Debates of May 15th, 1996

Referendums

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

Mr. Speaker, once again the Prime Minister has cast doubt-and once again we in this House have heard him do so-on one of the fundamental rules of democracy, one that is universally recognized. According to him, the rule of the absolute majority, 50 per cent plus 1, is not sufficient for the verdict of the people of Quebec to be accepted.

My question is a very simple one. Since the Prime Minister-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the government does not want to hear our questions, but hon. members could perhaps listen.

[The Speaker]

Your question please, dear colleague.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Since the Prime Minister is dismissing out of hand the 50 plus 1 rule, what percentage does he have in mind?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to see it clearly established that the rule of democracy must be respected. Two referendums were held in Quebec, and both were won by those who wish to remain within Canada.

Yesterday, in the National Assembly, Bloc Quebecois Central refused to vote in favour of an opposition resolution calling for recognition of the outcome of the last referendum. So who is it that is refusing to recognize democracy?

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

Mr. Speaker, are we to understand from the words of the Prime Minister that, in June, he intends to discuss with his provincial counterparts the percentage which the rest of Canada would deem acceptable to impose on Quebec for the next referendum?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

No, Mr. Speaker, because in my opinion today's debate arises out of the fact that the Government of Quebec has tabled a motion stating that, under certain circumstances, the Constitution of Canada would not apply. In this connection, the Minister of Justice was absolutely right. Not only was he right, but his mandate obliged him to come to the defence of the Constitution of Canada. We are not the ones who triggered the debate, the Government of Quebec did.

As for me, I have no intention of continuing it. My hope is to have a federal-provincial conference where we will be able to make a great deal of progress toward improved federalism. I hope to be able to meet with Mr. Bouchard as soon as possible, in order to discuss job creation and real problems, the real problems that exist in Montreal at this time. I was prepared to do so at his convenience, and still am, because the economic future of Quebecers is the issue closest to the heart of this government.

National Unity

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, at long last the Prime Minister has made it clear that the Constitution, the rule of law and the rights of all Canadians must be respected in any future attempt at secession.

If the Prime Minister had made that position crystal clear before the last referendum we probably would not be discussing it today. It is imperative that Quebecers and all Canadians know the ground rules and the stakes before another secession attempt.

Is the Prime Minister prepared to back up his statements yesterday with a motion in the House specifying the government's position on a unilateral declaration of independence and on the rules governing any future secession attempt?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the member of the third party said that right now the national unity thing is coming back.

He was the one in the House in September who told me one vote was enough to split Canada. I heard him many times. I want to say to the House of Commons that the rule of law will prevail in Canada. Canadian laws will be respected and international laws will be respected as well.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if one vote is not enough will the Prime Minister tell the House how many votes are enough?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, if ever we have a referendum in any province, I hope there will be discussion beforehand to make sure the rules are known by both sides.

If someone like the leader of the third party comes to me and tells me 50 per cent plus 1 is enough to break up Canada, I will tell him to go back home.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the trouble with the Prime Minister is he is not clear and precise on an issue desperately requiring clarity and precision.

If the Prime Minister says he is to rely on the rule of law in an unprecedented situation, he should translate his position into legislative acts and motions before the House.

Again, will he introduce a motion into the House, a solemn declaration affirming the people of Canada are free to determine their political destiny and that Parliament will not recognize a unilateral declaration of independence by any province?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the if the hon. member introduced a motion that a 50 per cent plus 1 vote would be enough to split Canada, I would vote against it. That is what he was arguing before.

My view is that at the moment there is no referendum. At the moment we are working to make sure there will be progress in the federation and that there will be no need for a referendum. This is exactly what I am trying to do and what I have been working on. I made it clear there will be a meeting in June to improve the federation.

The Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs has been travelling the land talking with premiers and ministers. I am also talking with them. There is goodwill in Canada to make progress on that, and with the collaboration of everybody we will make progress. However, it is quite evident the leader of the third party has no great interest in keeping Canada together.

Goods And Services Tax

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in 1991, Quebec acted in good faith and complied with the federal government's request to harmonize its sales tax with the GST. It did so without any compensation. By comparison, three maritime provinces will get a gift of $1 billion from the federal government, including $250 million paid by Quebec taxpayers.

How can the Minister of Finance explain that Quebec, which set an example of economic efficiency for the rest of Canada by harmonizing its sales tax with the GST, and which contributed to the smooth running of the Canadian economic and trade union, is being penalized, while provinces that had so far refused to harmonize their taxes are being rewarded?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, there is a formula to compensate provinces that will lose more than 5 per cent of their sales tax revenues. This is not the case for Ontario, British Columbia, or Alberta. It is not currently the case for Quebec either, and it was not in 1990 when it signed the harmonization agreement.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec harmonized its tax with the GST in 1991. Five years later, it is easy to say that it does not meet the requirements for compensation. It is easy to say so after the fact. But let us not forget that it was at the federal government's request that Quebec harmonized its tax. This is like inviting someone to dinner and making him pay, not only his own meal, but also that of the next table, since Quebec's contribution will amount to $250 million.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

This is the truth. It is terrible.

In order to be fair to Quebec, will the Minister of Finance pledge to pay to the Government of Quebec, as he is being asked by the province's deputy premier and minister of state for economy and finance, a fair compensation for having done its job before everyone else?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, we offered a compensation to all the provinces which, based on the formula, will lose money.

Quebec did not lose money this year and did not lose any the year it signed the agreement. It is exactly in the same position as Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. We will compensate the provinces that lost money.

The compensation formula is a cost sharing formula that will only be in effect for a transition period of four years. Again, Quebec is in the same situation as Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta.

National Unity

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wants Quebec to respect the results of the last two sovereignty referendums. Will the Prime Minister take a bit of his own advice and accept the defeat of distinct society in the last two constitutional accords?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we voted on this in the House in December.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I guess that is as good an answer as we get. It is obvious the Prime Minister once again has one standard for his actions and another standard for somebody else's; in this case Quebec's.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister told us, and I quote: "This is not a hockey playoff here. It is not three out of five, or four out of seven".

Is the distinct society clause a three out of five or a four out of seven?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I will have to analyse the complexity of the question.

Coast Guard

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

For several months now, the minister has been referring to the results of an impact study to justify his position on applying user fees to the coast guard. In a letter dated April 23 of this year, Christopher Wright, the author of the study, flatly contradicts the minister's assertions and says that it cannot be concluded from his study that the marine industry will be able to absorb the planned fee structure.

Both of them cannot be right. Either the minister has misinterpreted the study in question, or he has misrepresented the results. In either case, can he inform this House on what he is now basing himself in sticking to his decision?