problem recognizing that Quebeckers form a nation, since we share a common language, culture and history.

I have already said so and I have no difficulty saying it again today. I am, as an Irish Quebecker, very proud to belong to the Quebec nation as are thousands of other Quebeckers from backgrounds other than that of the majority. I am, however, just as proud of my Canadian citizenship. These feelings are not contradictory. In fact, I think the Quebec nation the Bloc is so keen to celebrate would not perhaps exist today had French culture and language and our legal institutions not been protected in our various Constitutions. The surest guarantee of the continued growth of the Quebec nation is our participation within Canada as a whole.

The Prime Minister clearly understood it when he asked us to support it a motion recognizing that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada. Those four little words “within a united Canada” contain our entire history as a society, as a people and, yes, as a nation. We will soon be celebrating the 400th anniversary of the founding of Quebec City, the place where I was born and the city where past generations of Cannons and Powers, my ancestors, were able to make their dreams and aspirations come true.

I sincerely hope that this anniversary will remind all Canadians, wherever they come from, that, for four centuries now, successive generations of French-speaking men and women founded a country here, in America, a country that still allows them to tell the world about pride and solidarity. They not only asked others for recognition, they built a country in their own image, with the sweat of their brow, that reflects the scope of their ambition. This country is still their country and it will remain so as long as there are francophones in America.

It is true that, at times, Quebeckers have suffered under a kind of paternalistic, even antagonistic, federalism, but the Prime Minister has proved that he wanted to and has been able to bring in a new, open federalism that would allow the Quebec nation to express its rich personality and bring all its potential to the fore in a respectful relationship with our partners. That is not what the Bloc Québécois wants.

Not long ago, another Conservative Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney, poured his heart and soul into the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society within Canada. After years of heroic efforts, that recognition was never achieved. And whom do we find among the people who sabotaged the Meech Lake accord? The future founding father of the Bloc Québécois, Lucien Bouchard, who was consistent enough to go to Quebec City and take over the helm of the Parti Québecois. Then there was Jacques Parizeau who did everything he could, along with Bernard Landry, to tear down Brian Mulroney's government. They did it for the same reason that the current leader of the Bloc Québécois is doing it. The sovereignists fear one thing above all—that the Quebec nation will become stronger within Canada. But it is the nation itself that chose its future, and that is why, in both of the referendums run by the supporters of separation, a majority of Quebeckers chose to remain in Canada, in their own country.

When René Lévesque's Parti Québecois was elected 30 years ago, it was first and foremost because it promised better government, not immediate separation. We cannot criticize a citizen of a nation for being a nationalist. Like a majority of my francophone constituents no doubt, I consider myself a nationalist. Nationalism does not mean separatism. We can love Quebec without wanting to destroy Canada. This is why the majority of Quebeckers, when they felt that their place in Canada was threatened, wanted to uphold and affirm it. Of course, Quebeckers have elected Péquiste governments and Bloc members in the past, but they have never given up their place in Canada, the country that they dreamed of and created and that they continue to improve.

As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we must not mistake the real intent of the leader of the Bloc Québécois and his members, which is to recognize not what Quebeckers are, but what the sovereignists would like them to be. To them, “nation” means “separation” and that is that.

The Quebec National Assembly recently reaffirmed that the people of Quebec form a nation. The Prime Minister of Canada has just done so, and I hope every member of this House will do so as well by supporting his motion.

How can we forget the dignified, reasonable and resolute attitude of Robert Bourassa, whom I had the honour of serving, along with the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, when he said, at an extremely critical and important moment in our history:

—whatever is said or done, Quebec is today and for all times a distinct society, free, capable of assuming its destiny and its development.

Giving a name to things is not what is most important. We recognize those who contribute to Quebec society by what they achieve. Quebeckers want action and accomplishment, not words and declarations.

The Bloc Québécois, which wants to plunge us into yet another existential debate, has been around since 1990. What concrete, lasting achievements has it been able to deliver to Quebeckers since then? How has it advanced the Quebec nation it claims to serve and represent? It has done nothing because it can do nothing but talk.

Of course, it has provoked major debates like this one, but has it passed a single piece of legislation in this House? Seen a bill through? The answer is no, of course, because the Bloc does not form the government and never will. Conversely, in only a few months, Canada's new government has addressed almost all of the major priorities announced during the election.

Above all we have opened the way to a better future for the Quebec nation by defining a new federalism of openness, which is already bearing fruit. We are working on eliminating the fiscal imbalance, a topic that the Bloc has enjoyed going on about for years. But is it the Bloc that will be solving the problem of the fiscal imbalance? No, it’s the current government that will be doing it.

We have made it possible for Quebec to participate fully in the work of UNESCO, something Quebec has wanted for a long time.

We have made a commitment to respect the spirit of the Canadian Confederation faithfully by respecting the division of provincial and federal powers. We will be putting an end to abuse of the federal spending power.

The Bloc denounces, and tries to bring down, all governments that do not advocate separation, but our government is maintaining sustained and productive relations with the Quebec government, relations that are resulting in agreements and achievements.

Division has never helped the Quebec nation. “Let us cease our fratricidal fighting” said the great Honoré Mercier more than a century ago. He wanted to unite all Quebeckers, blue, red or whatever, so that the only French society in the Americas could forge ahead.

In conclusion, I urge the leader of the Bloc Québécois to think about everything that we could accomplish as a nation within a united Canada if we stopped tearing ourselves apart like this.

[Taxation, November 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, because of all this confusion, we are starting to wish that the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, who was the finance critic, were still with us. What we are seeing here once again is the dithering practised by the Bloc Québécois, which is incapable of deciding on a figure.

Last weekend we heard Mr. Léonard talking about $15.9 billion, and the member has just told us $15 billion.

Once again, who is telling the truth? Are they going to provide us with these conditions? Are they going to provide us with this information?