Debates of Oct. 16th, 1995

Referendum Campaign

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on October 14, the leader of the official opposition said: "Do you think it makes sense that we have so few children in Quebec? We are one of the races of whites with the least children".

What does the colour of the children born in Quebec have to do with the referendum campaign?

First, several members of the Yes side suggested that non French speaking Quebec residents would not have the same rights as those of French origin, and now the Bloc leader is raising the issue of race and colour.

Quebecers are not racists. They are well acquainted with the values of tolerance, social harmony and justice, and they will vote no on October 30.

[Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais, Liberal, Madawaska—Victoria, NB]

Mr. Speaker, over the last few days, the Bloc Quebecois leader decided to focus his campaign on women. However, the message that he is sending to Quebec women is dubious to say the least.

The Bloc leader said: "Do you think it makes sense that we have so few children in Quebec? We are one of the races of whites with the least children. It doesn't make sense. This means that we have not solved family issues".

This statement by the official opposition leader is totally unacceptable and is also an insult to the freedom of choice which Quebec women have been exercising for years regarding motherhood.

The opposition leader is sadly mistaken if he thinks that, in a separated Quebec, women will readily comply with the demographic demands of the government. Separation will not be achieved on the back of Quebec women. On October 30, they will vote no.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, in desperation, Daniel Johnson mentioned a commitment made in 1992 by the Liberal Party of Canada to recognize the distinct identity of Quebec, in an attempt to convince himself that the political will for constitutional change exists. However, on September 11 this year, the Prime Minister of Canada told him, and I quote: "Distinct society-we are distinct, no need to put it in the Constitution. When you look at me and hear me speak English, you know I am distinct".

My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I want to ask him whether he intends to remind Mr. Johnson that the federal government has no intention of amending the Constitution to recognize the distinct identity of Quebec, as he himself, the Prime Minister of Canada, said on September 11 this year.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, twice Canadians have been asked to vote on this. I remember the distinct society was part of the Charlottetown accord. I voted for the accord, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition voted against it. The leader of the Bloc Quebecois voted against it. The members of the Parti Quebecois voted against it. Jacques Parizeau did. We were in favour of the accord.

They voted against it, but today they want it back. I think that is a little ridiculous. As we said before, today the issue is not the Constitution. Today we have to answer a question put by the Leader of the Opposition and his former leader, the Premier of Quebec, about whether we should separate.

When asked the question: "Should we separate?", the people of Quebec will say no. Today we are not talking about the Constitution but about answering the question put by the Leader of the Opposition.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, so constitutional change is not important enough to discuss at a time when it happens to be the focus of the debate on the future of Quebec. That is rather strange.

The Prime Minister just referred to Charlottetown. He knows perfectly well that the Canada clause made recognition of Quebec's distinct identity devoid of all substance by subordinating this recognition to the fundamental principle of provincial equality.

I want to ask him: Would he confirm that it is because of the sacrosanct principle of provincial equality, he refuses to recognize Quebec as a distinct society, as he is being asked to do today, alas in vain, by Mr. Johnson who will not learn the lessons of Meech and Charlottetown?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Johnson voted for the distinct society in the Charlottetown referendum, while the Leader of the Opposition voted against the distinct society when we had a referendum. Mr. Parizeau voted against the distinct society when we had a referendum. Funny how they have changed their minds today. Why did they not consider what they were doing at the time?

They wanted to vote against the accord so they could go on complaining and then have a referendum on separation. We will have one two weeks from today, when people will answer the question on the separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada. The people of Quebec know that their future is about remaining full members of the federation of this great country, Canada.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister voted for Charlottetown, it was because recognition of Quebec's distinct identity did not mean a thing. That is why he voted in favour of the accord and that is why we are going to vote against it.

I want to ask the Prime Minister how he expects Quebecers to trust him after what he did the day after the No in 1980, when he did a job on Quebec by isolating it and imposing a constitution that Quebec still refuses to sign.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition likes to talk about the past. I have nothing to hide. At the time we were, legally speaking, a colony of

Great Britain, and we had to patriate the Constitution. We had no Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada, something we wanted to have. The Constitution at the time did not include the recognition of French and English as Canada's two official languages, which was done in 1980, fifteen years ago.

The country has continued to progress, while he is still back in 1980 and we are heading for the 21st century, and he says he has the answer, the magic wand. You wave the magic wand and poof, the studies commissioned by Le Hir vanish into thin air; another wave, and all the risks of separation disappear; another, and the concerns of everyone, from the Prime Minister of Canada to the leaders of other countries, are no more. And then suddenly, another wave and Mr. Parizeau, the leader of the No side, has vanished.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Clearly short of arguments to defend the federalist cause, Liberal Senator Jacques Hébert, government whip in the Senate, used coarse, derogatory and unacceptable language in describing political scientist Josée Legault as a separatist cow.

Will the Prime Minister publicly dissociate himself from this inappropriate remark by his old friend Jacques Hébert and will he offer an apology, on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, to the women who have been offended by it?

[The Speaker]

My dear colleague, the government's administrative responsibilities do not extend to the Senate. I would ask my hon. colleague to rephrase the question, which will perhaps be acceptable.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, given the unacceptable nature of this remark and the responsibilities of the senator, who was appointed by the Prime Minister to perform official duties, I am asking the Prime Minister whether he will relieve him of his duties.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond.

[The Speaker]

Just a minute. I will allow the question, and the Prime Minister will be able to answer it.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, if this remark was made, I deplore it. That is all I can say. I was not present. I am told it was made in a private conversation. It was not said publicly, but if it was made, I deplore it.

Everyone makes mistakes, perhaps the senator made one here. I have also made mistakes. This senator has faithfully served Parliament and Quebec society. He may have made a mistake-it happens-I regret it.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about deploring a remark, we are talking about dissociating oneself from it.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Saint-Hubert, on a supplementary question.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you Mr. Speaker. This is not a matter of deploring a remark, it is a matter of dissociating oneself from it, and this is what we are asking the Prime Minister to do today. Will he dissociate himself from the remark Senator Hébert made about Ms Legault?

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism) (Status of Women)]

Mr. Speaker, I would much prefer the apology come from Lucien Bouchard for his racist and sexist remarks-

[The Speaker]

We do not usually address each other by name in the House in our comments. I find the language is getting a little strong. The hon. member for Macleod.

Health Care

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the health minister has failed in her bid to squash semi-private clinics in Canada. Two of the largest provinces just ignore her and four provinces have bluntly said no to decreased medicare funding and no to longer waiting lines.

However, it is never too late to operate co-operatively. We call on the minister to put aside her silly squabbles. We call on her to work with the provinces toward health care reform which puts patients rather than bureaucrats first.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health is defending something voted on by the House of Commons, the five principles in the Canada Health Act.

We all agree with her that these principles have to be protected. Unlike the Reform Party, we do not want a two tier system. However, at the same time she has agreed to talk about some specific problems with the provinces in order for them to operate in a way that is completely acceptable according to the principles of medicare. She has the support of this whole party.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wants specifics. Maybe he will listen to the patients on waiting lists throughout the country. The cardiac waiting lists in Canada today are longer than they have ever been in history. Why? They have no choice. The minister offers no choice and no alternatives.

Does the minister have anything to say to Canadians on waiting lists other than "just line up and shut up"?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that administration occurs on a daily basis and discussions on how to operate medical services within the provinces are completely provincial responsibilities. We are not running hospitals. They are run by provincial governments.

However, it is very difficult for me to understand that these people are always complaining that we should not spend money and should cut all the time but then they want us to increase payments to the provinces. I would like the member to say so and by how much. I will listen to him.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister continues to say we do not need more money in the system, but how much less do we need?

This rigid centralist solution will not work. This kind of government is why we are in so much trouble with health care and indeed with Quebec.

The provinces know this edict on semi-private clinics will not work. I call on the Prime Minister to abandon this approach. When will the Prime Minister join the provinces in real reform, real health care reform?