Debates of Sept. 30th, 1994

1992 Referendum

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I explained that the letter arrived when the House was convening. It takes a few moments to go over a document, and I was not there. The Deputy Prime Minister sat in this House and answered based on what she knew. We received a letter at 1.55 p.m. and we are being blamed for not providing an appropriate answer until 2.55 p.m. when the first question was put to us. If the letter had been sent to us at noon, we would have been able to answer at 2 p.m, but, as it happens, we received the letter at precisely 1.55 p.m. So, it took us exactly 70 minutes. We are fast, but not that fast. If we have not seen something, we cannot have read it.

Government Expenditures

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last night Canadian taxpayers became aware that they had an additional financial obligation of $34.5 million, two years after a Conservative government supposedly committed to it and months after a Liberal government had been in the process of denying that commitment existed.

Governments have a moral obligation to fulfil their commitments, but governments have an obligation to undertake those commitments in a financially and legally responsible manner. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has repeatedly assured the House that no formal or written documentation existed on this agreement at the relevant time period.

What I want to know from the Prime Minister is what are the guidelines in this government and in the previous government for senior officials, for cabinet and for cabinet ministers to undertake these kinds of financial obligations on behalf of Canadian taxpayers and how precisely are those criteria fulfilled in this case?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, this is an obligation that was committed to by the previous government to the premier of Quebec. It was discussed among the premiers in Charlottetown or Halifax at a time when there were laws in Alberta, in B.C. and another in Quebec about provincial referenda. There was a discussion at that time on whether there should be one national referendum or a series of provincial referenda.

The conclusion was that the premier of Alberta decided to join in the federal referendum. The premier of B.C. did the same thing. But Quebec did not. Mr. Harcourt made a public statement that he understood that if he proceeded with his own legislation he expected to receive some compensation. I was not there but I tried to find out from the participants what had happened to get the best proof I could.

It is not a question of having a contract or not having a contract. I said in the House that there was no documentation on it. That is why I was prudent. I tried to have good witnesses and that is what I have done. However, it is an obligation that was contracted by a previous government.

In fact the taxpayers have paid for the referendum in all other provinces but not in Quebec. It was making an argument about fairness and so on. When I had all the files in front of me and the discussions that my staff had with the people concerned, I did my best. When I had the complete file in front of me I acted.

That is the difficulty. As I said before there were no documents. That was the problem. But there was a commitment by the Prime Minister of Canada to certain premiers that I am respecting.

It is just like when I get up in the House and I am asked a question and I say I will do something, sometimes I have to act after I said that. But if a Prime Minister cannot deliver on his word, who can?

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.

I hope the Prime Minister will agree that verbal commitments or verbal agreements made at dinner meetings, cocktail parties or on golf courses are not the proper way to conduct the business of the Government of Canada. This is an extremely dangerous route to go.

When the Prime Minister spoke to former Prime Minister Mulroney did he ask him whether there were any verbal agreements with various other parties, for example, with the Pearson consortium or the EH-101 contract? When he does do that, how much does he feel the taxpayers of Canada will be dinged for on those verbal commitments?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I explained to the House clearly what happened. I have nothing to add. There was an agreement between the Prime Minister of the day and the premier of Quebec that he would recommend a payment. He never proceeded with it, perhaps due to circumstances. I do not want to get involved with what happened in those days.

I said I was confronted with a problem and I tried to find the proof that was needed to justify the payment. The payment was made. If the hon. member says we should not have paid, that would be another argument. That is not what he is saying.

Rather than to pass judgment on the substance, he is trying to play on the process. I am saying that there was a commitment by the previous government and we respected that commitment.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am asking precisely about the process. When these various subject matters go to the courts these things will be under examination.

I would like to know if the Prime Minister will table for the benefit of the House the guidelines that he will be using on past and future matters to ascertain whether cabinet and cabinet members have undertaken financial commitments on behalf of the Government of Canada?

For example, would the government be open to undertaking a request from the current Quebec government to pay for the next referendum? How would he handle such a request? What is the basis for a financial obligation on that matter?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, if it is a provincial referendum that is one thing. In this case, however, there was a national referendum where the same question was asked of all Canadians.

What we did was very easy. We divided the per capita costs of having a referendum in the rest of Canada and that is what we paid. If there is a provincial referendum in Alberta or B.C. or Nova Scotia or Quebec, they pay the bill. This is a democracy.

This was a national referendum and there was a commitment I have respected.

I wanted to have good documentation. I am happy to recognize by his silence that he accepts that we made the right decision.

1992 Referendum

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Still on the subject of the Charlottetown referendum, the Prime Minister said in the House that he did not want to act unlawfully like Mr. Mulroney.

My question is this: Would the Prime Minister indicate whether he still considers it unlawful for the Prime Minister of Canada to give his word to a colleague, without first obtaining the agreement of his cabinet?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

The Prime Minister can make commitments but has a duty to go to cabinet with his commitment, which I did this week. I talked to cabinet about this and they said: fine. The document then went to Treasury Board, to determine the amount. This is entirely legal. Payment is authorized by the government in accordance with certain government mechanisms. The commitment made previously was not a clear commitment to pay, and, in fact, Mr. Mulroney said so himself in the document you received. There was never any reference to specific procedures. As far as I am concerned, this payment is entirely legal.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says he discussed it with cabinet, and earlier, he told us he mentioned it to cabinet Tuesday. He confirmed that this is what happened. Are we to understand the Prime Minister called a cabinet meeting, while the next day, he told us there had been no satisfactory answer from former Prime Minister Mulroney? He said again today that there was sufficient and satisfactory reason to call a cabinet meeting to discuss the matter although the next day he said in the House he did not have an answer. Is that correct?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, everyone in the Press Gallery, everyone in this Parliament except the hon. member, knows that cabinet meets Tuesday mornings at 10 a.m. All the reporters are there for the Tuesday morning scrum. I raised the problem. I did not call a special meeting of cabinet. The problem had been making the headlines for several days. I talked about it. I said: This is what we could do if we receive confirmation from Mr. Mulroney, which, in fact, came two days later. We acted on that confirmation, but we also made sure we had the versions of Premier Harcourt, former Premier Bourassa, and the Premier of Ontario. You cannot be too careful when you are about to spend $34 million. I did what I was supposed to do. I got the support of cabinet and the approval of Treasury Board for making this payment.

National Unity

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, recent dialogue in the House between the government and the official opposition over the issue of Quebec separation has taken the form of metaphors.

Leaders of the separatist forces have been called maestros leading a symphony. I would like to extend the metaphor to include the Prime Minister and ask him how long he intends to fiddle while the unity issue burns.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is not very complicated. We said the people of Quebec will stay in Canada if they have a good government in Ottawa that is preoccupied with the real issue of Canadians and Quebecers. I am talking about the creation of jobs and security of income for those who need it. That is the program of this party and this government.

Of course the PQ and the Bloc Quebecois just talk Constitution and separation even though the people of Quebec would like them to talk about job creation.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it looks like we not only have fiddling, we have waffling.

Despite the Prime Minister's other dialogue, Canadians are concerned about the government's lack of action and dialogue on this thing.

By contrast, Reform will host a national unity town hall meeting on October 3, Monday next. Tune in.

Can the Prime Minister tell us what specific action the government has taken or plans to take to engage in this type of nationwide discussion with the people of Canada on this important subject?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, in our party one thing is very clear and not very complicated. I told the Canadian people during the campaign that if they wanted to have Parliament discussing the Constitution all of the time not to vote for me. Now it is the Reform Party members who want to talk about the Constitution because when they try to talk about something else they are a complete failure.

1992 Referendum

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The more I hear his explanations, the more I see that it is nebulous. Given the troubling facts concerning the Prime Minister's statements in this House and

his obvious reluctance to compensate Quebec fairly for the 1992 referendum, how can the Prime Minister explain his attitude and that of the Deputy Prime Minister and of the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs except as a cheap manoeuvre to avoid giving Quebec its due?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Bloc Quebecois is totally-

[An hon. member]

Bankrupt.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

Someone said "bankrupt", but I was going to say "totally confused". They are so disappointed that we paid.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, can you believe it? Does the Prime Minister admit that by hiding the contents of his conversation with Mr. Mulroney, he lied to this House?

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, we know that in the course of debate sometimes some words are used that are not always acceptable.

I would ask the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe if he would not withdraw the statement that the Prime Minister lied in this House. It takes away from the debate when we engage in this type of language. I would ask the hon. member to please rephrase that question and withdraw the words that the Prime Minister lied to the House.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in view of all that was said and done in this House, I believe that I would be lying to myself as a member of Parliament and to thousands of Quebecers if I withdrew my words.

[The Speaker]

We are going to be faced many times in this House in dealing with facts or the interpretation of facts which are contradictory, and we are going to engage in very vigorous debate. All of us were sent to Parliament to represent very strong opinions.

However, in the nature of Parliament itself, we must take the word of hon. members at face value.

We all have done this as a tradition. If there is an interpretation of facts that are contrary one to the other it does not serve the purpose of Parliament if we use words that are unparliamentary.

I would appeal once again to the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe, who holds as is evident very strong opinions, to withdraw the words "que le premier ministre a menti" and use other words that would be acceptable to Parliament.

I am sure it would help a great deal not only in the course of question period but in the course of debate if we did not resort to this type of word. I would appeal to the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe to reconsider what has been said. If he could do this, we could get on with question period.

Would the hon. member please withdraw the words "que le prime ministre a menti" and replace them perhaps with some other words?

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a parliamentarian, I am deeply convinced in my conscience that, in view of all the facts observed and reported in this House, the Prime Minister deliberately misled the House. He lied to this House, Mr. Speaker.

[The Speaker]

Dear colleagues, the conduct of a member may only be discussed in the House of Commons by way of a substantive or distinct motion, that is in a self-contained proposal submitted for the approval of the House and drafted in such a way as to be capable of expressing a decision of the House.

Such a motion may contain the abusive accusation that would otherwise be unparliamentary language, but the member cannot do this by using unparliamentary language in this House. The member does have an avenue if he wishes to pursue this avenue, which is a very serious matter.

In the course of debates that we have had and will be having, we always hope we can put forth our very strong views without using language that is unparliamentary. The choice of our words is our weapon. In this sense this is where we are in the arena. We all understand.

I would strongly ask once again if the hon. member would reconsider and withdraw the words "que le prime ministre a menti".

If the hon. member would do this we could of course proceed as we will with Question Period.