Debates of Feb. 16th, 1998

Heritage Day

[Denis Paradis, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is Citizenship and Heritage Week, and February 16 is Heritage Day, but Canadian values and traditions can and should be celebrated daily throughout the year.

If we were to try to give a simple definition of heritage, we could say that it is everything that is passed on to us by preceding generations and that we wish to pass on to our children. It is our culture, our traditions, our customs, and the natural environment.

Canadians have many reasons to be proud. We have two official languages, two main cultures, and complementary legal systems. Our rights and freedoms are unequalled and we are making energetic efforts to combat racism and discrimination.

That is what our nation and its founding peoples are all about. That is Canada.

National Unity

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, today's convening of the supreme court hearings on the question of Quebec's unilateral declaration of independence proved once and for all that the Liberal government is void of positive solutions for Canada's unity problem.

The Liberal government, with the support of the Reform Party's legion of doom and gloom, has asked the Supreme Court of Canada to lay down the law on what is clearly a political question. Which difficult political question will the Liberals refer next to the supreme court, the fiscal dividend, employment, health care or Iraq?

This reckless referral to the supreme court gives separatists yet another weapon to hammer the cause of national unity. By abdicating their basic responsibility, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs are simply parroting the divisive line of Reform. The government must instead display vision and necessary political steps to ensure that all Canadians are unified into the 21st century.

Parliament Of Canada

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, 1998 is the 150th anniversary of responsible government in Canada. In 1848 Messrs Baldwin and Lafontaine told the governor general of that time that now the Parliament of Canada and the people of Canada would be responsible for their government, not a foreign monarchy.

Therein lies the doctrine of the supremacy of Parliament, the ultimate creator of law in this country. Two developments have eroded that doctrine and will, if unchallenged, deform the notion that Parliament is supreme. The first is party politics, the second charter phobia. The discipline of party politics grants to the winning party the right to govern. In most instances it works with an informed opposition.

In 1982 Parliament gave the courts the right to review legislation pursuant to the charter. This has the unfortunate consequence of parliamentary deferral to courts where deferral should not necessarily occur. A lawsuit is a very crude instrument. There is a winner and there is a loser. There is a limited view of the issue.

There is no ability to nuance the issue like a legislative instrument. The year 1998 should be the year that parliament reviews that doctrine.

National Unity

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, today the supreme court begins its hearings into whether Quebec can secede unilaterally under Canadian or international law.

The separatists and some muddle-headed federalists are saying that it is the democratic will of Quebeckers that needs to be respected, not the rule of law. The reality is that both have to be respected.

Why has the Prime Minister failed to make it crystal clear to Quebeckers, including his federalist allies in Quebec, that it is both the law and democratic consent that need to be respected?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we have made it very clear that we respect the possibility of the government's holding a referendum. It is a consultation.

We have to make sure that the law of the country is respected by everybody. We made that very clear in the House of Commons and in Quebec. Now that the court is looking into the case, we should let the lawyers argue and the judges decide.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, according to a recent poll, 88% of Quebeckers believe it is their vote and not the law that should decide Quebec's future. In other words, they have been led to believe that it is either

or. That is a false choice, like the false choice that prevailed before the last referendum when thousands of Quebeckers thought they could vote for separation and still enjoy all the benefits of being in the federation.

Why has the Prime Minister not done anything to counteract these false choices which are so dangerous to Canada and so dangerous to Quebec?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is exactly to make sure that everybody understands everything that we went in front of the court to ask it to rule now rather than have a ruling after the fact. It is better to know the system of law before a decision is made, not after.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, what the government needs to be doing besides pushing the supreme court reference is to put forward a plan A, a positive initiative to make the federation work better for everyone, including Quebec.

The plan A for which there is the most support inside and outside Quebec is a rebalancing of the federal and provincial powers, not tinkering with the powers as the government has done, but fundamentally rebalancing for the 21st century.

When is the Prime Minister going to give as much effort to developing a plan A for rebalancing the powers as his government has put into this plan B supreme court reference?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition had been listening he would have realized that in February 1996 we had a plan where we clearly said what had to be done.

That is why we have settled many of the grievances that existed before such as manpower training, which had been a problem for 30 years, the questions of mining, tourism, forestry and many others. We also settled the problem of the school boards in the House of Commons in December 1997.

We have taken a lot of steps to correct the grievances of the past.

There is one thing that is clear. We have to make sure that every citizen in Canada acts within the law of the land.

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on September 30, 1997 the Prime Minister said he would consider mailing a copy of the Calgary declaration to every household in Quebec once he had seen what was happening with the consultations in other provinces.

Canadians from all across this country have been consulted and have expressed their desire for a united Canada.

Will the Prime Minister now commit to consulting with all Quebeckers by mailing a copy of the Calgary declaration to every household in Quebec?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I said we have not discarded any option like the one suggested by the member.

As I said, I want all the provinces that have agreed on the Calgary declaration to proceed with a resolution in their legislatures. The majority have passed resolutions. We are waiting to see if they all will pass a resolution. I am very encouraged by the support the Calgary declaration is receiving in all the provinces that have decided to consult their people.

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians across the country, with the exception of Quebeckers, have been able to debate the Calgary declaration.

Why will the Prime Minister not commit to sending Quebeckers the Calgary declaration for them to debate? What is the problem? What is he afraid of?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, just to send the declaration is not necessarily consultation. We also need a mechanism for them to reply. The Reform Party did it on its own the other day. The technique it used was not that effective because it only received a 1% reply.

I do not think it is urgent at this time. This declaration has been signed by all the premiers. It is being done at the provincial level. It will be great when all the resolutions are in and at that time we will advise.

Reference To Supreme Court

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday Alain Pellet, President of the United Nations International Law Commission, made the following statement “You do not have the right to manipulate a jurisdiction in this way”.

How can the Prime Minister still maintain and justify the reference to the supreme court when his very intervention, even on the international level, is clearly perceived as a crude attempt at political manipulation?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, since 1867, provincial governments have had the right to make references to their provincial court of appeal, and the federal government has the same right with respect to the Supreme Court of Canada.

This is a mechanism which has been put in place, which exists, which is well recognized in law. Even citizens may exercise it in Quebec through a declaratory action, since it is sometimes very wise to seek the court's opinion before acting, rather than trying to pick up the pieces afterward.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of picking up the pieces afterward, the Prime Minister has been unsuccessfully trying to pick up pieces that have been lying around since 1982. He keeps on making the same mistakes.

Is the Prime Minister aware that, in his stubborn desire to impose his own view of national unity, he is putting an indelible blot on the credibility of the supreme court in the eyes of Canadians and of Quebeckers, and is seriously discrediting it in the eyes of all of the other countries in the world?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, these are the same people who, on two occasions—contrary to everything that is decent in democracy—when the people of Quebec had spoken freely, even though the question was a confused one, and decided to remain in Canada, have refused to accept the decision by the people of Quebec to remain in Canada. They still want to try one more time with a confused question in order to try to cloud the issue.

All we are asking is this: Be honest. Ask a clear question.

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

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

Alain Pellet, the lawyer who chairs the UN International Law Commission, stated yesterday that, on an issue like the reference, the answer of the International Court of Justice in the Hague would sound like this: “You are not in earnest, you are asking leading questions”.

How can the Prime Minister persist in asking the Supreme Court of Canada to rule on a political debate in Quebec?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, Alain Pellet has written and said many things, most of which would greatly embarrass the Bloc Quebecois. I will just ask that the Bloc show respect for the work being done by the court.

The court has work to do this week. Both sides will argue their case and all the noise and political uproar the Bloc can muster will not change a thing.

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

I understand why the Prime Minister is embarrassed to answer, Mr. Speaker?

Does the Prime Minister, who intensified the Canada-Quebec constitutional impasse in 1982 by unilaterally patriating the Constitution, not realize that by manipulating the Supreme Court of Canada as he has done, he is leading Quebec and Canada straight into another impasse?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the Quebec premier stated that he considered the justices of the supreme court to be honest magistrates, who have at heart one of the essential values underlying the operation of a court of law, that is to say judicial independence.

So, the Bloc should respect judicial independence.

Auto Pact

[Chris Axworthy, NDP, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. He knows, as do Canadians, that the auto industry in Canada comprises 325,000 direct and indirect jobs.

Just before the last federal election the present Minister of National Defence, when he was Minister for International Trade, confirmed that the government had no plans to eliminate one of the linchpins of the auto pact, the 7.3% tariff on new non-auto pact cars coming into Canada.

Will the minister confirm that there has been no flip-flop on the 7.3% tariff and that he has no intention of gutting the auto pact by eliminating this tariff?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that an automotive competitiveness policy review is under way at the present time. That consists of looking at quite a number of elements of competitiveness in this sector, tariffs being only one of them.

At the moment we are not anticipating any changes in the tariff rates other than those which are already scheduled in international agreements.

[Chris Axworthy, NDP, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the 325,000 Canadians who work in the auto industry need a clearer answer than that.

The 2.5% tariff on car parts has already been eliminated with no reciprocal deal from our partners irrespective of the departmental review.

Why will the minister not stand up for these workers, for the car industry in Canada, and save further embarrassment on the part of his Liberal colleagues from Windsor, Oakville, Oshawa and throughout southern Ontario? Will he stand up for the auto pact and the tariff today? Why will he not tell us that it is here to stay?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the NDP has finally found some virtue in international trade agreements. This time it is the auto pact.

Let me tell him we understand that not only are there a lot of jobs in this area but that one in six jobs in the province of Ontario depends on the automotive sector. It is a crucial sector for Canada. It is a crucial sector for Ontario. We are going to see that it gets stronger, not weaker.