Debates of Nov. 29th, 1999

Laval University Rouge Et Or

[David Price, Progressive Conservative, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, November 27, Laval University's football team, the Rouge et Or, won the Canadian university football championship, the Vanier Cup.

Laval has had a football team for just four years. This success shows the tenacity and determination displayed by the team to achieve that level of excellence.

It takes an extraordinary staff to build such a team. Coach Jacques Chapdelaine gained his experience with the famous Bishop University Gaiters.

Mr. Chapdelaine is a native of the Eastern Townships and a former resident of Compton—Stanstead.

Compton—Stanstead is also home to the bag balm, a product recently made famous by the soft and satiny Shania Twain.

Congratulations to Jacques and his team, the Rouge et Or.

Congratulations to Eric Smith and his bag balm.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, today is a special day for us in the House, as we will welcome four new colleagues into our midst.

New Members

[The Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer certificates of the election and return of the following members:

Mr. Irwin Cotler, for the electoral district of Mount Royal

Mr. Marcel Proulx, for the electoral district of Hull—Aylmer

Mrs. Judy Sgro, for the electoral district of York West

Mr. Dennis Gruending, for the electoral district of Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar

Irwin Cotler, member for the electoral district of Mount Royal, introduced by the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien and the Hon. Alfonso Gagliano.

Marcel Proulx, member for the electoral district of Hull—Aylmer, introduced by the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien and the Hon. Alfonso Gagliano.

Judy Sgro, member for the electoral district of York West, introduced by the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien and the Hon. Alfonso Gagliano.

Dennis Gruending, member for the electoral district of Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, introduced by Ms. Alexa McDonough and Mr. Dick Proctor.

National Unity

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my congratulations to each of the new members and welcome them to the daily circus.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my friends have lost their sense of humour. The official opposition supports clarity on the question of the majority required on Quebec's separation. We have said this for five years and are glad that the Prime Minister has finally seen the light. However the Prime Minister gives clarity a bad name. He is not clear on what constitutes a majority. He is not even clear on what constitutes a clear question.

Our question would be: Should Quebec separate from Canada and become an independent country with no special legal ties with Canada? Yes or no. Does the Prime Minister agree with that formulation of the question?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome the four new members as well. I do not think it is a circus here. I think it is the most serious place in the land.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

I can understand the Leader of the Opposition feeling like that when he has done such a flip-flop over three days. That is part of the circus he is developing himself.

The question will not be asked by this parliament. The question has to be asked by the legislative assembly in Quebec, but if they want negotiation after the vote the question has to respect all the conditions of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not answer the question and he is equally unclear on his view of democracy. He says he wants a clear majority but he is unable to tell Canadians precisely what that is.

The federal government accepted 50% plus one in two previous Quebec referenda and 50% plus one was the rule in the Charlottetown referendum. Why will the Prime Minister not clarify his definition of what constitutes a clear majority?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition had been listening before the last referendum, I said at least a dozen times in the House that 50% plus one was not a sufficient majority to break up the nation. I know that the leader of the Reform Party said that was enough. For me, it is not enough.

I would just like to say today, as I said on Sunday, that I hope I will not have to proceed. I made a very serious offer to Mr. Bouchard, and if he tells the nation that there will be no referendum I will not proceed at all.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has said, he does not like 50% plus one but you will notice he did not say what he does like. That is not clarifying the situation. That is muddying it up.

We are democrats and we believe that Canadians are democrats too. We believe that a democratic majority on a clear question would have to be acknowledged and accepted in good faith by the federal government as grounds for negotiation however undesirable that outcome might be.

The Prime Minister says he wants to bring clarity to this situation. In the interest of clarity would the Prime Minister tell the House in what possible way he could enforce any other outcome?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court of Canada was very clear when it used the word clarity 25 times in its judgment. In the summary of its judgment it used it another 10 times, all the time referring to the nature of the question and to the majority.

I said that all the judgments would be respected. We will take the means to make sure that they will be respected. Otherwise there will be no negotiation.

I do not want to proceed with that. As I said very seriously on Sunday, the people do not want to hear about it. They want us to deal with other problems, and I am delighted Mr. Bouchard is taking the time to reflect on the very serious offer I made to him on Sunday morning.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister did not think it should be discussed right now, why in the world did he bring it up? That would be a question he should think about.

The finance minister is responsible for the federal government's fiscal policy. He knows that a yes vote in Quebec would send the economy into a period of serious uncertainty, but the rejection of the will of a democratic majority on a clear question would create even more chaos.

Has the finance minister developed a contingency plan to support the Prime Minister's rejection of the will of a democratic majority of Quebecers?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the hon. member will read the judgment of the supreme court. The supreme court said that a simple majority was not enough, that the will of the people had to be very clearly expressed, that there had to be a large consensus to bring about such a very important statement.

As I said in my speech on Sunday, the leader of the Conservative Party felt that 66% was not enough for him to hold on to his leadership. Mr. Bouchard felt that 76% was needed for him to reflect before deciding to stay. In 1980 when the no side had 60% of the votes, it was not enough for the Parti Quebecois to respect democracy.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, here we go waxing on about clarity, but if that was clarity, it is pathetic. This is getting thicker and foggier every time the Prime Minister opens his mouth.

Whether the finance minister likes it or not, the rejection of the democratic will of Quebecers would create even more confusion and uncertainty, especially in the international financial markets.

Does the Prime Minister believe that the international markets would support the Prime Minister's rejection of the democratic outcome of a democratic question? Yes or no?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is not undemocratic at all. Most of the big countries in the world do not even permit a vote on separation. Let us look at other markets. In the United States they do not have permission to separate a state from the United States. In France the constitution is very clear that no part of France can quit France. We are more democratic in Canada than most of the countries of the world.

It is why I say that the Minister of Finance does not have to work on the plan. The Minister of Finance, like this Prime Minister and this party will do everything to make sure that we succeed in keeping all of the provinces in a united Canada.

Referendums

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

Mr. Speaker, on the weekend, the Prime Minister told the Liberal rank and file that he was tired of talking about the constitution and that, if we were to quit talking about it, the problem would go away.

Are we to understand that the Prime Minister is now resorting to magical thinking and that all we have to do is stop talking about the constitution for a solution to be found?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, what I said was that people were tired of hearing about the referendum and winning conditions. People know that, every week, the Parti Quebecois talks about laying the groundwork for winning conditions. Every month, Mr. Bouchard says he is going to hold a referendum, when 72% of Quebecers do not want one.

If they want to talk about democracy, let them respect the will of 72% of Quebecers, who do not want a referendum. Then everyone will be happy and we can deal with real problems.

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

Mr. Speaker, people also know that the Prime Minister is the one responsible for the unilateral patriation of the constitution, the failure of the Meech Lake agreement, a social union agreement that does not have Quebec's signature, and unprecedented interference in Quebec's jurisdiction. The Prime Minister's name is associated with all these attacks on Quebec.

After 35 years in political life, is the Prime Minister not afraid of going down in history as the man who painted us into a corner?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, in December 1995, for the first time in the history of parliament, we introduced a resolution to recognize Quebec as a distinct society, and the Bloc Quebecois voted against.

In this House, we voted for a bill giving Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia a veto. Once again, the Bloc Quebecois voted against.

We made another promise. We said that we would transfer responsibility for manpower training to the Province of Quebec, and what a mess Mr. Bouchard's government made of that.

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

Mr. Speaker, over the weekend, the Prime Minister added to his government's anti-democratic intentions by reaffirming before the party faithful that he had to intervene to set the rules for the next referendum in Quebec.

Can the Prime Minister tell us how he intends to question the most sacred rule in democracy, the rule of 50% plus one, the only rule that ensures the equality of all votes?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will never call my hon. colleague a poor democrat.

I believe simply that they have not given sufficient thought to the problems of reconciling their project and democracy. We would need to have a high level debate among democrats without pointless insults.

Second, if the rule of 50% plus one is sacred in all circumstances, why does the Government of Quebec not honour it in the case of its municipal referendums?

Democracy is expressed in different ways. There is a rule in democracy, which I did not invent, that the more serious and irreversible a decision, the higher the approval threshold must be.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the minister and the Prime Minister that, in 1980 and 1995, the federal government accepted the rule of 50% plus one, since it was clear then that no one intended to question this universally recognized rule.

In trying to change the rule today, does the Prime Minister realize that he will go down in history as the man who wanted to derail democracy in Canada and Quebec?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I have said dozens of times in this House that we would never agree to the rule of 50% plus one. I said so before the referendum, during the referendum and after the referendum.

If it takes two thirds of the National Assembly to appoint the auditor general, the director general of elections and the ombudsman, and if it takes a two thirds majority to expel a union from the CSN, there is no question of breaking up a country after a judicial recount because there is one vote in favour of breaking up the country, because that person may have left their glasses at home.