Debates of Oct. 26th, 1995

Referendum Campaign

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is insulting the Prime Minister by saying that quoting him is character assassination.

The sovereignists are proposing that in future Quebec will negotiate with Canada, equal to equal, nation to nation, for the first time in history.

I am asking the minister to confirm that the federalist option is to see Quebec negotiate equal to equal, on the same footing as the other provinces, on the same footing as PEI and Newfoundland? That is their view of equality.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the Parti Quebecois, in the person of its Minister of International Affairs, Bernard Landry, attacks the president of the United States for having stated his position with respect to Canada, when the members of the opposition are attempting to interpret everything said in such a way as to indicate their disbelief, for instance, that they do not believe the Canadian provincial premiers' offer of assistance with questions relating to the distinct society, one wonders. One wonders how they can believe they are preparing to negotiate with other NAFTA partners or other provinces of Canada when they spend all their time insulting them.

Federalism

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last night the leader of the Bloc Quebecois said again that federalism cannot change, will not change, et cetera. The great

rebuttal to that is to demonstrate more clearly than heretofore that Canada is going to change for the better through a no vote on October 30.

One of the major ways in which Canada can change without constitutional battles is through simple reforms to our federal institutions. Parliament, the Supreme Court, and the Bank of Canada can all be made more representative and accountable to every region and citizen in the country without reopening the Constitution.

My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Is this federal government open to changing these federal institutions-Parliament, the Supreme Court, the Bank of Canada-to make them simply more accountable and representative to every region and citizen in the country?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thought I would get some respite after the questions of the Bloc Quebecois.

Unfortunately, we are plunging again into constitutional questions. In these questions, I would like to indicate how much this government has indicated that it is ready to change. Not only have we talked about questions such as distinct society and right to veto; more importantly, we have indicated that we are ready to give to the provinces a large number of powers. We indicated this in the last budget.

In the last budget we showed clearly that we are ready to reduce the actual size of the federal government. We have reduced our own departments by close to 20 per cent. We said that we would recentre our responsibilities and let the level of government that is the most efficient fulfil their responsibilities. That is the greatest opening to change that one can see.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was not asking about change in the Constitution or in the distribution of powers. I was simply asking about changes in the federal institutions.

In many federations the upper chamber of parliament is the place where the distinctive interests of various parts of the country are represented and reconciled. Accountable and representative upper chambers can serve as a shock absorber for potential unity problems.

Countries like Germany, Australia, Switzerland, and the United States have upper chambers that actually work. Unfortunately our Senate is not even democratically accountable let alone able to represent and reconcile regional and provincial interests.

In order to demonstrate its openness to the reform of federal institutions, is the federal government willing to commit to at least the democratization of the Canadian Senate, another change which can be made without constitutional amendments?

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

Mr. Speaker, the time to approve these changes would have been in Charlottetown. Unfortunately the leader of the third party did not approve them. There was a lot of discussion at the time on questions such as those. The leader of the third party chose to oppose Charlottetown.

At present the question we face is not the approval of Charlottetown. At present the question we face is the possible separation of the province of Quebec from the rest of Canada.

The burden of proof is on the separatists, and the separatists have not discharged the burden of proof. They have not given us a single good reason why Quebec should get out of the federation. That is what we must hammer at until the vote on Monday.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister does not even address the substance of the questions being put to him.

We are not talking about constitutional changes like the Charlottetown accord. We are not talking about changes to relations between the provinces and the federal government. We are talking about some simple changes in federal institutions which the federal government can make unilaterally which would send a signal of things changing to Quebec and other provinces.

I repeat my first question. Is the federal government open to changing federal institutions, Parliament, the Senate and the Bank of Canada, to make them more accountable and representative?

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

Mr. Speaker, the reason I am not addressing the specific question about changing federal institutions is this is merely a diversion from the present problem we are facing of why it is necessary to prevent the separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada. In this I hope to have the support of the Reform Party because that is the important reform.

To change the supreme court or to change the Senate, although it is a very important question, has nothing to do with the question we are facing today, the separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada.

Old Age Security

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, according to a document we obtained from the Department of Human Resources, the old age pension system, the guaranteed income supplement, the spouse's allowance and the senior citizens' tax credit will be combined into a single new program requiring an income test.

How does the minister explain the Prime Minister's statement yesterday in his speech that the best way to protect our social benefits is to vote No, when this document by his minister indicates he is preparing to exclude thousands of seniors from old age pension benefits and to cut the pensions of thousands of others?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have been through this many times before. The Bloc Quebecois and its allies come up with a range of documents.

However, as I have said before many times in the House, such recommendations or proposals have not been presented by me or the Minister of Finance to the cabinet. The cabinet has decided it is not the policy of the government. It is simply a leak upon a leak which the Bloc Quebecois and its allies have developed.

I simply advise the hon. member not to pay attention to such spurious documents.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this document, which is version 6.3, is entitled "Serving Canada's Seniors" assumes, regardless of how pensions are distributed, that there will be a single program with an income test-in other words, the absolute end of universality.

How can Quebecers believe in a government that has deliberately hidden this unprecedented attack-

[Some hon. members]

Shameful!

[The Speaker]

My dear colleague, I would ask you to reconsider the words "deliberately hidden" and to withdraw them before continuing with your question.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

-a government that has deliberately delayed this unprecedented attack, which will make senior women dependent on their spouse's income and could deprive them entirely of their old age pension?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is time we went through a reality check with the hon. member for Mercier.

On April 6 in the House the member for Mercier claimed there would be tens of thousands of people coming on the welfare rolls in Quebec. In August I received a document from the Government of Quebec that pointed out the number of people on welfare had been reduced, not increased.

On June 22 the member for Mercier claimed that as we were reorganizing the department and decentralizing we would reduce Canada Employment Centres in Quebec to 28. What we announced was 78 Canada Employment Centres in Quebec.

Any document sent in by this member has absolutely no credibility.

The Constitution

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I remind the minister that the Prime Minister has said this week it is part of his efforts to persuade Quebecers to vote no and that he would be open to change, including in some cases constitutional change.

My question is the one I asked yesterday which I did not get a response to. Is it still the policy of the Liberal Party, as it is the policy of the Reform Party, that any general constitutional change would have to be submitted to and approved by the people of Canada in a national referendum?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have read a number of studies indicating that given that past constitutional changes have been submitted to referenda, the normal way in the future would be to go through referenda.

However, I do not know that we have talked about that as a policy. Therefore I do not think as the government we are linked to that.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding from the answer of the unity minister yesterday is the people of Quebec would always have a voice in changes affecting their powers and institutions.

I wonder if the government would be prepared to say to other regions of the country that it recognizes they would also have a similar say in constitutional amendments.

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

Mr. Speaker, this question deserves very long discussion. I do not think today is the time for that.

Unemployment Insurance Reform

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

The CSN today made public the content of the unemployment insurance reform bill. This bill has been kept hidden up to now by the Minister of Human Resources Development, because it contains a number of cuts directed at the unemployed.

How can the Minister of Human Resources Development expect to earn the trust of Quebecers when he keeps a bill, which is in fact ready to be made public, hidden from them until after the referendum?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member has been but for the past year we have consulted with tens of thousands of Canadians. We have had numerous hearings in front of the House of Commons committee. We have had debates in the House. We have had hundreds of exchanges with provincial ministers, with interest groups, with people right across the country talking about new ideas.

That party says it wants change and yet everything we hear from it is hang on to the status quo, make no changes to get people back to work.

We want to provide the best employment system for the 21st century and the only people saying no are Bloc Quebecois members. They should get around to saying no on Monday rather than saying no here.

[Some hon. members]

No, no, no.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, now that his game is up, will the minister confirm that, among other things, it will be more difficult to qualify for unemployment insurance, that thousands of young people will be excluded from the scheme and that benefits will be reduced to half an individual's salary and paid for a shorter period? Will he finally acknowledge this?

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

Mr. Speaker, with all due deference to the hon. member, let me make it very clear that the government has made no decision on the presentations on unemployment insurance. We are still working on those proposals. I have not presented any recommendations as yet to cabinet.

As late as this morning I have had meetings with cabinet colleagues and with provincial ministers to get the thing right because our major intention is to ensure and guarantee the protection of low income Canadians and provide job opportunities for all Canadians, including those in Quebec.

Training

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Human Resources Development if the Prime Minister was serious about his promise of administrative changes in government and would the provinces be given the exclusive role of manpower training. The minister refused to commit to this.

Will the minister agree to the Alberta government's request to immediately convene a meeting of the forum of labour market ministers to negotiate the final decentralization of manpower training?