House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 62% of the vote.
Minister Of Intergovernmental Affairs October 21st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I think pretty well everyone knows that the French government is embarrassed each time the Government of Quebec tries to get it involved in the matter of Canadian unity.
I think French government policy is one of non-interference and non-indifference. The policy must therefore be respected, and things would go much better for the signing of an agreement such as the one we are talking about at the moment.
Minister Of Intergovernmental Affairs October 21st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, clearly the French government is embarrassed each time the Quebec government tries to push it into the middle of our internal disagreements. It does not want to get involved, it has no intention of doing so.
The agreement must be in harmony with the France-Canada accord. If it is part of this agreement, and this is not difficult to do, Quebeckers could benefit from it, which would be a good thing.
Minister Of Intergovernmental Affairs October 21st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, once again this is an agreement made under the Canada-France agreement, one which has operative force and involves criminal matters, and one which must of course be made within the Canada-France framework. This is very feasible. All we have to do is work together with the Government of Quebec, and not get the French involved in our affairs.
Minister Of Intergovernmental Affairs October 21st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I said. The French government has no intention of becoming mixed up in our internal disputes.
It is up to us to reach agreement. This agreement would be good for Quebeckers. It is easily accomplished if the Government of Quebec would agree to sit down with Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs. There is no need to play politics.
Minister Of Intergovernmental Affairs October 21st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, on July 29, 1997, the French government supplied the Government of Canada with a draft text and sought its opinion.
The French government will speak for itself, but we are well aware that it wants to remain friends with the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada. It does not want to become involved in our internal disputes.
The best thing the Government of Quebec can do is to act in good faith with the Government of Canada to bring about this agreement, which will be very good for the people of Quebec.
Calgary Declaration October 2nd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, all parties in the House with one exception have never been as united for Canadian unity than they are now with nine of the premiers.
They are united for principles that Canadians support from British Columbia to Newfoundland. An Angus Reid poll yesterday showed strong support for a federation that respects the equality of provinces while recognizing that one of them is obviously unique in an anglophone North America.
Appointment Of A Special Joint Committee October 1st, 1997
Madam Speaker, I am ready when he is, but this is not the right time.
The hon. member is contradicting himself. While in his first speech his heart went out to the anglophone community, he is now bothered that, under a charter of rights and with the support of a large majority of Quebeckers, a support which they have expressed in one poll after the other, the use of English on commercial signs has been allowed.
This is obviously a serious contradiction, one that is furthermore irrelevant to the debate on the issue before us, which is the fact that Quebec wants linguistic school boards and, as far as the government is concerned, that is no problem.
Appointment Of A Special Joint Committee October 1st, 1997
Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the hon. member's speech but his reply did not please me nearly as much. He launched into a debate that was completely off topic.
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the Constitution Act of 1982 applies. It does. The reasons put forward by the PQ government in Quebec and other political parties for not recognizing the Act of 1982 are very shaky. This is a debate I have taken part in on several occasions already, but we could also have it in this House, I guess.
Since we speak about the rule of law, 1982 is the rule of law in this country and I am very happy about that. Some parties might be unhappy about that, but it applies.
Appointment Of A Special Joint Committee October 1st, 1997
moved:
That the House of Commons do unite with the Senate in the appointment of a Special Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the Senate to study matters related to the proposed resolution respecting a proposed Amendment to Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 concerning the Quebec school system;
That sixteen Members of the House of Commons and seven Members of the Senate be members of the Committee;
That the Committee be directed to consult broadly and review such information as it deems appropriate with respect to this issue;
That the Committee have the power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House;
That the Committee have the power to report from time to time, to send for persons, papers and records, and to print such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the Committee;
That the Committee have the power to retain the services of expert, professional technical and clerical staff;
That the quorum of the Committee be twelve members whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both Houses are represented, and that the Joint Chairpersons be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, whenever six members are present, so long as both Houses are represented;
That the Committee be empowered to appoint, from among its members, such sub-committees as may be deemed advisable, and to delegate to such sub-committees all or any of its powers except the power to report to the Senate and House of Commons;
That the Committee be empowered to authorize television and radio broadcasting of any or all of its proceedings;
That the Committee make its final report no later than November 7, 1997;
That, notwithstanding usual practices, if the House or the Senate are not sitting when the final report of the Committee is completed, the report may be deposited with the Clerk of the House which is not sitting, or the Clerks of both Houses if neither House is then sitting, and the report shall thereupon be deemed to have been presented in that House, or both Houses, as the case may be; and
That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint that House accordingly.
Mr. Speaker, on April 15, 1997, the Quebec National Assembly voted unanimously in favour of a resolution for a constitutional amendment that would end the application to Quebec of subsections (1) to (4) of section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
I tabled an identical resolution in the House on April 22, but the election call prevented us from moving to strike a committee to examine this constitutional amendment. That is why I am tabling that resolution again, so that it can be referred to a special joint committee that is to report to Parliament in the coming weeks.
As I have indicated on several occasions, the Government of Canada supports the proposed amendment because it is a good thing for the citizens affected by it and because it enjoys a reasonable degree of support from those citizens.
It is one thing to want linguistic school boards and another thing to want to achieve them by way of a constitutional change. Although the Government of Canada has noted in recent months the existence of a consensus surrounding this proposal, including for the constitutional amendment, we could not flout the democratic traditions that Quebeckers share with all their fellow Canadians.
The Official Opposition in the National Assembly asked the Government of Quebec, in vain, to strike a parliamentary committee. Therefore, we feel it is necessary to proceed, respecting our parliamentary procedure, by striking a joint committee to which experts, groups and citizens will be able to express their views. Such a committee will allow them to make their opinions known while promoting better understanding of the changes sought by the constitutional amendment.
For some time now, Quebec society has been secularized and has become considerably diversified through the contribution of newcomers. It is therefore not surprising that this society has questioned on many occasions the appropriateness of a system established on a denominational basis.
Throughout the consultations and reports that have marked the past 30 years, a consensus has emerged on the need to reorganize school structures along linguistic, rather than denominational, lines. That consensus was confirmed during the Estates General on Education in 1996, which verified that Catholic and Protestant Quebeckers, anglophones and francophones alike, wanted to establish linguistic school boards.
Quebec's National Assembly acted on that desire for change by unanimously passing, on April 15, 1997, the resolution to amend section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, with respect to its application to Quebec.
Two months later, on June 19, 1997, Quebec MNAs again demonstrated their agreement on this matter by unanimously voting in favour of the legislation that will ensure the implementation of linguistic school boards and govern the place and role of confessionality in Quebec's school system. This legislation is the Act to amend the Education Act.
The proposed amendment not only makes it possible to adapt the Canadian Constitution to take account of the deep-seated changes Quebec society has undergone, but it also has the merit of allowing for the changes sought by the vast majority of the citizens that are affected.
First, it is noteworthy that the Quebec government is not seeking to exclude any reference to religion in education, but rather to secularize the administrative structures. Many Quebeckers are attached to religious instruction, and the Quebec government has taken account of that. Section 520 of the Education Act, as amended by section 36 and by the schedule of the Act to amend the Education Act, authorizes schools that so desire to retain their denominational orientation.
Furthermore, the right to religious instruction is still guaranteed under section 41 of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, a document that has quasi-constitutional status according to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Such arrangements help explain the support garnered by the reform sought by the Quebec authorities. While it has not expressed itself on the means used, the assembly of Quebec bishops has nevertheless publicly supported the establishment of linguistic school boards and has not opposed amending section 93.
For their part, many groups and associations have endorsed the constitutional amendment requested by Quebec's National Assembly. By way of example, I would mention the Catholic Committee of the Superior Council of Education, the Federation of School Boards, the Federation of Parents' Committees, and teachers' associations representing the entire teaching force of the province.
While section 93 does not protect linguistic rights, language and denomination nevertheless have close historical ties. In the past, Quebec's anglophone minority relied heavily on the Protestant school boards to ensure its development. The constitutional amendment proposed today does not run counter to the interests of that community. On the contrary in effect section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms will continue to provide strong constitutional guarantees to Quebec anglophones.
While section 93 guarantees the existence of denominational management structures in Montreal and Quebec City and the right of dissent in the rest of the province, section 23 allows the minority to control and manage linguistic school structures.
In addition the establishment of linguistic school boards will allow the anglophone community to consolidate its school population and thus to establish a more solid foundation for its rights under section 23.
As things stand now, Protestant school boards serve a growing number of children whose language of instruction is French. This phenomenon threatens to strip the anglophone community of its control over those institutions, institutions which are less and less reflective of sociological reality and which cannot in any event address the needs of the Catholic segment of the anglophone community.
In that regard it is important to note that students who profess the Protestant faith today account for less than 40 percent of the school population served by Protestant school boards.
Of course it is normal for any minority group to want to increase its constitutional rights. We understand the anglophone minority's concerns about its demographic situation, about the provisions which limit access to English schools and about the secessionist orientation of the current Quebec government.
In this light we understand why some groups in the anglophone community are using this opportunity to call for the full application of section 23 in Quebec. Nevertheless the Government of Canada believes that this issue raises a whole other debate. While the proposed amendment does not go as far as some might want, it nevertheless deserves to be passed because it is in the interests of both the minority and the majority in Quebec.
The government of which I am a member has reiterated on a number of occasions that any constitutional amendment must be the subject of a reasonable consensus within the minorities affected. I am pleased to note that that requirement is met in this case. The Government of Canada solemnly affirms that the same requirement would be indispensable in the event that another province called for an amendment with respect to guarantees for minorities within its territory.
In conclusion, Quebec society has succeeded in reaching a consensus on a constitutional issue which touches upon such vital issues for citizens as schooling, language, religion and the Constitution. For that reason, and because it will benefit the Quebec community as a whole, the government believes that this amendment should be passed.
National Unity September 30th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, this is getting annoying. One cannot have a special set of rules for Canada that do not apply to other countries.
Canada is an independent state, recognized as such by the United Nations, and it has the same rights as other countries. I can quote, for instance, the Helsinki declaration, which states that “Participating states shall respect the principle of the equality in law of peoples and their right to self-determination, by acting at any given time in accordance with the goals and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations”.
This means that the right to secede exists only in a colonial context. Secession is not a right within a democracy.