Debates of Oct. 23rd, 1995

Referendum Campaign

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for the Bloc Quebecois does a poor job, as he often does, unfortunately, of presenting the position of the Prime Minister of Canada.

In his speech in Quebec City last Thursday, the Prime Minister said: "Quebec is a distinct society because of its language, culture and institutions". Those who were opposed to change in recent years were the members of the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois.

We should remember that the Parti Quebecois not only rejected the changes proposed in the Charlottetown Accord but also campaigned to ensure that Quebec would not have the powers and jurisdictions included in Charlottetown.

We must set the record straight. Those who are in favour of continuing change and development in Canada and Quebec and who support the best interests of Quebec are not those who want to break up the country and separate Quebec, with all the negative consequences that would ensue.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the joint statement issued by the Prime Minister of Canada and the leader of the No side on the weekend in an effort to cover up the deep division between them, they say that they have not changed their minds about the distinct society and that they still believe this basic Canadian reality should be acknowledged.

Will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs admit honestly that the real position on the notion of a distinct society is the one expressed by the Prime Minister on September 11, 1995, when he said that there was absolutely no need to enshrine in the constitution the fact that Quebec francophones are distinct from other Canadians. Dixit Jean Chrétien.

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to repeat the last paragraph of the statement again, because the answer is the same.

However, what is important to see is that the official opposition is trying to shift attention away from the real issue of the referendum debate. In the referendum debate, the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois want to separate Quebec from Canada. Their aim is not a partnership, as Mr. Bouchard has finally agreed. Their aim is not a distinct society either. These are empty questions, because Mr. Parizeau has clearly indicated that he could not care less about a distinct society.

Their aim is to separate Quebec from Canada, and they will be responsible for breaking up Canada and causing the ensuing negative effects for Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister how Quebecers can trust the Prime Minister of Canada when he claims to be in favour of the concept of a distinct society when we know those who made him head of the party, like Clyde Wells, are completely and unconditionally opposed to a distinct society-thank you Clyde, we remember-and will never permit the Prime Minister to go back on a commitment he made in the leadership race, which he won specifically because he was opposed to the Meech Lake Accord, unlike the present Minister of Finance, who was in favour.

[The Speaker]

My dear colleagues, I would ask you to not use the name of any member who has sat here in this House and to always use their title as minister, if that is the case, or of leader of the opposition, rather than using their name.

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, what counts at the moment is finding out which option will enable Quebec to best cope with the problems of the world to come. The Prime Minister of Canada agreed with Charlottetown, which contained a whole series of measures that would have enabled Quebec to acquire certain jurisdictions it wanted. The Parti Quebecois was the one opposed.

The option that will enable Quebec to continue to develop and cope with its problems in the future is the option that implies that Quebec will remain in Canada, where it has developed harmoniously for 128 years and that it will continue its quiet revolution within the constitution. I would point out that the first quiet revolution took place while Quebec came under the constitution.

Canadian Economy

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to change the subject from constitutional ills to the over-riding economic interests of all Canadians, including Quebecers.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. The minister will know that the Canadian dollar is continuing to fall today in international markets.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

I know the Bloc does not take this matter seriously but I would like to ask the question anyway.

International investors know that the prospects of a yes vote do not mean a new and better economic union between Quebec and the other provinces but the end of the economic union we have today.

What measures has the minister taken to assure the international financial community that Canada will fulfil all the financial obligations it has contracted on behalf of all Canadians including Quebecers and that it will fulfil these obligations regardless of the outcome of the Quebec referendum?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked two questions.

In terms of the first one on the value of the dollar, as the hon. member knows Canada has a floating exchange rate. Under those circumstances the value of the dollar is established by the markets. When the occasion requires, the Bank of Canada will intervene to ensure there are orderly markets.

On the second question relating to Canada's obligations, I am very confident international and domestic markets are completely assured that Canada will under all circumstances fulfil its obligations.

However I should like to take advantage of the question asked by the hon. member to reaffirm, without any hesitation and without any equivocation, that Canada stands 100 per cent, four square behind all its obligations.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, according to a recent article in the Vancouver Sun the Minister of Finance made reference to the fact that the premier of Quebec, Mr. Parizeau, acknowledged Quebec's liability for one-quarter of Canada's debt in a 1990 speech. This would be consistent with the stated desire of the separatist government to use the Canadian dollar.

Has the minister sought any public reassurance at this time from the Government of Quebec to the international financial community that it would maintain its full share of Canada's financial obligations regardless of the outcome of the Quebec referendum?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member accurately reflects a citation by the current premier of Quebec that in the event of separation he felt Quebec's share of the national debt should be proportionate to its share of the population, i.e. 25 per cent. That is a position that has also been reflected by a number of the leading separatist leaders.

I think we all understand the tremendous negative consequences that would flow from any kind of break up of the country, in turn leading as well to negotiations over the debt. That is why I reaffirm that it is very clear that what we are dealing with here is not an offer of partnership. It is not some kind of an amiable separation. We are dealing with the rupture of the country.

The fact is this debate is about the future of Canada.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of the rupture the minister refers to, he will know that during this campaign Mr. Lucien Bouchard, the Leader of the Opposition, has indicated that-

[The Speaker]

I ask you, colleagues, to please refer to either the riding or the title of a person rather than their name.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Thank you for that reminder, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition has indicated during this campaign that Quebec might renege on its share of Canada's debt obligations. Of course a statement like that is not at all consistent with the stated desire of the Government of Quebec to use the Canadian dollar.

Has the Minister of Finance sought to reassure international financial markets that the Leader of the Opposition is not a member of either the Government of Canada or the Government of Quebec and may not speak for either in this regard?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, first, I think the point is a valid one. The Leader of the Opposition will not be speaking for anyone in the event of separation; the Premier of Quebec is Mr. Parizeau. So, clearly, Mr. Bouchard will be out of things.

[An hon. member]

Name the riding.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Ah, yes. No, I did not mention his name.

Mr. Speaker, as regards the use of the Canadian dollar, I think the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier of Quebec have deliberately created an ambiguity. They talk about using the Canadian dollar, and yet, on two occasions-in Ahuntsic, last week, and in Portneuf, six or eight months ago-the Leader of the Opposition said very clearly that the separatists intended giving up the certainty of the Canadian dollar for the uncertainty of the Quebec dollar.

When we ask ourselves where this double talk is coming from, we know very well. Mr. Parizeau wrote in L'Actualité that it was simply a ruse, that he intended to favour the Canadian dollar, but that, ultimately, he wanted a Quebec dollar.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

The desperate appeal by the leader of the no side, Daniel Johnson, to the Prime Minister of Canada addressed not only the distinct society but also Quebec's right of veto and the elimination of duplication and overlap between the federal government and the Government of Quebec. These elements are covered in the document currently being distributed by the no side, via the director general of elections.

Since the joint document has absolutely nothing to say on the question of the right of veto and the elimination of duplication and overlap, can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs tell us whether the Prime Minister will give in to Mr. Johnson's plea and make his point of view known to the people of Quebec on these two issues before the 30th?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition is clearly attempting to cloud the issue; it is spreading ideas that are totally contrary to reality. On the question of a distinct society, the leader of the no committee and the Prime Minister have stated their position very clearly.

In the case of the right to veto, the no manifesto is clear, and the Prime Minister has also indicated that the entire membership of the no side approves. But the problem we are facing now in the referendum is that the official opposition is attempting to make people believe that the referendum is about something other than separation. That is why we must repeat again and again that what the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois are attempting to do, what their leaders clearly state as their intention, is to separate Quebec from Canada. There is no other truth, and the opposition's questions are aimed at having Quebecers believe something that does not correspond to reality. The issue is separation.

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

Mr. Speaker, the chair of the no committee has been very clear in making this urgent appeal for the Prime Minister to make his point of view known on the distinct society, the right of veto and the elimination of duplication and overlap before October 30, Daniel Johnson has said so himself.

Why does the government persist in concealing its true intentions from Quebecers? What more is there that you want to conceal from Quebecers?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, when it comes to concealing things from Quebecers, I believe that we have said, and have proof of having said, what was going to happen; it is the members of the opposition who have tried to make Quebecers believe that partnership is possible.

It is the members of the opposition who have tried to make people believe that a large number of Quebecers could retain their Canadian passports. And it is the members of the opposition too who are trying to convince people that it will be possible for Quebecers to keep the Canadian dollar.

I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is the members of the opposition who are trying to invent stories, tell stories, fairy tales, to the people of Quebec. I repeat, October 30 is about separation. That is what the leaders of the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois are saying and it is the truth.

National Defence

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

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

Armed forces personnel can collect a non-taxable separation expense for a period of up to one year when posted. Documents obtained show that for a three-year period then Major-General Armand Roy collected over $50,000 in non-taxable separation expenses. This is scandalous.

Almost every day I rise in this House and question the minister about the mismanagement of his department. What does the minister have to say about this one today?

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

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of National Defence, as parliamentary secretary, in response to the question from the hon.

member, who spent a lot of time with me as a member of the special joint committee on defence-

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

Answer the question.