Debates of Dec. 1st, 1999

Government Revenues

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I understand why the Reform Party is focusing on Cuba. It is because they cannot criticize this government.

Let us take a look. The numbers came out yesterday. Canada's gross domestic product advanced 4.7 in the third quarter. That is four quarters in a row. Our business investment is up an average of 12%. We are now creating jobs at a faster rate than any other G-7 country.

Referendums

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Radio-Canada reported that the government was putting the finishing touches to a bill setting the conditions and rules for a future Quebec referendum.

Will the Prime Minister confirm the existence of such a bill to the House and tell us whether he intends to introduce it before Christmas?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we will not have any legislation on how the referendum should be conducted.

If there is a referendum—and 72% of Quebecers hope that there will not be—it will be conducted according to the provisions of the provincial referendum legislation.

What we are saying is that we will state clearly the conditions applying to any future negotiations well in advance.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has also forgotten to mention that the poll he keeps referring to revealed that 66% of Quebecers would like him to step down.

[An hon. member]

Now that is a clear majority.

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

In his speech to Liberal delegates on the weekend, the Prime Minister held up Newfoundland's last two referendums as examples where the questions had been clear.

We know that 52% of Newfoundlanders voted in favour of joining confederation. Clearly, 50% plus one was the rule used.

How then does the Prime Minister explain that the same rule of 50% plus one would not apply now, if the question were clear?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had done his homework, he would know that, in an initial referendum, 86% of Newfoundlanders voted to separate from Great Britain. The percentage for separating from Great Britain was 86%.

Then, in a second referendum, they had to decide whether they wanted to be an independent country, or a province of Canada. But on the separation question, only 14% voted to remain part of Great Britain.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister justifies wanting to get involved in the Quebec referendum process by saying that the supreme court used the expression “clear majority” 25 times in its ruling and more than 10 times in its conclusion.

Did the Prime Minister ever wonder why the justices, who had a golden opportunity to clarify things, never questioned the 50% plus one rule?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the court was very clear on that issue. It did not mention any numbers, but said that there had to be a clear majority. Had the court meant a simple majority, it would have referred to a majority. There would have been no need to qualify that majority by adding the word “clear”.

A majority is a majority. In my opinion, a clear majority means much more than a simple majority.

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

Mr. Speaker, if what the court had in mind was not 50% plus one, it would have talked about a qualified majority.

Long before the reference to the supreme court, the Prime Minister's intention not to recognize the 50% plus one rule should the yes side win was known to all, including the supreme court justices.

Can the Prime Minister tell us why, under the circumstances, the supreme court did not deem necessary to set a rule other than the 50% plus one?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I simply want to quote one line from the ruling and I would like the hon. member to think about it. The court wrote “Democracy means more than simple majority rule”.

I think this statement is pretty clear. And it is in the ruling. I have told this House and all Canadians repeatedly during the referendum campaign that I would never negotiate independence on the basis of a one vote majority. No self-respecting head of government would agree to break up a country without a real consensus.

Labour Standards

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister stated that labour standards do not belong in trade agreements, send them to the ILO. By contrast, President Clinton stated yesterday that core labour standards should be part of every trade agreement and we ought not to buy from countries that oppress workers with poor labour conditions and lack of a living income.

Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement that labour standards do not belong in trade agreements or does he agree with President Clinton?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that we insisted before we agreed to NAFTA that the labour conditions be in the agreement. They were not before we formed the government and we insisted on having them there.

I just want to report at this moment that the Minister for International Trade has been named today to be the head of the WTO working group on trade in developing countries, just to show the House of Commons the reputation of Canada with other countries.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, let us hope that the trade minister stiffens his backbone and begins standing up for labour rights and environmental protection. It is pathetic when the Canadian government has to take lessons in social justice from the Americans.

Listen to what else President Clinton said yesterday: “They're going to have to open up the WTO process so that the voices of labour and the environment can be heard”. Yet for our Prime Minister, labour issues belong at the ILO and environmental issues just are not on the table.

Will the Prime Minister finally admit that trade and labour, that trade and environment are inextricably linked?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

That is what we demanded before we signed the NAFTA agreement. We were opposed to the previous NAFTA agreement because they were not talking about the environment, because they were not talking about labour conditions and because they were not talking about water.

We showed our colours long before the hon. member got up to ask these questions.

Liberal Party Of Canada

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, in his report tabled yesterday the auditor general said there might be a link between the awarding of contracts by the government and donations to the Liberal Party of Canada.

My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. Are there any links between moneys awarded to companies through the TJF fund and financial contributions to Liberal members?

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I think that is a question about a political party, as I heard it, and I would rule the question out of order. Does the member have another question?

[Jean Dubé, Progressive Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, in Papineau—Saint-Denis, represented by her predecessor at HRDC, a company by the name of Rougier Inc., which received $81,000 from the TJF program, gave Liberal candidates of Montreal in the 1997 election a total amount of $8,400. Then in 1998, after receiving a TJF amount, it increased the donation to the Liberal Party of Canada by $1,000 and received contracts of over $40,000.

Are there any links between donations to the Liberal Party of Canada and getting—

[The Speaker]

The question is out of order.

Health

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government has absolutely no idea what it is actually spending on health care. It knows that it slashed $21 billion from the health care budget, but other than that the details are getting pretty sketchy.

The auditor general says that the federal government has no idea whether its health care spending ever makes it to the waiting lines or the emergency rooms. The truth is that it ain't even coming close.

Why does the government care so little about the health of Canadians that it does not even bother to monitor where Canadian health tax dollars are going?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the auditor general made some very useful recommendations yesterday. In fact we are already implementing some of them. On this very point the member should know that we are now acting to fill that gap.

Last February the government announced that it was to invest significant sums in developing an information system so that every year we would get an annual report on the state of the health care system in Canada, including the amounts spent by all governments.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is right, but this is not something new that the auditor general has talked about. It should be acted on before he even thinks of reporting how despicable it is.

The auditor general also says that there are weaknesses in the surveillance of diseases and injuries which are compromising the ability of Health Canada to protect Canadians. That is what it is all about.

After confiscating half the income of Canadians on taxes one would think the government would take it upon itself to try to protect Canadians from health risks. Why is the government so good at cutting and so bad at caring?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, we announced in the last budget that we were increasing by $11.5 billion over the next five years the transfers to provinces. We did that only after they all agreed that every nickel would be devoted to health and nothing else.

Part of our commitment, as the Prime Minister has often said, is to have a report card that will tell Canadians what they are getting for their money in the health care system. We believe not only in caring but in accountability.

Air Transportation Industry

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Transport expressed surprise that the President of InterCanadian did not lay the blame for its difficult situation on the management team of the company. According to him, they are the ones responsible for the difficulties the company has been experiencing.

How can the minister justify his lack of interest in saving the 900 jobs at InterCanadian, while he has been involved for some months to a greater extent than necessary in trying to save Canadian Airlines?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely simplistic for the company to attempt to put the responsibility on the federal government for the financial difficulties of InterCanadian, or to attribute it to the battle between Air Canada and Canadian Airlines, without assuming any responsibility itself. InterCanadian bought Air Atlantic, and this was a very troubled company.

As I have already said, InterCanadian's problems were very evident a year ago.