Scott Reid

[Encroachment upon Quebec Jurisdictions, October 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to read the wording of the motion twice, once at the beginning of my presentation and once toward the end. Let me start by reading it in French.

Que la Chambre reconnaisse que le Québec forme une nation, et qu'en conséquence, n'étant pas signataire de l'entente cadre sur l'union sociale de 1999, ladite nation québécoise dispose d'un droit de retrait avec pleine compensation financière pour toute initiative fédérale faisant intrusion dans les juridictions québécoises.

That wording, it seems to me, mixes two concepts that are, in my opinion, completely unrelated. The first one is the idea that Quebec constitutes a nation. The second one is the idea that Quebec or any province should be able to opt out of federal programs with full compensation.

The question it raises in my mind is why the first section of the motion could not have been left out so that it would read something like the following but in substantive terms be the same thing.

It is being asked that the Quebec nation be given:

—the right to opt out of any federal initiative encroaching upon Quebec jurisdictions, with full financial compensation.

I will read this one in English:

--that Quebec and every other province has the right to opt out of any federal initiative encroaching upon provincial jurisdictions, with full compensation.

If that had been written in the motion, I and I think all the members of my party would support it because there is plenty of room in Canada's Constitution and in our tradition to accommodate this sort of thing.

We see a growing tide of support across the country, in all provinces, for a respectful reading of the 1867 Constitution and its clear division of powers and for the interpretation which was given to the Constitution in the 1930s by what was then our Supreme Court, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London, which said that the Canadian Constitution, unlike that of Australia or the United States, had clear watertight compartments between the jurisdictions of different levels of government. This means that within their own level, their own areas of sovereignty, or support or jurisdiction, each province should be treated and regarded as a completely sovereign entity, a completely sovereign country or nation, if we choose to use that term, in the Anglo-Saxon meaning of that term, that could be done.

A tradition exists, going back to 1867 through these cases, which was at least partly incorporated in the 1982 Constitution in its amending formula. I would like to read from that to make my point. Subsections 38(2) and 38(3) read as follows:

An amendment...that derogates from the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or government of a province shall require a resolution supported by the majority of members of each of the Senate, the House of Commons and legislative assemblies, required under subsection (1)--

This means of seven provinces representing 50% of the population. It goes on:

An amendment [of this nature] shall not have effect in a province the legislative assembly of which has expressed its dissent thereto by resolution supported by a majority of its members prior to the issue of the proclamation to which the amendment relates unless the legislative assembly, subsequently, by resolution supported by a majority of its members, revokes its dissent and authorizes the amendment.

Therefore, the taking away of powers from provinces by amendment is clearly prohibited and a kind of formula, non-financial formula, allowing for that protection is built into the Constitution of the country since 1982. That is a very positive thing.

There is room for further movement in this direction. Let me cite from the policy of my own party, the Canadian Alliance, in this regard. It is the policy that I had a hand in writing. It states:

We believe that the Government of Canada must respect the vision and intent of the original Confederation agreements regarding the division of power and responsibility inherent in Canadian federalism as enshrined in our Constitution. We are committed to ending any misuse of the federal spending power that undermines that intent. We will seek provincial consent for financing any new program in a field of provincial jurisdiction, and provide full compensation for provinces choosing not to participate.

In other words, with the substance of the Bloc Quebecois motion, my party is already in full 100% agreement.

Finally, I turn to a set of proposals that the predecessor to my party, the Reform Party, put out in the period just following the referendum in Quebec in 1995. This was a document proposing a series of changes to the Confederation agreement that would deal with some of the legitimate aspirations that had been expressed by Quebeckers, both those who voted yes and those who voted no, but who fully participated in the process of expressing their discontent with the status quo. This document, which I helped to research, was a document the current Leader of the Opposition actually wrote and was signed off on by Preston Manning, then the Leader of the Reform Party of Canada.

Under the heading “Spending Power”, we made the following statement:

Legislation under Parliament's power to unilaterally amend the Constitution should be introduced, to forbid any new federal encroachments on provincial jurisdiction by means of the federal government's so-called “spending power” (under which the federal government simply establishes a new federal spending program in an area of provincial jurisdiction).

As members of the House can see, there is room to go a fair bit down the path proposed by the Bloc Quebecois and perhaps even to go further than it has proposed. However, very significantly, these are areas that we are saying should be available to all provinces of Canada. It should be part of our Confederation arrangement. It should be part of a concept of equality of the provinces

This allows me to address something which I have never understood about the position taken by the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois. For some reason they are very focused on protecting Quebec's sovereignty, jurisdiction and powers, whether within the Confederate arrangement that exists currently or whether seeking to have independence, without any regard for the other provinces and the fact that they also have sovereign powers dictated under our Constitution.

I am unable to understand why they would think, as a matter of principle, that it is necessary to have this kind of disrespect for the other partners to Confederation, all which have the same aspirations as Quebec. Some of them, including my own province of Ontario, were the original supporters of the idea of provincial rights and respect for provincial sovereignty, when frankly the government of Quebec, in the early decades of Confederation, seemed much less interested in this.

I also cannot see why anyone would think, from the point of view of strategy, that it would be helpful to promote one province, to establish some kind of special status for that province, and thereby guarantee that we would see increasing centralization in the rest of the country. I think we would find that the centralizing impulse, which exists in all federations, would be greatly strengthened if the arrangement that the Bloc Quebecois is always hinting at and which it proposes effectively in this proposal were actually adopted.

Finally, I also must talk a little about the idea that Quebec constitutes a nation, as is worded here. Here I will read again the motion that was proposed by my Bloc Quebecois friend, but now I will read it in English as opposed to French to make the point about the distinctions between the French and English texts. The motion is:

That the House acknowledge that Quebec constitutes a nation, and accordingly, as it is not a signatory to the social union framework agreement of 1999, the said nation of Quebec has the right to opt out of any federal initiative encroaching upon Quebec jurisdictions, with full financial compensation.

The thing to observe here is “a nation”. If they were to say “que les Quebecois forment une nation”, or “les Quebecois forme un peuple”, if they were to say something that refers to people somehow being linked together by a mystical bond, to be connected by something that is deep within their nature, their psyche, the way that their synapses fire in their brains that makes them have something in common that the rest of world does not have in common, I could see some validity to that. However they are not talking that. It is very distinct. They are saying that Quebec forms a nation. That is, there is a conflation between whatever nation might exist, whatever people might exist and a state. The attempt here is to create a nation state.

First, that is exclusionary of the francophones who live outside of Quebec; in New Brunswick, Ontario and elsewhere. It is also exclusionary of the anglophones who live within Quebec who do not regard themselves as being part a Quebec nation, but who do regard themselves as being good Quebeckers, as being people who are good citizens of that society and who seek to act that way. That includes my own ancestors. Quebec was my first home too, and I always find it very difficult to accept that we should be excluded in this kind of way by this kind of wording.

[Petitions, October 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition is one that has been circulated quite widely in my own constituency. It draws the attention of the House to the fact that Bill C-250 has the effect of placing dangerous restrictions upon freedom of expression in religion. I note, of course, that Bill C-250 is no longer before this chamber. It is, however, before the Senate and I am sure that members of that chamber will want to take note of the fact that this petition has been submitted.

[Petitions, October 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition relates to stem cell research. It points out that adult stem cell research shows promising results and encourages parliamentarians to focus our energies upon promoting adult stem cell research and not embryonic stem cell research.

[Petitions, October 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today.

The first is a petition submitted primarily from people living in the riding of Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant through their member of the provincial parliament and given to me to deliver on their behalf. It is a petition against the federal gun registry. It points out that the registry will not save lives and is costing billions. This raises to almost 11,000 the number of signatures I have submitted in various petitions relating to Bill C-68 and the gun registry.

[Holocaust Memorial Day Act, October 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly of why today we memorialize the Holocaust.

We do so, first, to honour and to remember the six million who died in the Holocaust: those who died in the camps, those who died fighting in the Warsaw ghetto, and those who died in so many other places.

Second, we memorialize the Holocaust to comfort those who survive, but who will bear the scars of what happened to them on their hearts as clearly as some of the survivors bear the tattoos of the concentration camps on their skin.

Third, we do so to honour the righteous gentiles, some of whose names are familiar to us, such as Sukahara, Schindler and Wallenberg, but also the many others who, at risk to themselves, undertook to save and protect the Jews who were their neighbours and friends and also to protect the values of the civilization that is so important to us.

Fourth, and this is the main point, we do so to ensure that the words “never again” have some meaning, because in the past half-century, the past 60 years, quite frankly, never again has become again and again. Every time a suicide bomber kills innocent civilians, our civilization is forgetting never again. Every time in the past 60 years that a government has terrorized its own citizens we are forgetting as a civilization that phrase never again. Every time an invader slaughters the innocents of the country it seeks to control, we are forgetting those words never again.

It is our duty as the Parliament of a great and civilized nation to ensure that the words “never again” are inscribed in our hearts every bit as much as words can be inscribed in stone, every bit as much as these words must go on in our civilization in the future.

[Petitions, October 10th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition to the House today, one that is signed by several hundred members of my constituency. The petitioners call upon the House to respect freedom of expression and freedom of religion by voting against Bill C-250. The bill has passed through the House now but it has not passed through the Senate, and perhaps our friends in the other place will take note of this petition.

[Falun Gong, October 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, last October this House voted unanimously to instruct the Prime Minister to take advantage of the APEC conference to privately raise with the president of China the matter of the imprisonment by the Chinese government of 13 Falun Gong practitioners who are members of Canadian families.

As a result of this unanimous motion and follow-up work by our embassy staff in Beijing, 8 of the 13 were released. Some are now in Canada, where they are model citizens. Tianxong Peng, for example, was freed on Christmas Eve and now lives with his sister Helen here in Ontario.

Sadly, a year later, as the Prime Minister prepares for another APEC conference, the situation in China has become worse, not better. These few releases have been accompanied by the arrests of thousands of non-violent Falun Gong practitioners. Today, 17 individuals who are the brothers and sisters and the parents and the children of Canadians are imprisoned in China.

I therefore ask the Prime Minister to take advantage of the upcoming APEC conference to raise the issue of these 17 peaceful individuals so that they too may be allowed to come home to their families here in Canada.

[Rural Expo 2003, September 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw the attention of the House to an important event taking place this week in Lanark County.

Rural Expo 2003, the Lanark County International Plowing Match and Farm Machinery Show opens tomorrow in beautiful Beckwith Township, just east of Carleton Place. The tented city and its surrounding grounds cover 1500 acres.

Rural Expo is a celebration of rural living, both past and present, and of the vibrant future that we envision for rural Canada. Thanks to the hard work of Gordon and Ann Munroe, the co-chairs of Rural Expo 2003, and more than 1,000 other dedicated volunteers, this is sure to be an event to remember.

Highlights include music and entertainment from across the Ottawa Valley and around the world, hundreds of exhibits, and of course the excitement of competitive plowing using both traditional and modern equipment.

Those of us who make our home in Lanark County know what a great place it is, and I have no doubt that the tens of thousands who visit Rural Expo will be charmed, delighted and enthralled by our beautiful county.

[Question No. 234, September 16th, 2003]

Concerning federal public servants, how many whose first language is a ) French, and b ) English are employed in (i) bilingual imperative positions, and (ii) bilingual non-imperative positions, for each of the following Official Language profiles: “E” (Exempt from further testing); “CCC” (Reading, Writing and Oral Interaction at Superior levels); “CBC” (Reading and Oral Interaction at Superior levels, Writing at Intermediate level); “CCB”(Reading and Writing at Superior Levels, Oral Interaction at Intermediate Level); “CBB” (Reading at Superior Level, Writing and Oral Interaction at Intermediate Levels); “BCB” (Reading and Oral Interaction at Intermediate Levels, Writing at Superior Level); “BCC” (Reading at Intermediate Level, Writing and Oral Interaction at Superior Levels); “BBB” (Reading, Writing and Oral Interaction at Intermediate Levels); “BBC” (Reading and Writing at Intermediate Levels, Oral Interaction at Superior Level); “BBA” (Reading and Writing at Intermediate Levels, Oral Interaction at Minimum Level); “BAA” (Reading at Intermediate Level, Oral Interaction and Writing at Minimum Levels); “BAB” (Reading and Oral Interaction at Intermediate Levels, Writing at Minimum Level); “ABA” (Reading and Oral Interaction at Minimum Levels, Writing at Intermediate Level); “ABB” (Reading at Minimum Level, Writing and Oral Interaction at Intermediate Levels); “AAB” (Reading and Writing at Minimum Levels, Oral Interaction at Intermediate Level); and “AAA” (Reading, Writing and Oral Interaction at Minimum Levels)?

[Question No. 234, September 15th, 2003]

Concerning federal public servants, how many whose first language is a ) French, and b ) English are employed in (i) bilingual imperative positions, and (ii) bilingual non-imperative positions, for each of the following Official Language profiles: “E” (Exempt from further testing); “CCC” (Reading, Writing and Oral Interaction at Superior levels); “CBC” (Reading and Oral Interaction at Superior levels, Writing at Intermediate level); “CCB”(Reading and Writing at Superior Levels, Oral Interaction at Intermediate Level); “CBB” (Reading at Superior Level, Writing and Oral Interaction at Intermediate Levels); “BCB” (Reading and Oral Interaction at Intermediate Levels, Writing at Superior Level); “BCC” (Reading at Intermediate Level, Writing and Oral Interaction at Superior Levels); “BBB” (Reading, Writing and Oral Interaction at Intermediate Levels); “BBC” (Reading and Writing at Intermediate Levels, Oral Interaction at Superior Level); “BBA” (Reading and Writing at Intermediate Levels, Oral Interaction at Minimum Level); “BAA” (Reading at Intermediate Level, Oral Interaction and Writing at Minimum Levels); “BAB” (Reading and Oral Interaction at Intermediate Levels, Writing at Minimum Level); “ABA” (Reading and Oral Interaction at Minimum Levels, Writing at Intermediate Level); “ABB” (Reading at Minimum Level, Writing and Oral Interaction at Intermediate Levels); “AAB” (Reading and Writing at Minimum Levels, Oral Interaction at Intermediate Level); and “AAA” (Reading, Writing and Oral Interaction at Minimum Levels)?