Preston Manning

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the most obvious lessons from the past is that unity proposals are divisive if their only goal is to appease one province or one group in Canadian society.

After the referendum vote, Canadians demanded fresh thinking on national unity and there was a widespread demand from all Canadians to reshape our federation.

The Prime Minister has responded to this demand, not by bringing a broad forward looking Canada package to the House but rather by bringing a narrow backward looking Quebec package.

My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. When will the government bring a national unity package to Parliament that addresses the legitimate concerns and aspirations of Canadians outside Quebec as well as inside Quebec?

[Renewal Of Canadian Federalism, November 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, let us get this straight. When the Prime Minister talks about giving a veto to Quebec he has just said that what he means is giving a veto to the Government of Quebec. Will he confirm that in other words he is proposing to give the separatist government of Quebec a constitutional veto over the Constitution of Canada?

[Renewal Of Canadian Federalism, November 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is creating a cloud of confusion on the issue of a constitutional veto. Could he clarify for the benefit of his own members, as well as ours, exactly what he means when he talks about giving a veto to Quebec? Is he talking about giving a veto to the Government of Quebec or is he talking about giving a veto to the people of Quebec through a constitutional referendum? Will he make it crystal clear what he means?

[Renewal Of Canadian Federalism, November 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister ignores questions about the lack of content in his package. He ignores questions about the flawed process. Maybe he will answer a question about the strategy behind the package, which is bizarre to say the least.

The Prime Minister has apparently decided to build a case for national unity on the concept of distinct society and a constitutional veto, two areas where there is little public or provincial support. He has chosen to ignore the one area where there is a real desire for change both inside and outside Quebec, namely the realignment of federal and provincial powers.

Is the symbolic tinkering with manpower training the government's only response to Canadians' demand for a major realignment of federal-provincial powers? Is that all there is?

[Renewal Of Canadian Federalism, November 28th, 1995]

We will have a lot more to say on that tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

The contents of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords were flawed because the process for developing the contents were flawed. Meech Lake and Charlottetown were top down, closed door, politician driven approaches to change which failed to carry the judgment of Canadians because Canadians were not involved.

Yet in coming up with this package the Prime Minister has not only ignored the lessons of Meech Lake and Charlottetown. He has taken a huge step backward. He involved fewer Canadians in developing this Quebec package than the Meech Lake and Charlottetown gang did in theirs.

Is the Prime Minister following any recognized process at all, or is he just making this stuff up as he goes along? If there is a process, why is there no meaningful role in the process for the provinces or the people of Canada?

[Renewal Of Canadian Federalism, November 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I too have reviewed the Prime Minister's November 27 statement on unity measures and find the lack of content almost unbelievable.

Canadians inside and outside Quebec want fresh thinking. They want realism, not symbolism. They want a fundamental change in the way the federation operates. Instead the Prime Minister has offered them the tired old thinking and formulas for failure that doomed the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords and almost lost the referendum on October 30.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Is this all there is, recycled amending formulas, hollow symbolism from failed accords and lip service to decentralization? Is this really the best that

the Prime Minister of Canada can offer on the subject of national unity?

[The Constitution, November 22nd, 1995]

What is the Prime Minister's response to this demand for change from a Quebecer who really wants to stay in Canada?

[The Constitution, November 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the Prime Minister will not listen to me. Maybe he will listen to someone from Quebec.

One of the most telling letters I received during the referendum was from a soft sovereignist who said he would probably vote yes, but who added this explanation: "The matter at hand is not really the separation of Canada and Quebec, but the separation of Quebec from the present form of federal government. You as a Reformer said you want decentralization, which necessitates serious change to the present form of federal government, but negotiations in good faith with the Liberals will not accomplish this".

This Quebecer does not want to separate from Canada but from an overcentralized federal government. He is one of the 80 per cent of Quebecers who want a realignment of federal-provincial powers.

[The Constitution, November 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about mistakes. The worst mistake the federalists can make in preparing for the next and final contest with the separatists would be to use yesterday's tactics. Yesterday's tactics are for yesterday's federalists, not the new federalists of the 21st century.

That means it would be a profound mistake to go back to the contents and tactics of the Meech Lake or Charlottetown accords, with their talk of special status, distinct societies or vetoes for Quebec.

Will the Prime Minister assure the House and all Canadians that he will not be marching backwards into the future, that he will not go back to Meech or Charlottetown for solutions to the current struggle between federalists and separatists?

[The Constitution, November 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister speaks of destroying the country and dismantling federalism. I remind him he is the one who allowed the country to get within .6 of 1 per cent-