Debates of Nov. 23rd, 1999

Aboriginal Affairs

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we have an obligation which was given to the people of Canada at the time the British came to Canada. They decided that treaties would be signed with the first nations who were here. This was an obligation that was given to us and it is our obligation to live up to the commitments that were made by the Government of England 200 years ago.

I come from Quebec and I am defending British traditions.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we see that the Prime Minister thinks it is a 19th century treaty. He is offering a 19th century solution for it. It is absolutely ridiculous.

We would like to welcome him home on a quick layover. I know he has just come out of Africa. Now that the Prime Minister has finished preaching democracy, why does he not practise it here at home and let B.C. have a vote?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the problem of treaties has been dealt with in every province in Canada for a long time.

It is not the first time that parliament has been confronted with the problem of implementing treaties in Canada. It was done years ago by Conservative and Liberal prime ministers, at the beginning of the century and later on as well.

We will keep the tradition that we have, which is to respect the obligations of the crown vis-a-vis the first citizens of this land.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should be the first one to know that many of the treaties that have been signed have been a colossal disaster right across the country and they need to be reworked.

The Indian affairs minister seems to be quite pleased with the way he has turned out. He has said that the Nisga'a deal is just too complicated and complex for the people of British Columbia to figure out what it is all about. Is that not patronizing?

Yesterday he called my colleague for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley silly for even daring to ask a question about the democratic rights of the B.C. people.

Does the Prime Minister endorse the Indian affairs minister's contempt for the democratic rights of the people of B.C.? Does he endorse it or not?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of Indian affairs yesterday gave a very good reply. He said that they do not tell the people of British Columbia what is in the treaty. They make all sorts of assertions that are not in the treaty. Just tell them exactly what is in the treaty and the people will understand.

The people elected in British Columbia expressed their views and members of the parliament of Canada will be doing the same thing very soon.

Referendums

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister announced that he would not accept the rule of 50% plus one in a referendum on sovereignty in Quebec. He says his decision is based on the supreme court ruling.

Can he tell us where in the supreme court ruling he saw any reference at all to the 50% plus one rule?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, for years I have said that one does not break up a country after a judicial recount. This is a very important decision and a referendum is a consultation.

I agree with the Parti Quebecois that even results of 92% in a consultation are not binding on the government. This was what Ms. Harel said in Quebec City not very long ago.

We will see what the results of the consultation are, but it is clear that a simple majority will not be enough to let Quebec go. There is no need to get excited. Things are clear and we will follow the directions of the supreme court: the question and the result must be clear. If not, there will be no negotiation.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just told us that he will not act in good faith.

One thing is for sure, and that is that the supreme court recognizes the equality of all before the law, and therefore one vote is not worth more than another.

Does the Prime Minister realize that, by requiring more than 50% plus one, he is according greater importance to a federalist vote than a sovereignist vote? Does he realize that a minority could impose its will on the majority? Does he realize that he is breaking one of the fundamental rules of democracy?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, 93% of the inhabitants of Mont-Tremblant voted in a referendum and the minister said that the government rejected all the democratic votes cast.

Even the CSN, where the leader of the Bloc Quebecois used to work, requires a two-thirds vote by members of a general assembly before its bylaws can be changed. Where was the democracy in the CSN?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all referendums on Quebec's political future have to date been governed only by Quebec laws and have passed the test of Quebec democracy.

Is the Prime Minister not aware that, by saying, and I quote “that 50% plus one is not enough”, he is acting contrary to a number of precedents, including the one of Charlottetown where the rule of 50% plus one was accepted by all, including the Prime Minister himself?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, since the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois like to quote the supreme court, perhaps I could repeat for them what it said. It said “The referendum result, if it is to be taken as an expression of the democratic will, must be free of ambiguity both in terms of the question asked and in terms of the support it achieves. Democracy means more than simple majority rule”.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if democracy means more than simple majority rule, I would ask the Prime Minister, who has the support of only 38% of the Canadian electorate and of 36% of Quebec voters, which is even less, how can he usurp the powers of the National Assembly and want to impose a rule other than that of 50% plus one?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is comparing apples and oranges. When we vote in an ordinary election—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. We have heard the question, now I would like to hear the answer.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when we vote in a regular election, we vote for a government, and in four years' time we can choose to re-elect it or not.

When we choose to break up a country, that is just about irreversible. That is why democracies are more demanding for serious and irreversible decisions.

As regards the Charlottetown referendum, I would like to quote the current Deputy Premier of Quebec, Bernard Landry, who said at the time: “For a yes to be legitimate, it needs at least 58% of the vote to reflect those we respectfully call the anglophones and the allophones”.

Child Poverty

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in 1993 the then leader of the official opposition said “Mulroney has completely lost touch with reality in raising the unity question while millions of Canadians suffer in poverty”. This Prime Minister is afflicted with the same syndrome. He is eager to weigh in on a hypothetical referendum question, but he completely ignores the fate of 1.4 million children living in poverty.

Why has this Prime Minister lost touch with the reality of 1.4 million children living in poverty?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, that was the main theme of our Speech from the Throne. It was what we had as the main theme in our programs for children.

We have created all sorts of programs, and it is not over. It is a work that is in progress, but it has been a priority of this government since we formed the government and it was the main item in the Speech from the Throne, which I hope the leader of the New Democratic Party read a few weeks ago.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, let me read a quote. “One child in six is in poverty. It's shameful. We need action so fathers and mothers can give bread and dignity to their children”.

Now it is not one child in six; it is one child in five.

Who said those words? The Prime Minister. Now we have more children without bread, more children without dignity. That is the legacy of this government. That is the legacy of this Prime Minister: 1.4 million children living in poverty.

Why are these children not entitled to bread and dignity?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we have increased the national child benefit and will be adding $1.7 billion a year by July of next year.

We are working with the provinces to develop a national action plan for children.

We will put more money into the hands of families with children through tax relief. We have the Canadian prenatal nutrition program, the community action program for children, the aboriginal head start program, the EI family income supplement, first nations and Inuit child care, and dependent care allowances. We have had all of those for a few years.

National Defence

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, in 1994 the government produced a guideline document which outlined in some detail its defence policy. Is is known more commonly as the 1994 defence white paper. Since that time the government has repeatedly and recently indicated that the success of DND could be measured by how much of the white paper was being or had been implemented.

Will the Prime Minister confirm for the House that the 1994 defence white paper continues to be the authoritative document on the government's defence policy? Yes or no?

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member mentioned, the committee produced this book. We still use it in our deliberations and for the decisions we make at the moment.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, on pages 46 and 47, the 1994 defence white paper states:

The Sea Kings are rapidly approaching the end of their operational life. Work will, therefore, begin immediately to identify options and plans to put into service new affordable replacement helicopters by the end of the decade.

With only weeks left in the decade, does the Prime Minister have a secret hangar somewhere in Canada containing replacement helicopters? If not, will the Prime Minister finally give the House a firm date as to when he will initiate the maritime helicopter replacement program?