Debates of Nov. 24th, 1999

National Unity

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it looks like the Prime Minister will continue down the road to become one of the winning conditions for Quebec.

Quebecers want tax relief. They want control over their language and their culture.

Why is the Prime Minister continuing to divide Quebecers, rather than offer them renewed federalism? Why?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, that is what we are doing every day, renewing federalism.

That is what we are doing. Even the Bloc Quebecois opposed the resolution declaring Quebec a distinct society. The Bloc Quebecois voted against a veto for Quebec in this House. Who is defending Quebecers' interests in Canada? The federal Liberal Party.

Referendums

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

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, Jean Charest, has again said that it is up to the National Assembly of Quebec, and no one else, to determine the rules for Quebec's referendum process and that the 50% plus one rule must apply.

Will the Prime Minister tell us whether he intends to go ahead with his antidemocratic plans, despite the opposition of the leader of Quebec's federalist forces, his traditional allies?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, in his resolution, the leader of the provincial Liberal Party says “in accordance with the supreme court ruling”. I am in complete agreement with him.

The Quebec National Assembly can pass whatever resolution it wants, but I repeat today that, if the question on secession is not clear and if there is not a clear majority, there will be no negotiation.

In its ruling, the supreme court mentions clarity 25 times, and politicians, particularly federal politicians, have a responsibility to ensure that clarity exists and that Quebecers know exactly what to expect.

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

Mr. Speaker, if clarity is left up to the Prime Minister, Quebec and Canada are in trouble. They are in trouble with a Prime Minister like that.

The Prime Minister, who says he wants to go down in history as the person who saved Canada, may well be remembered as the Prime Minister who ignored democracy in Canada and in Quebec.

Are we to understand that the only way the Prime Minister can save Canada is by changing the weight of votes, so that a federalist vote counts for more than a sovereignist vote, by changing the percentage required for a win, by changing the rules of the game because he is afraid of losing?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, a two-thirds majority is required in Quebec's National Assembly to appoint an auditor general, an ombudsman, or a chief electoral officer.

Moreover, article 63.01 of the CSN bylaws says that the confederal office must approve any request to revoke a federation's jurisdiction if it has the support of two thirds of the unions.

I have nothing to learn from a CSN trade unionist, when his own bylaws call for a two-thirds majority.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister stated his intention of unilaterally dictating the rules for the next Quebec referendum. Once again, the federal government is trying to control the right of the Quebec people to decide freely on its own future.

My question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Can the minister, who is the one behind this, tell us where exactly in the supreme court judgment he finds any indication that the 50% plus 1 rule has been set aside?

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

Mr. Speaker, the supreme court took the trouble to qualify the word majority with the word clear some one dozen times. When the words majorité claire are used in French, it is because a weak majority is insufficient.

But when the Bloc—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

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

But when the Bloc Quebecois tells us that the sacrosanct rule of democracy is 50% plus 1, and then makes exceptions to this for municipal referendums, are they not perhaps beginning to understand that democracy is a bit more complex and expresses itself in different ways. For very important issues, ones that have the potential of being virtually irreversible, it is a tradition in democracy to require more in terms of a majority?

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

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to important issues, the supreme court said that the majority should be a clear one, but at no time in any part of its judgment did it state that the majority was not 50% plus 1.

How can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs say in this House that this rule is not the acceptable one in a democracy?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is obliging me to repeat myself.

When the effort is made to add the word clear to the word majority, that is because more than 50% plus 1 is required.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I spoke of the referendum in Australia. But why go so far away? There is also the Nisga'a referendum, which we have been discussing here for a few weeks now. I believe that the Bloc Quebecois supports that referendum. For the agreement to pass, the Nisga'a required a majority of 50% plus 1 of all eligible voters for the agreement, and 70% for the constitutional change. They have no fear of calling for majorities even on something on which there was a certain consensus in society.

Child Poverty

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, today at noon in communities across the country bells were rung. Poor kids do not make much noise or complain about their poverty. Mostly they try to hide it. The bells were rung in a desperate plea, in a desperate attempt to wake up the government to the reality of child poverty. Why is the Prime Minister not listening?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we have started to work to ensure that the children of Canada have a good start in life. We had even started at a time when we were cutting other programs and we put more money into that. We have put $1.7 billion into the program and there will be more money. I have given a long list of other programs that were initiated to help the children of Canada, even during a period when we were cutting from every other department.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, only a Liberal could boast while 1.4 million children remain in poverty.

Since the Prime Minister came to office he has had 2,220 days to eliminate child poverty, 2,220 days to keep the commitments to Canada's children, 2,220 days to ease the pain, yet still 1.4 million children remain in poverty.

What will it take to get the Prime Minister to declare “child poverty is my business, sir?”

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we said in the Speech from the Throne a few weeks ago. We placed child poverty among the high priorities in the Speech from the Throne.

I repeat. We plan to lengthen employment insurance benefits for parents to 12 months. We are working with the provinces to develop a national action plan for children. We are putting money into the hands of families with children through tax relief. We also have the Canadian prenatal nutrition program, the community action program for children, the aboriginal head start program, the EI family income supplement, and first nation and Inuit child care.

Referendums

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebecers and Canadians in general cannot figure out what is going on right now. The Prime Minister is completely out of touch with reality.

At a time when real priorities such as poverty, unemployment, economic growth and tax reduction should be on the agenda, the Prime Minister and his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs keep harking back to the issue of Quebec's future and sovereignty.

What is going on in the Prime Minister's head for him to be so out of touch with the priorities of Canadians and Quebecers? What is going on?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member follows what is going on, he will know that, two weeks ago, Minister Facal said, without any provocation on our part—in fact he phoned the journalist himself to make a statement—that Quebec had no intention of complying with the supreme court decision. While this may not be a significant statement for the hon. member, the government certainly has an obligation to take note of it.

Just last week, the premier of Quebec said that his province would indeed hold a referendum. These people must know that, if they hold a referendum, the question will be clear, the result will have to be clear and the supreme court decision will have to be complied with.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Joseph Facal is now telling the Prime Minister what to include in his agenda. This is unbelievable.

I thought the Prime Minister was big enough to decide what his own agenda should include. We know what to make of minister Facal's statement.

But what about the Prime Minister's statement? Is it a declaration of war? The question really is: Will the Prime Minister introduce, before the Christmas recess or soon after, a bill on referendum rules? Will the Prime Minister table such legislation, yes or no? Can he provide a clear and straight answer to this question?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I repeated what I had said in this House before, during and after the referendum: the question will be clear and the result will have to be clear. If you do not want—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.