Raymonde Folco

[Supply, February 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer that question. First of all, I apologize for answering in French, but it is my mother tongue. I can express myself much better in French.

[Supply, February 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to reply to the comments made by the hon. member for Matapédia—Matane.

First of all, I will answer a question that he did not ask, but that is still a question for me. He said he was insulted by the comments I made about Mr. Parizeau. In reply to that, I say that I was only quoting the exact words the former Quebec Premier had used, as reported in Le Devoir .

If the hon. member is so insulted by what the former Prime Minister of Canada, I would ask him this: Why did the Parti Quebecois ask for Mr. Parizeau's resignation immediately following the referendum? Because Mr. Parizeau had insulted Quebecers.

[Supply, February 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to make a few brief comments on the motion before us. I will then deal with the substance of the bill and its intent.

The Bloc members believe the bill is useless and even bad for democracy in Quebec. I believe on the contrary that it is consistent with the democratic tradition both in Quebec and Canada.

In his motion, the Bloc leader thinks, as he said himself, that it is imperative for the legislative committee on Bill C-20 to hold hearings in all regions of Quebec and Canada so as to hear as many witnesses having an interest in the bill as possible. He also demands that the hearings be broadcast and that the committee be given sufficient resources to hold such hearings, all in accordance with the rules and practices of the House.

I am sceptical as to the real meaning of this motion, which is obviously a veiled attempt at partisan politics. The list of witnesses that have already been invited to appear before the committee shows that they are Canadians from all walks of life who want to express their views on a bill aimed at ensuring a clear and straightforward referendum process.

What is the real reason the Bloc Quebecois is asking for such measures? I know the only reason is to try to win the support of Quebecers and other Canadians. The Bloc Quebecois wants to delay the process as much as it can, hoping the public will strongly oppose the bill. From the very beginning, the Bloc laid its cards on the table and showed that it intended to delay the adoption of the bill as long as possible. That is the real purpose of this motion. In these circumstances, one can easily understand that our government cannot support such a motion.

Now, let us look at the bill itself and its purpose. The purpose of the bill that was introduced is, and I quote, “to give effect to the requirement for clarity set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference”. And if there is word on which the court insists, it is certainly the word clarity.

Clarity is the basis of any democratic process. People must be able to understand the impact and the consequences of their action when they express their will. As for governments, they must be sure of the mandate given to them. Therefore, it is important that the issues at stake in a referendum be clear to everyone.

As the court reminded us, it is the role of political actors to ensure this requirement for clarity is met.

We are being criticized for allegedly interfering in the referendum process of the PQ government. On this side of the House, we far prefer no referendum be held since this sort of debate simply sets people against one another.

However, the PQ government keeps repeating, through Premier Bouchard and the minister of Canadian intergovernmental affairs, Joseph Facal, that such a referendum will be held during the present term. Mr. Facal, my colleague in Laval, was very clear in his remarks, and I quote:

In my mind, there is positively no doubt. I work every day and with every ounce of energy to have the winning referendum on sovereignty held in this term.

Accordingly, if a referendum on sovereignty were to be held, we think the question to be asked must be clear and that Canada cannot be broken up without a clear majority of the people of a province choosing secession, expressing clearly its desire for the province to cease being a part of Canada. This is self-evident.

I would like to spend a little time on the need for a clear question. If the justices of the supreme court insisted on this so much, they had a reason for doing so. They understood that the break-up of a democratic country is a matter of the utmost gravity, as the bill states, that a country must not be broken up in confusion. The vote must faithfully reflect the will of the voters to have their province cease to be a part of Canada.

I would like to read the following question:

The Government of Québec has made public its proposal to negotiate a new agreement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations; this agreement would enable Québec to acquire the exclusive power to make its laws, levy its taxes and establish relations abroad—in other words, sovereignty—and at the same time, to maintain with Canada an economic association including a common currency; no change in political status resulting from these negotiations will be effected without approval by the people through another referendum; on these terms,—

And here comes the question, at last.

—do you give the Government of Québec the mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Québec and Canada?

All of my colleagues will recognize that as the 1980 referendum question. I do not believe that everyone will acknowledge that it was very clear.

As for the 1995 question, it read as follows:

Do you agree that Québec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Québec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?

That one was the question with the partnership project, which Mr. Bouchard was later to describe as a skeleton.

As in 1980, the 1995 question was not clear, and there is one very convincing way to prove it.

A poll carried out just before the October 30, 1995 referendum indicated that 80% of Quebecers proposing to vote yes believed that, if the yes side were to win, Quebec would continue to use the Canadian dollar; close to 80% believed that economic ties with Canada would remain unchanged; 50% believed that they would continue to use Canada passports; and 25% believed that Quebec would continue to elect members of the Canadian Parliament. Moreover, another poll informed us that nearly one backer of the yes in five believed that a sovereign Quebec could remain a province of Canada.

So much for the truth on the so-called clarity of the 1995 question. Let me remind those who might still not be convinced of the ambiguity of that referendum process of a statement made by Jacques Parizeau in an open letter published last year in the daily Le Devoir . Mr. Parizeau wrote:

We have often been told that the 1995 question was not clear. It is true, as I often pointed out, that the question I would have wanted to ask was: Do you want Quebec to become a sovereign (or independent) country as of—?

One wonders why Mr. Parizeau did not want to be so direct when he was Premier of Quebec and leader of the yes side. But this is not an issue I want to discuss today.

However, Mr. Parizeau's successor provided us with an interesting element of answer. On October 19, Lucien Bouchard suggested that the notion of partnership was supported by 7% or 8% more people and that, therefore, one should think twice before taking a more radical stance. They are not being honest and direct when they play with words like that in order to get Quebecers to agree to achieve independence, which they have not agreed to twice already.

Our government has a duty not to undertake any negotiations that might lead to the separation of a province, unless the voters of that province clearly and democratically state that they want their province to secede from Canada.

The separatists usually refute our objections regarding the lack of clarity of the referendum questions by saying that we think Quebecers are unable to understand what is at stake. This is a rather dramatic display of cynicism and contempt. Let me simply say, in response to that groundless accusation, that it is because we respect Quebecers and the citizens of all the provinces that we want to ensure that any referendum question put to them is clear and void of any ambiguity.

Mr. Speaker, for all these reasons, I am opposed to the motion tabled by the Bloc Quebecois leader.

[Housing, February 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation announced the granting of 14 financial contributions through the Affordability and Choice Today program, the ACT.

Could the minister explain to the House how this program can help Canadians find affordable housing?

[Member For Ahuntsic, February 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, last Sunday in Montreal, the Greek community gathered to pay tribute to the member for Ahuntsic, who was awarded the Order of the Phoenix, presented by the ambassador of Greece on behalf of the president of the Hellenic Republic.

We, the Liberal caucus of the House, are proud to have among our ranks a member such as her.

All our congratulations.

[Quebec Economy, February 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, we just heard some excellent news for our economy. The value of Quebec exports has increased for the third consecutive month, to reach $5.7 billion. This is a 4.7% increase compared to the October figure.

This is a sure sign of the strength of the Quebec economy as well as proof that Quebec can only gain from being part of this great country that Canada is.

Unfortunately, the sovereignists send the wrong message when they try to make people believe that an independent Quebec would fare better. These eloquent figures prove just the opposite.

[World Aids Day, December 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today we are marking World AIDS Day in Laval, with sadness yet with some hope as well.

Sida-Vie Laval and Maison Dominique are hosting a special event this evening at which the paintings of Lise de Maisonneuve will be offered for sale, with part of the proceeds going to these two organizations.

The evening will also mark the official opening of Maison Dominique. The victims of this terrible infection, and their loved ones, will now have two resources available to them in Laval.

More than 35 million people in the world are living with HIV or AIDS, including 54,000 Canadians, and another 6 million join their ranks every year, among them over 4,000 Canadians. There are already close to 120 known cases in Laval.

Until this scourge is eradicated, organizations such as Sida-Vie Laval and Maison Dominique make it possible for victims to lead more normal lives and for them and their loved ones to better cope with what is happening to them.

[Committees Of The House, November 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages.

[National Parks Act, November 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support Bill C-236, which concerns the establishment of the Stoltmann National Park in British Columbia, because I think this proposed national reserve meets three key objectives which are dear to Canadians.

The first objective, I am pleased to hear, if this park is created, would contribute to the protection of biodiversity. This is a commitment Canada made at the biodiversity convention and has provided leadership on globally.

This park would protect a rare habitat, an old growth coastal Douglas fir forest. The Douglas fir is extremely well-known in Canada but there is less than a few percent of this old growth forest type that has been left unlogged on Canada's west coast.

The park includes trees of remarkable age and size, including Douglas fir trees, which are over 1,300 years old, Canada's oldest known Douglas firs. As primary forests become increasingly rare planet-wide, increasing attention is placed on how countries are managing the remaining old growth stands.

Canada would face criticism, not only from our citizens but from people around the world, if we were to continue cutting down thousand year old trees in this new millennium.

As mentioned previously, the park would not only protect trees but would also protect the essential old growth habitat of a threatened population of west coast grizzly bears. I will not mention all of the animals that were mentioned before.

A second objective of importance to Canadians is ensuring that our economy is strong and full of a wide range of opportunities for our citizens as we enter a new millennium.

At a time when rural areas are losing their populations to the cities, those who remain in the rural areas are concerned about diversifying their local economies. This project would provide the greatest stability for the future, in particular for ecotourism. Rural Canadians are concerned about the concentration of wealth and economic opportunities in urban areas. National parks can be part of the answer since they bring people from urban areas to rural towns and regions.

As the member for Davenport noted, economic studies of the benefits of Banff National Park point to a good possibility of significant employment and economic opportunities to Squamish and other communities in the region of the projected park. These regions have suffered employment decreases in traditional resource sectors over the last few years.

A Stoltmann national park, therefore, would greatly strengthen opportunities for small business, ecotourism and tourism development in the Squamish-Whistler-Vancouver corridor, especially in conjunction with Whistler's 2010 Olympic bid.

The third objective important to Canadians today that Stoltmann national park achieves is the opportunity for first nations to co-operatively manage a part of their traditional territories in a manner that benefits the environment, the regional economy and their own communities. Squamish first nations leaders have indicated publicly that they do not want to see areas like the Elaho Valley in the Stoltmann wilderness logged.

I should mention that in my riding of Laval, we also understand the importance of the environment as well as what it can bring us both from a personal perspective, for example from the perspective of health, and from an economic perspective.

Laval will provide a 40 kilometre portion of the green way, a bikeway network that goes around the whole of Quebec. Laval will take part in this project by harmonizing its own network with the green way network.

This will help Laval keep its place among the cities that have played a pioneering role in the ecotourism industry, one of the industries with the best record on sustainable development.

This is a very important bill. Even though it may have been presented by someone out of the province, it has been presented by a member of parliament who thinks about ecotourism and economic development. After all, British Columbia is a province of Canada and I see no wrong in having another member of the Canadian parliament present this private member's bill.

The bill is timely and would create the kind of national park reserve that we could all be proud of. Canadians have indicated that they want to see greater protection of their national heritage. We have a responsibility to ensure that protection is afforded before it is too late.

[Millennium Scholarships, November 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Minister of Education made a priceless comment yesterday: that the millennium scholarship system was a two-tier system. Really now. The students themselves are criticizing the Government of Quebec for the way it has been handling this matter in recent months. They are demanding a solution that will be in their best interest.

The PQ government, finding itself backed into a corner, is trying to pass the buck back to the Canadian government, but the students' response is to tell it to stop digging in its heels needlessly. The Quebec Minister of Education must take this matter seriously, and quit trying to score political points at the expense of the students of Quebec.

As well, the Government of Quebec must make its true intentions clear on the use to which it will be putting the money we will be paying to Quebecers in the years to come.