Debates of Dec. 9th, 1994

Draft Bill On Quebec Sovereignty

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Prime Minister question the process initiated by the Government of Quebec, a process initiated by tabling a draft bill, when a similar procedure was used in 1980 by the Liberal government of Pierre Trudeau which included the Prime Minister, a government that tabled a resolution in this House to initiate the unilateral patriation of the Canadian Constitution?

Why, when he was a member of that government, did the Prime Minister feel that tabling a resolution was acceptable, and why now, because the Government of Quebec is involved, does he no longer feel that this procedure is acceptable? Let him explain that, Mr. Speaker.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we are only asking them to be honest with the people. In 1980, all observers accused the government, and especially Mr. Morin, who was in charge of the step-by-step process, of hiding the question in a maze of 114 words.

The government's draft bill uses 1,645 words to try and hide the truth from Quebecers. The truth is, they are all separatists but do not want to be labelled as such. They are all for separation but say they support sovereignty. Be honest. Say what you are. Say you are separatists and want separation. The people will vote, and Canada will survive!

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely incredible to hear the Prime Minister criticize the Government of Quebec for setting out its plans for sovereignty in reasonable terms, when he and his colleagues keep saying in this House: Go ahead and tell us what your plans for separation are. Tell us what kind of Quebec you want. Tell us what kind of country you want. Today, however, the Prime Minister says: Make the question short. Do not bother to explain.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

If the Prime Minister takes this matter seriously, he will have to answer this question: How can the he question the legitimacy of the consultation process, when it is basically the same one used by the Bélanger-Campeau Commission that was set up by the previous Liberal government, a process in which the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs was a participant? It was all right for the Bélanger-Campeau Commission at the time, but not any more.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, turning up the volume does not make it a good question.

Mr. Speaker, when appointing the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, the leader of the government at the time consulted the opposition. Everyone was fairly represented. It was not 13 against 2.

Second, among the statements in the 1,645 words the draft bill contains, one says there will be an economic union with Canada. That is not up to Quebec to decide. Canada will decide. It says they will keep their Canadian citizenship. This is not up to the Government of Quebec to decide. The Parliament of Canada will decide. It says they will use Canadian currency. The Parliament of Canada will determine interest rates, not the Government of Quebec.

So in a bill like this one where all the decisions will be made elsewhere, people should at least have a say, before concluding that one can become independent and stay in Canada at the same time.

I am glad to see there has been some progress. This is the first time the word separation was used by the hon. member for Roberval. Bravo. At last the truth is out.

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

I too, Mr. Speaker, have a question for the Prime Minister.

The referendum debate has been initiated and the people of Quebec will soon be deciding their future democratically. In his autobiography, the Prime Minister says that he and others like him are betting on democracy, that they will set out to convince the people of Quebec to remain within Canada and win, and if they are not successful in their attempt, they will abide by the wishes of the people and go along with the separation.

Does the Prime Minister still stand by what he said in his biography and does he still recognize that the people of Quebec have the right to leave the Canadian federation if such is the democratic choice they make in a referendum?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I made myself quite clear: all we want is that a referendum be held as soon as possible, with a plain and clear question.

We all know what is going to happen. That is why they are trying to dilute their proposal with 1,600 words, when the honest question to ask would be: "Do you want to separate from Canada, yes or no?"

I do not even have to answer a hypothetical question. There is no doubt in my mind that Canada will win. Come on!

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is three questions behind answering mine.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Contrary to what the Prime Minister thinks, and considering that the consultation process gives the people of Quebec every chance to express their views not only on the content of the political proposal, but also on the referendum question, does the Prime Minister not recognize their right to decide themselves the wording of the question that they will have to answer in the referendum on their political future?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec federalists have the right to have a say in the wording of the question, so that it is plain and clear. The rest of Canada is also entitled to a question that is plain and clear.

Just think of the number of people who are presently refusing to participate because of the ambiguity, the trickiness; they are trying to trick people, they are using gimmicks. The Conseil du patronat, the Quebec chamber of commerce, the Quebec farmers' union, the Quebec manufacturers' association, and every federalist party in Quebec-and even Mario Dumont-do not want to participate because they do not want gimmicks, they want the truth, period.

Taxation

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Mr. Speaker, the Finance committee report which was tabled Thursday contains a number of proposals and recommendations for possible tax increases, taxes on gasoline, on lottery winnings, on businesses and on cigarettes.

The deficit reduction surtax that is introduced would hit everyone who lives and breathes. Just to make good and sure that the report did not miss anybody the committee suggested going after dead people too by introducing an inheritance tax.

Will the Minister of Finance distance himself from this grab bag of potential taxation measures and commit to tabling a budget which does not increase taxation?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that I will not comment on individual suggestions. He also knows that the government's budget will come down when it presents the budget.

I would like to take this occasion to congratulate all members of the finance committee. They heard over 650 witnesses. I would like to also congratulate the witnesses who came forth and testified. I believe that the majority report will provide a very valuable contribution to the debate. An enormous amount of work went into it.

I would like to congratulate our members on our side of the House. At the same time I would like to compliment the members of the opposition and the third party who put a great deal of work into their efforts. I assure members I will look at each and every suggestion.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the minister's comments with regard to the process. In that Liberal majority report there is a very important item. There is an indication that we could potentially have a $1 billion tax grab by an increase on gasoline taxes.

One of the comments he raised as a challenge to the committee was when he said in determining which areas of the tax system should be scrutinized more closely, several principles have been adopted. Initiative should help make the economy more efficient. Initiative should improve the fairness of the system and broadening the tax base is preferable to rate increases.

Does the proposed gasoline tax satisfy any one of these three principles?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, the minister will-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

He was a minister. That is why his questions often make sense, unlike the vast majority of his colleagues.

I think what the committee attempted to do was really deal with the unfortunate fact that when a government makes cuts, as the member will know from his previous experience, those cuts do not show up immediately, there is a lag time which must be taken into account.

What was said in the report is that therefore certain tax actions may well be required. That is part of the balance and it is obviously the kind of thing the Minister of Finance and the government will have to take into account.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Mr. Speaker, one of those potential tax measures that may have to be taken in light of what the minister said is the deficit reduction surtax that could be used in an emergency contingency arrangement.

As Reformers we believe that if there is any kind of a contingency plan in place it should be for expenditure reduction, not for tax increases.

My question to the Minister of Finance is, having heard the anti-tax sentiment of a majority of the witnesses who appeared before the finance committee, can he support at this time increasing taxes in any way on every single Canadian before one dime is cut from the government's $1 billion boccie, incorporated infrastructure program as an example?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, as I understand, the members of the third party are going to be submitting their suggestions as to that whole segment of government spending that has not been dealt with yet in their report.

I hope when they do that they will deal first with the impact of those particular cuts. I also hope that in terms of both segments of their report they will deal with the timing as to when the cuts will take place so that it can be dealt with on a rational basis.

The member is nodding. I am sure they will do that and I look forward to receiving that report.

In terms of the infrastructure program, having gone across this country, having talked to mayors in municipalities across this country and to all the Canadians who went back to work and seeing the effect on productivity of the very important reports, that infrastructure program is an essential part of the Canadian recovery.

Canadian Security Intelligence Service

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.

Several months ago, the Solicitor General asked the Security Intelligence Review Committee to look into the allegations involving Grant Bristow when he worked at CSIS. Mr. Bristow is accused, among other things, of creating the Heritage Front and of inciting its members to racist violence.

Does the Solicitor General promise to table the review committee's report on the Bristow affair with the Parliamentary Committee on National Security before we adjourn for the holiday season?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I just received SIRC's report this morning. It is a very bulky report. I must review it and see what I can do about making it public in the light of the relevant legislation. I intend to make public as much of this report as possible, and I will make the necessary decisions as soon as possible.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Douglas Christie, a B.C. lawyer who defended members of the extreme right in 1989, has accused CSIS of inciting violence against Jews and of interfering in his clients' trials.

Can the Solicitor General tell us if the recent investigation by the review committee also dealt with Mr. Christie's accusations?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I just received the report about an hour ago. I did not have time to review it. However, I think that SIRC knew about Mr. Christie's allegations and I look forward to reviewing this report because, as I just said, I intend to make public as much of it as possible.

Earlier this morning I received the report of the Security Intelligence Review Committee on the allegations involving the Heritage Front. It is a very comprehensive and bulky report. I have not had time to review it. I intend to do this as quickly as possible. Once I complete this review I will be able to make decisions about how much can be made public in the light of the relevant legislation.

It is my intention to make as much of this report public as possible because of the interest in its contents, as much as I can in the light of the legislation that deals with this matter.

Immigration And Refugee Board

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it was announced about an hour ago that Mr. Schelew, vice-chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board, had chosen to resign rather than face a judicial inquiry into his conduct. Government counsel accepted his resignation and recommended to the judge that the inquiry be halted immediately, saying that no public interest would be served by pursuing this matter further.

Given the allegations of widespread irregularities in the IRB, why did the justice minister not recommend that the inquiry be expanded to include the entire operations of the IRB and what led to this investigation in the first place?