Debates of Feb. 17th, 1998

The Economy

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, that is the problem, the Prime Minister talks and that is it. He does not do anything.

Since the Liberals came to power the take home pay of the average Canadian family has dropped by $3,000. Tuition is up 45% for the students the government is so passionately concerned about. Student debt has tripled and unemployment for young people is at record levels.

Instead of creating another band-aid for publicity purposes, why does the Prime Minister not stabilize health and education funding and give Canadians debt reduction and tax relief?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister inherited a deficit of $42 billion. It is going down.

The Prime Minister inherited a country which had interest rates 200 to 300 basis points above the Americans and now they are 200 basis points below.

The Prime Minister inherited a country where productivity was declining. Now it is on the rise.

If the leader of the Reform Party wants to talk about tax cuts, why is he prepared to cut taxes and pay for that by cutting health care, education, old age pensions and equalization payments? Why is the leader of the Reform Party prepared to cut taxes for the rich on the backs—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Medicine Hat.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that answer was slightly ironic, coming from the finance minister who cut health care transfers by 35% or $7 billion.

Today's prebudget speech told Canadians they could expect exactly zip-a-de-doo-dah in terms of tax relief for Canadians in next week's budget. Absolutely nothing. Not a single word about tax relief or about debt reduction.

Why is the government insisting on repeating the same mistakes of the past 30 years, continuing down the same track of high spending and more debt for Canadians?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, that is the Reform version of the full monty.

The hon. member can rest assured that we will continue on the path we set out in 1994. We will reduce the deficit and we will reduce the debt the same way. We will bring taxes down and we will invest in the future of Canadians because that is what Canadians want their government to do.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made it abundantly clear today that his vision for Canada means more big government programs from Ottawa. That is his vision for Canada. He made it abundantly clear in his speech today.

My question is for the finance minister. Is the Liberal vision for Canada a bunch of higher taxes for Canadians? Is it their vision that Canadian families should be paying $6,000 a year in taxes just for the interest on the debt? Is it their vision that we should see disposable incomes falling by $3,000 since the government came to power? Is that their vision for Canada? Is that what the Liberals are all about?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, when Canadians read the Prime Minister's speech they will understand what he was talking about and they will understand what Reformers are objecting to.

They are objecting to investment in young Canadians. They are objecting to great national projects. They are objecting to the country facing the modern economy. They are objecting to the country saying that globalization will not dominate our economy but that we will take charge.

The issue really is, and the line in the sand has been drawn, why the Reform Party thinks that the only responsibility of government is to cut debt. Does it not understand that there is also a human deficit and that the government will make sure that disappears?

Reference To Supreme Court

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

Mr. Speaker, the government is digging itself in deeper with the Supreme Court reference, as we learn that the Minister of Justice has taken a position completely at odds with that of the government lawyer, Yves Fortier.

Can the Minister of Justice tell us which is the government's real position in this reference, the position that she expressed and that appeared in yesterday's Toronto Star , or the one argued by Yves Fortier, yesterday as well, before the Supreme Court?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, obviously this case is being argued before the court today. Therefore we are all limited in that which we should say because this case is not to be argued outside the court.

Let me, however, make it very plain. We believe that we the Government of Canada put three fundamental questions before the court. Mr. Fortier argued yesterday that the court should answer those three fundamental questions. There may well be other questions that in the future need to be addressed, but those are not questions before the court. I am in complete agreement with—

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister tells us we should not speak about it, but she goes ahead anyway. She spoke about it two seconds ago; she speaks about it in the Toronto Star . So, we might as well keep right on.

The Minister of Justice said that Quebec's sovereignty created such a special situation that the Constitution would be of no help.

How does she square this statement with Mr. Fortier's position that Quebec's sovereignty is subject to the Canadian Constitution, because it seems that Mr. Fortier is speaking on her behalf?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, what Mr. Fortier said yesterday on behalf of the Government of Canada is completely consistent with what I and some of my colleagues have said.

We have always made the argument that we must proceed on the basis of the rule of law. That is what Mr. Fortier said yesterday. That is what the government is going to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister does not see any contradiction. Let me give her another example.

How can the Minister of Justice state that the court should rule on the rights of Aboriginal people in the event of secession when, yesterday, her own counsel, Yves Fortier, explicitly asked the court not to rule on the rights of Aboriginal people should Quebec secede?

That is a contradiction, is it not, Madam?

[The Speaker]

Dear colleagues, questions must always be put to the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are numerous legal implications to secession. There are the Aboriginal people, to whom the Government of Canada has a fiduciary responsibility. There is the issue of the territories. There is the issue of the charter of rights. And the list goes on.

The Government of Canada asked what it felt were the most fundamental questions regarding the legality of a unilateral declaration of independence, and that is what we have asked the court to rule on.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government across the way has a big problem on its hands. In her statements, the minister contradicts not only her counsel but also Mr. Canada, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

How can the minister explain, on the one hand, her contention that the Constitution would be of no use in the event of a yes vote for sovereignty in Quebec and, on the other hand, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs' old refrain that Quebec separation would be subject to the terms of the Constitution Act, 1982?

Is that not yet another contradiction?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, let me clarify for hon. members across the way that there is absolutely no contradiction between the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and me. Nor is there any contradiction between what we believe and what our counsel is arguing in the supreme court today.

Let me make it absolutely clear for everybody in the House that the government's fundamental position is that we must proceed only on the basis of the rule of law and respect for the law.

Middle East

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the United States representative on the security council has refused to sanction the diplomatic mission to Bagdhad by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.

Will the foreign affairs minister ensure that the Prime Minister picks up the phone immediately and asks President Clinton to remove U.S. obstacles to the United Nations brokered diplomatic proposal to allow weapons inspections and prevent the bombing of Iraq?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to report to the House that over the last three or four days the Prime Minister has undertaken a number of phone calls. We have had a number of connections with other ministers and my counterparts. There is some momentum being developed for initiatives coming out of the United Nations.

The secretary general has taken control of a series of proposals. We and other countries have been working very closely with him. Rather than asking uninformed questions about the status, the hon. member should be trying to support the diplomatic initiatives that are under way.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we are asking the U.S. to do it and they are blocking those initiatives.

Former key United States allies Bahrain, Qatar and Oman have joined Saudi Arabia and declared their airfields off limits to U.S. forces.

Will this declaration give the government cause to rethink its hasty support for bombing? Will the Prime Minister now call President Clinton to remove the U.S. veto that is crippling the secretary general's mission to Iraq?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not correctly informed. Countries in the gulf like Oman and Bahrain have offered to provide support for the coalition task force.

As well the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Poland and Denmark have all indicated that they are prepared to support the effort to stop Saddam Hussein from using weapons of mass destruction that could really threaten the security of the entire world.

Reference To Supreme Court

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has handed over his responsibilities to the Supreme Court and its justices on the subject of Canadian unity, I would like to know today whether the Prime Minister and the government intend to ask the justices to campaign in the unfortunate event of another referendum.

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

Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions, the Conservative leader has said that, in an ambiguous situation, the federal and provincial governments should no doubt prevent Quebeckers from destroying Canada. This is the opposite of the remarks by the Bloc Quebecois and the Quebec premier, who are saying that they have the right to proclaim Quebec's independence unilaterally.

There is a fundamental question of law here. So who is right in legal terms, the leader of the Conservatives or the leader of the Bloc Quebecois?

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is not a legal question, but a political one.

I want to offer the government an opportunity to inform Canadians about its plans. Today I would like to know in a straightforward manner what the government's plan is once the supreme court ruling is rendered. What will be the next step?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the House one thing. Unlike the leader of the Conservative Party we will not be campaigning with Monique Vézina with whom he sat in the House of Commons for nine years even though she was not a federalist.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois and the federal Conservatives are in bed together on the supreme court rhetoric. They both argue that the rule of law has no place in settling the issue of Quebec's secession, only the democratic will of the Quebec people.

If the government's position is that it is necessary to respect both the rule of law and democratic consent in this matter, will the government answer this question? How does it believe the democratic will of Quebeckers should be respected on this matter?