Debates of Oct. 20th, 1995

Agriculture

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of agriculture is having trouble with mastering at least one of the three r 's, namely writing.

This past August I had the opportunity to join several farmers touring an area around Lloydminster damaged by the drought. The farmers had asked me to forward their concerns to the minister regarding their grave situation. My letter dated August 18, 1995 read in part: "They have difficult and immediate decisions to make so it is imperative that your department promptly address the concerns raised by these farmers". It has been two months and the minister has failed even to acknowledge receiving my letter, let alone to respond to it and to the farmers affected.

I have also forwarded concerns to the minister about the Crow benefit from alfalfa producers in the dehydrated alfalfa industry. Guess what? There has been no response.

I have heard from a number of my constituents that the minister's office has not responded to their letters as well. Even farm organizations complain to me that they have not heard from the minister when they write.

Can the minister not write, or is the minister's office too busy trying to put out fires with the Crow buyout and the safety net programs that there is no time to respond to the farmers' concerns?

Employment Equity

[Vic Althouse, NDP, Mackenzie, SK]

Mr. Speaker, many times in the House by legislative and constitutional means members have presented laws by example to get people to recognize that we should have sexual equality in this country. Yet, right outside of these doors during the months of August and September, a female engineer was harassed off the job by her subcontractor. We did not see any reaction in the House, or very little. Two hundred and ninety-five of us let this happen.

We did see to their credit her fellow workers put everything on the line. They walked off the job in protest leaving $165,000 worth of back pay, $15,000 or $18,000 worth of equipment here on the site, which public works will not let them take off.

We should be involved directly. This is our jurisdiction. This is happening under our eyes with our feet-

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Manicouagan.

Referendum Campaign

[Bernard St-Laurent, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, not only is the no side unable to agree on the country that it would offer to Quebecers, but federal ministers, including the Prime Minister, make contradictory statements regarding the right of veto and the notion of distinct society.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs recognizes the right of veto, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs only sees it as a general principle, while the Prime Minister says that the decision does not rest with him, but with the other provinces.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs even admits that he has trouble interpreting the text written by the no side in the brochure. This is quite something.

The fact is that Daniel Johnson and the Prime Minister only agree on one thing: make all those who seek changes in Quebec pay dearly. This is their common goal. As for the rest, they only propose to wait until 1997, when the constitutional tango will start all over again.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the closer we get to October 30, the more difficult it becomes for the separatists to hide their true intentions.

First, the Bloc Quebecois leader was forced to define the meaning of a yes vote when he met with the editorial team of La Presse . He said: ``To vote yes is to ensure that Quebec becomes inexorably sovereign, regardless of whether or not there is a partnership''.

Yesterday, in Rivière-du-Loup, the Bloc leader was very clear when he said: "Let us not forget that the mandate sought by Mr. Parizeau's government and by sovereignists is a mandate to achieve Quebec's sovereignty, following which they will try to negotiate a partnership agreement".

The project of the PQ and its associates seeks only one purpose: to separate Quebec from Canada and make it a foreign country.

Quebecers have always been opposed to separation and, on October 30, they will once again say no to that project.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc leader seems to be having increasing difficulty in keeping secrets.

In the last two days the leader of the separatists has imprudently let out several secrets which were supposed to have been kept well hidden until after the referendum.

The negotiator on the PQ payroll has no intention of trying to preserve citizenship and the Canadian passport after a yes victory. What he wants is clear: a Quebec passport.

The day after a yes vote, he will be able to guarantee only one thing: Quebec will be a separate country. He wants nothing to do with any proposition aimed at renewing federalism.

Ten days away from the referendum, Quebecers are suddenly discovering what is behind the separatist plan: they want nothing less than to provoke the disintegration of our country. On October 30, the answer they will receive will be no.

Government Policies

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the biggest disappointment Reformers have experienced in Parliament is the anti-democratic behaviour of the government.

The Prime Minister exercises dictatorial control over his MPs. MPs who have voted their constituents' wishes on Bill C-41 and Bill C-68 and other legislation have been punished for voting for the people they represent.

The anti-democratic behaviour has been demonstrated in legislation. Bill C-64 replaces hiring based on merit with hiring based on quota. Bill C-68 throws out such basic rights as protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Now the Liberal government is sabotaging section 2 of the charter by acting as thought police.

Canadians are entitled to fundamental freedoms of thought, belief, opinion and expression. Yet these Liberals have set up a committee to monitor and set out punishments for expressing ideas in the House with which the Liberals do not agree.

The government is smothering debate and stifling meaningful dialogue. George Orwell would be proud.

Referendum Campaign

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the true face of the separatists has emerged in a document released by the office of the hon. member for Chateauguay. The document is a parody of the Lord's Prayer.

It might well be considered sacrilegious in both the religious and the secular meaning of the word. The prayer in question, if we can glorify it by that name, petitions as follows:

Forgive us for having been Canadians As we shall forgive those Who so remain.

We will never ask anyone to forgive us for being Canadian. Quebecers will never prostrate themselves before the Leader of the Opposition, or the other separatists, either October 30 or at any other time.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in a very revealing speech which included references to duplication and overlap, the Minister of Foreign Affairs explained that Quebec was too small to negotiate on equal terms with the rest of Canada. This unfortunate statement is one more example of what we have been hearing from Laurent Beaudoin, Claude Garcia and the Prime Minister himself, each of whom either think Quebec is too small, want to crush it or want to give it a drubbing.

My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Could he tell us whether he agrees with the Minister of Foreign Affairs who considers that Quebec is too small to negotiate on equal terms with the rest of Canada?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to know what kind of negotiations they have in mind, because when the Leader of the Opposition is on the hustings, at one point like yesterday, for instance, in the morning he was all for sovereignty without association or without a partnership, while that afternoon and evening it was not the same message.

It is clear, and this bears repeating, that when in Quebec they say that, after Quebec separates, there will be a new structure in which Quebec will have exactly the same number of representatives as the rest of Canada, which represents three times as many people, the rest of Canada will never go along with that. This is like suggesting that in the parliament of an independent Quebec, just because Quebec City is the capital, it should have the same number of members as Montreal.

In a democracy every person counts. If there is to be a Canadian structure, it must respect the democratic principle according to which members are elected in their respective ridings, while the Canadian constitution provides for a minimum level of representation for the smaller provinces like Prince Edward Island, which is protected in the constitution.

However, when someone claims, in referring to the issue of a future partnership, that the rest of Canada will have a parliament with the same number of members as Quebec, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in referring to this, says that is out of the question, this is exactly what the provincial premiers have said. Anyone who is the least bit realistic, is not a magician and really wants to face the facts will have no problem understanding this.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to clarify my question for the Prime Minister. I do not think this is a matter of bad faith, not at all, but it is not at all what I meant.

His Minister of Foreign Affairs said that Quebec, with a population of seven million, was too small to expect to negotiate with the rest of Canada with its population of 22 million. This was not about partnership or whatever, this was about negotiating from country to country.

My question is this: Does the Prime Minister agree with his Minister of Foreign Affairs that Quebec is too small to negotiate with the rest of Canada and if he does not agree, is he prepared to set the record straight? That is my question.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, all countries conduct negotiations. We negotiate with the Americans. We negotiate with Trinidad and Tobago. We negotiate with countries large and small. That is normal. The political clout, however, is not the same. That is where I notice another change in perception.

For the first time, the hon. member for Roberval said they are going to have a country. He was not talking about partnership. He referred to his country.

When will they have the courage to come out and tell Quebecers: "I am a separatist"? It is nothing to be ashamed of, so why not admit it instead of playing with words and saying at one point that "we will have a partnership", and then "we will not" and then "we will have half, or three quarters". Be honest.

Just say: "We want to separate", and Quebecers-30 per cent of the people who are now saying they intend to vote yes think they will stay in Canada- Does the hon. member want to remain a Canadian, yes or no? I would like to know.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister shows very little tolerance for others, although his own positions are entirely opposed to those of the No committee to which he belongs, an issue that was raised with him yesterday. Why is he so anxious to look for discrepancies in our points of view, when he knows perfectly well that representatives for the No side in Quebec most certainly do not share his position on the Canadian federation. He should be more careful.

Does the Prime Minister agree, since we are talking about his Minister of Foreign Affairs-I realize it annoys him to discuss this but, after all, he should answer the question-does the Prime Minister agree with his Minister of Foreign Affairs, who feels that to deal with duplication and overlap, Quebec should become a province like the others, in other words, close its Travail Québec centres and let the federal government collect its taxes?

That is what his minister said yesterday. Does he agree?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to clarify one of the hon. member's statements. The program being circulated was prepared and accepted by all partners on the No side.

It says in this program that it would be desirable for Quebec to have a veto, and the answer I gave yesterday in the House was clear. We were in favour of a veto for Quebec, but René Lévesque and the separatists dropped the veto. You cannot blame me.

We voted for a distinct society and you voted against it. So today you rise in the House. I want to ask you a very short question: Do you want to remain a Canadian? It is not a difficult question, but you are afraid to tell the truth. He does not want to answer any questions because he is afraid of the truth. We are not. We are Canadians, we want to remain Canadians, and Quebecers want to remain Canadians.

[The Speaker]

My dear colleagues, I would ask you once more to address your comments to the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, let us recall once again that René Lévesque trusted the other premiers, and that they plotted with the present Prime Minister to betray him. This is what happened, and history is a witness.

Lisa Frulla, the deputy chair of the no committee said, this morning, that the principle of the distinct society had to be enshrined in the constitution. She is the deputy chair of the no committee.

Does the Prime Minister, who has been a member of the no committee up to now, as far as we know, agree with the proposal made by its deputy chair?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we voted for a distinct society, and he voted against. He has the gall to rise and talk about it.

Secondly, he does not show a lot of respect for Mr. Lévesque in saying that he did not know what he was doing when he signed it. I think Mr. Lévesque was intelligent enough to know very well what he was doing when he signed it. I have never underestimated Mr. Lévesque's intelligence as the hon. member is doing. He did it

consciously. What were his reasons? I am not a member of the PQ, I do not know. We, however, were in favour of a veto, and it was Mr. Lévesque who did not want the veto.

Imagine rising and talking this way. As far as the distinct society is concerned, in Charlottetown, we voted for it.

We campaigned for a distinct society, like Ms. Frulla-Hébert. Yes. It was the PQ, Mr. Parizeau and Mr. Bouchard and all of you, who once again scuttled that, because you want separation and anything goes in the name of separation, except telling Quebecers the truth.

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

Mr. Speaker, the distinct society the Prime Minister is talking about is not the one in the original Meech Lake accord, it is the one in the Charest report "à la" Clyde Wells. Thank you Clyde, we remember the emotional outpourings on television. As for the original Meech Lake accord, the Prime Minister fought his whole leadership campaign against it, and he won. The Minister of Finance, on the other hand, campaigned for the Meech Lake accord and lost because of it. This is what history teaches us.

We must get back to Ms. Frulla, who made another statement this morning. She said that, in the case of culture, what was upsetting was the federal government's power to spend according to its own priorities. She went on to say that the federal government had to get out of the field and give the money to Quebecers to administer themselves. Her remarks were clear.

Does the Prime Minister agree with his deputy chairman, Ms. Frulla, and does he intend to withdraw completely from the field of culture, with full financial compensation, as his deputy chair wants him to?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, what a distortion of history, again. We were talking about the Meech Lake accord; the PQ was opposed. You were against it. Why are you criticizing us for siding with you at the time?

[An hon. member]

You were against it.

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

Yes, but so were you.

I said at the time that it was not satisfactory, and you did not find it satisfactory either. Then, after we made the necessary changes and it became Charlottetown, I was in favour, and you were still opposed. So you have always been in favour of Quebec developing within Canada? This is where your problem lies. We, on the other hand, want Quebec to develop inside Canada. And when you talk about culture, there was a proposal in Charlottetown, and you voted against it. So shame on you, you are always opposed. Quebecers will be in favour of staying in Canada on October 30, in two weeks' time.

Foreign Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday afternoon the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated in Washington that "Canada will contribute to any U.S. led NATO force in the former Yugoslavia".

Later the Minister of National Defence confirmed this commitment saying: "It will not be a peacekeeping role. It will be more of a protective force and therefore have a combat capability".

Yesterday, however, the Prime Minister and the government tried to backtrack saying Canada's participation is yet to be determined. But this does not alter the fact that American officials took these statements as a definite support for their plans.

What was promised to the American government? Will we be sending troops? More important, why was Parliament not consulted?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the ongoing initiative at this time to have a permanent peace situation in Bosnia should be welcomed by everybody. At long last the Americans seem to be willing. I am not sure if they will be able to send some troops but the president says that he will send 25,000 soldiers there.

I was talking a few days ago with the Prime Minister of Great Britain who told me that he would send some soldiers there. I talked with the President of France who said that he would send soldiers there. I said that we would consider being there.

I said in the House that before we made the final decision there would be a debate in the House of Commons. We have to talk with them first to know what they want, what kind of role, and nothing has been determined yet. We will come to the House of Commons. It is the first time in the history of Parliament that we have had a debate before a final decision of this kind.

We have the right to talk with the people who are asking us to be there. We cannot do it in a vacuum. Probably there will be another flip flop. For months they all supported the presence of troops in Bosnia. However, yesterday they said they did not vote for it. They supported it all along at a time when they were trying to score political points. They are now gauging the wind, and it would not surprise me if they flip flopped again.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about consultation before commitment.

The Liberals have long forgotten their red book promises. They promised to reject the camp follower approach to the U.S. They promised a more open process for making foreign policy. They promised to expand the rights of Parliament to debate major

Canadian foreign policy initiatives such as the deployment of peacekeeping forces.

The government is not only violating its own principles, it is acting like the Mulroney Tories during the gulf war. Why has the government broken its red book promises? Will it commit, here and now, to have a full parliamentary debate on Bosnia before we send more troops?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, for the first time we have had debate in the House about our presence in Bosnia before the decisions were made. Today I am standing here saying that the Americans, the British, the French and others have asked us if we would participate. We told them we would consider it.