Stephen Harper

[Supply, October 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how to respond to that. It sounded more like an extension of the member's speech than a question put specifically to me.

Let me repeat that Reform members do not doubt for a minute that the policies being pursued by the government in Quebec are also being pursued by it in other parts of the country. What we quarrel with is the appropriateness of those policies.

Our governments do not need to be involved in giving large sums of money to major corporations, which also happen to contribute to the Liberal Party, in order to spur economic development. What the country really needs, for example, is a lighter tax burden. Take away the subsidies and lessen taxes, both in Quebec and in other regions of the country and the private economy could exploit the advantages which our resources and the North American market offer to us.

It should be mentioned that Quebec was a leader, not just the federalists but also the separatists, in the free trade debate. They supported the extension of free trade and the economic opportunities that brings. Let us exploit the opportunities of a market economy rather than trying to do it through big government and corporate subsidies. That is one objection I have.

I also have to mention the reference to the distinct society motion, which my party opposed and will continue to oppose. We will continue to say that the solution to this problem is not for so-called federalists in Quebec to walk around repeating separatist claims that the French language is in some kind of jeopardy in the province of Quebec, which it is not, and needs some kind of special status to protect it. We have said repeatedly that there are things which can be done to improve this federation, but putting separatist slogans in the Constitution is not the way to proceed.

Separatists themselves recognize that the true distinct societies of this world sit at the United Nations. Quebec is a province of Canada. It fulfils an important role and its name must not be changed.

[Supply, October 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member claims I blamed Montreal's economic situation on Quebec's language situation. This is not true. I said it was one of the problems in Quebec's current economic situation.

I repeat what I said. There are people in Quebec-not only the sovereignist movement, but also the Quebec Liberal Party-who think Quebec and Montreal should be French. The price of this policy is that Montreal's importance as an economic centre has declined in the rest of Canada and North America where the language is English. I am not saying that this policy is wrong or mistaken, but that it is the price to be paid.

In my opinion, Montreal's strength as a city in Quebec, Canada and North America is that it is the only city of its size on this continent where Canada's both official languages are widely spoken. This is Montreal's strength. If the provincial government decides not to capitalize on this strength, it is one of the consequences it must accept. It cannot have it both ways.

I should point out that, in this regard, sovereignty would make the situation worse than it is today. My friend mentioned that Quebec is a nation that should achieve sovereignty. I assume he is right. But I also see that, in the two referendums held in Quebec, the people made themselves heard and decided they were part of the Quebec nation, of course, but also of the Canadian nation. As I said several times, only through federalism can both sides of Quebec's personality be expressed.

[Supply, October 24th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to the Bloc's motion on the current economic situation in Montreal. This is one of those times when I feel I do not belong, being part of a different family, but that I must still take part in their debate. Anyhow, the motion reads:

That this House recognize Montreal as the economic mainspring of Quebec society and, therefore, condemn the federal government's lack of concrete initiatives in supporting the Montreal area economy, primarily-

It then lists several particular areas in which the federal government has failed.

I notice that we are dealing here with the Montreal area, where the support for the Bloc is not as strong as in the rest of Quebec. This may not be pure coincidence, but I believe that there is here reason enough to blame both the federal government and the sovereignist movement. If I may, I intend to move an amendment later on reflecting my point of view and my party's to the effect that both sides are to be blamed for their policy with regard to this economic crisis.

[English]

What has happened to Montreal? When I was a young boy growing up in Toronto, Montreal was a substantially larger city than Toronto and was recognized in Toronto at the time as being the economic centre of Canada.

Before I was a teenager all of that had changed and today in Montreal, which I visit frequently, one can see on each visit the gradual decline in the economic importance of that beautiful and important city. One can see evidence of decline in its infrastructure, the growth of unemployment and the decline of employment opportunities. One can see evidence of the decline of business and the shift of growth and economic activity and opportunity outside of Montreal, particularly to Toronto, but also in some cases to other parts of Canada.

No doubt today we will be treated with arguments which are basically the following from the federalist side. I am a federalist. However, we shall hear from the Liberal side that the separatist movement is solely responsible for the decline in Montreal and for the economic uncertainty it faces and that the sovereignty movement has chased away any economic prosperity and activity.

I often point out to the people in western Canada that the separatists will say: "Look at what being part of the federation has done to Montreal over the past 30 years". I think there is a lot of insincerity on both sides of the debate. The separatists never want to use the word independence to describe their proposals for the province of Quebec, economic independence and economic separation from the rest of Canada, as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has noted. Also some of the federalists in the province of Quebec today do not seem to want to say the word province to describe their view of Quebec's position in Canada. They want distinct society or whatever the latest buzzword is to get the separatist vote.

Both, in blaming each other, are right. There is an old quote by a political scientist which says that in a democratic system both major parties-speaking here of the province of Quebec-spend most of their time trying to prove that the other is incompetent and unworthy of government. Both succeed and both are usually right. That may apply in this case.

I am not terribly interested in taking sides on this other than if push came to shove I would certainly vote against this motion. We certainly do not see anything in the separatist proposals, either economic, constitutional or political, that would resolve any of the difficulties. Clearly they have worsened it.

Let me digress on some of the difficulties that Montreal faces and some of the reasons for its decline. I will make some reference to a paper that has recently been written by Professor John Richards of Simon Fraser University entitled "Language matters: ensuring that the sugar not dissolve in the coffee".

Professor Richards was at one time a social democrat or socialist. I think he still calls himself that but increasingly his friends in the New Democratic Party do not. He has been labelled a budding conservative, although that may be premature.

Professor Richards has asked me on numerous occasions to write something about the situation in Quebec and I promised him that and I have yet to deliver. I promised to review this paper he has written for the C.D. Howe Institute.

His argument is worth examination, and that is what I am doing, that the provinces generally, but Quebec specifically, should have enhanced jurisdiction over language as part of a solution to the national unity problem. That is perhaps in a different form part of the Reform Party's own proposals.

He does make reference on page 3 of his paper to the following:

-the Quebecois want provincial legislation to promote French and, to some extent, to limit the use of English.

Their Charte de la langue francaise (Charter of the French Language) most often still called Bill 101 although it was enacted in 1977, has done the job. It has strengthened the status of French as the working language in the province, preserved Montreal as a predominantly francophone metropolis, and confirmed that French remain the dominant language in the school system. Bill 101 has been controversial but necessary.

That is mentioning something in the very narrow context of language policy but I think more significant is what is not mentioned here. It is quite arguable that the success of Bill 101, of nationalist policies and nationalist language policies specifically, has not really been to strengthen French in Montreal but in fact to weaken English in Montreal, to be part of a massive exodus we have seen of English language people and allophones outside of the province of Quebec, taking with them much of the economic activity they have generated, both capital and labour.

The consequence has been a dilemma for all Quebecers, not just for separatists, in the attempt to make Montreal an entirely French city or to encourage Montreal as a French city as opposed to an English city or a bilingual city. It has meant the decline of Montreal as a national, international and particularly a continental centre. This is the great dilemma.

Those who want to preserve, protect and strengthen the role of Montreal as the francophone capital of Canada have no answer to the problem of how they will stop the decline of Montreal as a centre that has economic importance outside of the province of Quebec. This is certainly a dilemma for the separatist movement but is also a dilemma for nationalist movements that are nominally on the federalist side. If I have time I will make some mention of those later.

This is a dilemma. It is at the heart of the decline of Montreal as an economic centre.

This is not my own theory. I will give as an example an article written by William Coffey and Mario Polèse for the publication Recherches sociographiques . It is entitled ``The Decline of the Montreal Empire. An Overview of the Economic Situation in a Changing Metropolis''.

Here is an excerpt:

For the past three decades, the Montreal economy has taken a nosedive, resulting in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. Cut off from its Canadian imperial economic hinterland, Montreal is reduced to being merely Quebec's metropolis.

This article is more optimistic than many others, even though it makes reference to the same problem I mentioned.

There is, however, no doubt that decline has happened, whatever one believes the cause of the decline is. Let me also be very specific about this by mentioning some facts which are reported in various publications that one can read on a monthly basis. Maclean's magazine indicates that during the 1980s the population in the Montreal region grew by a modest 9.6 per cent. Toronto expanded by 22.1 per cent. Vancouver grew by 25.2 per cent. The number of jobs in Montreal between 1971 and 1991 increased 60 per cent, but well behind Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa, Edmonton and Calgary, all of which saw jobs grow by more than 100 per cent in the same period.

Let us look at some recent economic statistics. Here I quote the Toronto Star . The unemployment rate in Toronto in recent months is 2 to 3 percentage points below Montreal. Frankly, that is a fairly narrow gap compared to what we have seen in recent years.

Employment as a percentage of adult population was 5 per cent lower in Montreal. The percentage of the population below the poverty line in 1994 was 17 per cent in Toronto and 25 per cent in Montreal, the economic engine of Quebec.

Housing starts were up 9 per cent in Toronto and down 9 per cent in Montreal. Bankruptcies are double in Montreal what they were in Toronto. Consumer bankruptcies are about 25 per cent higher. There is slower growth in sales as the economy recovers.

These are all substantial and significant pieces of evidence of the relative weakness of the Montreal economy. Nobody should deny that, not the Liberals, not the separatists, not the federal government and not the provincial government.

There are always explanations offered by separatists who try to blame entirely the federalist side. Some of them are more far fetched than others. One is mentioned in an article.

It is an article which describes the sovereignist perspective on the economy of Quebec and Montreal. It says "the incompetence of Mr. Jean Chrétien is reason enough to worry investors", writes Mr. Roy in L'Action nationale . He also mentions several reasons in the sovereignist perspective, including the role of the air transportation sector and he compares Canadian Airlines and Air Canada. In his article about what might worry investors, Mr. Roy does not mention what we find time and time again in polls, that is that sovereignty, the next referendum and the separatist movement is what worries them.

He does mention the role of Air Canada versus Canadian Airlines. I give this as one of the more far fetched examples. The supposed favouritism of the federal government for Canadian Airlines, which is based in Calgary and Vancouver to a lesser extent, over Air Canada, which is based in Montreal and Toronto to a lesser extent, is given as a reason.

First I should mention that very few people at Canadian Airlines believe this and I know that for a fact. However, let us not forget the facts here. Whatever separatists or others want to pick at as a particular incident, the reality is that the existence of Air Canada as a corporation based in Montreal is entirely the consequence of the federal government having basically created and funded that corporation for decades and then by legislation placed its head office in the city of Montreal. There is no such parallel for Canadian Airlines.

Furthermore, I just have to mention these uncomfortable facts. For all the favouritism that supposedly generated, Air Canada is in

fact making money. Canadian Airlines has not turned a profit since 1988 and as we know is constantly under financial pressure.

There are other facts and there are certainly failings of the federal government and federalists. There is demonstrable and researched uncertainty, it has been said over and over again by the business community of Montreal, about the next referendum and the sovereignty movement.

There is as well the particular problem of the language wars and the language legislation. This summer the premier of Quebec, Mr. Bouchard, was personally involved and responsible for heating that up. We had some protests in Montreal about English language customers in English language areas of Montreal demanding from English language businesses service in English to be completely acceptable under the laws of the province of Quebec. Yet Mr. Bouchard jumped into the debate and with elements of the Parti Quebecois threatened to once again raise the issue of further language legislation and debate.

It is important to point out to people outside Quebec that this was contrary to the wishes of virtually all Quebecers. This was not just the anglophones but the vast majority of francophones, including most francophones who actually supported the sovereignty side in the referendum. This was once again the pet project of a particular element of the separatist movement. The federal government is not all to blame.

In this regard let me mention the tax burden in the province of Quebec. A major reason that people often live in Ottawa as opposed to the Outaouais is the tax burden at both levels of government. Let me mention some facts on this which are not arguable. These are not reasons for the economic performance of Montreal.

The combined federal-provincial top marginal tax rate in Quebec is 52.94 per cent which is the third highest in the country. Quebec payroll taxes are 4.26 per cent, the highest in the country. Non-financial corporation capital tax is 0.64 per cent, the highest in the country. Gasoline taxes are the highest in the country. Interest rates on provincial bonds demanded by the international investment community are the highest in the country.

In the time that remains let me mention in all fairness to the sovereignty movement some of the failures of the federalists and of the federal government because these are important. On the provincial level, let us not forget that the Liberal Party was supposedly a federalist party that governed Quebec for part of the period of this decline. It has often pushed the same kind of damaging nationalist policies that we see from the Parti Quebecois. It is the same type of financial mismanagement as we have seen from the federal Liberals in Ottawa over the past generations. Therefore that side is not blameless.

I might even point out that I have questioned many times even giving that party the title of a federalist party. The Quebec Liberal Party certainly wants Quebec to remain part of Canada but it also supports the idea that there is a unilateral right to separate. This would be six of one, and half a dozen of another.

Let us look specifically at the economic philosophy of the federal government. This federal government in the classic style of a centralist party that governs without vision and principle but only on the basis of power and patronage brags about the kind of largesse it can dispense to various Canadians. There is no shortage of its bragging about the kind of largesse it has often dispensed in the province of Quebec. This is well documented. I can point to studies by Professor Mansell at the University of Calgary in which I participated.

It is interesting to note the nature of these things: subsidies, unemployment insurance, equalization payments, social assistance in all forms. It is never what the Reform Party or others have proposed. It is never the idea that we should have a competitive economy, that we should lighten the tax burden, that we should make sure that economic opportunity is available to all Canadians, that we should lighten the load of the federal government, bring decentralization to the country. Unfortunately I am not going to have time to elaborate on these things.

What is generally interesting is that the parts of the country that have benefited from these Liberal programs, massive movements of money across the country, are the have not provinces. The question to really ask over time is, are they getting this money because they are have not provinces, or are they have not provinces because of these economic policies? Instead of exploiting their natural advantages and the dynamism that is possible in the resource base of those economies, they have been reduced to economies that operate on subsidy through the various regional development offices and through social assistance.

The Minister of Finance, a Quebecer, yesterday condemned the Reform Party saying its policies would deny welfare to single mothers. Perhaps its policies would offer a job to single mothers so they would not need welfare. That always escapes the Liberal Party in this kind of thinking.

In conclusion, I would like to move an amendment. I move:

That the amendment be amended by adding the following after the word "the", "separatist threat is hampering the".

[Canada Elections Act, October 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-63, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Referendum Act. On a personal note I would like to convey my own best wishes to the solicitor general. We are all glad to see him back in the saddle.

The bill provides for the establishment and updating of a computerized register of electors. It also reduces the electoral period to a minimum of 36 days from 47 days. I will discuss the two main sections of the bill beginning with the permanent registry of electors.

To establish this list it would still be necessary to do one final enumeration after which a permanent list would be created. The list would be updated by consultation with other governmental bodies and by using other records including provincial drivers' licences and records from Revenue Canada.

The second main part of this bill would reduce the electoral period from 47 days to 36 days. In general, reducing the electoral period will mean cost savings. The Reform Party is open to measures to ease the burden on Canadian taxpayers.

In general, the Reform Party is certainly not opposed to the philosophical direction of either change proposed in Bill C-63. In terms of the shorter period, personally I have favoured such a move for a long time. The first time I participated in a federal election the campaign was 56 days. It has been shortened over the years, yet it has still seemed lengthy to me as a participant.

This is something we want to examine in terms of the specifics. I gather that officials of my party including the House leader have indicated that we favour this change, but we would want to look more carefully at the mechanics to make sure 36 days is the correct period of time.

Concerning the permanent register, this is an area where we for some time favoured improvements that would see cost savings, although I will raise a number of possible concerns that the committee should look at.

The Reform Party has also called for other changes to the electoral system including measures that are not found in this bill. My colleagues will address some of these measures.

Reform also supports measures that represent real cost savings to Canadian taxpayers. Although we support measures to reduce the cost of elections for Canadian taxpayers and to streamline the process, we have concerns, some of which I will briefly outline. In outlining these concerns we are happy that the solicitor general and government House leader has said that he is open to amendments. This bill may require some technical amendments in a number of areas.

The first and main concern is the privacy issue. The existence of a permanent voter's list leads to these concerns since the information is to be shared by different levels of government and different governmental bodies. There is a risk that privacy can be compromised. The more information is transferred and shared, the greater the risk of security of the information.

The government assures us that it will ensure the privacy rights of Canadians are respected. However, we all know that no system is foolproof, especially a brand new one.

The existence of a permanent voter's list raises concerns about exactly who could get the list through more advanced technology. The government assures us that it is impossible for the list to circulate but we know mistakes can happen.

The government also assures us the consent of all voters will be sought in terms of the use of information and its release to different agencies. We sincerely hope this is the case but we are concerned first and foremost with ensuring that this bill does not compromise the privacy rights of Canadians.

Let me mention one specific issue in this regard. It appears in this legislation that a voter's list will continue to identify the gender of voters. It has always been a mystery to me why this is necessary. Concerns have been raised with us and we will raise them in the committee about why it is necessary, for example, to identify on a voter's list a single female living alone. This raises concerns in the minds of certain individuals and I think it is one that the government should address.

The second concern is proof of citizenship. It has been often raised in the past about the process for verification of the genuineness of citizenship and the reliability of electors' lists as they apply to new voters and new Canadians. This is a problem we have had in the past. Hopefully this new process will address that. However, we will want to study more carefully what the proposals are in Bill C-63.

The third concern is getting on and off the list. To me this is another fascinating area, in particular as it applies once again to new Canadians. One oddity of this legislation is that while old Canadians are automatically on the list unless they request to be taken off, new citizens or new Canadians must specifically request to be put on the list in the first place. Should this not be a right and a responsibility that applies to all Canadian citizens equally? Why should the regulations for voting depend whether or not you are a new citizen or have previously been a citizen?

The third concern is technology. Will we be ready to begin this after the next election? Will all the systems and technology support be up and running? How reliable are the systems being set up? We all welcome the use of technology to save money and streamline the process but we must admit the possibility for mistakes. The last thing we would ever want to see are mistakes in a federal election or one that would involve having to start from scratch with another enumeration.

Let me echo in that particular concern the comments by my hon. friend from the Bloc Quebecois. It is a bit of a mystery to us why we waited until this late stage to introduce some of these changes so that they cannot be possibly be implemented for the next election. We have waited so long and now are faced with a situation where we are going to possibly have to rush the study of this legislation.

There are other technical concerns that I could raise, for instance, people who do not have drivers' licences, in particular young people, students who also do not file tax returns. There may be technical issues we will have to look at there.

Let me mention briefly the issue of cost. As I said, we welcome the fact that we will be able to save in the future roughly $30 million per election with a permanent voter's list. Furthermore we are prepared to share this technology with provincial and municipal governments and school boards. In theory they all could benefit from this list.

That raises additional questions about the sharing of information. I point out that only three provinces, Alberta, Ontario and New Brunswick, have said categorically that they are interested in this. From a federal cost standpoint we should also consider whether we should not share some cost benefit here at the federal level by sharing this list with provincial governments. If all of the costs have been incurred at the federal level it seems to us that there should be some provision for the federal government to gain something from the savings that will be achieved at the provincial level if there is co-operation.

These are the various concerns that I would like to raise. I am sure there will be others. They are mainly technical in detail and nature. I suspect they are all resolvable and all can be addressed. We look forward to studying this bill in committee.

[An Act To Revoke The Conviction Of Louis David Riel, October 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that I can understand the sentiments lying behind Bill C-297, an act to revoke the conviction of Louis David Riel.

Perhaps the most recognizable name in all of Canadian history, he was certainly the greatest leader ever produced by the Metis, the people whose history is woven together with that of western Canada. Yet modern historical research has demonstrated that Riel, in spite of his undeniable greatness, was afflicted with tragic flaws. To revoke his conviction more than 100 years after the fact glosses over those flaws in favour of a historically inaccurate portrait of the man and his age.

Riel's greatest failing was his monumental vanity which is illustrated in a curious way in my hon. friend's bill. That bill is entitled "an act to revoke the conviction of Louis David Riel". In fact Riel was not baptised with the middle name David. Rather he adopted that name when he was about 30 years old and he always wrote it in quotation marks.

He used the signature Louis David Riel to express his conviction that he was like the David of the Old Testament, a sacred priest king. Riel also called himself the "prophet of the new world" and "prophet, priest king and infallible pontiff". He claimed to be the divinely inspired founder of a new religion which was to be a sort of higher stage of Roman Catholicism for the new world.

Many of those who knew him thought he had gone insane when he started to issue these revelations. In fact, he was confined to insane asylums in the province of Quebec for almost two years from 1876 to 1878. Whether or not he was insane in the medical sense, he clearly saw himself as a divinely inspired prophet. This self-understanding was central to the movement he led in the Saskatchewan valley in 1885.

He began the uprising by climbing the steps of the mission church at Batoche and proclaiming "Rome has fallen". The governing council of the Metis of Batoche declared Riel to be their official prophet with a right "to direct the priests". Even as the Canadian expeditionary force was advancing on Batoche, Riel and his council were debating religious innovations such as changing the sabbath from Sunday to Saturday.

As I have said, opinions differ about his sanity. Several psychiatrists have written that he was mentally ill. Contemporary historians tend to see him more as a religious enthusiast and millenarian leader. Either way, little would be served by revoking his conviction in 1996. We can hardly argue that religious enthusiasts are not subject to the law. If we say he should not have been convicted because he was not responsible by reason of insanity, what message are we sending to the Metis? Does it help them if we label their greatest leader a lunatic?

From a historical point of view, there is little doubt that in the context of his own day, Riel was properly convicted of treason. Let me expand on four reasons why I draw this conclusion.

First, there is no doubt that Riel encouraged his followers to rebel against the crown. In addition to the testimony of many eye witnesses, we have documents in his own hand. Perhaps the most interesting is a short sentence that he wrote in French: "La justice ordonne de prendre les armes". One of his secretaries, William Henry Jackson, translated it into English: "Justice commands to take up arms", boldly underlining the phrase "to take up arms". These and similar texts will be found in the five volume set The Collected Writings of Louis David Riel published by the University of Alberta Press and edited by a team under the direction of the renowned historian George Stanley, who served as lieutenant governor of New Brunswick and who also designed Canada's flag.

There is no legal defence for taking up arms against the sovereign. If the movement is successful, a new legal order is created but if it fails, the instigators will be charged with treason. That is why the great leaders of the American Revolution pledged to each other "their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honour". They knew they were taking a risk that transcended legality and that they would pay the supreme price if they failed. Louis Riel despite his failings had some of that same kind of courage. It does no credit to his memory to come asking for a posthumous pardon.

I could add that my hon. friends in the official opposition may wish to keep all this in mind if they believe, as the Government of Quebec has said, that they can take Quebec out of Canada in defiance of the law and the Constitution.

Second, Riel's motives in fomenting the northwest rebellion were mixed to say the least. Toward the end of 1884 he entered into behind the scenes negotiations with the federal government, volunteering to leave Canada if the government would pay him a large sum of money. He felt he was owed at least $100,000 as an indemnity for past services to Canada, but offered to leave for $35,000. He told this to Father Alexis André, Superior of the

Oblate Missionaries at St. Laurent, and to D. H. MacDowall, member of the Northwest Territories Council from the district of Lorne.

According to MacDowall, Riel said that if the government would consider his personal claims against them and pay him a certain amount in settlement of these claims, he would arrange to make his illiterate and unreasoning followers well satisfied with almost any settlement of their claims for land grants the government might be willing to make. Riel turned to violence only after it became clear that the government would not give him any money.

Third, it is often said that taking up arms in the northwest rebellion was the last resort of desperate men. Their peaceful attempts to have their grievances resolved had all been ignored by an uncaring government.

The truth however is very different. The Metis settlers of the Batoche area did have claims to press. Many of them had settled along the banks of the South Saskatchewan River while the survey was going on and they wanted their lots resurveyed from the standard rectangular system to long, narrow river lots. Also, they wanted a distribution of land and scrip for the Metis of the northwest similar to what had been done in Manitoba. The government was in the process of dealing with both claims.

During the winter of 1884-85 the Department of the Interior sent an official to make a special study of the river lot claims along the South Saskatchewan River and the cabinet appointed a commission to enumerate claims for land and scrip across the northwest. It was the news of these measures that prompted Riel to turn to violence. He realized that if the government dealt with the real life grievances of the local people, his own future as a political leader would be over.

Finally, Riel got a fair trial within the context of his own time and place. He was tried before a stipendiary magistrate and a jury of six as required by the Northwest Territories Act. There was no legal mechanism for trying him in any other way.

Wellwishers in Quebec paid for him to be represented by outstanding talented lawyers. One, François-Xavier Lemieux, later became chief justice of the Supreme Court of Quebec. The other, Charles Fitzpatrick, served as chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. Riel also had two appeals, to the court of Queen's bench of Manitoba sitting en banc and to the judicial committee of the privy council in London.

Louis Riel was a complex man. In speaking against the bill I have been forced to dwell on the negative side of his character and career. Of course there was a positive side as well. Riel saw that the days of the fur trade and buffalo hunt were coming to an end. He wanted to make a place for the Metis in the new society growing in the west. He saw his people not as aboriginal wards of the crown but as British subjects or American citizens, depending on which side of the 49th parallel they lived.

He wanted them to settle down as independent, self-sufficient farmers, not to be dependent on government handouts. He campaigned vigorously against the whiskey trade that was so debilitating to all native people.

There are some things in Riel's legacy to admire and it is not surprising that the Metis people of today revere his memory, but nothing will be gained by this legislative attempt to rewrite history. Let us leave history to the historians.

As members of Parliament, let us try to live up to the standard that was laid down by former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau when he said, quoting John F. Kennedy: "We will be just in our time". It is hard enough to do that without trying to take on the fruitless task of second guessing the justice of another era.

[Frazer Institute, October 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to the attention of the House the September edition of Fraser Forum . To cut through the bafflegaff, two years ago the Fraser Institute developed a Canadian budget performance index to monitor the financial records of the country's 11 senior governments.

The index is composed of an array of variables dealing with both spending and taxation as well as deficits and debt. The best performer in 1995 was the province of Alberta, and Saskatchewan is forecast to be the best performer in 1996.

The worst? Over the two year period it is forecast to be the federal government, placing 10th out of 11 in 1995, and forecast to be no better than 9th for this year. This is all the more fascinating since much of federal budgetary progress in the past two years has been in the form of offloading to the provinces.

There are two lessons here. First, Canadians should not be conned about the federal fiscal situation. The federal Liberals have a record of brilliant propaganda and mediocre performance. Second, the House should be reminded once again of the invaluable public policy work that is regularly provided to Canadians by the Fraser Institute.

[Canadian Bill Of Rights, September 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of M-205. I want to commend the work of my colleague from Comox-Alberni for bringing this motion forward and also to note the work done by the member for Yorkton-Melville who has brought in Bill C-284 which has a similar purpose to this motion.

This motion is designed to strengthen and protect the property rights of Canadians. I wholeheartedly support M-205 for many reasons, which I will elaborate on momentarily.

Let me review very quickly what this motion says. M-205 reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should provide a greater measure of protection for individual property rights by amending the Canadian Bill of Rights to read:

"1. Subject to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, every person has the right to the enjoyment of that person's personal and real property and the right not to be deprived thereof unless the person

(a) is accorded a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, and

(b) is paid fair compensation in respect of the property, and the amount of that compensation is fixed impartially, and is paid within a reasonable amount of time after the person is deprived of their property.

1. Any person whose rights, as set out in section 1, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances".

It is my pleasure to speak today about this very important motion because I believe in the rights of Canadians, and specifically, the need to strengthen the protection of property rights.

The motion would amend the Canadian Bill of Rights by adding two sections. The first section would protect Canadians' rights with respect to property. In any case where this right were to be restricted, this motion would guarantee the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The second section gives individual property owners the right to fair compensation for their property and ensures compensation within a reasonable time period.

What I find most surprising in this debate is that it has taken so long for the House to make a clear expression of its support for the protection of property rights. The importance of protecting property rights has long been recognized in Canada and around the world. Property rights are included in the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Canada is a signatory. Other democratic countries have already taken the lead in property rights' legislation, including the United States, Germany, Italy and Finland. Several Canadian provinces, including British Columbia, New Brunswick and Ontario have also initiated resolutions supporting stronger protection for property rights.

The debate about the protection of property rights is not new to the House either. In 1988 a motion to protect property rights received overwhelming support and was adopted as a resolution of the House. This was an example of cross-party support for the protection of property rights in Canada.

The Deputy Speaker of the House at another time and in another capacity expressed the view of the importance of property rights and his concern with the adequate safeguarding of these rights in Canada. In his words: "We must entrench the right to property in our Constitution. The right to hold and enjoy property provides one of the checks and balances against undue concentration of power in government at any level".

In fact, many members from the government side have in the past deemed there to be a need for stronger protection of property rights. In the early 1980s Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau who had originally written against property rights and the current Prime Minister both expressed the strong desire to strengthen the protection of property rights, so much so that the current government party wanted to go beyond this motion and entrench property rights into the charter of rights and freedoms.

Back in 1980 the current Prime Minister said: "In deciding which rights should be included in the charter, we have selected only those which we feel reflect the central values of our society. Each of the rights we have listed is an essential ingredient for the charter and all are rights which all Canadians should have regardless of where they live in our country". This statement was made as part of his presentation to the provinces on the importance of strengthening the protection of property rights by entrenching them in the charter and they were included in his list.

At the time several Canadian provinces as well as the opposition parties at the time frustrated the inclusion of property rights in the charter.

While I am pleased to see that members of the government side, including their leader, have in the past recognized the need to better safeguard this important category of rights, entrenching them into the charter would require a constitutional amendment. This would be problematic, as we are all aware of the difficulty of amending the Constitution at the current time.

The beauty of this motion is that it does not require an amendment to the Constitution. Because this motion targets the bill of rights as opposed to the charter of rights and freedoms, it is easier to amend and well within the jurisdiction of the House.

Another advantage of M-205 is that the motion avoids concerns about encroaching on areas of provincial jurisdiction. In past debates on the issue concerns were raised about protecting property rights by including them in the charter. The objection was not about the importance of property rights, but rather about the encroachment of the federal government in areas of provincial jurisdiction through the charter.

My colleague, in designing this motion deliberately targeted the bill of rights as opposed to the charter of rights and freedoms. The reason for this is that the charter applies to the provinces as well as to the federal government while the bill of rights applies only to areas of federal jurisdiction. By targeting the bill of rights this motion avoids intruding into areas of provincial jurisdiction.

I would like to add my personal voice as a citizen. I do not believe any level of government should infringe on property rights in an unjust manner.

In the debate following the introduction of this particular motion on property rights, the government members who responded expressed their support for property rights. However, and there is always a but, they said they could not support the motion because they believed property rights already have adequate protection. I am pleased that the members opposite support property rights, but I would challenge them on their assertion that property rights are adequately safeguarded.

The bill of rights makes mention of the right of Canadians to enjoy property. However, this is simply not enough. Section 1(a) of the bill of rights states: "The right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof, except by due process of law".

Section 2(e) provides that no federal law "deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights an obligations".

While I think all members of the House would support the principles outlined in the bill of rights as they apply to property rights, there is a problem. Unfortunately, while the bill of rights mentions property rights, the guarantee of protection and compensation in cases where private property has been surrendered is not explicit. This weakens the level of protection for property rights. Because the bill of rights is a regular statute, it can be overridden by a new federal statute. Without the explicit mention of compensation, a new federal statute could rather easily restrict the right of Canadians to fair and prompt compensation. M-205 would correct this by making explicit the government's requirement to provide fair and prompt compensation in circumstances where it is necessary for an individual to surrender property.

I am quite surprised by the current government's opposition to this motion. While members of the government party previously advocated entrenching property rights in the Constitution, they now seem to believe the status quo is good enough. I fail to see what could have changed their minds.

We have had in Parliament the Pearson airport bill which provides a precise example of why we need this kind of protection. While this bill ultimately died, had it been passed it would have cancelled agreements to privatize and redevelop terminals 1 and 2 of Toronto's international airport. Parts of the bill would have absolved the federal government of any liability associated with the cancellation of the agreements. As we know it would have gone further and even basically cancelled recourse to the courts. This is precisely the kind of example of why we need stronger protection of property rights in this country.

No one is suggesting there are never occasions where it may be necessary for individuals to surrender property. The motion recognizes this possibility. The difference between the status quo and the amendments this motion would bring about is that Motion M-205 would ensure that the property rights of Canadians could not be infringed upon without due process and fair compensation.

The existence of fundamental rights and the importance of fairness and justice are principles that Canadians have come to expect. If the government truly does support the property rights of

Canadians and the principles of fairness and justice, I am confident it should have no reservations about supporting Motion M-205.

Let me add in concluding that we cannot understate the importance of property rights in the maintenance of a free society. We all know that free society and freedom in human history have been a fleeting thing. Only under certain legal, cultural and economic conditions are we able to enjoy the benefits of a free and democratic society.

We had an example of another kind of society in this century in the Soviet Union. We all know that the Soviet Union had one of the most democratic constitutions in the world in terms of its symbolic recognition of rights. What the people of the Soviet Union ultimately lacked was the right to own property. Without the right to own property and without iron clad guarantees that cannot be taken from you except by legal and just processes, all other rights are meaningless. That is precisely what happened in that society. All the other human rights, all the democratic freedoms enunciated in that constitution were absolutely meaningless because there was no fundamental right to property without which there is not a free society.

There are numerous examples in this country of the unjust expropriation of property by governments, governments forcing people to sell land and other material without compensation, without alternatives or without recourse to the courts. I know in Calgary it happened in the establishment of a transportation corridor. There have been other examples. It is not true to say we have adequate protection of property. Until we ensure these rights to property in the bill of rights, the charter and many other pieces of legislation, our freedoms will always be in jeopardy.

[Referendums, September 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on the nature of that commitment.

Gordon Robertson, the former clerk of the Privy Council, has said that the government needs contingency legislation to deal with the possibility of an attempt at secession. The minister will know that Patrick Monahan of Osgoode Hall has said the same thing.

Is the minister prepared to go further and to table a bill in the House providing a legislative framework for any attempt by a province at secession?

[Referendums, September 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I want to explore whether this action represents the totality of the government's plan or whether it has further plans.

Yesterday at a congressional hearing in Washington, Christopher Sands of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies speculated that there has been talk that the federal government plans to put a secession clause in the Constitution after the next election and that it would raise once again the issue of a national referendum on this issue.

Is the federal government prepared to go further and to say that all Canadians must have a say in their constitutional future and the future of their country, and that such a policy would include a national referendum?

[Referendums, September 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I should begin by commending the government and the minister for finally taking this belated action in referring this matter to the Supreme Court. We also note the strong support the government has received from the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Even as other governments in the world are becoming concerned about the rule of law in Canada, some in Quebec who call themselves federalists have made it clear that they reject any attempt to defend the rule of law in the courts and to defend Canada's right to self-determination.

Supporting a unilateral right of the PQ to self-determination is unacceptable to ordinary loyal Canadians across the country. What steps is the government taking to persuade these Quebecers of the importance of supporting this effort to assert Canadian sovereignty?