Debates of Oct. 20th, 1995

Foreign Affairs

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

And we said yes.

[Some hon. members]

We said yes.

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

The decision has not yet been made because I have not taken the problem to the cabinet and to the House of Commons. The only thing we know for certain is that the Reform Party does not know anything about the facts and it is already against it.

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

Mr. Speaker, let us go from France and other countries to Hungary for a moment.

Last May at a meeting of the NATO Parliamentarians Association in Budapest I spoke with representatives of that fledgling democracy in Hungary. Hungary will not permit military movement without consulting Parliament. It will not even allow military planning for deployment without consulting Parliament. When it comes to troop deployment, Hungary is more democratic than Canada.

Will the government do more than pay lip service to this fundamental principle of democracy, which is consultation, which it preaches so eloquently but violates so consistently?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, for a person who has spent his career as a high ranking officer in national defence-who as a member of Parliament is double dipping by having his pension from the army-he should know there are always discussions at the military level on how to deploy troops. It has never been done by parliamentarians. It has always been done by the military under instructions by the government.

At this time peace is coming to Bosnia, which we hope will be a permanent peace situation. Canada is always there when there is a need for peace. If we are needed we will look on it favourably. However, I have not made up my mind. If Parliament were to tell us not to go there, we would not. However, it would surprise me if the people of Canada did not want to be in a place where we can save lives, have peace and make progress for the poor people who have suffered so badly over the last four years.

Referendum Campaign

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

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

We knew that there was some confusion between Daniel Johnson and the members of the federal government regarding the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society and the right of veto.

Yesterday, some confusion emerged within the federal cabinet when, unlike the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the Minister of Foreign Affairs expressed his support for a right of veto. As for the Prime Minister, sometimes he is in favour, sometimes he is opposed, depending on what day it is and on whom he is addressing.

Given the confusion prevailing in cabinet with regard to the right of veto and the Prime Minister's occasional hints that he supports the notion of distinct society and giving Quebec a right of veto, why did the Prime Minister vigorously oppose the Meech Lake accord, which he played a large part in killing? On the night this agreement was rejected, he said to Premier Wells: "Thank you, Clyde, for a job well done".

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the number of unfounded statements in that question is unbelievable. First of all, yesterday, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs did not discuss the right of veto issue with anyone. So much for that. There was no mention of a right of veto in the Meech Lake proposal. It was not an issue because the amending formula had been accepted by René Lévesque several years earlier. Another faulty interpretation by the hon. member.

Third, he said that on the night I became leader-I explained this but they do not want to tell the truth. I simply said-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

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

No, you may be reluctant to admit it but, on the night of the convention, the vast majority of Newfoundland delegates supported my candidacy. So I thanked the people of Newfoundland for voting for me at the convention. However, that is not what they want to say. It was during the celebration following my election as leader of the Liberal Party, and I was saying thanks to Mr. Wells and all my other supporters. I also expressed my thanks to those who had run against me. I said

that, for the sake of the party; to have a good convention, one needs opponents, and after it is all over, one should thank everyone and help the Liberal Party move forward. That is why I am Prime Minister today.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can say all he wants about the right of veto issue, but if he wants to be serious, does he admit that he is unable to deliver the goods precisely because of the opposition of Clyde Wells and Roy Romanow, which is preventing him from getting the required unanimous approval of the other provinces?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

The hon. member should blame René Lévesque, who, with the leaders of the other eight provinces, imposed this formula on the federal government. It is true that unanimity is required. We were against this. Still, it was the Quebec government led by René Lévesque which imposed this amending formula, and now he is saying that it will be difficult. I agree that it will be difficult, because of the mistakes you have made in the past. Quebecers, however, will not let you make other mistakes when the referendum is held on October 30.

Department Of National Defence

[Jack Frazer, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have learned that Canadian taxpayers contributed over $300,000 for advertising in a special edition of Homemakers magazine.

Ruth Cardinal, public affairs director for the Department of National Defence, defended DND's participation because it will encourage recruiting in the Canadian forces, this even though the average age of readers of Homemakers is 42 and the forces are downsizing.

How can the minister possibly justify such Cadillac advertising when the defence department budget has been slashed and thousands of military and civilian jobs are disappearing?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

If his question is do we have a recruiting policy in the Canadian forces, the answer is yes. If his question is do we have procedures in place for recruiting, the answer is yes. If his question is do we have a policy where we actually advertise in reputable magazines, the answer is yes. If his question is do we have a policy to recruit women for the Canadian forces, the answer is yes. The answers are yes, yes, yes and yes.

I want to reinforce to the House that the government, unlike the third party, has a policy of equal opportunity for men and women.

[Jack Frazer, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

The average cost of an advertisement in Homemakers is $26,000, not $300,000.

The documents also show that Ms. Cardinal received the idea from Alex Morrison, president of the Pearson Peacekeeping College, who also sits on the board of directors for the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies. I remind the minister that the institute receives almost $100,000 a year in grants from the Department of National Defence. As well, Sally Armstrong, editor of Homemakers magazine, and Duncan de Chastelain, son of the Chief of Defence Staff, also sit on the board.

Can the Minister of National Defence spell conflict of interest? Can he explain why his department is engaging in such obvious objectionable cronyism?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thought I had answered the question. Perhaps I can answer it in another way, with a different emphasis.

Do we have a credible policy?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, NL]

The answer is yes.

Do we have credible procedure?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, NL]

The answer is yes.

Do we have a credible magazine?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, NL]

This magazine enjoys the widest circulation among women in Canada. Three million women read that magazine.

Do we have a credible policy with respect to recruiting women?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, NL]

Yes. Again: yes, credibility; yes, credibility; yes, credibility; yes, credibility.

The problem with the third party is it has trouble with the word credibility; it just does not comprehend it.

Referendum Campaign

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

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

In a brochure sent to all Quebecers by the director general of elections in Quebec, the No committee states, and I quote: "-the

government of Quebec must control its areas of responsibility". What this really means is that Ottawa must stop using its spending power to interfere in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

Could the Prime Minister tell us if his government agrees with this position? And if so, does it intend to withdraw from areas of jurisdiction in which it is interfering through its spending power, notably education, culture, health and manpower training?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, this document has been issued collectively by all members of the coalition. That is clear as day. However, before attacking us on this kind of thing, because this is a written document, Bloc Quebecois members should start by- When you see their leader crisscross Quebec with his magic wand in hand and come out with a statement like: "I am for sovereignty pure and simple; we will not even need Canadian citizenship or Canadian passports".

That same afternoon, he said: "Well, no, we will negotiate a partnership", but later qualified his statement. He was not so categorical any more. He was apologetic. That is in essence how the week started off, with all this talk about being among ourselves, francophones, people of colour, with women bearing more children and so on. Later in the week, they changed their tune once again. That is what really happened.

They do not want to tell people the truth. We, on the other hand, put our position in writing.

A moment ago, I asked the hon. member for Roberval if he wanted to remain a Canadian. Let me put the same question to the hon. member: Does she want to remain a Canadian or would she rather abandon Canada completely? She should answer this question, so that her constituents know where to stand come October 30.