Debates of Sept. 29th, 1995

Quebec Referendum

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, we never asked that the House be adjourned. We were immediately delighted to learn that we could talk with the Prime Minister every day and converse about the future of our respective options and we will be here every day until the end.

We wanted to add to what we already have, because we only have a few seconds, which go by too quickly for my liking. I think that Canadians know full well that a question period, however practical it may be, does not provide the depth that a debate, a real intellectual confrontation on the things opposing us can give.

I think we would learn a lot more, because, had we not had the opportunity to see the Prime Minister for a number of weeks, we would not have known, for example, that he is refusing to recognize a democratic yes vote and we would not have known that he is preparing to slash the old age pensions of those approaching 65 years of age. We are learning things. The more we talk to him, the more we learn.

So we ask him, one last time, to agree to come, as the Prime Minister of Canada, and face those who do not think the way he does on television, live, for an hour and a half.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am answering all the questions here throughout the entire referendum debate. There is a leader of the Yes side, his name is Mr. Parizeau; there is a leader of the No side, his name is Mr. Johnson. The two of them reached an agreement on a debate. Mr. Johnson wants to have a debate with Mr. Parizeau. I have a debate with the Leader of the Opposition, here, every day. They try to frighten people every day, but if people want to live in Quebec and want to keep the security they currently enjoy in Quebec, the best solution, which involves no fear at all, is to vote no and stay in Canada.

The old age pensions will go on being paid out and Quebecers will be treated exactly like all other Canadians in unemployment insurance and old age pension matters. We have nothing to hide, but the Leader of the Opposition, instead of telling Quebecers why he wants to separate, used a new term today-sovereignty-partnership-to try once again to hide the truth. They will invent another one soon, more change, more illusion. Let them say the truth: "We want to separate from Canada". Quebecers want to stay in Canada and they will say so. This is what they will say in the vote on October 30.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, we live in a democracy, and democracy needs enlightened opinion. One of the most crucial moments in any electoral or referendum campaign is when the protagonists with the highest

profile meet face to face before the public and debate the merits of their options for an hour and a half or two hours.

Could it be, as Canada and Quebec face their destiny and as the people of Quebec make a fundamental decision, that the Prime Minister of Canada, the defender of Canadian unity, is afraid of his option to the point of refusing to take part in a televised debate of an hour and a half?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, in 32 years, this is the first time I have been accused of being afraid. Really! I have had debates with the Leader of the Opposition, I have a debate with him every day. Had I been afraid, I would simply have asked you, Mr. Speaker, not to recall us in September. I was the one who insisted we be here, to give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity, on television, every day, to tell Quebecers why he wants to separate Quebec from Canada.

And again today, he used another little term. What was it again?

[An hon. member]

Sovereignty-partnership.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

Ah yes, sovereignty-partnership. Another word, another change, another pirouette. Why not have the courage to say that you are separatists and we shall see clear results on October 30.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we learned that we had to thank the Prime Minister for our right to sit in this House and, today, that we should thank him for summoning Parliament.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

He thinks he showed courage by summoning Parliament. But that is his job.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Since the Prime Minister used all kinds of tricks to avoid answering the question directly, I will go back to the same issue.

I will go back to the same issue and ask him, quite sincerely and honestly, on behalf of the people of Quebec, on behalf of those who want to know what he has to offer the people of Quebec when he is asking them to vote No, would the Prime Minister be willing to take part in a debate with his boss, the leader of the No forces, and the leader of the Yes side, the Premier of Quebec, as the Leader of the Opposition offered him? Will he agree to explain his own proposal to the people of Quebec?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I rise every day in this House. I am not the one who passed the referendum bill.

The Quebec government's referendum bill names Mr. Parizeau as the leader of the Yes side. He is the one who challenged the leader of the No side, Mr. Johnson, to a debate. This challenge was accepted by Mr. Johnson, the legitimate leader of the Yes side, who is doing a terrific job. He agreed to a debate with Mr. Parizeau. Mr. Parizeau is now trying to get out of it. I myself face the Leader of the Opposition every day, and I am very seldom here on Fridays. But I am here today. I am still the Prime Minister of Canada with all the problems of a prime minister, but I take whatever time is needed to be in the House of Commons every day. Mr. Johnson is eager to meet with the leader of the Yes side, Mr. Parizeau, but clearly Mr. Parizeau is not eager to meet with Mr. Johnson.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister not agree that Mr. Parizeau, the Premier of Quebec, wants to speak with the real boss, the one who can provide answers on cuts in social programs, on the proposal that he is now hiding but that we know he has in mind? Does the Prime Minister not agree that he should participate in this debate because he will be the one shaping tomorrow's country if Quebecers dare to vote No?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I do so every day in this House, and I am not trying to avoid my responsibilities in any way. We are answering the questions. The Minister of Finance gave an important speech this week. Other ministers are criss-crossing Quebec to answer questions. I myself will be in Quebec on several occasions until the referendum. However, under the referendum bill, the leader of the No side is not me but Mr. Johnson, who, as I said earlier, is doing a terrific job. I think it is obvious that, for the first time in his life, Mr. Parizeau has lost his self-confidence. This surprises me, however, because it is unlike him. He should nonetheless have the courage to face Mr. Johnson. In the meantime, the Leader of the Opposition may find the courage to tell Quebecers that he is a separatist. I myself am here and I-

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

You are afraid of Parizeau.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

It is obvious that Mr. Parizeau needs Mr. Bouchard, because he has lost his confidence. Mr. Johnson is quite capable of defending himself.

I face the Leader of the Opposition every day in this House, and he has not yet given us a single good reason why Quebec should separate from Canada.

The Economy

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in the last election campaign the government ran on a policy of creating jobs and growth. This year there have been absolutely no new jobs and today's GDP figures confirm there has been no economic growth this year.

Since the Minister of Finance has failed to deliver on his promised financial and economic statement what is it exactly that he intends to do?

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

Mr. Speaker, as is so often the case, the basis for the question is without foundation.

Within the first year of our taking office this country created over 430,000 jobs. Since November of last year there have been over 230,000 new jobs created in the private sector.

Yes it is true there have been job losses in the public sector at the federal, provincial and municipal levels. I find it surprising the Reform Party would not point out that this is because governments are cutting their spending. There is a lot less job loss in the public sector than there would have been if the slash and burn policies of the Reform Party had been brought in.

We came into office intending to reverse the terrible destructive policies of the previous government, a government this member worked for. We have done it and the Canadian economy is now well poised for long term sustainable growth.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I left the Conservative Party in 1986 because of economic policies such as this minister's. It is surprising that it has taken him ten years to figure it out.

Yesterday investment dealer Wood Gundy released a scathing indictment of the government's policies on jobs and growth. According to the report, we have "experienced the weakest recovery in domestic spending in the post-war period because of high taxes and tax increases".

Would the Minister of Finance agree the country needs fiscal policies that allow for tax relief in the next budget?

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

Mr. Speaker, when reading these studies the hon. member should read them all.

It is very clear that as a major exporting country we are affected by the declines in the economies of Japan and the United States. That is obviously going to affect us.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say they sound like a cow herd in heat.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Only you would know.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is parliamentary.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the minister should not display to us his lack of knowledge of the beef industry.

It is domestic spending that has not recovered since 1991 because federal and provincial government tax increases have pulled more than $12 billion out of the pockets of consumers, an additional $155 for every Canadian every single year.

Will the government admit that it has increased taxes because it has only rolling deficit targets instead of a firm date for deficit elimination?

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

Mr. Speaker, to refer back to the study, the tax increases that led to that $12 billion the member referred to occurred under the previous government, of which he was a very ardent worker until he decided to skip town.

This government, in its first budget and in its second budget, did not increase personal taxes one iota. The tax increases, of which there were 39, occurred under the previous government.

I am quite proud to say I do have a beef herd, so when I hear the Reform Party I sure as heck know what a cow herd in heat sounds like.

Government Subsidies

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Yesterday, in response to one of my questions, the Minister of Human Resources Development stated that he would agree to support a youth project in his riding if I would vote no in the October 30 referendum. He said and I quote "I am very pleased to say that I would certainly like to give him the assurance of supporting that project if he can give me the assurance of supporting the no vote on October 30".

Does the Prime Minister not find it indecent that his minister of human resources development is formally tying funding to organizations in my area to my political opinion?