Preston Manning

[The Constitution, November 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, all of us are familiar with the principle that those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past are bound to repeat them.

In the Quebec referendum campaign the biggest mistake the Prime Minister made was to grossly underestimate the demand for change in his home province. It was only in the last week of that campaign that he mentioned change at all, and when he did so it was so vague as to have no positive consequence on the campaign.

Will the Prime Minister repeat that mistake again by putting change on the back burner or will he present Canadians with a substantial plan for showing the way this federation ought to operate?

[National Unity, November 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the weakness of the Prime Minister's answer profoundly disappoints.

We were looking for action and all we got from the government was a committee. We were looking for statesmanship at a time of national crisis and all we got was political cheap shots. We are looking for strength and all we get is tired old answers and weakness.

The Prime Minister makes a profound mistake by interpreting the demand for decentralization in Quebec or anywhere else as the dismantling of federal programs.

When is the federal government going to propose some major change in the alignment between the powers of the federal and provincial governments?

[National Unity, November 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, no one has argued in favour of dismantling the federation. This is typical of so much debate in the Chamber. No one debates anyone's real position. The position is moved off to the extreme and they debate the extreme, not the real position.

The fact of the matter is that 60 per cent of Canadians outside Quebec and 80 per cent of people in Quebec want some change in the alignment of powers between the federal and provincial governments. They want control over natural resources, social services, language and culture to be in the hands of the government closest to them, and that is not the federal government.

When is the government going to do something practical and concrete in response to this desire for change and a realignment of the powers between the federal and provincial governments? This is not dismantling; it is realignment.

[National Unity, November 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has decided to depart this chamber for Quebec City. He is going to prepare for one last attempt to take Quebec out of the federation.

The task in this chamber is to prepare the case for federalism and to do so with a clarity and a vision that was completely missing from the last referendum campaign. In the dying days of that campaign, the Prime Minister belatedly promised to fundamentally change the way the federal government operates. He promised quick action.

Is the Prime Minister ready to act? What action does the Prime Minister propose to fundamentally change the way federalism operates so as to strengthen the case for federalism like it has never been strengthened before?

[Remembrance Day, November 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to remember and pay tribute to those brave Canadians who served their country and those who lost their lives or suffered injuries or loss in the terrible wars of this century. On behalf of our party, our constituencies, our constituents and all Canadians who remember, we offer our profound respect and deepest thanks.

That reminds me that there are no French Canadians or English Canadians in cemeteries in Europe, only Canadians. I pray that this fact unites us in peacetime as in wartime.

At the same time we remember and pay tribute to the current members of our armed forces, many of whom have served or are serving as peacekeepers in the troubled places of the world. Again on behalf of our constituents and on behalf of all Canadians who cherish peace, we offer our profound respect and our deepest thanks.

November 11 is called Remembrance Day. Our children rightly ask what precisely it is we are asked to remember. If we ask the living, the loved ones and friends of those who served and fell in the wars, they will say we remember our loved ones and friends who gave their lives for freedom and democracy, and they will be right. However, if we could ask those who served and fell what they would like us to remember, I believe they would tell us to remember the great lesson their loss teaches us: the lesson that freedom and democracy cannot be preserved without self-sacrifice.

If each of us every day, year after year, makes the small sacrifices of time, energy and self-interest necessary to preserve our freedoms, that is enough. But if we neglect to make those small daily sacrifices then someday, somewhere down the road, a vast multitude of people like those we honour on Remembrance Day must make the ultimate sacrifice on our behalf.

Today I say let us make our tributes and on November 11 let us lay our wreaths. But, above all, each day after that let us practise the great lesson: that freedom and democracy cannot be preserved without self-sacrifice on our part. Such practice would be the highest tribute we could pay to those who fought and fell as well as to those who stand on guard for Canada today.

[Canadian Unity, November 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, could I put one simple question.

British Columbia is the most populous province in western Canada and the third most populous province in the country. It has a crucial role to play on this issue of national unity and it has a different perspective from many other provinces in the country.

Will the minister tell us why the province of British Columbia does not have representation on the cabinet national unity committee?

[Canadian Unity, November 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I need to warm up.

Maybe we could look at the membership of this committee. The intergovernmental affairs minister has said that this committee has regional balance to ensure the views of all Canadians will be

represented. How is that possible when seven out of the nine committee members are from central Canada, when the west's only representative is a junior minister who won her seat by 11 votes and when British Columbia, the third most populous province in the country, is not even represented on the committee?

About the only positive thing that can be said about this committee is that the Deputy Prime Minister is not a member.

If this committee is supposed to effectively represent every region of the country, why does the west have only one seat and British Columbia no seat at all?

[Canadian Unity, November 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, before we were so rudely interrupted we were asking the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for the terms of reference of this cabinet unity committee.

It is simply unacceptable for the minister to plead cabinet secrecy or solidarity on releasing the terms of reference of a committee that is dealing with the whole subject of national unity.

I would ask him again. Does this committee have clear terms of reference, and could he table those terms of reference in the House?

[Canadian Unity, November 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the cabinet's national unity dream team is becoming a nightmare. Nobody knows who they are going to consult with, nobody knows when they are supposed to report, and worst of all, nobody has a clue what the committee is supposed to be doing.

The labour minister thinks they are going to be discussing constitutional change. The justice minister says they will be looking at Mulroney type constitutional talks, and the Prime Minister said the cabinet committee will not be delving into constitutional matters.

I ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, if he can hear me, does this committee have clear terms of reference from the Prime Minister and, if it does, will he table them in this House?

[National Unity, November 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Chamber and the National Press Gallery have become dangerously complacent about the failure of government ministers, including this minister, to give direct answers to straight questions. Maybe he can do that on a thousand different subjects and it is considered clever in the Chamber although it is not considered clever outside. If the government fails to directly answer straight questions on the issue of the unity of the country, it is playing with the life of the country and it will earn the just contempt of every Canadian who cares about the unity of the country.

I will ask my question of the minister once again and I will go slowly. What specifically does the government intend to do to bring the Canadian people into the discussion of its national unity proposal?