House of Commons Hansard #274 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was jobs.
National UnityStatements By Members
The Speaker
My colleagues, just in case it has not been brought to your attention before, many times when we are on camera the other microphones pick up what is being said around the member who is speaking. I thought I should remind you of that.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, during Safe Driving Week and as the holiday season gets into full gear, I again feel obliged to remind my fellow citizens and my fellow members of the dangers that await us on the road.
We can never be too careful, and the slightest slip while at the wheel can lead to tragic consequences. The most sure way of protecting ourselves is by wearing our seatbelts. Hundreds of lives are saved in Canada every year by seatbelts, an encouraging figure, but not enough when some drivers are still not buckling up.
In speaking to you today about highway safety, I know of what I speak. About a year ago, I was involved in a head-on collision which could have cost me my life. I escaped the worst by being buckled up.
Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais Liberal Madawaska—Victoria, NB
Mr. Speaker, after hearing the statements under Standing Order 31 by Bloc members, who were complaining that it was not enough, and the Reform members who said it was too much, I would think that the Liberals were very much the happy medium.
Yesterday the Quebec Minister of Finance made a statement at a press conference to the effect that Quebec will be able to balance its budget thanks to increased payments from Ottawa, of all places. The equalization payment program and the Canada assistance plan have added $268 million to the federal transfer payments to Quebec this past year.
It is, however, deplorable that the minister took advantage of her press conference to seek to downplay the value of those programs by comparing them to poverty traps and taxes on development. If one had to apply the minister's logic to the insurance field, we would end up with a insurance plan that paid victims of accidents but to which people would stop contributing-
Transfer PaymentsStatements By Members
The Speaker
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but we must move on to oral questions.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, after watching the Prime Minister telling all and sundry that his resolution on Quebec's distinct identity would provide guidance for the government's actions and would produce tangible results, we saw the Prime Minister show his true colours on Wednesday, when, as if by magic, Quebec culture no longer existed.
Considering the spontaneity of his statement on Wednesday, Quebecers were not fooled by his about face the next day. They know exactly what the Prime Minister is thinking.
My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Considering that the government deliberately ignores the fact that Liberal members on the heritage committee are hunting down heretics who mention Quebec culture, does the Deputy Prime Minister realize that by doing nothing, the government has become an accomplice to this witch hunt?
Sheila Copps LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, I think that this week the Prime Minister explained very well the nature and importance of Quebec culture, especially for the survival of French culture in Canada. We are very much aware of that.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, it seems that the arts community, including Roch Demers, a diehard federalist who campaigned for the no side, does not understand the Prime Minister, or should I say, understands him too well.
Earlier the Prime Minister explained that he did not intervene in the case of the heritage committee because he respected freedom of speech. That is what he said yesterday.
What explanation does the Deputy Prime Minister have for the fact that in this case, the government respects freedom of speech, but when the Liberal member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce publicly challenged the Prime Minister, he was gagged by being forced to step down as chairman of the justice committee? Is there a double standard?
Sheila Copps LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, what I find rather surprising about the hon. member's attitude is that last week, the immigration critic attacked the Liberal government's immigration policy but remained silent about certain comments made by Mr. Bourbeau. So if he does not like certain comments, he should say so.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister surprises me. Perhaps she should realize that Mr. Bourbeau is not a member of the Bloc Quebecois and that the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, since we cannot refer to him by name, is a member of her party. It seems to me there is a difference, but perhaps it would be too much to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to make those distinctions.
Since a substantial majority of Quebecers feel that the offers made by this government are clearly inadequate, will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that Quebecers have seen through these so-called promises of change and will not be fooled by cosmetic changes like the resolution on distinct society, which in fact changes nothing because it does not say anything concrete or practical or even theoretical, when it comes down to it?
Sheila Copps LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, on the subject of criticizing the comments of others, I am still waiting for the members of the Bloc Quebecois to criticize what their own leader said about the role of women to bear white children in Quebec. That was never criticized by the Bloc members. When Liberal members make comments, at least we can say their leader did not decide to involve women in a policy to keep Canada white.
Maud Debien Bloc Laval East, QC
Mr. Speaker, recently the Minister of Canadian Heritage changed the legislation governing
his department. It now denies the existence of Quebec culture. Section 4(1) describes the minister's powers and clearly talks of a single Canadian identity and culture.
My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Given the government's claims that its resolution on Quebec's distinct nature will guide its actions, does the Minister of Canadian Heritage intend amending his department's legislation to contain reference to Quebec's culture?
Michel Dupuy LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, we will have an opportunity on Monday, at our next meeting, to speak to the existence of a Quebec identity and a Quebec cultural identity, before the House of Commons. At that point I will look to see whether my colleagues opposite rise in support of the uniqueness of Quebec culture. They may remain seated; I shall rise.
Maud Debien Bloc Laval East, QC
Mr. Speaker, we are now used to the minister's contorted answers, but I must say this last one was a real humdinger.
In refusing today to amend his legislation, is the minister not proving the emptiness of his government's motion on the distinct society and the fact that it is worth less than the paper it is written on?
Michel Dupuy LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, nothing could be clearer than a vote on a unique Quebec culture. I will see on Monday how my colleagues will vote in recognizing it. If they remain seated, it is because they do not recognize it. I will be voting in favour.
Stephen Harper Reform Calgary West, AB
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask about the unique culture of the Liberal government. Yesterday morning the government's veto bill, Bill C-110, gave two provincial premiers a veto over the Constitution. This morning it gives four provincial premiers a veto over the Constitution.
After limiting debate in the House on the first day of debate, after limiting committee hearings to two days and giving witnesses 24 hours notice, the government now informs us it wants to make a major change.
My question is for the intergovernmental affairs minister. Will the government admit that it should properly consult Parliament, affected parties, experts and Canadians and that the appropriate thing to do is to withdraw Bill C-110?
Sheila Copps LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, in fact the government was listening to the advice of the leader of the Reform Party, who only a few days ago in the House said that we should extend a veto to the fifth region and that the fifth region should be British Columbia.
Stephen Harper Reform Calgary West, AB
Mr. Speaker, if the government calls that listening, it was not listening very carefully. We suggested that it is the people of Canada who should have a say; the provinces already have a say.
The government has just made a major change to a one clause bill. It has admitted that there are unclear legal issues surrounding the bill and it may be challenged in court.
If the government will not withdraw Bill C-110, will the government at least commit to the House that it will not bring in further time allocation, not further limit debate and give Canadians a chance to consider these issues?
Sheila Copps LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, I want to restate the fact that when the leader of the third party gave advice to the House about the recognition of a fifth region for the purposes of a veto, a statement which he made on November 29, 1995, what the Prime Minister did was to respond to good advice from the leader of the third party.
Stephen Harper Reform Calgary West, AB
Mr. Speaker, this is an incredible exercise in the power of listening. I will say once again that what the Reform Party and the leader of the Reform Party said was that the government should consult the people of all the regions of Canada, not the legislatures and the premiers.
The government has come up with a new definition of unity: We are going to unite Canadians by getting them all against something at the same time. The bill has been rejected by the Government of Quebec and in polls of the people. It has been rejected by the Government of British Columbia, even with the change, and by the Government of Alberta. It has created a firestorm across the west. Aboriginal representatives say they were not consulted. The Government of Saskatchewan said it was not consulted.
Who exactly is it that the government believes it is pleasing with this legislation?
Sheila Copps LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment
Mr. Speaker, I fear that the hon. member from Alberta is suffering some political amnesia. In the last seven days, in the course of this debate, the leader of the third party rose in the House to speak on this issue. I would like to read what he said into the record because I think the hon. member from Alberta is now-
Sheila Copps Liberal Hamilton East, ON
-swallowing himself whole, to quote another member of the government.
The quote reads: "The government has not given priority whatsoever to the concerns and aspirations of British Columbia, the third most populous province in the country. B.C. is not recognized by the government as a region in its own right. The government is prepared to recognize Quebec as a distinct society. When is the government prepared to recognize B.C. as an important province of Canada?"
That is why the Prime Minister, following good advice which he received from the leader of the third party and good advice which he received from members of the Liberal caucus and others, has amended the bill to make it a better bill.
Gaston Leroux Bloc Richmond—Wolfe, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
On December 22, 1994, the heritage minister and his industry colleague issued a joint press release stating that a bill to amend the copyright legislation would be tabled in the House as early as possible in the new year.
Could the heritage minister confirm that the copyright bill will indeed be tabled before the December 15 adjournment, that is to say within the next seven days?
Michel Dupuy LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, our colleague does not like to be kept in suspense. I indicated that the bill in question was on a critical path. It still is, and it is making headway. In due course, the bill will be tabled in the House.
Gaston Leroux Bloc Richmond—Wolfe, QC
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the minister is the one on a critical path.
Does the minister not realize that, according to the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, this regulatory vacuum resulted in losses of $300 million this year because of private copying and that his inaction is sending the message that the future of our artists is a matter of supreme indifference to him?
