Debates of Nov. 23rd, 1999

National Defence

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

Mr. Speaker, to answer my colleague, members know that we have started to replace the search and rescue helicopters.

Regarding the replacement of the Sea Kings, the process has begun, and the minister will make a decision shortly.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, according to a leading constitutional expert from McGill University who testified this morning at the standing committee, the Nisga'a treaty amounts to nothing less than legislated segregation in Canada.

My question for the Prime Minister is a very simple one. Is the Prime Minister satisfied that he will go down in history as the Prime Minister who embraced legislated segregation in Canada and gave it the force of law?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we have had treaties in Canada since confederation. It is an obligation that was taken when the British settlers came to all parts of Canada. It is an obligation that we have to respect. I do not want to rewrite history. It is a system that was done in good faith by the government of the day. It made commitments to these people and we have to respect those commitments.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

I guess we will take from that, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister is prepared to accept legislated segregation in the country. I find it offensive.

There has never been a government in the country during my lifetime that has done more to promote disunity in the country than this government and this Prime Minister.

Why is the Prime Minister embracing legislated segregation? Why is he not prepared to give the people of British Columbia a vote, to see whether they agree with him and whether they want to have legislated segregation in the country?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the House will vote tonight on this and the people in this House represent all the people of Canada.

The obligation that has been vested in this situation of the first nations in Canada is a responsibility of the national government as well as the provincial Government of British Columbia. We are just doing what we are obligated to do under the royal proclamation of the 1760s.

Referendums

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said that the 1995 referendum question was a PQ question, even though it was approved by a majority in the Quebec National Assembly. This is a disturbing statement that puts into question the legitimacy of British parliamentarism.

On that same basis, are we to understand that all the bills passed in this House are Liberal bills and not Parliament of Canada bills, and that, as such, they do not deserve to be respected and have no legitimacy?

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

Mr. Speaker, one cannot break up a country or create a country without having the assurance that this is indeed what people want. The 1995 question could never have given that assurance. Everyone recognizes that now, except the PQ and the BQ.

But other Quebecers know and say that if the question is clear, they will vote to remain in Canada, and Bloc Quebecois members also know it. This is why they are so insistent on preserving their ability to ask a confusing question, but in vain.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, are we to understand from the minister's answer that one of the options he is currently considering is to impose on the Quebec National Assembly a question that would have to be unanimously approved, for example, to make sure it is to his liking, legitimate, clear and appropriate? Is this what the government is getting at?

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

Mr. Speaker, would it not be absolutely preferable to agree on the procedure and to also discuss the fundamentals? But we do not agree on the fundamentals, nor do we agree on the procedure.

The Quebec Liberal Party was opposed to the question. This poses a serious problem in terms of the question's legitimacy. Everyone recognizes that, except the Bloc Quebecois member, it seems.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Jim Gouk, Reform, West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister talks about his obligations. We know what happened with the GST, so here we go now with Nisga'a.

The minister and Deputy Prime Minister have repeatedly stated that there will be a vote in B.C. by the MPs who represent British Columbia. However, when asked if they would pass or reject the Nisga'a treaty based on a vote of those B.C. MPs, they both very ineloquently stated no.

Given that they have both rejected the very mechanism by which they claim British Columbians will have a vote, will they now agree to a province-wide referendum so those very British Columbians will have the vote that this government has promised them?

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, having a referendum would suggest very strongly that there has been no consultation.

As members well know, because we have been talking about this for a number of weeks, there have been over 500 public meetings on Nisga'a in British Columbia. Over 34 cities and towns in British Columbia had hearings in the last number of months. Tonight we will have a vote by parliamentarians who were elected by Canadians. I think that is good democratic process.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let us take a look at some of these hearings that the Liberals have been talking about.

We had one in Prince George last week. Four people were allowed to testify. While people from Prince George sat in the audience and were not allowed to speak, three of the four people the Liberals put on their list were flown in from Vancouver and Victoria. So much for consultation.

Will British Columbians have a real opportunity to have their voices heard by voting on a province-wide referendum in British Columbia?

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what we will do in dealing with how exercised the opposition is—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I do not know what the opposition members will do in the next number of months if they are this exercised about the Nisga'a treaty because it is our intention as a government to bring in a number of other treaties from British Columbia. I hope opposition members handle them as well as they are handling this one.

Referendums

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wants unanimity in the National Assembly on the question.

Why, then, would unanimity not be required here to establish the rules he wants to see established? Why would there be one set of rules for the Quebec National Assembly and another for the House of Commons?

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

Mr. Speaker, all that we are asking for is a clear question. In fact, what we are asking is for is no referendum. But if there must be one, there must be a clear question. The clear question cannot address two things simultaneously. There must be no beating around the bush.

If they believe it would be best for Quebecers to no longer be part of Canada, let them ask that; let us see what answer Quebecers will give them. Let them not try to drag an answer out of Quebecers against their will with a trick question. Let them ask a clear question, out of respect for Quebecers and their rights as sovereign citizens of a democratic country.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have seen the clarity of this parliament in the question asked at the time of the Charlottetown referendum. The full text of the accord was not even drafted when along came the referendum. Really now: how much more confusing could things be?

How could an elected majority in Quebec foster confusion, when here a very slight majority fosters nothing but clarity, because the eminent professor has come up with an idea?

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

Mr. Speaker, let us take the example of another recent referendum. Australia held one merely to decide whether or not to retain the monarchy. Not to offend anyone, this seems less important to me than deciding on a country. The percentage there was not 50% plus 1 country-wide, but 50% plus 1 country-wide, as well as 50% plus 1 in four out of six states.

There have been a number of similar referendums where a higher majority has been required for major issues. There have even been some countries where 100% is not sufficient, because it has been decided that the country is indivisible.

In Canada, the country is divisible, but not just any old way.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Derrek Konrad, Reform, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Charlottetown accord said, “Self-government agreements should be set out in future treaties, including land claims agreements”.

The minister of Indian affairs knows that when the accord was defeated in a national referendum, it was defeated by Indians and non-Indians alike.

Why is the minister ignoring the express wishes of a majority of all Canadians? Why is he including self-government in the Nisga'a treaty?

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, because it is in our constitution under section 35(1).

[Derrek Konrad, Reform, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, is that not great, the Charlottetown accord by inches.

In 1992 the Liberals campaigned for adoption of the Charlottetown accord. It called for the recognition of aboriginal governments as one of three orders of government in Canada. Now they say the Nisga'a treaty does not create a third order of government.

Let us clear this up once and for all. Does the recognition of aboriginal government create a third order of government? Yes or no?

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

No, Mr. Speaker.

Tobacco Companies

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the documents tabled yesterday by the Minister of Health regarding the efforts of tobacco companies to develop and maintain the desire to smoke, the minister left all his options open.

Will the minister confirm whether or not the government is excluding the idea of taking tobacco company directors or even holding corporations to court?