House of Commons Hansard #142 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was work.
Preston Manning ReformLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, the changes that are impressive to Quebec are demands for change outside Quebec.
The Calgary declaration, the premiers' proposals for improving the social union, the official opposition's new Canada act and the Alberta Senate election all represent healthy demands from outside Quebec to change the federation.
By telling Quebeckers that reform of the federation is not an option, is the Prime Minister slamming the door on all of these other initiatives for change?
Stéphane Dion LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister never said that reform of the federation is not an option.
We are improving the federation again and again, and we are still waiting for constructive solutions from the Reform Party.
Preston Manning ReformLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, the impression the Prime Minister gave by his remarks over the weekend was that the federation is not open to change.
What the Prime Minister should be telling Quebeckers is that there is a positive demand for change outside Quebec and that Quebeckers do not have to decide between the status quo and sovereignty.
Will the minister help the Prime Minister to get his foot out of his mouth and tell Quebeckers today that reform of the federation is a viable option for the future?
Stéphane Dion LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, what is a good option is certainly the improvement of the federation.
The federation has been improved by this government, especially during the last years, as never in the past. I have cited federal spending powers. There has also been quite an improvement in many files like mining, forest development, tourism, social housing, job training agreements, the national child benefit system, environmental and health programs, the constitutional amendment for Quebec—
Quebec ElectionOral Question Period
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
The hon. member for Edmonton North.
Deborah Grey Reform Edmonton North, AB
Mr. Speaker, on Saturday the Prime Minister told La Presse how he really feels about APEC and I quote:
This is a marginal issue. If you want to know my opinion as to whether this is a big problem, BAH! This is a marginal problem. I knew the police could do their job and the police did its job. If they went too far, people will see. They think Carle spoke to police and it's possible that he did. I hope he did. I don't know. Jean Carle will testify. Nobody was hurt and police even offered towels to the protesters to wipe their eyes. I can't testify because they didn't ask me to testify.
Could someone over there please tell us what in the world this means?
Andy Scott LiberalSolicitor General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, what this means is that there is a process in place, the Public Complaints Commission.
That process was designed by parliament in 1988 to deal with matters such as this incident and that is exactly what it is doing.
Deborah Grey Reform Edmonton North, AB
Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general knows now that the process has been blown out of the water.
The federal court is looking into Gerald Morin's case right now and his comments at a casino, which is more than it is doing for the solicitor general.
This whole commission has been tainted. The students and the RCMP say that they no longer trust the process. The Prime Minister and the solicitor general seem to be the only ones who are pleased about this. Again we say “bah”.
When is the government going to shut down this sham and call for a full investigation, a judicial inquiry to look into the Prime Minister's role in the APEC scandal?
Andy Scott LiberalSolicitor General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, as I said, the Public Complaints Commission is the master of its own procedure.
Allegations were made. The public complaints commission is the appropriate organization or agency in which to take action. They did and it referred the matter to the federal court and that is where we stand.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, over the weekend, the Prime Minister boasted that all of Quebec's traditional demands had been satisfied.
Yet, as far as we know, none of the governments that have succeeded each other in Quebec since 1982, none of the major provincial political parties, none of our leaders, whether federalist or sovereignist, think that Quebec should sign the 1982 Constitution.
If indeed it is “Mission accomplished”, as the Prime Minister said, can the Deputy Prime Minister explain how come not one of the governments, parties, leaders and—
The ConstitutionOral Question Period
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
The hon. Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs.
Stéphane Dion LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is totally committed to continuing to improve our federation, in partnership with the provinces and with the deepest respect for their jurisdictions and priorities.
In fact, my recently appointed counterpart in Quebec recently bragged about how much this federation had improved these past few years.
It would be even better if Quebec was led by a government that believes in Canada instead of one bent on breaking it up.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the minister that the agreements on immigration, manpower and school boards were entered into with sovereignist governments, because these governments are dedicated to looking after the interest of Quebec. They were not mere puppets.
How can the minister explain the Prime Minister's “mission accomplished” statement, when not one single political leader in Quebec—not Lucien Bouchard, Mario Dumont or Jean Charest—is prepared to sign the 1982 Constitution? If everything is so rosy, why are they not signing?
Stéphane Dion LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers who want to improve the Canadian federation, including its Constitution, would do well to vote for the Liberals and Jean Charest, and certainly not for Lucien Bouchard and the Parti Quebecois, who have no desire to improve this federation. Their only desire is to break it up.
Pierre Brien Bloc Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, in addition to telling us that he had met all Quebec's traditional demands, the Prime Minister told us that his ministers would be giving the Liberal Party of Quebec a hand during the upcoming election.
When the federal ministers are campaigning for Jean Charest in Quebec, will they be telling voters that all Quebec's traditional demands have now been met?
Stéphane Dion LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Quebec, the leader of the Parti Quebecois, said on the weekend that we had better watch out for a freeze.
The only freeze we are watching out for, apart from the usual winter one soon to begin, is the four-year freeze on referendums that would set in if his government were re-elected.
Pierre Brien Bloc Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
When he is out canvassing, will the minister be offering people an explanation of the position taken by his leader, the Prime Minister, who says that everything has been sorted out, or the position of their protégé, Jean Charest, who says it has not? Which position will he be explaining to voters?
Stéphane Dion LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister never said that everything has been sorted out. The Prime Minister wants to move forward and improve the federation.
We are pleased to note, I might add, that the provincial Liberal Party leader's goals are the same as ours. He wants to improve the federation and bring about a better social and economic union. In co-operation with other Canadians, we Quebeckers have built a country that is the envy of the world and we will continue to improve it.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, the government continues to stonewall the APEC inquiry. It has delayed the proceedings. It has attacked the chair of the public complaints panel. Now it has filed five exemption certificates to suppress relevant documentary evidence.
We got into this mess in the first place to save embarrassment to an Indonesian dictator. Is this latest tactic not just to save embarrassment to a Canadian prime minister? Is that not the real truth?
Andy Scott LiberalSolicitor General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times, in 1988 this place, parliament, decided how we would choose in this country to deal with complaints by Canadian citizens against the RCMP. Once that process is commenced by a complainant it is the master of its own procedure.
Anything that we might do to affect that outcome would be completely inappropriate. It would be inexcusable and we will not do it.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general has made my point exactly. If we cannot get the documents we cannot get the truth.
Why is the government forcing the students who have been denied legal funding to go to court to try to pry the government's veil of secrecy off? When so many of the documents relating to Suharto are suppressed, how can anyone believe that this government wants to get to the truth of the matter?
Andy Scott LiberalSolicitor General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, counsel to the commission has been provided all the documents that have been requested.
Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB
Mr. Speaker, this government appears to be gouging Canadian workers and employers through excessive EI taxes. Combined CPP and EI premiums under this government have brought payroll taxes to their highest level in history. The current EI act allows premiums to come down significantly.
Is the government planning to introduce legislation to block the EI premium cut required under the current law?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, our payroll taxes in this country are substantially below the OECD average. They are below the United States.
In fact, each and every year since we have taken office we have reduced EI premiums. We reduced those premiums by $1.5 billion in the last mandate.
I must say that in the last three years of the Tory regime each and every year those premiums went up.
Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB
Mr. Speaker, the minister knows very well that the previous government froze EI premiums at $3 for 1993 and that it was under his government that they rose to $3.07. The minister may want to hide behind his selective memory, but he cannot run away from the fact that he and his government are trying to play fast and loose with billions of dollars that belong to Canadian workers and employers.
When will the minister do the right thing and cut EI premiums to $2 so Canadian workers can put the money in their pockets and employers can take that money and create more jobs for our people?