Debates of Nov. 23rd, 1995

Atlantic Canada

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, methinks the Liberals doth protest too much.

To the members of the traditional good old boys club in Atlantic Canada, let us talk oppression. It is the Liberal fisheries minister who would charge an ice-free port for icebreaking. It is the Liberal human resources minister who airlifted Atlantic Canadians to Ontario. It is Liberal provincial politicians who have monitored attendance at public meetings. These are the politicians who perpetuate the oppressive political system of handouts and rampant patronage. The truth hurts.

Reformers openly challenge the political system in Atlantic Canada. We offer hope and self-reliance to Atlantic Canadians through proposals such as Atlantica, which builds trade alliances with the eastern United States. This will create jobs.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member had me worried there; I thought he was going to start reciting the Barbe.

Leader Of The Bloc Quebecois

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois surprised few people on Tuesday with his announcement of his candidacy for the position vacated by Jacques Parizeau.

He surprised no one either with his announcement that his first priority would be Quebec's public finances. Truth be known, the disastrous state of Quebec's public finances is forcing all pretenders to the throne to promise to make them their first priority.

He did, however, surprise and disappoint people with his announcement that he would never sign a new constitutional agreement. The potential successor to Jacques Parizeau must respect the people's decision of October 30 and work, as the people of Quebec have requested, to renew Canadian federalism. If his separatist obsession precludes his doing so, let him give up the throne to someone who give more heed to the will of the people.

Gun Control

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

Mr. Speaker, last evening, the other House finally voted in favour of gun control.

The work we started six years ago has finally come to a conclusion. We now have a tool to help improve public safety. The struggle mobilized many people who, like me, firmly believed that tighter control was necessary. I would like to thank them for their dedication and their tenacity.

On the eve of the grievous anniversary of the massacre at the École polytechnique, Parliament has heard the concerns of the victims' families. Responsible gun owners like us know that privileges imply obligations, and so the law will be observed. We must, however, remain vigilant and continue to keep close watch on the law and its regulations.

Canadian Sugar Industry

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

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian sugar industry is very happy with the recent trade ruling by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, which confirmed that dumped sugar from the U.S. and subsidized sugar from the European Union is threatening material injury to the industry.

The industry is also pleased that the United States has decided to exempt sugar from the Helms bill, which would have placed serious implications on Canada's ability to export sugar.

All this being said, the Canadian sugar industry still has one very key irritant that needs to be resolved. Canadian sugar exports to the U.S. were drastically reduced last year when the Americans implemented new trade restrictions which lowered our export quota. As a result, the Lantic Sugar refinery in Saint John, New Brunswick, had to lay off many employees. These tariffs are estimated to cost many hundreds of Canadian jobs in the sugar industry.

As an Atlantic Canadian, I call on the minister of trade to finish the job and continue to enter into formal negotiations with the U.S.

The Constitution

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday when the Prime Minister backed out of the promises he made to Quebecers six days before the referendum and said that reopening the Constitution was out of the question, Quebecers all remembered the promises made by Pierre Elliott Trudeau on May 14, 1980, promises on which the government at the time immediately proceeded to renege.

Since six days before the referendum the Prime Minister clearly referred to the Constitution as a way to bring about change, does yesterday's retreat signify that Quebecers were tricked once again as they were in 1980, when they were promised so-called satisfactory constitutional changes and the government did not deliver?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

On the contrary, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister's statement in Verdun on October 24 was as follows, and I quote; "We will keep open all the other roads to change, including administrative and constitutional means. Any changes in constitutional jurisdiction will only be made with the consent of Quebecers", while the Leader of the Opposition said, and I quote: "While he talks about the Constitution, we will look after jobs".

When asked whether he would sign any deal he said: "No, it is not possible. I am a sovereignist". The person who is off the wall on this is not the Prime Minister; it is the Leader of the Opposition.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a fine way of passing the buck. This government blames unemployment on the previous government, and when there are problems with the Constitution, it blames them on the opposition.

When the Prime Minister made these promises to Quebec a few days before the referendum, he knew there was a sovereignist government in Quebec City. He knew that perfectly well. He made certain promises. So how can he use the sovereignist government in Quebec City as an excuse to back out of the promises he made so he will not have to deliver the goods?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat the promises made by the Prime Minister, which will be kept, and I quote: "We will keep open all the other roads to change, including administrative and constitutional means. Any changes in constitutional jurisdiction will only be made with the consent of Quebecers".

If anyone is saying no, it is not the Prime Minister but the Leader of the Opposition, who the day after the referendum dismissed the option of constitutional change.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

How delightful, Mr. Speaker. What is the world coming to? Now for my question, and I hope we manage to understand each other.

The Prime Minister of Canada-not Joe Blow but the Prime Minister-comes to Quebec six days before a referendum. Without anyone asking, he promises the changes the Deputy Prime Minister just mentioned.

And then we have the same Prime Minister, and since I am going to quote him, I will quote exactly what he said two days after the referendum in this House: "This I have promised and this I will do". And yesterday, he told us: "I will not do it". What is going on?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. The Prime Minister promised, and I quote: "Any changes in constitutional jurisdiction will only be made with the consent of Quebecers".

Meanwhile, the Leader of the Opposition and future leader of the Parti Quebecois said in English, referring to the Constitution, that he did not believe it would be possible to formulate any offers, that they were not interested. That is what the Leader of the Opposition said, and we do not want to impose constitutional changes if he says Quebec does not want them.

[The Speaker]

I remind all members not to use props of any kind.

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

Mr. Speaker, two days ago, the Prime Minister made a suggestion to extend the deadline of the phoney committee chaired by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, whose mandate, according to its chairman, is to save Canada by reviewing all the options to renew federalism.

Can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs tell us if he still intends to table the report of the phoney committee before Christmas or if he will grab the line thrown by the Prime Minister to gain a little more time?

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

Mr. Speaker, I should first set the record straight. As I said before, the perfect example of a phoney committee is the Parti Quebecois's regional commissions, in which the Bloc Quebecois took part.

I would like to remind them that there are five million voters in Quebec, not 50,000, and that their commissions were not representative and did not try to find conclusions that would help Quebec and Canada, while our committee is looking at all the options and seeking solutions to our problems.

Once again, we are holding out our hand in good faith to the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois and urging them to soften their stance and negotiate a renewed federalism, as 80 per cent of Quebecers are asking them to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that the minister has a vivid imagination. He said that his committee's mandate was to review all the options in order to honour the Prime Minister's referendum promises, because the Prime Minister did make promises. But the Prime Minister is now turning his back on constitutional change. This is a remake of 1980, an old movie that we have seen before, but we have since gained 10 per cent. Soon we will gain even more in less time.

In this context, can the minister tell us what the phoney committee still has as a mandate? Should he not dismantle it instead, since the Prime Minister has decided as usual not to offer Quebec anything?

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, the hon. member's statements are wrong. As the Deputy Prime Minister said, the Prime Minister clearly stated in Verdun that we would keep open all other avenues of change, including administrative and constitutional changes.

Yesterday in the House, the Prime Minister said this:

I never said we were going to change the Constitution-I said we were going to make changes to the federation, constitutional changes, if necessary-

There is no contradiction between the two sentences. It is the official opposition that will not abide by the results of the referendum, which showed very clearly that Quebecers want change, but within Canada.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are being reminded again today by the Bloc Quebecois that in the referendum campaign the federal Liberals made a couple of constitutional offers to Quebec. Despite the referendum loss the Government of Quebec and its future premier have already made it clear that they reject these offers and further that they would reject any offers of renewed federalism.

Will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs make it clear today for all Canadians that the Government of Canada will not make further constitutional offers to a PQ government that has no intention of accepting them and that Canadians are sick and tired of playing this game with the separatists?

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately it is true that the Leader of the Opposition, thinking about his future role as premier of Quebec, indicated that he would not consider any offers to renew federalism.

However, in saying that the leader was refusing to recognize the result of the referendum where the majority of Quebecers told him that they wanted changes to be made within Canada. He was also refusing to respect the majority of Quebecers who have expressed their views.

We will not do the same thing to Quebecers. We will be in a position to offer ways in which the present problems can be solved.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister avoided answering my question on constitutional offers, but in any case I will proceed with my supplementary question for the same minister.

As he pointed out, the Government of Quebec has made it clear that it will seek another referendum on sovereignty in spite of the fact that in the last referendum it never did make a detailed proposal on sovereignty and the proposed economic partnership.

Before the next referendum will the federal government formally request that the Government of Quebec table its detailed proposals for sovereignty and future economic relations with the rest of Canada so that Quebecers and other Canadians can evaluate the credibility of the ideas?

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

Mr. Speaker, we will respect the current referendum which indicated that Quebecers want changes to be made and that they want the changes to be made within Canada.

I will repeat what the Prime Minister said yesterday in the House.

"I never said we were going to change the Constitution. I said we were going to make changes to the federation, constitutional changes, if necessary".

That is what we are working on. We will make recommendations to the Prime Minister, and we hope to be able to find solutions that will ensure, once again, that Canada remains as we know it, a united country, a country where we can all make our dreams and aspirations come true, whether we live in Quebec or in another province.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, these are good words but they continue to miss the point, which is that the Government of Quebec is not interested in such plans and will proceed with another referendum at some point.

Let me go back to the Government of Canada's own commitments. On October 25, 1995 in a speech to the entire nation the Prime Minister said:

All governments, federal and provincial, must respond to the desire of Canadians everywhere for greater decentralization.

This was a commitment to all Canadians that the Government of Quebec simply could not reject on behalf of everybody.

As the government has done nothing but bash decentralization since the referendum, what specifically do the Prime Minister and the government have in mind in making this kind of a commitment?

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

Mr. Speaker, on this very important question I can only repeat what our line has been. It has been that decentralization would happen only when it is shown very clearly that it is more efficient to transfer responsibilities from one level of government to another.

It will be decentralization if it well serves Canadian citizens who pay taxes, but there is no doubt that decentralization for its own sake is not a remedy to any of the problems we now have.

Public Service

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

In his budget speech, the Minister of Finance announced that compensation packages for laid-off public servants would cost approximately $1.3 billion. But the annual financial statement tabled by the government shows a huge cost overrun, with costs up to $2.3 billion.

How can the government explain the fact that its public service downsizing programs have cost $1 billion more than anticipated?

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

Mr. Speaker, if the President of the Treasury Board were here, I am sure that, in response to the member's question, he would say that this increase can be attributed, first, to the pension funds that were not factored in when preparing the budget since they were not included in budget projections and, second, to the fact that more employees have accepted the offer earlier than expected. These costs will be recovered in time.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is surprising to say the least that the President of the Treasury Board never mentioned anything about this to the Minister of Finance. In view of the finance minister's answer, I might add that one of these public service downsizing programs, the early retirement program, which was supposed to affect 4,000 employees and cost $300 million, attracted 1,500 more people than expected and ended up costing $800 million instead of the original $300 million, or almost three times more than expected.

How can the government explain that its early retirement program will end up costing almost three times more than expected?