House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 62% of the vote.
Quebec September 30th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, what strikes me is the absence of any argument to support the idea that the distinct society clause or whatever you may call it is against Canada. I think it is a great thing to do for Canadians to recognize that in an anglophone North America there is a strong francophone society and we are proud of it.
We explained that this does not mean more money for Quebecers, privileges for Quebecers. Other Canadians will be so proud to recognize the great Quebec society.
The Referendum Question September 30th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for providing me with the opportunity to repeat my statement. Perhaps then she will understand that we in this country have accepted the idea that the country could break apart, if a population were to indicate very clearly that it no longer wished to remain in the federation.
There will, however, have to be assurances that this is clear and fair for everyone. Prince Edward Island, therefore, is entitled to assure itself that the people of Quebec have been consulted in a clear process, acceptable to all, with terms of negotiation that are also acceptable to all.
It is clear that the decision to break up Canada would have serious consequences for the people of Prince Edward Island. I am very confident that Quebecers and other Canadians will to avoid negotiations as painful, lengthy and difficult as those on the breakup of this country would be.
The Referendum Question September 30th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, there are polls, there are statements made by the moral authorities of this country, by various public figures. Obviously in Canada there is a convention that a population is not to be forced to remain against its will. The Minister of Justice has explained this in his speech.
We are, however, entitled to the assurance that this is what a given population wants, and in that connection, yes, PEI is entitled to its say.
The Referendum Question September 30th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, first of all, since I entered politics, I have never had to back down from anything I wrote as a university professor and I am prepared to take up the gauntlet.
Second, the official opposition would do well to study foreign cases and international law. It will see that in many democracies, the very concept of secession has been excluded from public debate. In the United States, Italy, Spain and other democracies including France, which the official opposition treats as a good
friend, in fact in section 2 of the French constitution it says that the French Republic is one and indivisible.
Here in Canada we are actually more democratic than average, in this area as in others. We are more conciliatory. We accept the idea that our country can break up if part of our population no longer wishes to remain in the country. However, we have the right to ensure this is done according to the rule of law, in a clear context, since this is a very serious decision which cannot be made if confusion reigns.
The Referendum Question September 30th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I repeat, the Leader of the Official Opposition in Quebec urges the Quebec government to come and argue its case before the Supreme Court. He does so, using the same arguments that the Minister of Justice of Canada used to invite his counterpart, Mr. Bégin, to argue his case before the Supreme Court.
The reason they are not going there is that they now realize, after being told by two judges of the Quebec Superior Court, as well as by all the experts, including some U.S. experts last week, that international law provides no basis for a unilateral declaration of independence, that this gospel they believed, because their separatist leaders, Mr. Parizeau, and Mr. Landry kept preaching it all the time, is not true, and that if they want to bring about something as serious as secession, for the sake of the people of Quebec in particular, it must be done within a specific framework that is acceptable to all concerned, and not unilaterally.
The problem is that they now realize that Quebecers and other Canadians will never give up their ties of solidarity in a clear situation. That is why they need confusion, stratagems and other tricks.
The Referendum Question September 30th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Johnson is entirely correct in saying that the National Assembly is free to ask any questions it wants. But when such a question involves negotiations on an issue as serious as secession, the question must be such as to elicit a clear response from the people. What is needed is a clear question. And to have a clear question, we need a clear process. To have a clear process, there must be a commitment to make it that way.
So far, however, the Quebec government has given us no guarantees to that effect. We are asking the Supreme Court to clarify matters, and the Quebec government does not want to go before the Supreme Court. Why? Because it knows that confusion works to its advantage. The forces of division gain from confusion; the forces of reconciliation gain from clarity.
And if we must quote Mr. Johnson, I will quote him, in concluding: "Mr. Bouchard and other sovereignists, who for three or four years have been telling us that international law is clear on the subject will have a forum to explain why it is clear. If the train is there, they can always get on board and tell Quebecers what their theories are about", but they will not go, because they know they are wrong.
First Ministers' Conference June 18th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, one of the comments made was that the agenda was quite heavy and that there might not be enough time to deal with everything on it. This is a very good point, but I think that, if we keep a tight schedule, we should be able to go through the whole agenda.
The opposition would like to add yet another item. A number of provinces would like to discuss several other issues. But we have had to make a selection to put the agenda together. If it is too heavy, it will require a great deal of discipline on the part of the ministers to deal with all the issues constructively.
First Ministers' Conference June 18th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the GST issue will be discussed very soon at a finance ministers' conference.
First Ministers' Conference June 18th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the meeting is to enable the two orders of government to work together, even better than they do now, to provide Canadians with better services at a lower cost. And we will succeed.
In some areas, it is important to better clarify the respective roles played by the two levels of government, as in the case of mining and forestry. In other cases, the federal government will transfer substantial amounts to the provinces. For example, $2 billion will be transferred for active employment measures over the life of this program. The federal government will also transfer $1.9 billion to the provinces for the management of some 660,000 social housing units.
First Ministers' Conference June 17th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, we already answered, in relation to job training, that there must be an effective partnership between the federal government and the provinces in an area that concerns both the provinces, through job training, and the federal government, through unemployment insurance and the economic union.
As for the other areas, what is the hon. member talking about? Where are the conditions attached to social housing? The federal government is withdrawing from this area. In tourism, there is a partnership that works very well but that could possibly be improved. What area could we mention, in fact? Forestry? Recreation? Mining? The federal government is withdrawing from all these areas without any conditions. What is the hon. member talking about?