Debates of Dec. 15th, 1999

Government Grants

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not the entrepreneurs we are worried about. It is people with close ties to the Prime Minister.

Four days before the last election René Fugère attended a press conference on behalf of the Prime Minister. He represented the Prime Minister at the conference to announce this very grant for this very hotel. In fact he spoke on behalf of the Prime Minister. Obviously the Prime Minister knew all about the deal with the Grand-Mère hotel.

The Prime Minister loves to take credit for all the grants he doles out in Shawinigan, but will the Prime Minister take responsibility for the particular grant?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I repeat again that yes, I have worked for my riding. I am happy to report to the House of Commons that some years ago the Saint-Maurice Valley had the highest unemployment in the land. It is no longer the case because they have a very good member of parliament working for them.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is still trying to dispute the old headline in the 1993 election “Elect Me and I will be Santa Claus”. The facts stand for themselves.

The Grand-Mère hotel gets $100,000 in federal government grants. The Grand-Mère hotel then turns over more than $11,000 to the person who represents the Prime Minister at the press conference to announce that very grant, the same guy who is under investigation for three other grants that he obtained illegally because he is not a registered lobbyist.

The Prime Minister is well aware of the pattern that is developing. There is a new one every week. Why is it that he finds it so hard to step in and stop what is going on in Shawinigan?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, if I were to take the time of the House to list all the ridings of the Reform Party that have benefited from the same program of the federal government, I would probably take all of question period.

I will say to the House of Commons and to the member who asked the question that I will keep working for my riding as long as the level of unemployment is higher than in Alberta.

Bill C-20

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said “if no one in this country any longer threatens others with the possibility of separation”. That clarifies the debate.

Behind the grand speeches and expounding on democracy, this bill is nothing more than an attempt to silence the democratic expression of the Quebec people.

Will the Prime Minister admit that by wishing to be the sole arbiter of the clarity of the question and the clarity of the result, he is giving advance confirmation in the bill of his real intention, which is to deny the right of Quebecers to decide their own future?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, what we are seeking is honesty and clarity. We want people to know exactly what to expect.

If the Bloc Quebecois wants to respect the opinion of Quebecers, it should note that yesterday two other polls clearly confirmed that over 70% of Quebecers want no more referendums in Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister wants to talk about honesty and clarity when it comes to polls—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I ask you not to use the word honesty too often today. The leader of the Bloc Quebecois.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked you to address your remark to the Prime Minister. It would have been clearer.

The Prime Minister does not understand the difference between 1982 and the present situation. He can no longer count on a majority of docile members from Quebec to legitimize his bill, any more than he can count on Quebec's support, because two-thirds of the members from Quebec in this House are opposed to his bill.

In the circumstances, will he be clear and honest enough to tell us that there is no legitimate justification for his bill?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, since we are speaking of clarity, I could perhaps read the following quote in the House “The court spells it out; it does not want the decision to be ambiguous, and the purpose of the ruling is to ensure that the decision is truly based on an accurate understanding of the situation—that the process takes place very clearly and transparently, that the undertakings are clear, and that naturally the question is clear as well”.

This was what Lucien Bouchard said on August 21, 1998.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has been very unreasonable over the past few days.

Yesterday, he let it slip that the purpose of his bill is to prevent any new referendum in Quebec. The Minister said “—no one in this country any longer threatens others with the possibility of separation”.

Will the minister finally admit that his legislation is nothing but a new padlock act, an act to put a lock on Quebec's future?

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

Mr. Speaker, everyone can check and see how the Bloc Quebecois distorted my comments.

One simply has to look at the transcripts of Oral Question Period, in yesterday's Hansard . I said “—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”.

This is what I said and I see nothing outrageous about it. The question did not even deal with the bill. It related to the memory of my father and it was despicable.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please.

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

Mr. Speaker, we will again quote the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, because he was even clearer on Friday, in replying to a question from the hon. member for Macleod.

Again, I am quoting the minister “We Quebecers will never lose Canada in confusion, nor will we lose it in clarity”.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if members opposite would listen to the whole quote “We Quebecers will never lose Canada in confusion, nor will we lose it in clarity”. This is from the minister.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.