Debates of Nov. 30th, 1999

Agriculture

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, despite Liberal proclamations to the contrary, the crisis in agriculture is growing. Input costs are up, commodity prices are down and unfair international trade actions are increasing.

For over six years the Liberals have promised to negotiate reductions in agricultural subsidies with no result. Even if they are successful, it will take years before the impact is felt at the farm gate. Many producers are on the edge of bankruptcy, not because of poor management, as the Liberal's think, but because of the government's failure to take a strong stand in international trade negotiations.

Canada's trade minister appears more concerned about protecting everything other than farmers against the kinds of trade harassment that threatens millions of dollars in Canadian agricultural production. Where is the long range plan to stabilize farm incomes?

Farmers have suffered long enough because of this government's misguided priorities. They need a government that is prepared for the future instead of one that is mired in the past. How many farmers must go broke before the government wakes up?

Violence Against Women

[Gary Pillitteri, Liberal, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during the first week of December we remember an act of violence against women.

This year on the 10th anniversary of the massacre at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, we remember with sadness and horror. While we remember those women struck down in the prime of their promising lives, we encourage all Canadians to think about other women in our society who have to endure violence in their daily lives.

Violence not only affects and indelibly scars the lives of the victims but also the lives of their children, their families and consequently our entire society. Violence against women has many faces and eliminating every form of violence from our society requires a real commitment from everyone, be they the legislators, lawmakers or social and religious organizations.

We must unite, work and be vigilant so as to eradicate this insidious form of cancer that is ruining so many promising lives.

Liberal Party Of Canada

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during the convention held last weekend by the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada, the grassroots people paid particular attention to social issues in Canada.

They urged the federal government to raise family allowances. They also proposed that the government give higher tax credits to retirees, based on their income and their age.

Another resolution passed by Liberal militants urges the government to initiate new programs that would have a direct impact on the improvement of our education system and the fight against poverty.

This is the kind of concern that women and men from all regions of Quebec discussed at our last convention.

Rights Of Youth

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, last week in Canada 14,000 students in schools across the country voted in the national election for the rights of youth. The students had a variety of ten subjects to vote upon although it was noted that the environment was unfortunately off the ballot.

This election, organized by Elections Canada and UNICEF Canada, gave children across the country the ability to participate in democracy.

I would like to thank Miss Ramona Joseph and the staff and students at Waverley Memorial and L.C. Skerry school in Waverley, Nova Scotia, as well as Mr. Fred Hull, the staff and students of Millwood High School in Lower Sackville in Nova Scotia, plus all other students and teachers across the country for their active participation.

The number one choice for students across the country was that of a stable and loving family home environment.

I trust that all parliamentarians will take this result very seriously and work toward providing our children and their families from coast to coast to coast with the programs and services to provide a stable and loving home environment.

Referendums

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister reminded us, with all of the vision that is his alone, of why he rejects the rule of 50% plus one: the plus one is perhaps the person who left their glasses at home.

He and his minister of constitutional obsession should draw a lesson from the writings of former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who said the following on the subject of democracy: Since, if all men and women are equal, and each is the seat of superior thought, it follows inevitably that the happiness of 51 persons is more important than that of 49; it is therefore reasonable, and with the rights of the minority taken into account, for the decisions made by the 51 persons to prevail.

Rather than reflect on the percentage of persons who might forget their glasses in the next vote on the future of Quebec, the Prime Minister would be better advised to draw on the writings of the man whose heir he claims to be.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc still claims that it is the only political party in the House of Commons to listen to Quebecers, the only political party to represent the desires and will of the people of Quebec.

When 72% of Quebecers do not want either a referendum or independence and when our Prime Minister has held out his hand in a truce to Mr. Bouchard, I have one question for the Bloc Quebecois members: why does the leader of the Bloc and member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie not ask Mr. Bouchard to agree to the truce and to promise not to hold a referendum during his mandate?

Why have the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and the member for Repentigny—in fact why have no Bloc Quebecois members publicly asked Mr. Bouchard to agree not to hold a referendum? Why?

Perhaps because they do not listen to Quebecers.

Fisheries

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the lobster season only opened yesterday for lobster fishing areas 33 and 34 in Nova Scotia and already the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has shown how unprepared he and his department are.

The Acadia first nation threatens to fish with 15 boats instead of the six boats that were supposed to be agreed upon on the imposed limit. Yet, Chief Debra Robinson says that the first nation never agreed to any limit on lobster boats in southwestern Nova Scotia.

That begs the question: What have the minister and his negotiator been doing in the months since the Marshall decision?

The November 17 ruling stated that the responsibility is placed squarely on the minister and not on the aboriginal or non-aboriginal users of the resource, yet the minister has done nothing to show the resource should be shared. Instead, he is asking for suggestions from the Conservative Party. It was our party that advised the minister to negotiate with all stakeholders and introduce an implementation plan with conservation as the first priority. It was our party that told him to apply one rule for all fishers.

The lobster fishers are beginning—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale.

International Diabetes Month

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, November is International Diabetes Month. Throughout history, diabetes has been a leading cause of death. It is estimated that at least 500,000 North Americans die as a result of diabetes and its complications each year.

In Canada more than two million people have diabetes. In addition to the health and social implications of diabetes, there is also the enormous economic strain the disease places on our health care system. The economic burden of diabetes has been put at over $9 billion per year.

It is essential that we, in the House of Commons, address the growing impact of diabetes on Canadians and consider giving diabetes research a much needed shot in the arm.

Grain Transportation

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, sales of at least 100,000 tonnes of canola to China have been lost because of Canadian transportation problems. Seventy per cent of recent unloads at Vancouver were wheat board grains. Meanwhile, one vessel has been waiting since November 9 for 50,000 tonnes of canola. The railways have 24,500 cars. Why were only 14,000 under load last week?

A recent wheat board poll apparently reveals that farmer support for single desk selling has dropped to approximately 20%. Why does the government not realize that if farmers are smart enough to grow the grain they are also smart enough to sell it and ship it?

National Unity

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's newfound referendum strategy is as clear as a foggy night. He declared that he would make the rules for the next referendum clear, but he cannot say what he means by a clear majority, he cannot say what would constitute a clear question and, worst of all, he has never put forward any clear position on how to reform and improve the federation itself.

Four years ago we published clear positions on all of these matters. In the name of clarity, where is the Prime Minister's clear position?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the master of flip-flop is asking me to decide this question, and it is not the time.

On Sunday I offered Mr. Bouchard an occasion to respect the will of the people of Quebec. Seventy-two per cent of the people of Quebec do not want a referendum at all. I just want the premier of Quebec to reflect again so that nobody will have to have a debate on this issue. If he were to declare that there would be no referendum, we would not spend five minutes on it and we would deal with the other business of the nation.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, it was the Prime Minister who resurrected this issue over a week ago and he has yet to make a single aspect of it clear. Let us go back to basics again.

The Prime Minister says that he wants a clear majority, but our idea of a majority is the same as it was in the last two referendums and the Charlottetown accord, 50% plus one. We have said that for years. The Prime Minister says that 50% plus one is not enough, but he will not say what it is. In the name of clarity, why does the Prime Minister not say what constitutes an acceptable majority?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is because I am looking at the constitution of the Reform Party. I would like to know why it needs two-thirds of the votes of the Reform Party to change a rule in the constitution.

To break the country, one vote will be enough, but to change a regulation in this very disunited alternative, two-thirds is needed to be able to do it properly. It is clear to me, and I have said it over and over again, that 50% plus one is a rule that is unacceptable for breaking up the country.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, another illuminating response.

The Prime Minister knows that anything more than a simple majority on a secession issue will be impossible to enforce. The Prime Minister hints at requiring a 60% threshold on a secession negotiation, but 59% support on a clear question in favour of separation would not settle the issue, it would only make matters worse. The federal government would find itself in a constitutional and democratic no man's land.

Since the Prime Minister wants to raise the bar, in the name of clarity, what contingency plan does he have to deal with a more than 50% vote?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, again I say that the people of Quebec and the people of Canada do not want to hear about a third referendum. Seventy-two per cent of the people of Quebec say regularly that they do not want to have another referendum. I am appealing to the Quebec government to come to its senses, to listen to the will of the people of Quebec and to agree with me to stop discussing this issue. I think that I reflect the wishes of all Quebecers and all Canadians.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what a paradox. The Prime Minister says that nobody in Quebec wants to talk about a referendum. Who started the talk? Goodness gracious, can you believe it?

The throne speech promised a new type of frankness and clarity. My question is for the Prime Minister. If 50% plus one is not sufficient for a majority, exactly what is?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, how can Reform claim that 50% plus one is sufficient when, as the Prime Minister has said, it is not enough to amend its constitution? In order to amend the constitution of the Reform Party, what is needed is a resolution amending the constitution, including the principles of the party, which to be carried must receive not only a two-thirds majority of the votes cast, but must also receive a majority vote of the delegates from a majority of the provinces.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has a brand new word in his vocabulary. The word is clarity. He goes around everywhere talking about it, but does he not understand that the word clarity means putting his position out on paper so that everybody can see what it is?

I ask again, for the sake of clarity, if 50% plus one is not sufficient, what exactly is a clear majority for the Prime Minister? What is it?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, these are the people who last week were telling me not to say anything. They are the same people who, less than a week ago, were asking me to say nothing. I think that we will let them relax a bit because flip-flops like that cause problems to their physical and mental fitness. Maybe before Christmas they will come to their senses and say that we were absolutely right in doing what we are doing at this time.

Referendums

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has made a sad spectacle of himself by suggesting that he would stop talking about the constitution if Quebec did the same.

Having called on the supreme court for help in defining the rules of the referendum process, now he is threatening to use the House to question Quebec's right to decide its own future. He is fooling no one.

Does the Prime Minister realize that his plan, which is apparently to introduce a bill, is nothing other than base political blackmail that once again seeks to thwart Quebec's most legitimate aspirations?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I said, and I repeat: the National Assembly can ask whatever question it wishes. We are not preventing it from asking a question. It can ask any question it wants.

My responsibility is to respect the supreme court ruling that there must be a clear question and a clear majority before there can be any negotiations.

That is precisely what I am doing. I am respecting the supreme court decision. Mr. Bouchard himself said a year ago August that it was a good decision. If it was good then, it is still good today.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with this truce, the Prime Minister is trying to buy time to do what he wants, the way he wants, and when he wants, as he has done from the beginning of his career.

When all is said and done, is the Prime Minister's truce not really a request for permission to once again shove Quebec around, as he has been doing for 35 years?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the economy will be going up in one sector in Quebec, because a lot of shirts are being torn over not much of anything lately.

As I said, Quebec can ask whatever question it wants. But, as Prime Minister of Canada, I would hope that the Parti Quebecois understands that the public does not want a referendum, that the economy of the Province of Quebec needs stability.

Every week, the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois talk about winning conditions, while what we want to do is address the real problems of Quebecers and other Canadians.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister went at it again with his phoney offer of a constitutional truce.

How can we take seriously this offer made by a man whose political career is characterized by his determination to put Quebec in its place?

How could the Prime Minister think we would take his offer seriously, considering that he is the one who imposed the 1982 Constitution, the one who killed Meech, the one who, through his social union, infringes on Quebec's constitutional jurisdictions, and the one who now wants to change the 50% plus one rule?