Order. This goes for both sides of the House.
The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
House of Commons Hansard #223 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.
House of Commons Hansard #223 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.
International RelationsOral Question Period
The Speaker
Order. This goes for both sides of the House.
The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, let us not get all worked up. It is not even me, it is Jean Lapierre again who said—
Paul Arcand asked him “Then, why are the Péquistes upset?” And Lapierre replied “Because it is a nice way to be told no and, I am telling you, and I am telling people, do not fall for this trick”.
For example, when Mr. Bouchard went to Washington, did he not ask to meet with President Clinton?
We are helping the Government of Quebec. They will meet with all the economic ministers they want to. The only thing they want is to be told no and feel a little more humiliated.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if the Prime Minister would explain his logic. Why is it possible, normal and fine for former premiers of Quebec, Ontario and Newfoundland to meet prime ministers and heads of state, but a big deal—ces emmerdements—when it is the Premier of Quebec?
We cannot accept that.
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, it is very, very, very complicated. Mr. Zedillo is not in Mexico City. Therefore, it is the federal government's fault.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, the Nisga'a treaty creates a separate race-based nation in the heart of British Columbia. The treaty gives that—
Aboriginal AffairsOral Question Period
The Speaker
Order, please, on both sides of the House. The hon. member for Fraser Valley.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, the Nisga'a treaty creates a separate race-based nation in the heart of British Columbia. It also hands over the control of 14 constitutional areas from this parliament to the Nisga'a people.
When the Nisga'a agreement was brought to the British Columbia legislature for debate the B.C. Liberal Party opposed it, saying it was a backdoor amendment to the Constitution of Canada and it should be disallowed for that reason alone.
Why does the constitutional affairs minister agree that this is the proper way to amend Canada's Constitution?
Jane Stewart LiberalMinister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to try to explain to a party that refuses to understand treaties and treaty making in Canada why its answers are so incorrect.
Let me share this with the House. It comes from the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Concerns have been raised that the new Nisga'a system of government will be “racist” and “undemocratic” because only Nisga'a may vote for representatives to the central and village governments. In the Commission's view, these accusations are based on a misunderstanding. The Nisga'a people governed their own affairs within their territory long before European contact and have never renounced that right. This inherent—
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, let me try this another way.
The intergovernmental affairs minister calls himself the keeper of the Constitution, but it is obvious by his silence that he is going to go along and of course he is going to vote for this Nisga'a agreement when it comes in.
The question is this. Since the Nisga'a band has been granted, in essence, a form of sovereignty association within the province of British Columbia, why would the intergovernmental affairs minister possibly vote for a change to the Constitution of that magnitude? Why would he do it?
Stéphane Dion LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, is it possible to stop this kind of demagoguery and to stop portraying a change within the constitutional framework to mean the splitting up of Canada, the end of our country? Is that possible?
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, today, the Prime Minister is trying to change his story.
He is saying that it is because the president was not there. But Quebec was prepared to change its date. The real reason is that Ottawa refused—
International RelationsOral Question Period
The Speaker
Order, please. We want to listen to the question. The leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Yesterday, what he said was that a premier did not meet with a head of government.
I would like to know why the Canadian embassy in Ireland organized a meeting for Premier Tobin two weeks ago. Why did it then refuse to do the same thing for Premier Bouchard?
The Prime Minister went on at great length about how this was not done, that it was contrary to Canadian protocol. Can he tell us how it is that this protocol has changed in two weeks?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, this involves a trade mission to Mexico. We are being accused of not informing President Zedillo. He himself informed me that Mr. Bouchard was going to visit Mexico.
He told me that he was not going to be there that day, and he was not. They are trying to turn it into a huge scandal. But these are the same people who are always talking about respect for jurisdictions.
They are clearly interfering in an area of federal jurisdiction—
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, if Brian Tobin met with foreign heads of state, that would not be interfering in federal jurisdiction, that would be fine.
But when it comes to the President of Mexico meeting with the Premier of Quebec, it is out of the question. Is it not true that what the Prime Minister really wants is for all Quebecers to be just like him, good French Canadians kowtowing to the federal government?