Debates of Oct. 19th, 1995

Referendum Campaign

[Laurent Lavigne, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the same document distributed by the director general of elections, the No side says that we must continue to reduce duplication.

Does the Prime Minister recognize that his government's decision to establish the human resources investment fund totally

contradicts that statement by the No side, since, with this fund, Ottawa will interfere even more in the manpower sector?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, we continue to see the facts being turned on their head.

The hon. member knows, as I have already stated in the House, that several months ago I wrote to a minister of the Government of Quebec, Madam Harel, suggesting we get together to study the issue of overlap and duplication so that we could clarify roles and responsibilities. Again, no response, rien à faire. I guess Madam Harel started "poofing" before the Leader of the Opposition did.

[Translation]

[Laurent Lavigne, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the best way to avoid distortions is to give back to Quebec full authority over manpower training, along with the related funding, and thus create a single-window service.

Will the Prime Minister recognize that his government's measure, namely Bill C-96, contradicts the position held by the No committee in the brochure distributed by the director general of elections, since Ottawa is increasing duplication in the manpower sector by eliminating the UI fund?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the members of the opposition are now recycling their questions from last week.

I will simply give them the answer we gave last week, which is no, Bill C-96 simply consolidates the authorities that were under the existing acts of the four departments that were brought in as part of the human resource development ministry. That is all that took place, nothing more than that. We were simply doing what was done before but consolidating into the new ministry.

I would say, seeing as the hon. member raises this wonderful publication, that I am very glad to see that the members of the Bloc Quebecois have it in their possession. Maybe they will read it and find out what a co-operative federation strategy really looks like.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, just like larger corporations, now a majority of small and medium size businesses in Quebec are making a stand against the separation of Quebec. Can the industry minister explain to this House the main economic reasons why those who really create jobs in Quebec want to stay within a united Canada?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, it is not at all surprising that small and medium size businesses are against the separation of Quebec.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, Oh.

[John Manley, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

They do not want to say so, but it is true. An uncertain climate creates problems for businesses and in this case the uncertainty stems from the fact that separatists cannot answer questions on the interprovincial trade agreement and on NAFTA, they cannot give answers to the thousands of Quebecers who depend on foreign trade.

They also understand this when business people go outside Canada. I saw this when I was in Geneva two weeks ago: there were several small and medium size telecommunication businesses from Quebec there. All those people were proud to be Canadians. They all support the maple leaf. They understand that it is a very valuable trademark on world markets. That is what they understand.

Unemployment

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it appears that the same social policy wizards who brought us training programs for jobs that do not exist and who totally mismanaged the TAGS program have now undertaken a $44,000 airlift of Cape Bretoners to a big Ontario city to try to find work.

I ask the Minister of Human Resources Development if mass evacuation is his solution to the problems facing Atlantic Canadians.

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know her history well, coming from the distinguished province of Alberta. Much of the investment and building of that province took place because workers came from all parts of Canada to help build the oil fields in those areas.

It seems to me that one of the great strengths of this country, one of the great strengths of our federation, is that we have no fences or walls between provinces and that people can move freely between these provinces so they can go to work. The most important thing is to find good ways to get people back to work.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the minister that Ontarians have their own unemployment problems.

This is just an admission that the programs the Liberals have been spending millions on do not work. Now all they can do is say to Atlantic Canadians: "We've cut your benefits and your programs, give up and move to Ontario".

Is this government now asking taxpayers to buy airline tickets for every unemployed Atlantic Canadian?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, oftentimes the problem with the questions we receive from members of the Reform Party is that they are based purely upon a meanspirited exaggeration.

The fact of the matter is that we provide a wide variety of opportunities for Canadians by offering training to get jobs, by working with local business to get jobs, and oftentimes by moving to other parts of Canada to get jobs.

I was in Fort McMurray and saw some great work being done by residents of Manitoba, of Newfoundland, of British Columbia in helping to build the oilsands project in that area.

I find it really incredible that the Reform Party, which says it is trying to solve the problem of unemployment, would deny the opportunity for people to be able to get jobs throughout this country. That is what Canada is all about.

Referendum Campaign

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will not make a commitment to recognize Quebec as a distinct society as defined in the Meech Lake accord, to give it veto rights or to remove federal spending powers from jurisdictions exclusive to Quebec, and he even refuses to reduce duplication. His position is a direct contradiction of the position defended by the No committee in the brochure distributed to Quebec households by the director general of election.

How can the Prime Minister allow the No committee to circulate a brochure describing a position taken by the No side that directly contradicts the position taken by the Prime Minister, the real leader of the No side?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we are on the No side, and we have a very clear policy on what has to be done now, and it is to vote in the referendum and stop the political and economic uncertainty hovering over Quebec and Canada because of the determination of members opposite to separate Quebec from Canada. They do not even have the courage to say they are separatists. In this brochure, the No side has presented a text that reflects the consensus reached by all members of the No committee. Spending powers and so forth are all proposals that were accepted and which the members of the Bloc Quebecois turned down. They voted against the Charlottetown accord which included all that. We supported the Charlottetown accord, and this particular text reflects the Charlottetown accord. You were against it. You might as well stop talking because you keep contradicting yourselves.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister obviously refuses to correct the information contained in the brochure of the director general of election to make it conform to his position.

Are we to understand the Prime Minister feels very comfortable with the illusory position taken by the No side, since it gives him another chance to cheat Quebecers, as he did in 1980?

[The Speaker]

My dear colleagues, we are starting to use language that is pretty strong, even for the House of Commons. I would ask all members to please tone down their comments. Be very careful with your choice of words.

I will let the Prime Minister answer the question, if he is willing.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am not very impressed by the hon. member's exaggerations, because at a time when we are facing a very serious situation in Quebec, members of the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois refuse to tell Quebecers that they want to separate. In the public opinion polls, 30 or 40 per cent of the people who say they will vote yes believe they will keep their Canadian passports and Canadian citizenship and are convinced they will stay in Canada and that there will still be federal members in Canada. They are not telling them otherwise. They will tell them after the referendum instead of telling them the truth before.

That is why in my speech yesterday I told Quebecers that reality is not a magic wand that will deal with the problems, not a leader who appears and disappears, like the one we have now. He was supposed to come to the House to crush us, and now he has disappeared. Poof, we do not see him any more.

The important thing is to realize that when Quebecers have to pay their bills at the end of the month, they do not need a magic wand but jobs and prosperity. Everyone in Quebec knows perfectly well that the Canadian alternative is the only one that will provide prosperity, security and progress for Quebecers.

Immigration

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this morning the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Kwong Hung Chan's fear of forced sterilization in his native China was not sufficient grounds for a refugee claim in Canada.

In light of the supreme court's decision, does the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration consider this decision to be a general precedent, that China's one-child policy is not a basis for refugee claim in Canada?

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. I too was informed that the decision of the supreme court was handed down.

If we want to do the issue justice, because it was a very important issue and the court deliberated for an extended period of time, I think we should do it the proper way and at least look at the decision, read the judgment, and then craft policy accordingly, before making speculative statements before one has had a chance to not only read the decision but also evaluate it and analyse it in the greater context.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little concerned that the minister does not take the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada with the seriousness with which it deliberated over it.

I would like to ask the minister if it is his intention to proceed with the deportation process against Mr. Chan and other refugee claimants who are using the one-child policy in China as their claim of refugee status in Canada.

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I take any decision of any court very seriously. That is why I have tried to tell the hon. member that I think we should be cautious before speculating before a minister of the crown has had a chance to read the decision in its entirety.

Second, with respect to the individual claim, if the individual's appeal has been turned down and the individual has gone through the complete system and there is no H and C claim, of course that individual will be subject to removal. As she knows, refugee determination is done on an individual case basis.

Foreign Affairs

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Carleton—Gloucester, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The American Secretary of State has made a statement on the significance the U.S. attaches to its special relationship with Canada. What are we to understand from Mr. Christopher's words when he says that we "should not take it for granted that a different kind of organization would just obviously have exactly the same kind of ties"?

[André Ouellet, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the words of the American Secretary of State are clear evidence of how important the very close and very profitable ties between our two countries are to the United States. The arrival of a third player in the game might complicate things considerably. An eternal triangle is certainly not something the U.S. would wish for, if I read the American Secretary of State correctly.

National Defence

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

There is a proposal before the minister's department to change the tendering system for moving companies who move employees of national defence. Will the minister assure this House that his department will not move toward a one bidder take all system, which would create a monopoly in the moving business and destroy an industry of over 800 companies across this nation and put many thousands of people out of work?

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. She is aware that this has been the subject of debate in the House for the last two years. I want to tell the House that it is still being debated and the discussion continues to go on.

I will tell the hon. member that the department has met with the Bureau of Competition Policy and with all the main players involved. I will have to tell her that a decision will be coming in the very near future on this matter.