Stephen Harper

[Renewal Of Canadian Federalism, November 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the question was not answered. Why has the federal government not given the people of Canada a say in these kinds of changes through a national referendum on its own ratification?

I point out to the Prime Minister that we asked him this question about his Verdun speech on November 1. The Prime Minister said to the leader of the Reform Party: "The hon. leader of the third party should take time to read my speech. I said it would be a veto for the people of Quebec".

Since the people of Quebec voted against separation, why has the Prime Minister turned around and instead of giving the people a veto, given a veto to the future premier of Quebec, the separatist Leader of the Opposition?

[Renewal Of Canadian Federalism, November 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in 1992 both the Liberal Party and the Reform Party fought for national referendums on constitutional change. The current Prime Minister was successful in having the Liberal Party pass a resolution that stated: "The Liberal Party of Canada stands for the principle that the Constitution belongs first to the people and that the people must have a say in how the Constitution is changed".

Why then has the Prime Minister, instead of giving the people of Canada a say through a national referendum, decided the legislative assemblies, the direct notice of government and provincial governments can have a veto over federal constitutional change?

[The Constitution, November 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, these are good words but they continue to miss the point, which is that the Government of Quebec is not interested in such plans and will proceed with another referendum at some point.

Let me go back to the Government of Canada's own commitments. On October 25, 1995 in a speech to the entire nation the Prime Minister said:

All governments, federal and provincial, must respond to the desire of Canadians everywhere for greater decentralization.

This was a commitment to all Canadians that the Government of Quebec simply could not reject on behalf of everybody.

As the government has done nothing but bash decentralization since the referendum, what specifically do the Prime Minister and the government have in mind in making this kind of a commitment?

[The Constitution, November 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the minister avoided answering my question on constitutional offers, but in any case I will proceed with my supplementary question for the same minister.

As he pointed out, the Government of Quebec has made it clear that it will seek another referendum on sovereignty in spite of the fact that in the last referendum it never did make a detailed proposal on sovereignty and the proposed economic partnership.

Before the next referendum will the federal government formally request that the Government of Quebec table its detailed proposals for sovereignty and future economic relations with the rest of Canada so that Quebecers and other Canadians can evaluate the credibility of the ideas?

[The Constitution, November 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we are being reminded again today by the Bloc Quebecois that in the referendum campaign the federal Liberals made a couple of constitutional offers to Quebec. Despite the referendum loss the Government of Quebec and its future premier have already made it clear that they reject these offers and further that they would reject any offers of renewed federalism.

Will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs make it clear today for all Canadians that the Government of Canada will not make further constitutional offers to a PQ government that has no intention of accepting them and that Canadians are sick and tired of playing this game with the separatists?

[The Referendum, November 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the government's nascent constitutional agenda, it would be advised to pursue unity by pursuing those issues on which Canadians agree and not those issues on which they are divided.

Yesterday the Prime Minister said he would propose a constitutional veto not for the Government of Quebec but for the people of Quebec. I would presume that is by referendum. Now he says he does not want more referendums in Quebec.

Does he foresee further consultations of the people in Quebec and outside Quebec on their constitutional future or not?

[The Referendum, November 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, what Canadians want from this government are answers to some simple questions. They do not want to see the government defending the same kind of demagoguery we have here sometimes.

If the separatists cannot have another referendum on Quebec sovereignty, which I suspect they would be ill advised to pursue in the near future, they may try simply to seek a mandate through an election, something which would be much easier to achieve.

Does the government really think that this would be a better alternative for Canada than a referendum?

[The Referendum, November 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech last night, the Prime Minister indicated that he is not prepared to tolerate any more referendums on Quebec sovereignty.

My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. We are wondering exactly how it is that the government intends to achieve this. For example, is it considering a federal law to outlaw provincial referendums? Exactly what is it proposing?

[Private Members' Business-Motion M-473, November 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If I understand the motion correctly, it is to not debate the issue of the international laws that pertain to the recognition of Quebec's right to self-determination. As it is obvious from the statements from the Bloc that we will be debating this in the future, we in the Reform Party believe it is important that Parliament, which is representative of all of Canada, have a chance to debate this issue. Therefore we will not agree to dropping this off the Order Paper.

[The Constitution, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, based on his past experience after the referendum in 1980, does the Prime Minister really think it is wise to enter into constitutional negotiations with a PQ government which has lost its own constitutional mandate and which could well find itself isolated and weak at the bargaining table?