Debates of Nov. 24th, 1995

Prime Minister

[The Speaker]

My dear colleague, maybe it would be preferable not to use the word "liar" even though it is applied to oneself. I would ask you not to use this word in the House.

Fisheries

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the fisheries minister said that he consulted the industry when he dreamt up his new tax, but he sure did not listen. Here are just a few of those who wrote in protest to the minister: the Eastern Fishermen's Federation, Southwest Nova Fixed Gear Association, the Fisheries Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, the South West Nova Tuna Association, the New Brunswick Fish Packers' Association, the Fundy Weir Fishermen's Association Inc., the Ontario Fish Producers' Association. The list goes on: the Atlantic Herring Co-op, the Fisheries Council of British Columbia, the Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters, the Alliance des pêcheurs professionnels du Québec, Fishermen Food and Allied Workers, the Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association, and many more.

They all said no new taxes. Fishermen are not going to let the minister off the hook. If he does not back down he is going to be done like dinner.

Montreal Economy

[Maurice Godin, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada is rejoicing at the bad news affecting Montreal. Just this week, he applauded the move of CP Rail's head office. Ottawa is making no real effort to ensure sustainable economic recovery in Montreal. What is the minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec doing?

It is no wonder that FORD-Q is reported, in the document tabled this week by the auditor general, as not seeing itself as a strategic organization in terms of development policies. If the minister responsible for regional economic development in Quebec cannot even ensure that federal policies reflect Quebec's interests, what good is he? This is another example of how sharing responsibilities with Ottawa can only lead to a weakening of the economy in Montreal and in Quebec as a whole.

Public Finances

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government and the hon. Paul Martin have taken upon themselves to put their fiscal house in order.

[The Speaker]

I would ask the hon. member not to use a person's name, just a title.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

I stand corrected, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance. Since federal transfers to the provinces account for nearly 20 per cent of federal expenditures, they cannot be ignored. On the other hand, these transfers account for only three per cent of the provinces' revenues.

We made deeper cuts to our own expenditures on goods and services than to transfers to the provinces. Saskatchewan and New Brunswick have been able to balance their budgets while taking into account the new federal transfer payments. The Quebec government is lagging behind, because of all the energy it is putting into separation plans and referenda. In view of the fact that the transfer cuts contemplated amount to only a few percentage points of provincial revenues, is it fair to say that actions taken by the federal government are solely responsible for provincial cuts to come?

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, we are going into question period immediately. Over the last little while I have found that the preambles to questions are getting a little longer and the answers are sometimes getting a little longer.

May I ask today before we begin that hon. members cut back a little on the preambles to questions in the hopes that more hon. members can ask questions during the question period.

Of course I will help in this respect if it is needed.

Committee Chaired By Minister Of Intergovernmental Affairs

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the phoney committee that was set up in a mad rush to save the face of a government that is incapable of keeping the Prime Minister's promises, this phoney committee headed by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has now started its work and apparently has sent a progress report to the Prime Minister's office.

Since this report is supposedly essential to the survival of Canada, does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs who chairs the phoney committee intend to release this report, so that Canadians can look at the recommendations?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted with the interest the hon. member for Roberval has shown in this committee, which is of course a contradiction of his preliminary remarks since, as I said before, the ultimate phoney committee is the regional commissions that were set up in Quebec for the benefit of partisan members only.

In this case, we have set up a committee of ministers who report to the Prime Minister and whose statements are confidential. If the Prime Minister feels it is appropriate to publish the recommendations, he will do so.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here is my supplementary.

Are we to understand that the minister refuses to release any recommendations or clarifications of any kind with respect to the proceedings of this committee? Perhaps he prefers not to embarrass his friends on the No committee, the provincial Liberals who are meeting in Quebec City on the weekend and who would otherwise realize that the minister and the government have strictly nothing to offer Quebecers.

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

Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday, the Leader of the Official Opposition was asked this question:

"Is it even theoretically possible that premier Bouchard could sign any deal which would see Quebec remain in Confederation?"

Mr. Bouchard replied: "No, that is impossible, I am a sovereignist".

In that case, I fail to see why the official opposition or the hon. member for Roberval would ask about the ways in which we are trying to deal with the current problem, since they have already said that, in the circumstances, they are not interested and that their only objective is to destroy the federation.

[The Speaker]

Again, my dear colleagues, I would ask you to use the title of the member to whom you refer during question period.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is so obvious. A cabinet minister tries to find reasons why they should not keep the promises made by the Prime Minister, and it is not their fault. I have never seen anything like it.

Is it not true that the purpose of the phoney committee headed by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is merely to play for time so that the government can slowly but surely downgrade its commitments to Quebec and ultimately make them compatible with the interests of its Canadian friends?

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

Mr. Speaker, we must recognize the facts. The Prime Minister repeated in the House what he said in Verdun, and I mentioned both statements yesterday to show they were consistent. However, it is also time to realize that the Leader of the Official Opposition and the members of the official opposition are neglecting the duty they have, as the official opposition, to defend the interests of their constituents. They have now stated they do not intend to co-operate with the federal government at all, and consequently, their only goal, as their leader said, is to achieve sovereignty. Their only goal is to destroy Canada and consequently, their questions no longer have any credibility because they are not trying to improve the way the government operates but are only trying to achieve their goal, which is to destroy Canada.

[André Caron, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

So, Mr. Speaker, we can say we are protecting the interests of our constituents when we ask questions of the government in order to discover its intentions toward Quebec.

What they want to know, precisely, is the federal government's intentions with respect to commitments it made less than a month ago, in the last days of the referendum campaign. It is obvious that the deliberations and recommendations of the phoney committee are a well kept secret.

Can the minister at least tell us whether, in the interim report transmitted to the Prime Minister, the option of a simple House of Commons resolution on the distinct society is the one favoured by that phoney committee?

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

Mr. Speaker, I feel obliged to repeat once again what the Prime Minister said, which is that to ensure the change and modernization of Canada, no change is excluded. And what he said in the House on Wednesday, which is:

I said we were going to make changes to the federation, constitutional changes, if necessary.

Thus there is no contradiction between the two statements. What we are doing in the unity committee is preparing a series of recommendations for the Prime Minister. The recommendations the group of ministers make to the Prime Minister are confidential, as they must be, because the person who makes decisions on behalf of the government is the Prime Minister. Once those decisions have been made, he will make the announcement.

[André Caron, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, can the minister at least confirm to us that one of the hypotheses selected by the phoney committee regarding administrative decentralization is based on the principle set out by Pierre Elliott Trudeau two weeks ago, namely that no decentralization toward the provinces is possible without an equivalent transfer to the federal level, which would mean increased centralization of economic powers at Ottawa?

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

Mr. Speaker, to use the same vocabulary, this is a phoney question, clearly void of content.

We repeat what we have said: the Prime Minister's promises are correct. And as long as the opposition continues to ask phoney questions like this one, when its goal is the destruction of Canada, it does not deserve an answer.

Peacekeeping

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

Mr. Speaker, we are pleased with the recent peace agreement signed between the governments of Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia. This is a welcome step toward peace in that troubled region.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

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

Yesterday the Prime Minister stated that Canada would commit troops and also promised a debate in the House to acquire Parliament's approval.

To date however the government has paid only lip service to the principle of consultation. On September 21 last year the debate was only nine days before the renewal. This year on March 29 the debate was only two days before renewal and then the commitment was extended by two months without any reference to Parliament.

Will the government commit this time to having the debate on Canadian forces deployment to the former Yugoslavia after the details are known and before any cabinet decision is taken?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister signified yesterday that it would be his intention for Parliament to debate the potential deployment for the NATO force. That debate will be scheduled in the next week or so after consultation between House leaders.

This is a further example of how the government has restored Parliament's role in the debate of major foreign engagements.

The hon. member has criticized only the matter of timing of these debates. The fact is that members of Parliament have been able to express their views before commitments have been made and that is the course that will be followed.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is all very interesting but in my previous question I asked if we would debate after the details are known. I suspect they will not be known next week and we will not know what we are debating.

The Minister of National Defence yesterday stated that because the successful formation of the NATO force will depend on American troops being committed, we will have to await the decision of congress. It is reported that the Americans are talking of a commitment of one year.

Does the minister think the mission will be accomplished in one year and will he consider proposing a specified period for any Canadian commitment with a declared intention to withdraw Canadian forces at the end of that period?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, with great respect, these are all questions and ideas that should be raised in a parliamentary debate.

The government would be quite interested to know from the Reform Party and other members the degree of commitment we should make, the numbers that we should be sending and in what proportion. All of those questions really are matters the govern-

ment will be interested in before the government makes its final commitment to NATO.

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

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the government will not commit to having a realistic debate on the commitment of Canadian forces.