House of Commons Hansard #51 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was police.
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, Quebecers have twice decided they wished to remain in Canada, despite a question purposely designed to confuse. If the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois have any respect for the people of Quebec, they will agree to have a question that is clear and acceptable to Quebeckers and to the rest of the country.
Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Quebec federalists are strongly condemning the federal strategy calling on the Supreme Court of Canada to debate Quebec's future. According to them, this is an essentially political issue.
How can the Prime Minister convince all Quebeckers that his strategy is legitimate, given that his own political and federalist allies feel that this approach is dangerous and unacceptable and that it will lead to an impasse?
Stéphane Dion LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, it is recognized in a democracy that major decisions must be made within a legal framework.
I would ask the hon. member to give me one example of a major collective decision made in a democracy outside a legal framework.
Since we are referring to Mr. Ryan, here is what he wrote on May 27 of last year: “The federal government will feel compelled, as it did in 1980 and 1995—even though this was not sufficiently pointed out—to refuse to promise ahead of time to recognize a result obtained through an equivocal question. It would be useless to try to deny the federal government this power to reserve comment”. I could not agree more.
Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and I hope he will rise to reply.
Does the Prime Minister realize that even his federalist allies in Quebec feel that he is headed straight for a political impasse that will have even more serious consequences than the mess he created in 1982?
Stéphane Dion LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I indicated the points on which we agree with Mr. Ryan. He, however, believes the reference to the Supreme Court is ill-advised.
Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC
That is his view, but we agree on the format. It is normal for a political family to hold different views.
If the hon. member needs a course on international law, he should ask his colleague, the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, provided the latter is prepared to say the same things he wrote not so long ago.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
When the bank monster merger was unleashed the finance minister actually talked tough. He even found the courage to challenge the banks to guarantee no job loss. The banks' response was “No, Mr. Minister, 9,000 jobs have got to go, maybe more”.
What can we do to help the minister find the courage to say no to the monster merger?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the government has set out a process involving a task force and ultimately public debate. We will not allow anybody to jump the queue.
The real issue is why the NDP is playing the banks' game? Why is it trying to hijack the process? Why will it not let Canadians look at the total future of financial institutions? Why does it want to focus on this merger and nothing else?
The NDP may be prepared to dance to the banks' music, but we are going to let Canadians call the tune.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, we have the minister once again hiding behind the task force.
The fact is the banks have already defied the minister's challenge. This is no time for the minister to wimp out. It is time for the minister to provide some leadership. Ten thousand jobs are on the line.
Why does the minister not show some courage and say no thanks to mbanx?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the government began to deal with this issue in the beginning of the last mandate. We have set up a task force. We have task forces within our party.
The only thing that the NDP has been able to do is engage in excessive rhetoric. What it is unable to do is to deal with the fundamental issues. We will match the action of the government against the verbal diarrhoea of the leader of the NDP any time.
BankingOral Question Period
The Speaker
Nice and easy. We are just getting back into shape.
Jean Charest Progressive Conservative Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the prime minister.
In 1995 the federal transport minister of the day, Doug Young, signed on behalf of the Liberal government a $50 million cost shared agreement with New Brunswick to provide funding to improve the Trans-Canada Highway between Moncton and Riverglade. Since then the New Brunswick government has sold this highway to the same Doug Young to put in a toll.
Could the prime minister tell us whether or not this sale is consistent with the cost shared agreement his government signed in 1995?
David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, the federal government contributed $32 million to this highway. Under the auspices of that agreement it certainly did not envisage that tolls would be put on that road.
The hon. member for the Conservative Party from Colchester raised some very valid points about the need, now that we are going into private sector partnerships in highway building, to make sure that this kind of situation is planned for in future agreements.
As far as the government is concerned the agreement has been executed faithfully and there is no particular problem in the way it has been set up.
Jean Charest Progressive Conservative Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am glad the government acknowledges today that something is terribly wrong about this deal.
We now know that a previous minister of transport who signed over the money himself is now partly in charge of a highway that he is going to toll.
I would like to know from the prime minister directly whether he agrees with this highway robbery now put on by Doug Young.
David Collenette LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. leader of the Conservative Party should choose his words rather carefully.
The former minister of transport exercised his duties to the best of his ability. The former minister of transport is now in the private sector and has complied with all of the ethical guidelines set out by the prime minister.
This agreement certainly raises questions with respect to the general policy as to whether we should ensure if tolls are to be put into agreements that other arrangements are made, but there is nothing wrong with this agreement.
Art Hanger Reform Calgary Northeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, the people of the country have heard nothing but Liberal flim-flam about the helicopter contract ever since the prime minister made his cynical 1993 election promise.
The fact of the matter is that if we compare the bare bones search and rescue helicopter of 1992 with the bare bones Liberal chopper, the numbers speak for themselves. The government spent $200 million more than it should have.
What possible excuse could the prime minister give for buying the same choppers for $200 million more?
Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence
I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, the bare bones are over in the opposition because its research is not very good at all.
Its members are trying to compare a developmental helicopter that was ordered by the Conservative government to be in an incomplete form turned over to another company for further development. They are taking the price to EH Industries at that time which was not for a complete helicopter. What we are buying today is a complete helicopter so there is absolutely no comparison between the two.
We are still saving some 40% in costs from what the Conservative government would have put us through.
Art Hanger Reform Calgary Northeast, AB
The list of excuses, Mr. Speaker, grows on and on and on.
This minister and the prime minister have used every excuse in the book. They have played politics with public safety and now they are trying to weasel out of it.
The government documents, the original EH-101 contract, clearly show that the government squandered $200 million more than it had to. We know it. They know it.
What is the Prime Minister going to do about it?
Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence
Again, Mr. Speaker, those figures are absolutely wrong.
When we talk about this kind of service to Canadians let us bear in mind we are talking about saving lives. We wanted to make sure that we had a helicopter that was going to meet operational needs and do it at a price that Canadians could afford.
We could not afford the $5.8 billion boondoggle the Conservative government wanted to put us through. We had a heavy deficit at that time. We could not afford it.
Today we are getting a helicopter that meets our needs and it is a lot cheaper.
Pierre Brien Bloc Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
The minister stated this morning that, in a democracy, politics are conducted within a legal framework.
Does the minister not realize that the Constitution comes from and belongs to the people and that, through its reference to the Supreme Court, the government is trying to reverse the situation, in that the Constitution would have precedence over the will of the people?
Stéphane Dion LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I will repeat once again what I wrote to just about every PQ minister without ever hearing back from them, and that is that the Government of Canada readily agrees and recognizes that it cannot force a people to stay in Canada against its will, as this would make Canada into something it is not.
The problem for the Bloc is that Quebeckers want to be Canadians as well. That is why Bloc members reject what Claude Ryan has been asking for since day one, and that is a simple, straightforward, clear, unequivocal question without any catches.
Pierre Brien Bloc Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Speaker, on the night before the referendum, the Prime Minister said he understood the question. If he understood, a great many Quebeckers did too.
Two weeks from now, the Supreme Court will fall against its will into the political trap laid by the government. Time is running out. Does the minister realize that he should see reason and bow to the arguments of his federalist allies in Quebec, who cannot allow the Supreme Court to take precedence over the will of the Quebec people?
Stéphane Dion LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, we never asked the judges to rule on the appropriateness of secession. It is up to the people to decide if they want to remain united or to break away.
Whatever they decide, the people are entitled to legal protection. They have the right to know how extensive their rights are, which is what the Supreme Court has been asked to determine, without playing politics as the hon. member has just done.
Deborah Grey Reform Edmonton North, AB
Mr. Speaker, the minister of defence just said that in 1992 they were looking at an incomplete helicopter and now in 1998 the Liberals have bought a complete helicopter. This may be a case of dumb and dumber, but even the Tories when they signed that contract, I am sure, were not dealing with billions of dollars on an incomplete helicopter.
My question is for the minister of defence. For the incredible expense that was incurred with buying these new helicopters when our Canadian Armed Forces deserve excellent equipment, why the flip-flop and why on earth is this based on politics rather than on good equipment for our armed forces?