Debates of Nov. 30th, 1999

Referendums

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Really, Mr. Speaker, I was not even a member of parliament when the Meech Lake accord was signed. The hon. member is giving me great powers.

But I clearly remember that the Parti Quebecois voted against the Meech Lake accord. At the time, the member for Roberval was an MNA and he voted against the Meech Lake accord.

Why do they not assume their responsibilities? Why do members of the Parti Quebecois not admit that they are the ones responsible for the defeat of the Meech Lake accord, since they voted against that accord?

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

Mr. Speaker, in Quebec we know who is responsible for the failure of Meech, and the Prime Minister is one of these people.

During the weekend, the Prime Minister spoke like a statesman and said he was offering a truce to Mr. Bouchard. However, he behaves like a Liberal Party leader who wants to denigrate Quebec, who wants to please the rest of Canada in anticipation of the next election.

Was the truce proposed to Mr. Bouchard by the Prime Minister just a trap?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

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

Mr. Speaker, we will leave the lobster traps to others. That being said, it is really unworthy of the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry to give in to cheap partisan rhetoric, as he just did.

This is an important issue, because we Quebecers could find ourselves in a situation where we would lose the right to be Canadians without ever having clearly wanted that. The answer to the question is never.

Trade

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister told the House that increasing trade, without regard to the human cost, is the best way to serve the citizens of the world.

Canadians want their government to take a more balanced approach. Canadians recognize, for example, the importance of worker safety and environmental protection.

Why then does the Prime Minister ignore workers' rights and ignore environmental standards when he speaks of trade and the WTO?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. leader of the fourth party should know that when we formed the government we worked very hard to improve the NAFTA deal.

What were the considerations at that time? We said that we had to improve the deal for the protection of workers' rights, for the protection of the environment, and for the protection of water because there was a problem between Canada and the United States. We made these improvements to satisfy exactly the point that the hon member is making. Our record is quite clear on that.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is a sham. No wonder the Prime Minister does not want to talk about the WTO.

The Prime Minister knows that the enforcement mechanisms of the WTO are much stronger. When it comes to defending Canadian product abroad, and that is very important, the government goes to the WTO. Why? Because it has teeth.

When it comes to people needing health and safety protection, and environmental protection, the government shunts them off to some subcommittee of a subcommittee of a working group because it knows that nothing will happen.

Why is Canada's position at Seattle so lacking in balance?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party should know that we refer problems on labour to the ILO. She will be the first one. She just made a great concession to us. She said that we should use the WTO to make sure we sell our products abroad. Well I know the workers are the ones who benefit the most when we sell Canadian products abroad and these workers are in unions that give money to the hon. member's party.

National Unity

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is apparent from his comments at noon that the Prime Minister just cannot take no for an answer. He has decided to practise the divisive politics of Reform and has made yet another tactical error on the Quebec strategy.

Premier Bouchard has said that there will not be a referendum in the near future. Now the Prime Minister is desperately backtracking. He is not tough. He is tilting windmills.

Will the Prime Minister admit that, as in 1995, he has once again bungled the unity file?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we would like to know the position of the Conservative Party on that. I would like to know the position of the leader of the Conservative Party who said some time ago that 50 plus one was enough. He has said nothing since last Tuesday. In his own case, 66% of the vote was not enough to give him a mandate to remain the leader of the Conservative Party, but 50 plus one is enough to break Canada. They should get serious.

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

Mr. Speaker, if one thing is clear, it is that the Conservative Party has not changed its position. It has always worked to build this country in unity and tried to find a way—

[Some hon. members]

oh, oh!

[The Speaker]

Order, please.

The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

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

Quebec is part of Canada. It is distinct. It is different. Never has the Conservative Party tried to do what the Prime Minister did with the Meech Lake accord and what he did in 1995.

If the Prime Minister is not backing up, could he listen to what the Quebec premier said about there being no referendum in the future and to what the premier of New Brunswick said, to the effect that the Prime Minister's timing is unnecessary and dangerous.

Otherwise, what can he propose? A federal referendum election?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, he has just said the Conservatives are in favour of a distinct society. We had a vote here in December 1995, and the members of the Conservative Party at the time did not even vote. He should look into that.

Second, if 50% plus one is enough for him, he should do as the Reformers have done and explain how it is that it takes a two thirds majority of the voting members of the Conservative Party to change their constitution under clause 14.6 of the Conservative Party of Canada's constitution. To change party bylaws, a two thirds majority is necessary, but to break up Canada—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for St. Albert.

National Defence

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General in his report today has pointed the finger at poor and incompetent management by the DND brass again. They ignored a gas scam where military personnel were accepting cash kickbacks when they purchased diesel fuel. Military police investigated. They said that there was not a problem and closed the file. Now the Auditor General says that it has been costing us millions of dollars a year.

Why did the bureaucrats under the direction of the Minister of National Defence ignore the gas scam and close the file on this case where corruption was staring them in the face?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious and disturbing matter. It is under investigation. The hon. member has it all wrong. This matter is being fully investigated right now.

Our people in the Department of National Defence, whether civilian or military, are expected to maintain the highest ethical standards, and we are going to ensure that happens.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me say that it is the minister who has it all wrong.

The military police closed the file and said that there was nothing there. It was not until the auditor general alerted his department that they reopened the case. The point we are trying to get out is that there is no accountability in the senior management of his department.

I ask the minister once again, why did his staff close the file on a serious issue, which he acknowledges, instead of investigating the case properly?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the file has not been closed. Perhaps the hon. member is mixing this up with something else where insufficient evidence may have existed. In this particular case, the matter is fully under investigation.

Minister Of International Trade

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are some very serious allegations hanging over the head of the Minister of International Trade relating to non-compliance with the Canada Elections Act.

In a similar situation, former Conservative minister Marcel Masse resigned in 1985, so that the integrity of his government would not be affected.

Why does the Prime Minister now accept having the Minister of International Trade keep his portfolio? Has the government's level of tolerance been raised so high that only a guilty verdict would warrant his resignation?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Very much the contrary, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of International Trade made the following statement yesterday “I categorically deny having received a $10,000 contribution either directly or indirectly, as indicated in the National Post article. What is more, my senior campaign manager in 1997 states categorically that the only contribution received from the individual in question is included in my report to Elections Canada”.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Marcel Masse also denied it. He was even exonerated. But during the investigation, he withdrew from Cabinet. That was the honourable thing to do.

In response to the hon. government House leader, I would indicate to him that a complaint against the Minister of Internatinal Trade has been filed with the commissioner of Canada Elections in this connection.

Given the precedent set by Marcel Masse, and for the sake of his government's integrity, should the Prime Minister not require his minister to step down, until the matter has been clarified once and for all?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

First of all, Mr. Speaker, in the case to which the hon. member is referring, an RCMP investigation was conducted. There is no investigation of any type whatsoever involved in this matter, as far as I know.

Second, the hon. member opposite must be aware that what is involved here is not a complaint against an MP or minister, or indeed anyone in this House, but rather a divorce-related dispute. The hon. member is very well aware of this.