Debates of Feb. 4th, 1998

Infrastructure

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, back when he was transport minister, Doug Young gave $32 million to build a road in New Brunswick. When he got booted out of Parliament last summer, he bought that same highway for a toll road for himself.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Edmonton West.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that.

Back when he was transport minister Doug Young spent $32 million of taxpayer money to build a road in New Brunswick. Then after he got booted out of Parliament last summer he bought that same highway to use as a toll road for himself and the ethics counsellor says “that's okay with me”.

I want to ask this prime minister why are the ethics of his government based purely on a wink and a handshake so much like Brian Mulroney's ethical questions?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

I do not know if we are celebrating a wedding, Mr. Speaker, but I want to say that the member for Cumberland—Colchester has talked with the ethics counsellor about it. He went to see him. All that has been discussed with the member.

There is a post-employment code for public office holders. That is a public document. Mr. Young has satisfied all these requirements and the deal they are talking about is the construction of a road by the provincial Government of New Brunswick. The federal government has nothing to do with the construction of this road.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if done properly, private-public partnerships for infrastructure would be a really good idea.

What is so dangerous about the Doug Young scandal is that it absolutely smears the reputation of these projects. The idea of public-private roads should not be tainted by patronage and corruption.

Yesterday the Minister of Transport expressed nervousness, saying that he does not want—

[The Speaker]

I ask all hon. members to be very judicious in their choice of words. I would like the member to go to her question, please.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Certainly. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to ask the transport minister if he thinks if the shoe fits, wear it. Yesterday he said that he did not want such flip-flops in the future. If it is not okay for the future, why is it okay now?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, when one cuts through all the rhetoric I think there is a legitimate public policy question that has to be addressed and that is, in future federal-provincial agreements how are we to take into account the fact that tolls may be charged. I think that is a legitimate issue to be debated in Parliament, perhaps by the transport committee.

The hon. member opposite should not confuse public policy with an attempt to smear an individual, a former member of this House.

Reference To Supreme Court

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Claude Ryan, leader of the No camp in 1980, and Daniel Johnson, leader of the No camp in 1995, voiced their profound disagreement with the reference to the Supreme Court.

For his part, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs kept repeating that there should be a legal framework for the democratic process of a referendum on the sovereignty of Quebec. But there is already a legal framework.

Does the Prime Minister realize that the 1980, 1992 and 1995 referendums in which he took part were always held within the context of the law?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Referendum Act is a law governing popular consultation. It cannot govern the separation of a province wishing to leave a country that all citizens have an interest in keeping together.

As for democracy, when will the Bloc Quebecois realize that the people of Quebec have twice decided to remain in Canada? When will it respect the will of Quebeckers?

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

Mr. Speaker, a few days before the referendum, I heard the Prime Minister speak the following words in Verdun: “The question is clear. If you vote Yes, you will live in another country, and if you vote No, you will remain in Canada”. Now he says he did not understand this question. We, however, know that, on two occasions, this same Prime Minister did not keep his promises. We in Quebec know that.

The Prime Minister took part in three referendums in Quebec. In so doing he, like his predecessors, Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Trudeau, accepted and recognized Quebec's referendum process and its legal framework. Why then does he refuse to recognize this same legal framework today?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I said that a referendum act is for a popular consultation. But the decision to separate Quebec without respecting the legal framework is unacceptable. Everyone must respect the Constitution of Canada because it is a democratic constitution protecting all citizens of Quebec and of the rest of Canada.

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

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

On the evening of the 1980 referendum, Pierre Elliott Trudeau said “this evening we are experiencing both the most beautiful and the most painful sides of democracy”.

By now trying to impose a new legal framework for the next Quebec referendum, is the Prime Minister not in full contradiction with his former boss, who recognized that the referendum of 1980 was held in an eminently democratic fashion?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that I do not have with me the speech made by the former Prime Minister, but I would invite the hon. member to read it to the end. The Prime Minister of the time made it clear that he had no intention of negotiating anything resembling a secession based on such a confusing question.

I would also ask the hon. member to read the Quebec Referendum Act, which clearly states that referendums are consultative in nature. It is for this reason that, according to the person who drafted the legislation, Mr. Burns, no rules are set in terms of the majority required, given the importance of what is at stake. The fact is that referendums are only consultative in nature. They carry more or less political weight, depending on the clarity of the question and of the answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, not only is the Prime Minister repudiating is former boss, he is repudiating himself. On October 31, 1995, he said, and I quote: “In a democracy, the people are always right”.

My question is for the Prime Minister. What has changed since 1995 for the Prime Minister to no longer accept the legal framework that applied then and that he himself recognized?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister who was in office in 1995, and whom we are pleased to still see in that position, said in this House, before the then Leader of the Opposition—who is now the premier of Quebec and who did a great deal of ranting and raving—that we had to comply with the Constitution and that it was out of the question for Quebeckers to lose Canada as a result of confusion. The Prime Minister even said “If you in the BQ and the PQ ask a clear question, you will take quite a beating”.

Bank Merger

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the finance minister.

Yesterday the finance minister accused the NDP of hijacking the bank merger process. It is the minister who is hiding behind a task force that will not report for eight months. The task force in fact told him not to wait. I will quote directly: “We do not expect the world to wait for our final report. Changes are taking place quickly. Decisions must be made. It would be unrealistic to put everything on hold until our processes have been concluded”.

Why does the minister not stop behaving like a deer frozen in the headlights and let Canadians have their say?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, these are indeed strange times. We have just seen this cuddling up on the far right. Again we have an example of the NDP seeking to lobby for their new found friends in the big banks and seeking to have them jump the cue.

Let me simply say to the Leader of the NDP, she will not allow her clients to jump the cue. We will establish public policy and then we will decide the issues.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister blabbers on about jumping the cue. He dismisses the genuine concerns of Canadians as verbal diarrhoea.

If you ask Canadians should we change the existing federal policy that big banks shall not buy big banks, they would say “No way, no thanks”.

Is that why the Minister of Finance is afraid to let Canadians have their say?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, quite the contrary. The reference to obiter excreta really comes from what the hon. member was saying.

In fact let us understand very clearly that what we want is a full public debate. We want to have the task force report. We want to have the debate take place in this House and across the country. The NDP are not going prevail against the will of Canadians.

Trans-Canada Highway

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport said that, when the amount of $32 million was allocated for the highway in New Brunswick, he did not know that a toll highway was planned.

Can the Prime Minister tell us whether it is the policy of his government to charge for highways twice, or whether he does not instead intend to ask the Government of New Brunswick to return the $32 million taken from Canadian taxpayers' pockets?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, this particular agreement was a normal federal-provincial highway agreement whereby the federal government paid $32 million to New Brunswick. It is a small portion of the total cost of the highway.

Subsequent to that the New Brunswick government decided, in these times of restraint, to engage the private sector and hence the introduction of tolls.

What I have said is that there is nothing wrong with the agreement, the rule under which this deal was made. There is a legitimate issue that should be decided on, how we structure future deals. That is something we should discuss in this House.

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister also said yesterday and I quote “It was never envisaged that a province or a private company would profit”. That is an exact quote from the very same minister.

Patronage is taking its toll on the Liberal benches. I would like to know from this Prime Minister whether or not he is going to stand up for the Canadian taxpayer and demand that the $32 million be returned to where it should be? It should be returned to the Government of Canada rather than taken from the taxpayer of Canada.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I have said publicly that the $32 million will not be factored into the toll regime by the private company. That answers the question.

I hope the hon. member can understand that.