Preston Manning

[Federal-Provincial Relations, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the law is not the issue. If the provinces could fine the federal government for every commitment it has broken, they could pay off their deficits.

The real issue here is the government's Neanderthal approach to federal-provincial relations. The government talks about ushering in a new era of flexible federalism. The reality is that a bankrupt federal government is attempting to use fines and threats to control provincial areas of jurisdiction.

The human resources minister attaches strings to manpower training funding and imposes fines on British Columbia. The Minister of Health does exactly the same things to Alberta.

Is this really the government's vision of federalism, federalism with strings attached, red tape federalism, federalism by threats, federalism by fines?

[Federal-Provincial Relations, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to some provinces, the government's attitude is now we see them and now we don't.

The federal government has been utterly indifferent to B.C.'s concerns on aboriginal issues and the mismanagement of the salmon fishery, and the Prime Minister's constitutional veto scheme ignores British Columbia completely. About the only time the government recognizes B.C. or Alberta is when it comes time to extract money. These western provinces are becoming increasingly alienated from Ottawa. That alienation will deepen when the human resources minister withholds $47 million from B.C. for introducing residency requirements for welfare.

What does the human resources minister really expect to accomplish by fining British Columbia for attempting to manage its welfare rolls more effectively?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is B.C.

The other point the member misses which will come up when we discuss the bill, is that the bigger issue is giving this constitutional veto to the people or the government. We know that all the members here were embarrassed by the flip-flopping of the Prime Minister on that subject. One day he told this House that he meant to give that veto to the people of Quebec. Then he said yesterday that no, he was going to give it to the Government of Quebec. He was going to give a separatist government a constitutional veto over the Constitution of Canada.

If the hon. member wants to ask questions about that bill, he should direct them to the Prime Minister.

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

Mr. Speaker, the question has nothing to do with this debate here today. Our point is the Reform Party is committed to the defence of human rights and the use of the power of the federal government to do that.

We argue that when the government gets to be both a player and a referee in a policy area, whether it is multiculturalism or linguistic policy, what suffers is its capacity to be the referee. Again I would say to the member if he wants to not just talk but to act, if he is really concerned about minority rights, he will support the second of these amendments we have put forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, somewhere in the hon. member's remarks there were about three questions.

First, we recognize that this motion is not a constitutional motion. We also recognize that senior members of the government have implied that if this is passed by the House it may be imported into the Constitution at a later date. That is why we gave it the scrutiny which we did.

Second, with respect to minority rights, in the area of language the Reform Party advocates more jurisdiction over language being given to the provinces and private associations. That will be more popular in Quebec than the current policy of the current government. The second thing we say however is that the sole role of the federal government should be the protection of the rights of minorities from discrimination on the basis of race, language and culture.

Our argument is that under our language policy the federal government is no longer both a player and a referee in the language area. It is just a referee and it can provide more protection by playing that role.

The third point I would make is if the hon. member is sincere, which I think he is, in wanting protection for the rights of minorities in Quebec, that would surely lead him to urge his colleagues to support at least the second of these amendments we have put forward.

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

It is not in here.

A third proposal is to safeguard the integrity of Canada. There is one further change required to the Prime Minister's motion to ensure that it does not reinforce and assist the separatists in the next referendum on separation. The Prime Minister is well aware that for 20 years or more the separatists have been telling Quebecers that because Quebec is a distinct society, therefore it should be a sovereign state. We heard that again today. By affirming the first part of that sentence, which is what the Prime Minister's motion does, the federal government runs the risk of legitimizing the second part of the sentence.

Again, I assume the goodwill and good intentions on the part of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will hasten to assure us that it is not the intention of the federal government to allow the separatist Government of Quebec to use the distinct society clause to legitimize the division of Canada. If the government is sincere in that claim, then it will welcome and endorse our third amendment to the motion, namely the inclusion of a clear statement that nothing in this resolution shall deny or be interpreted as denying that Canada constitutes one nation.

In conclusion, I urge the Prime Minister to not follow in the footsteps of the former Conservative Prime Minister, who ensured Quebecers that these proposals were acceptable to the rest of Canada, when in fact they were not.

I ask the Prime Minister to tell Quebecers that his motion will not get the support of a majority of Canadians outside Quebec, nor will it get the support of the provinces. Only by amending it will that motion stand a better chance of being approved.

If the government will amend the motion as proposed, Reformers will support the amended motion, notwithstanding our belief that it will contribute little or nothing to the unification of the federation. However, if the government votes down these amendments, if it puts its commitment to distinct society ahead of the equality of the provinces, if it puts its commitment to distinct society ahead of minority rights in Quebec, if it puts its commitment to distinct society ahead of the unity and the integrity of Canada as one nation, then we will vote against the motion and we will encourage every citizen loyal to Canada to oppose the motion as well.

I therefore move:

That the motion be amended by adding immediately after the word "accordingly", the following:

"5. Nothing in this resolution shall:

(i) confer or be interpreted as conferring upon the legislature or government of Quebec, any new legislative or executive powers, proprietary rights, status, or any other rights or privileges not conferred on the legislature or government of any province;

(ii) diminish or be interpreted as diminishing in any way the rights and freedoms of any resident of Quebec;

(iii) deny or be interpreted as denying that Canada constitutes one nation".

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

Mr. Speaker, today I address the motion of the Prime Minister calling on the House to recognize Quebec as a distinct society within Canada.

Let me begin by reminding the House why we are even considering such a motion at this time. As hon. members know, last month the Prime Minister came very close to losing the Quebec referendum on secession. It is now generally agreed that there are two principal reasons for this.

First, there was no sustained effort made by the federalist forces to make clear in advance of the referendum the terms and conditions Canada would demand in the event of a secession attempt. Thus the separatists were allowed to perpetuate the fiction that a separate Quebec would simply enter into a new and better economic union with Canada. Over 30 per cent of the people who voted yes on October 30 thought they could do so and still retain all the benefits of being Canadian.

The second was the demand for change in Quebec. The demand for real systemic change was grossly underestimated by the Prime Minister and the no side. Rather than countering the separatist dream with a federalist vision of a new and better Canada, the federalists offered the status quo plus administrative tinkering.

It was only in the last week of the campaign that the Prime Minister felt compelled by events to offer something to Quebec which could be construed as change. What he offered was not a new vision of the federalism of the 21st century, nor a realignment of federal and provincial powers, which has been demanded by large numbers of people inside and outside of Quebec.

What the Prime Minister offered were Mulroney leftovers, two items resurrected from the discredited Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. These were the concept of a constitutional veto for the government of Quebec and a distinct society clause, the subject of the motion before us.

I remind the House that Reform favours a fundamentally different approach to confronting the separatist threat and preserving the federal union. Our approach is two-tracked. On the one hand, we offer a package of 20 changes in the federal system which can be accomplished without constitutional negotiation, changes which strengthen the power of the federal government to preserve the economic union, which strengthen the position of the provinces with respect to the natural resources, social services, culture and language, and which reform federal institutions to make them more representative and accountable.

At the same time, we insist on the development of a Canadian position on terms and conditions of separation, terms and conditions which Canada would insist on if any province actually attempts to secede.

I have vowed as a federal political leader that as long as I have anything to do with it, federalists will never go into another contest with Quebec separatists as ill prepared, as ill equipped and as ill led as they were the last time.

The next time, and it will be the last time, we will fight separatist dreams with a federalist vision of the future and we will fight separatist illusions with the naked truth about what separation from Canada really means.

Therefore I speak as one who fundamentally disagrees with the Prime Minister's strategy or lack of strategy on national unity and who feels that this motion and the other elements of the Prime Minister's Quebec package are backward steps.

Having said this, my colleagues and I have applied ourselves to the Prime Minister's motion to see if there is any way it could be amended to permit the statutory recognition of the historical, linguistic and cultural distinctiveness of Quebec without the negative consequences that have led to the rejection of previous attempts to accomplish the same end.

I have three proposals to make embodied in three amendments. I urge the government to consider these amendments carefully because in our judgment they are essential to giving the Prime Minister's motion even a 50:50 chance of gaining acceptance outside of Quebec.

Our first proposal pertains to safeguarding the equality of the provinces. During the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accord discussions, as many members will remember, the biggest single objection to the inclusion of any distinct society clause for Quebec was that it would confer on the Government of Quebec powers not conferred on the other provinces. In other words, the concern was and is that the distinct society clause would violate the concept of equality of the provinces.

The Prime Minister in his remarks a few minutes ago hastened to assure us this is not the intention of the federal government; it is not its intention to grant Quebec special powers or status by virtue of this motion. If the government really means that, it will have no hesitancy in supporting our first amendment to the motion, the inclusion of a clear statement that nothing in this resolution shall confer on or be interpreted as conferring on the legislature or Government of Quebec any new legislative or executive powers, proprietary rights, status or any other rights or privileges not conferred on the legislature or government of any other province.

This amendment is essential to reconcile the motion before us with the principle of equality of the provinces. This is necessary to get similar types of motions through most of the provincial legislatures.

Our second proposal pertains to safeguarding minority rights in Quebec. One of the legitimate concerns of minorities within Quebec, the English speaking minority, the aboriginal minority and other ethnic minorities, and the Prime Minister made reference to this, is that recognition of Quebec as a distinct society could be used by an overzealous separatist government to diminish their rights, in particular their educational rights and rights to freedom of speech.

The fears of such minorities were aroused on the night of the referendum when the premier of Quebec blamed ethnic voters for defeating the referendum, implying those voters were not part of Quebec's distinct society. The fears of such minorities will be heightened, not allayed, by clause 2 of the Prime Minister's motion because it says Quebec's distinct society includes its French speaking majority but says nothing about the distinct society's including Quebec's minorities.

A few minutes ago the Prime Minister said: "Quebecers who come from other parts of the world are full-fledged Quebecers. We have not forgotten them". The reality is that he has forgotten to include them in the definition of distinct society included in clause 2 of his motion.

The Prime Minister will hasten to assure these Quebecers that it is not the intention of the federal government to allow the Quebec government to use any designation of Quebec as a distinct society to circumscribe the rights of minorities. Surely no federalist in this House and surely no Liberal would ever want this distinct society clause to be harnessed to the cause of ethnic nationalism by any Quebec government.

Again, if that is the case, and if the government is sincere in its claim, then it will welcome the second amendment to its motion, namely the inclusion of a clear statement that nothing in this resolution shall diminish or be interpreted as diminishing in any way the rights and freedoms of any resident of Quebec.

This amendment is essential to safeguarding minority rights in Quebec.

[Renewal Of Canadian Federalism, November 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in that period we have never yet seen the government give any priority whatsoever to the concerns and aspirations of British Columbia, the third most populous province in the country. B.C. is not even represented on the unity committee. It is not recognized by the government as a region in its own right.

The government is prepared to recognize Quebec as a distinct society. When is the federal government prepared to recognize British Columbia as an important province of Canada?

[Renewal Of Canadian Federalism, November 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in the government's remarks, no matter which minister addresses it, that indicates there is even an interest in the constitutional and systemic demands for change in other parts of the country.

For example, I have been in the House for two years and I have never yet-

[Renewal Of Canadian Federalism, November 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, during the referendum campaign the Prime Minister and the federal government showed that they were dangerously out of touch with the aspirations of Quebecers. Now with this half baked Quebec package, with nothing more than constitutional vetoes and distinct society, the government is showing that it is dangerously out of touch with the rest of the country.

There is nothing in these unity packages that addresses the concerns of the west, the north, Ontario or Atlantic Canada. In fact that absence of content merely alienates the millions of Canadians who are tired of this 30-year old federal two step to appease Quebec separatists.

When will the government change direction, abandon the status quo and develop a truly Canadian package for nation building, one that addresses the concerns and aspirations of Canadians outside Quebec as well as inside Quebec?