House of Commons Hansard #28 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was federal.
Daniel Turp Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Mr. Speaker, in a legal opinion released by the Bloc Quebecois this morning, Laval University professor Henri Brun states that—
ReferendumsOral Question Period
The Speaker
Order, please. The hon. member for Beauharnois Salaberry.
Daniel Turp Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Professor Henri Brun of Laval University states that the clear majority to which the supreme court refers is nothing more than the 50% plus one rule Moreover, Professor Brun bases his argument on the fact that the court refers to a qualitative majority.
Will the minister finally acknowledge that the court has never challenged the 50% plus one rule and that the qualitative majority of which it speaks relates to the referendum process itself and not the number of votes required?
Stéphane Dion LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, as for 50% plus one, in French when there are two choices, it is a majorité simple, a simple majority, not a majorité claire, a clear majority.
Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC
Second, Professor Brun is the same person who has always advised—
Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken of a simple majority. Bloc Quebecois members do not need to feel that the word simple is being applied to them.
Quoting the court, “Democracy, however, means more than simple majority rule”. This can be found in paragraph 149.
As for Professor Brun, he is the same person who has always advised the PQ government that the right to self-determination was synonymous with the right to secession. Now he realizes his error. Well, he is making another.
Daniel Turp Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Mr. Speaker, my colleague does not even know the difference between an absolute majority and a simple one. A simple majority is 38%.
Daniel Turp Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
And that is what you got in the last election.
Daniel Turp Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Mr. Speaker, according to Professor Brun, a refusal to negotiate solely on the grounds that the majority in favour of sovereignty was not 60%, or 55%, or even 51% of the votes would be unconstitutional.
Does the minister realize that, by again challenging the 50% plus one rule, he is preparing to commit an unconstitutional act, an illegal act?
Stéphane Dion LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, it is evident that the hon. member does not have a PhD in mathematics, because when there are only two choices, a yes and a no, absolute majority and simple majority are synonymous.
Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC
Now, that said, Professor Brun has made a mistake, as I have said, and is still in error today. Those things happen.
But that is not the end of the story. The bottom line is that it is totally irresponsible to try to do something as serious as seceding when the population is split down the middle, and to try to negotiate. When the first difficulties appeared, support would be seen to drop below the 50% plus one level. What then? When one has the best interests of Quebec at heart, one does not plunge it into such a situation.
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister or the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It has to do with the WTO meetings in Seattle next week. The Minister for International Trade will be going there representing the government.
Can the government tell us whether the Minister for International Trade, at the meetings in Seattle, will be making it absolutely clear that Canada rejects the American position with respect to how health and education services should be dealt with at the WTO?
Lloyd Axworthy LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the Minister for International Trade has been asked this question several times in the House and has made it very clear that we consider that health is part of the basic protected services and will not be part of those negotiations.
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, that is not the view that Ms. Barshefsky takes. I wish the government would make it explicit, that it rejects her point of view.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage said she desires a carve out of culture in which culture is not “WTO-able” at all, to use her words. Can the government tell us if that is the position the trade minister will be taking to Seattle, that culture under no conditions will be “WTO-able”? Right now it is, and we would like to know how she plans to change it.
Lloyd Axworthy LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, as I just said, health is not a negotiable item and neither is culture. Canada has taken the lead internationally through the efforts of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister for International Trade to establish a new multilateral instrument that would promote the diversity of culture around the world. Canada is taking the lead on that matter and I think the hon. member should be supportive of that.
Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB
Mr. Speaker, two days ago the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence told the House that the maritime replacement program was on the minister's desk awaiting his decision. Today the Vice-Admiral of Defence Staff testified at our defence committee meeting that he signed off on the statement of requirements at the end of June.
Will the minister please stop saying that the Sea King replacement program is his number one priority and now make it his number one priority by initiating this program before the House rises at Christmastime?
Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, it is my number one priority, as I have quite clearly indicated, but it is not solely a matter of this department. It is also a matter for other departments and consultations that need to go on with other departments.
As well, because of the major nature of this government expenditure, it involves the elected representatives of a fully accountable government. We are going through that process and as quickly as possible we are going to purchase a new helicopter.
Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB
Mr. Speaker, according to what we were told this morning, everyone has agreed, with the exception that the minister has not signed off on this. We are talking about the lives of our pilots and the men and women who are in these helicopters.
Contrary to an internal department document received through access to information which informed the minister that a maritime helicopter replacement program would take eight years, the minister yesterday testified that the replacements would be active in five years. Obviously the minister has more information than we have.
Will the minister table in the House all of the exact details, including the time line of the Sea King replacement program that he has—