House of Commons Hansard #266 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was process.
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, for the Reform Party there is a reality. Is the Government of Quebec a legitimate government? Like the government of any other province it as been elected and I have to respect that reality.
I would rather have another government, which would be possible the day the Reform Party supports this party rather than supporting the Bloc Quebecois in the House all the time.
Pierrette Venne Bloc Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, immediately following the Prime Minister of Canada's announcement, the provinces of Canada voiced reservations on both the so-called right of veto and the scope of resolution on the distinct character of Quebec. It was obvious that the premiers of English Canada had not been forewarned of this initiative by the federal government.
How can the Prime Minister have the gall to present his initiatives of yesterday as the end result of his referendum promises when, immediately following his announcement, a number of
provinces in English Canada, including British Columbia and Alberta, voiced serious reservations about the federal plan?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the fact that they have reservations does not mean I spoke to them. I am simply saying that I made commitments in my capacity as Prime Minister during the referendum campaign, saying that I would deliver the goods. I have said that, in the past, I and my party have recognized Quebec as a distinct society and that we would recognize it as such in the future. That is what we shall do in the very near future.
We are taking steps, and that is the commitment I have made, not to change the Canadian Constitution without the consent of Quebec. There will be legislation on this, in Parliament. I am most anxious to see how the critic will vote, whether she will vote against the decision of this Parliament not to change the Constitution without the consent of Quebec.
Pierrette Venne Bloc Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, are we to understand that the Prime Minister, as he did in 1980 following the referendum, is in the process of acting unilaterally, attempting to present not only Quebec but the other provinces as well with a done deal?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I am working within the federal jurisdiction. I am the Prime Minister of Canada. I invite the members of this Parliament to make a decision on the distinct society and on the right of veto for the four regions of Canada, within the capacities of this Parliament. There is nothing mysterious in that.
We, the members, are the ones who will all have to make up our minds a few days from now. When everyone has voted, then it will be a done deal, yes. The members of this Parliament, the large majority, thanks to the Liberal Party of which I am the leader, will have voted in favour of a distinct society and to ensure that the veto will be shared with the four regions of Canada.
Preston Manning Reform Calgary Southwest, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is creating a cloud of confusion on the issue of a constitutional veto. Could he clarify for the benefit of his own members, as well as ours, exactly what he means when he talks about giving a veto to Quebec? Is he talking about giving a veto to the Government of Quebec or is he talking about giving a veto to the people of Quebec through a constitutional referendum? Will he make it crystal clear what he means?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I mean that the people of Quebec have a parliament and an assembly where they have people elected. They will vote, just like the people of Alberta will vote, through the members of their legislature.
We say it is a desire of the House that we not proceed without the approval of the four regions of Canada, as the hon. member is asking in his program to recognize the four regions of Canada. Quebec will vote on that. There might be a referendum, there might not be a referendum, but under the Constitution when we amend the Constitution it is always by a resolution of a legislative assembly and the Parliament of Canada.
Preston Manning Reform Calgary Southwest, AB
Mr. Speaker, let us get this straight. When the Prime Minister talks about giving a veto to Quebec he has just said that what he means is giving a veto to the Government of Quebec. Will he confirm that in other words he is proposing to give the separatist government of Quebec a constitutional veto over the Constitution of Canada?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I have never seen so little respect for democracy in my life.
We are giving a veto. The veto is ours. We say we will not impose on the people of Quebec or the people of Canada an amendment to the Constitution that does not have the consensus of Quebec, Ontario, the west and the east. This Parliament will decide and we will establish the conditions.
However, we have this notion that suddenly a great friend of the leader of the third party is the leader of the Bloc Quebecois. They used to have breakfast together; now we see them in the same bed. Now to see him disappear is a bit disappointing. The reality is there is a legitimate government in Quebec and it exists according to the Constitution of Canada.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, through his initiative announced yesterday, the Prime Minister is offering Quebec a mere resolution of this House, in which the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society is simply a symbolic recognition of an actual situation. They are telling Quebec that it is distinct but, in fact, this changes nothing in terms of power.
Will the Prime Minister admit that his proposed distinct society resolution will give Quebec no special status or additional powers?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society should eventually be enshrined in the Canadian Constitution, and the courts will interpret it as they see fit. We in the government cannot make decisions that are up to the courts. For the moment we have instructed the Canadian Parliament, the executive branch of Canada's government, to take this reality into account. This is indeed a
reality that we hope this Parliament will recognize, and we will soon vote on it.
If the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois want this to be recognized in the Constitution, we will start talking. We have already spoken with the provinces and, as I said yesterday, I am sure that, if the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois want recognition as a distinct society to be enshrined in the Constitution, the provinces will be happy to oblige, because, like me, they want Quebec to remain a part of Canada.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, this, however, is different from the Meech Lake accord, which required the courts to interpret the Constitution in light of Quebec's distinctiveness. We are nowhere near there. We are still dealing with the deflated Meech Lake balloon as seen by the Prime Minister in 1990, when he killed the proposed reform. And he knows it.
Does the Prime Minister share the opinion of his minister-
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, could the Deputy Prime Minister stop shouting?
Renewal Of Canadian FederalismOral Question Period
The Speaker
I would ask the hon. member to put his question.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
I was getting to it, Mr. Speaker.
Does the Prime Minister share the opinion of his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and chairman of his phoney committee to save Canada, to the effect that the proposed recognition as a distinct society does not in itself involve new powers for Quebec?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, what has always surprised me is that all PQ members in the National Assembly voted against Meech. Every last one of them.
It happened when the Leader of the Opposition decided to turn his back on his friend, the then Prime Minister, to oppose the Meech Lake agreement. I myself was not even a member of this House at the time, so I do not know why I am being blamed for so many things. Of course, it is easy to make accusations. The hon. member should ask Mr. Parizeau and the other PQ members then sitting in the National Assembly why they voted against Meech.
Today, I want to correct this whole situation and give Bloc members an opportunity to vote for the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society. We will see in a few days what they will do.
Jane Stewart Liberal Brant, ON
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
Last weekend I met with constituents in my riding of Brant to begin our prebudget consultations. Among many, many topics of interest my electors registered their continuing concern about the underground economy and its impact on our ability to manage the deficit.
What has the minister done to date to control the leakage of millions of dollars in revenue into the underground economy?
David Anderson LiberalMinister of National Revenue
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question and also for the consistent support she has given to making the tax system more efficient and fair over the last two years.
In fact, it is two years ago this week that I announced a series of major initiatives to attack the underground economy. They are specifically: more co-operation with the provinces, including agreements on exchange of information; more co-operation with industry associations, again with respect to information and also assistance in our efforts; more service for ordinary Canadian taxpayers; more publicity for people who unfortunately break the law. I am happy to say these have resulted in substantial improvements on the revenue side. Over those two years these specific measures have totalled $1.1 billion of revenue that would otherwise not have been collected.
Deborah Grey Reform Beaver River, AB
Mr. Speaker, when Canadians buried the Charlottetown accord six feet under, I thought I had seen the last of the elitist backroom boys, but I was wrong. The Liberals have even one upped the Tories.
The sum total of this Prime Minister's consultation process was this: an interim report from the national unity dream team; a couple of heart to hearts with the dynamic duo of Pelletier and Goldenberg; a few quick phone calls to the premiers; and a last minute briefing of his very own caucus.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Why were the Canadian people, the people and not the governments, left out of the process again? Will the people have a direct say on his government's Quebec package?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada were very happy that we participated in the
referendum and helped to win it. At that time we were being attacked daily by the Reform Party rather than receiving its help.
The people of Canada want us to get back to job creation and growth. The people of Canada want the Prime Minister of Canada who speaks for all Canadians to deliver on the goods he promised in Montreal the week before the referendum.
Deborah Grey Reform Beaver River, AB
Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada will be begging the question, why in the world did he bring this up yesterday afternoon? Why do we not get on with job creation? Let us do it.
The Prime Minister's style is often likened to that of Louis St. Laurent but I think Louis XIV maybe is more like it. The Prime Minister did not consult with Canadians. He did not consult with the premiers. He did not even properly consult with his own caucus who are watching this show today before announcing the Quebec package. They know it and we know it. They have been talking to us. What is worse is that the government does not trust the Canadian people to give them the final word on these measures.
Will the government commit today to a free vote in the House of Commons on its proposals? Will it then give the Canadian people a direct and final say on the Quebec package?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, we made this proposition because we made a commitment on behalf of all Canadians one week before the referendum to do something. This is extremely important after what the Canadian people said at that time. Thousands of Canadians came from across the land to say to the people of Quebec that they want Quebec to remain in Confederation. They want to keep this country together.
The people of Canada want the Prime Minister to deliver the goods. He will do that and quickly.