Debates of May 14th, 1996

Referendums

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if we follow the Prime Minister's logic, Quebec ought to ask all the provinces in Canada for permission to determine its own future. Just imagine. The refusal of a single province, Newfoundland for example, could block the will of the majority of Quebecers.

My question is as simple as can be. Is the Prime Minister aware that, with his new provocative constitutional strategy, he is seeking to encroach on Quebecers' right to decide their future for themselves, their fundamental right?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we have no objections to hearing what Quebecers want. We have had two referendums. We have been involved in them, I personally in both. But there is one reality: both times the people of Quebec came out in favour of remaining in Canada.

But, like the Parti Quebecois, the Bloc Quebecois refuses to acknowledge this expression of Quebecers' will. They do not want to accept the choice of the people. Saying they are not pleased with the outcome, they want to start all over.

This is not a hockey playoff here. It is not three out of five, or four out of seven. The will of the people must be respected and the will of the people is that they want us to have a renewed federalism, and this we are prepared to do. It is our hope that the Bloc Quebecois, like the Parti Quebecois, will be prepared to help us renew Canadian federation.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all of Quebec, federalists and sovereignists alike, is hit head on by the government's plan B, its hard line of confrontation with the Government of Quebec.

How can the Prime Minister claim that, for him, the 1982 Constitution-one that was never signed by Quebec, remember-can take priority over democracy?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, if you want to talk about the supremacy of democracy, start by respecting democracy after two Quebec referendums.

Instead of using a straight question, there was a so-called winning question, yet even with that they lost. That is the democratic reality. What the people of Quebec want, like Canadians at this time, is for us to work together to renew the Canadian Constitution.

I have referred to this in my speech. We will be making considerable changes, and I trust the Bloc Quebecois will at least be objective enough to look at our proposals. Of course they will never be satisfied, since they want separation, but that is not what Quebecers want.

National Unity

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it has been almost seven months since the Quebec referendum and the government still has not presented us with a national unity plan.

Special cabinet committees have been struck. There is a new minister. The Prime Minister has made vague pronouncements about the future, but still no substantive plan.

Yesterday the Prime Minister said he will be putting serious offers for constructive change in the federation on the table at the forthcoming first ministers' conference.

What exactly are those serious offers of constructive change that the Prime Minister will be putting before the premiers in June?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third party has only to read the speech from the throne where we said very clearly that we want to withdraw the federal government from manpower training. We have talked about other sectors where we should withdraw.

Also, we have said that we have to work to make sure that the economic union in Canada functions better. We have talked about a national securities commission to simplify the movement of capital within Canada and the entry of capital from abroad. We have proposed other initiatives, in food inspection for example.

We want to have a package that will make Canada function better; it is too bad that I will have to send a copy of the speech from the throne to the leader of the third party.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if he thinks that food inspection is going to unite the country, the Prime Minister is living on another planet.

If one picks through the various announcements that come from the government, there are about five things in things in this supposed package. There are the proposals for administrative disentanglement. There are some token decentralization proposals. There is the veto proposal, the distinct society proposal and limited curtailment of federal spending powers.

If that is all there is, then the Prime Minister has misread the fundamental desire for substantial change in the rest of the country, just as he misread the desire for change within Quebec prior to the referendum.

Can the Prime Minister not offer Canadians and the provincial premiers something more substantive for revitalizing the federation?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I gave a long list. I mentioned the spending powers of the federal government.

We have quite a project and a plan when I compare it with the plan of the Reform Party. Probably the desire of the Reform Party is to be left with no Canada. For me, I want a government in Ottawa that can operate for the benefit of all Canadians and give enough autonomy for the provinces to make sure that they serve their citizens in the way they should.

I have a long list. I have discussed it with the premiers. I hope that everybody will look at this list seriously. If everything is rejected before negotiations start, we will go nowhere. It is why the Reform Party is really going nowhere these days.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister says to the premiers in June what he has just said to this House, if that is all he has to say about revitalizing the federation, he should call off the conference because it will be counterproductive.

I ask the Prime Minister again: Can he produce a substantive national unity plan prior to the June meetings with the premiers and if he can, will he table it and present it in this House?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we have a plan. The plan will be presented to the premiers in June. The plan is an extremely important one.

I remember all the people in the previous encounter. It makes me laugh when the leader of the third party gets up. He voted against the Charlottetown plan. Today he gets up and complains because senators are not elected. He rejected that. He could not understand that if you want to do everything at the same time you go nowhere.

For us, we will do what can be done today, tomorrow, or next year. Canada will be changed. Rather than having only speeches and conferences as we have had for the last 10 years, there is going to be action in June.

Somalia Inquiry

[Jean-Marc Jacob, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

We learn today that apparently at least five soldiers from the Canadian Armed Forces not only witnessed the torture of a Somali youth who was beaten to death, but did not come to his assistance or even try to stop the massacre. Worse yet, we learn that after these events, these soldiers apparently even obtained promotions.

How can the defence minister justify the fact that these soldiers, who did not even have the decency to try to stop the torture and assassination of a Somali youth, received promotions in the Canadian Armed Forces?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that under the National Defence Act that was passed by Parliament in 1952, all the power over promotions, up to and including the rank of colonel, was delegated by order in council to the chief of the defence staff, not the minister.

This minister, as other ministers, does not interfere in the promotion process in the armed forces.

I understand that a number of promotions were held in abeyance while various legal proceedings were taking place. Subsequently, some of these promotions have been allowed to proceed while others are still in abeyance, which is in accordance with normal procedure.

[Jean-Marc Jacob, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not asking the minister to tell me about the normal promotion procedure in the armed forces, nor am I asking him to hide behind normal procedures in an affair as out of the ordinary as Somalia. I ask the minister what sort of message he thinks he is sending to the public, with all the events surrounding this unfortunate inquiry?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not hiding behind any rules. I am obeying the law. The hon. member should

understand that. There is a law that governs the activities of the Canadian Armed Forces. It is quite explicit. Any minister, any member of Parliament and any Canadian citizen must obey the law.

Liberal Party

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Sun's Christie Blatchford recently wrote for the benefit of the Liberal government: ``Integrity is like virginity. Once lost you cannot get it back again''. Clearly the government lost both a long time ago.

When the Prime Minister said in the last election that he would fulfil every promise he made during the election, did he mean only those he could not weasel out of with billion dollar payoffs? Where is the government's integrity now?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we keep our promises. I will give the member an example. His party is always telling us that we should have free votes in the House of Commons.

When there was a free vote last week members of his party were all forced to vote the way their leader wanted them to vote. These are members of a party that said it would be a new type of Parliament for them. They were so civilized that their leader was in the last row at the beginning. He has now moved to the first row and they throw books on the floor.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is very encouraging that the Prime Minister is proud of having one free vote in two and a half years. Maybe we are getting somewhere.

It states in the red book: "The erosion of confidence seems to have many causes. Some have to do with the behaviour of certain elected politicians". That would be Sheila Copps who is now campaigning in the bye bye election and the Prime Minister who is obviously in denial.

Since the entire world knows the GST promise has been blown to high heaven, why is the Prime Minister arrogantly denying that he bamboozled Canadians and reneged on his solemn election promise?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the member should just go to his office and read page 22 of the red book. He will see that we are doing what we said we would do. It is very clear.

Young Canada Works Program

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Operation Propaganda continues at the Department of Canadian Heritage. Today, it is young people they want to indoctrinate as part of Operation "National Unity". One of the questions on the form to be filled out by young people interested in the Young Canada Works Program asks them to write a 250-word essay on what Canada means to them.

Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage recognize that this question is aimed at selecting young people on the basis of their political views?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, as the last federal budget clearly shows, we made a decision to promote employment among young people. We doubled the budget for young people this summer. That is the intention of this government and that is why we have specific programs to help our young people find jobs this summer.

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have nothing against encouraging young people. However, since that question infringes on the most basic of individual rights, the freedom of speech, will the minister withdraw this questionnaire from circulation and order that all the responses received so far be destroyed?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, who says we are curtailing the freedom of expression in this country? Since when? Young people in Canada and Quebec are totally free to express their views, and we want things to stay that way.

Government Expenditures

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Mr. Speaker, CIDA contracts over $100,000 require ministerial approval. CIDA's bidding process, approved by Treasury Board, requires that there be no regional partiality in contracting. However, 71 per cent of the dollar value of the top 20 service contracts signed in 1995 are going to entities in Quebec.

Can it be shown in the face of these numbers that CIDA is giving fair consideration to companies outside Quebec, or did regional distribution requirements acquire flexibility because of the 1995 referendum?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister for International Cooperation is not here, I can assure the hon. member that the work of CIDA is subject to exactly the same rules as all government agencies, that is, to ensure proper tendering, proper bidding and evaluating on merit.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Mr. Speaker, CIDA makes contributions to universities, countries and international institutions. With all the deserving organizations in Canada and abroad it is a bit surprising that two Quebec universities received the two top bilateral contributions in 1995, with a combined value of over $42 million. That is a lot of pork.

Is CIDA still an international development agency or has it become a regional development agency to buy Liberal votes in Quebec?