House of Commons Hansard #39 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was quebec.
Lawrence MacAulay LiberalSolicitor General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that my hon. colleague does not really understand the problems in our prison system.
When I was appointed solicitor general and realized that 70% of the people who enter our federal institutions either have alcohol or other drug problems, I indicated a number of times in the House that is where we should start, and that is where the government is going.
Deborah Grey Reform Edmonton North, AB
Mr. Speaker, I think all of us in this place understand that there is a drug problem in prisons, but there are far more suitable places to do that research.
I just said that there is a place already in Ottawa. There are lots of empty buildings just down the road at CFB Summerside. Those places are empty; they are up for grabs. Why does the minister not move into one of those places and start solving the drug problem?
Lawrence MacAulay LiberalSolicitor General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, if everything were so simple it would be wonderful. What happens with these problems is that I ask the department to evaluate where this institution should go. The director of Correctional Service Canada indicated that this was an appropriate place to build the building. That is why this building will be constructed where it is to be constructed.
Deborah Grey Reform Edmonton North, AB
Mr. Speaker, perhaps it does look like everything is so simple. It is a special kind of logic that allows him to justify a prison research centre in a province with no prisons. It is a bit like studying rainfall in the Sahara. It is pretty dry over there; they are getting ready for Christmas.
Canadians want the government to fight drugs in our prisons. That is not the issue. However the solicitor general belittles people's concerns with blatant pork barrelling. Why is the solicitor general spending his time and our money looking out for number one?
Lawrence MacAulay LiberalSolicitor General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that my hon. colleague does not understand that this is a research institute. It is not a rehab institute. It is meant to deal with the problem of alcohol and drug abuse in our penal institutions.
Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Mr. Speaker, 70% of the solicitor general's corrections staff said that his drug strategy was a failure. The only thing that he is doing is padding his own constituency with this $2.5 million boondoggle.
Why will the minister continue in this way? Why does he arm himself only with pork to fight drugs?
Lawrence MacAulay LiberalSolicitor General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, it is certainly unfortunate my hon. colleague does not understand when he is told that 70% of the offenders in our federal institutions have alcohol or drug problems.
It would seem to me that would be the place to start, and that is what the government will do.
Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Mr. Speaker, in the same correction survey I just referred to over 80% of the frontline staff said their stress level was not reduced one bit with his drug strategy.
What is the minister saying to these men and women who put their lives on the line when they see him padding his constituency with this $2.5 million pork?
Lawrence MacAulay LiberalSolicitor General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, it is certainly sad my hon. colleague does not understand when he is told that 70% of the individuals who enter our federal institutions have alcohol or drug problems and 50% of the people who enter our institutions are intoxicated when they commit crimes.
That is why the government is creating a special initiative to deal with the drug and alcohol problem in our federal institutions.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs insisted that the mentality of holding a knife to people's throats must stop.
Need we remind the minister that this strategy he is speaking out against has never been used by the sovereignists, whose project is to have their own country?
Does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs recognize that this strategy was put forward by federalists who were tired of trying for years, in good faith, to renew the federation, with nothing but no for an answer, ever?
Stéphane Dion LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, we have improved Canada in a variety of ways and will continue to do so. We will be able to do so even better if no one in this country any longer threatens others with the possibility of separation.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, he has worked this out on his own. The minister can say what he wants, but one cannot rewrite history. I can see he is avoiding answering the question, and I can guess why.
The fact is that Ottawa has never been able to respond to the legitimate desires of Quebecers or even of their federalist allies. History is there as proof of this. The only thing that is clear, the only solution available is sovereignty.
Is the minister going to acknowledge that his bill is a regrettable admission that any attempt at renewed federalism is doomed to failure in advance?
Stéphane Dion LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, Canadian federalism is being renewed constantly, and Canada is so admirable a country that millions, if not billions, of people dream of being Canadian.
Daniel Turp Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs often talks about the 1982 constitution as if it were the eighth wonder of the world, but it is a wonder that was imposed on Quebec against the will of its national assembly, a wonder that even tired old federalists do not accept.
Will the minister finally realize that no Quebec premier, not even Robert Bourassa, ever wanted to sign that constitution, and that no one in Quebec will ever sign it?
Stéphane Dion LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should read the most recent book written by former Quebec Liberal leader Claude Ryan who, while disagreeing with certain aspects of the 1982 constitution, says that, overall, that document is beneficial to Quebecers in many ways.
Some of these benefits are a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that is popular everywhere in the country, including in Quebec; the entrenchment of the principle of equalization in the constitution which, as we know, benefits Quebec; the strengthening of the rights of language minority communities across the country, and we know that Quebecers care about the future of francophones. Also, we would like this city, Ottawa, to be bilingual. Incidentally, I dare say—
Bill C-20Oral Question Period
The Speaker
I am sorry. The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.
Daniel Turp Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is because he was tempted to sign that constitution that Mr. Ryan never became Premier of Quebec.
The 1982 constitution leaves Quebec bound and gagged. Now the government wants to go even further and put Quebec in a straitjacket. The bill is a new violation of democracy, a denial of the Quebec democracy.
Will the minister admit that his real intention is to prevent Quebecers from expressing themselves freely and democratically and building a new country?
Stéphane Dion LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, the more the Bloquistes and Péquistes talk like that, impute motives and work themselves into a frenzy in their arguments, the less they are likely to succeed in their project.
Should I encourage them to keep going in that direction? No, because I know many separatists who are not proud of that kind of rhetoric.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Emergency shelters in Toronto are bursting at the seams and the city of Toronto is pleading for federal help. Instead of responding positively the federal government tomorrow will close the Fort York Armoury which provides nightly shelter for 100 homeless people.
With winter now upon us will the government reverse its decision to throw desperate families literally out in the cold? Will the Prime Minister do that?
Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence
Mr. Speaker, that is not the case at all with respect to the Fort York Armoury.
The city of Toronto has been able to get many additional beds and additional shelters that were established this fall to take over from the Fort York Armoury. The Fort York Armoury will be turned back over to the military tomorrow and used as a command centre with respect to the Y2K rollover.
We provided that facility as a stop-gap measure to help with the homeless problem in Toronto. We are very pleased that we were able to do that, but it is no longer needed.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, it is simply not true that those beds are no longer needed. There are not enough beds in Toronto today. With the armoury's closure there will be even fewer beds.
The Prime Minister whispers “constitution” and child poverty, the crisis on the family farm and the homeless literally disappear from the government's radar screen.
Will the Prime Minister just pause for one moment, think of the homeless, reverse this heartless decision and continue providing shelter to the homeless at the Fort York Armoury?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, those responsible for CMHC have given money to the city of Toronto in the last few days to help it with this problem.
The government is working on the problem of the homeless. As well we have been working for a long time on child poverty. We did that. We invested billions of dollars at the time we were cutting because these were priorities of the government.
André Bachand Progressive Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mr. Speaker, contrary to the supreme court ruling, in Bill C-20 the federal government has appropriated for itself the role of arbitrator and negotiator in the referendum process, relegating the provinces to a secondary or advisory role. There is nothing new there.
Does this mean that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs interprets political actors as meaning only the comics sitting on the government benches?
Stéphane Dion LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, it is completely irresponsible to interpret the bill in this way. In acting alone, the Government of Canada would be running a great risk.
Let us suppose that the Government of Canada thought that the question was clear, but that eight out of nine provinces did not. That would be a problem that would have to be resolved. That is why consultation is necessary. The bill provides for such consultation.
The difficulty in reaching agreement does not stem from the bill but from the complexity inherent in any secession process. The solution is therefore for all of us to stay together in Canada.
André Harvey Progressive Conservative Chicoutimi, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
After 30 years of provocation, what are the results? The percentage in favour of sovereignty has gone from 20% to 49.4%.
Does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs want to know what the next step is? Is he aware that, if he did not exist, he would have to be invented to serve as the primary winning condition for the next referendum?