Debates of Feb. 17th, 1998

Reference To Supreme Court

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been said many times that what will be necessary is a clear expression that Quebeckers do not want to be Canadian any more.

We think Quebeckers would never say that unless the question was confused or the process was confused. We want to make sure that this will not happen.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, in its presentation to the supreme court the federal government is quite clear on what it means with respect to the rule of law on this issue, but when it comes to what the federal government thinks about respecting the democratic will of Quebeckers on this question, the Prime Minister's position has been weak and unclear. This plays into the hands of the separatists and their new found friends.

When it comes to respecting the democratic will, does the government mean that if a majority of Quebeckers were to vote yes to a fair question in a fair process it would respect that decision, or does it mean something else?

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

Mr. Speaker, with a very clear question, a clear majority and after proper negotiations within the legal framework, the country could break up.

We do not believe in that. We strongly believe that Quebeckers and other Canadians will stay together, united.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

Yesterday, the Minister said that, if there were a yes to sovereignty, the circumstances would be so extraordinary that they could not be accommodated by the constitutional framework. Yet Yves Fortier is arguing the opposite.

Also, in connection with the aboriginal people, she stated that the court ought to decide on their right to secede, while Yves Fortier is arguing the exact opposite.

My question is very simple: Where does Mr. Fortier's mandate come from?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I just said, the threat of secession raises many very serious issues, a huge number of issues, including the aboriginal question, including the statements by my counterpart, Minister Brassard, that he would use the police to keep people within an independent Quebec against their will. These are serious matters.

The first question, the most essential one, is this: Does the PQ government have the right to proclaim itself the government of an independent state, or does it not? We believe it does not. The leader of the Conservatives describes this as a black hole, but we shall see what the court has to say.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my supplemental question is for the Minister of Justice.

When she says that the constitutional framework could not accommodate a circumstance such as the sovereignty of Quebec, if she really believes that, what is the government doing before the supreme court?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has stated on a number of occasions that the purpose of the reference is not to hold Quebeckers in Canada against their will, and that if secession were to be negotiated, this could be done within the framework of the law.

Yesterday my counterpart, Mr. Brassard, again said that international law gave them the right to proclaim themselves the government of a state. We need to know if this is true or false. If this is a wrong theory, we will all find this out, including the Conservative leader, who will learn it is no black hole. International law does not give the right to secession within a democracy.

Senate Of Canada

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today, Ontario MPP Jim Brown unveiled a bill that would bring true democracy to Canada's decrepit Senate. The Ontario Senate selection act would allow ordinary Ontarians to chose their senators in a democratic vote. This would be a real millennium project, bringing the Senate into the 21st century.

Will the Prime Minister honour Ontario's choice to replace Senator Andrew Thompson with an elected senator?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it would be interesting to see what happens to Mr. Brown's bill. The hon. member said it was simply tabled in the House. Will it be supported by the Ontario Tory government? Will it die on the order paper? We do not know.

One thing I do want to say is that the Prime Minister has constitutional responsibilities that he has to carry out. Unless and until the constitution is changed, that is the position.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about it dying on the order paper. We do not have any say over what happens in the Ontario legislature but we do have a say over what happens here. Whether it dies here or not, I think it is certainly something we need to ask about.

The Prime Minister has said how he dearly wished he could throw Senator Andrew Thompson out, but he also gave a million excuses to defend the same man.

When Ontarians choose to elect a senator, will the government and the Prime Minister send him to the Senate, or will he just yammer on about the dead Charlottetown accord?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, when the government proposes an amendment to create an elected Senate, elected truly by the people, will the Reform Party vote against it as it did with the amendments to the Charlottetown accord?

Reference To Supreme Court

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs seems to like answering other people's questions. We will see if he answers his own.

The government is becoming increasingly mired in contradictions. Not only does the Minister of Justice not agree with her lawyer, or with her intergovernmental affairs colleague but, what is more, the latter does not agree with the Prime Minister.

Last week, he claimed that states always acted within the rule of law. How does he explain the fact that, in 1970, as Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, the Prime Minister took unilateral action to—

[The Speaker]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

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

Mr. Speaker, international law may recognize innovative actions by governments when states deem them beneficial and proper.

But, in the case of unilateral declarations of independence, which have been tried on many occasions throughout the world, states have almost always replied that that was not something they would wish to encourage, and this did not enter into international law, in our opinion, outside of colonial situations.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is troubling to hear him speak about international law, when the government's Minister of Justice does not agree with her lawyer or with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs does not agree with the Prime Minister.

Does he not think he should try to clarify matters for the benefit of everyone, instead of adding to the confusion?

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday my counterpart in the Quebec government, Minister Brassard, said “Quebec's efforts to achieve sovereignty are consistent with the right of peoples to decide their own future, as recognized by the international community. They are therefore not subject to the Canadian Constitution”.

That is one legal theory. Is it right? Is it wrong? We are submitting this legal opinion to the court.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the saga for us in the department of Indian affairs continues. I have in my possession an internal departmental memo in which one senior Indian affairs bureaucrat instructs another not to release information requested under access to information because it might embarrass the department. Requested under access to information and denied because it might embarrass the department.

Does the Indian affairs minister agree that this is nothing more than a cover-up?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said on numerous occasions in this House, we are working very hard to look at the implications surrounding a particular letter with regard to access to information.

The investigation I have asked for will make recommendations to me not only about this letter but about other procedures and policies in the department. From those recommendations we will act.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that investigator will have a full time job pretty quickly over there.

Let me quote from the internal memo: “It is suspected that the requester plans to use the information in an attempt to embarrass either the chief and council of the Gull Bay First Nation or the department, or both. Particular diligence and review of the information prior to its release is recommended”.

How can anybody have faith in the current investigation, necessitated because of the department's breach of Bruce Starlight's privacy, when we have evidence of such cover-ups?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said time and again, I take these issues very seriously. That is why I asked for an outside investigator to come in to review the issues facing us with regard to access to information and letters of confidentiality.

I wish the opposition would let this process take its course and let us deal with facts and recommendations by the investigator.

Bill C-28

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

Mr. Speaker, this morning the government's ethics commissioner acknowledged that the Minister of Finance did indeed sponsor Bill C-28 and he added that the measures intended to eliminate any whisper of conflict of interest were not implemented, contrary to the remarks of the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister.

Since the ethics commissioner has just destroyed the principal argument in the defence of the Minister of Finance, does the Prime Minister continue to deny so categorically any appearance of conflict of interest with respect to the shipowner-legislator?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I personally spoke to the ethics commissioner, Mr. Wilson, just before oral question period. He informed me there was no conflict of interest and therefore no appearance of a conflict of interest.

Employment

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

We as a government have made tremendous strides toward reducing unemployment in this great country, but many of my constituents in Simcoe—Grey still cannot find work. What strategy does the minister have in place to ensure that we continue to see a reduction in unemployment, in particular unemployment in rural Canada and Simcoe—Grey?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the challenge of encouraging economic growth and jobs in rural and remote communities largely lies with access issues, access to financing. We have made major progress through changes in the Business Development Bank of Canada and the Farm Credit Corporation, access to markets with a network of international trade agreements and Team Canada and access to technology.

In communities as different and as remote as Otterville, Ontario or Montague, Prince Edward Island, or even Rankin Inlet in the Northwest Territories, the community access program has put these communities on the mainstream of the information highway providing opportunities for economic growth and job creation.

National Revenue

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of National Revenue denied that John Thiessen's tax returns were released without authorization. I have a letter from the RCMP confirming that Revenue Canada has been told of this leak.

Does the minister want more black and white evidence or will he tell us on what authority the tax returns of John Thiessen were released?