Debates of May 6th, 1999

International Relations

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again the Prime Minister is giving a demonstration of his legendary nastiness toward Quebec.

Yet the federalist top guns never stop telling us that Canada is a flexible and decentralized federation, one in which Quebec is supposedly a society with a unique character.

Does the Prime Minister realize that, by deciding what the Premier of Quebec can and must do, he is revealing how he sees Quebec: as a province like all the others, subordinated to their lords and masters in Ottawa.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I might quote Jean Lapierre, a former Bloc member.

[An hon. member]

A former Liberal minister.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

Paul Arcand spoke of a winning condition. Lapierre's reply was:“There you are. The Canadian Constitution is very clear on federal jurisdiction over international trade and foreign affairs. There is no doubt about that. Yet any time you want to go beyond your jurisdiction, you know that Ottawa will say no. Such a clever strategy”.

So there we have it. They provoke incidents. They go on and on about interference in provincial areas of jurisdiction, while they are trampling roughshod over federal areas of jurisdiction all the time.

Ethics Counsellor

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

The auditor general does not report to the Prime Minister for good reason. He reports directly to parliament, as do the chief electoral officer, the official languages commissioner, the privacy commissioner and the information commissioner. In some provinces reports on ethics are fully disclosed, but not in this government. It prefers to operate—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order. My colleagues, I would ask you please to lower your voices.

The hon. leader of the New Democratic Party, you may begin your question again, if you like.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the auditor general does not report to the Prime Minister for good reason. He reports directly to parliament, as do the chief electoral officer, the official languages commissioner, the privacy commissioner, and the information commissioner. In some provinces reports on ethics are fully disclosed, but not in this government. It prefers to operate behind closed doors.

Why does the Prime Minister refuse to allow the ethics commissioner to report directly to parliament?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, in exactly 62 minutes he will be in front of a committee replying to questions of members of parliament. It is not in hiding. It is in the open. He explains how he manages the files and members can ask him questions. But there is too, for every member of parliament in their private affairs, an element that when they have blind trust, that means that trust has to be blind. He will reply to questions. I have written a letter and I have replied to all the questions in the House. You can ask Mr. Wilson questions this afternoon.

[The Speaker]

Please direct your answers and your questions to the chair.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, sure we can ask questions without the benefit of a report to parliament to base those questions on.

In 1994 this government promised to develop a code of conduct for MPs and senators. That was over five years ago and what do we have? Nothing. Telling proof that ethical conduct is not a priority for this government.

The member for Halifax West has done his homework and tabled a code of conduct. Has the Prime Minister reviewed that code of conduct and will he support it?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across will know that the code of conduct for members of parliament that she is proposing is for people in their jobs as members of parliament.

The member will also know, if she has surveyed her own colleagues, that very few members of the House would want what she says; that is to say, the disclosure of assets and everything else of her own backbenchers. Perhaps she should check it out.

Millennium Scholarships

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

Mr. Speaker, on the subject of the millennium scholarships, two months ago I put a question to the Minister of Human Resources Development. He said he was prepared to appoint a negotiator, if such were requested. In the past two months, two agreements have been signed—with Alberta and Ontario.

This morning the minister of education sent a letter to the Minister of Human Resources Development. We learned today that the minister will announce the appointment of a negotiator, finally, after two months.

The minister is like the tulips on the Hill. He opens up, finally, and sees the light. Why did he wait two months to appoint a negotiator?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, two months ago in the House, I proposed a facilitator, and Quebec refused.

The foundation has concluded two agreements, with Ontario and Alberta, two agreements that were extremely well received in Quebec.

I am very pleased to see that the students, the educational community, the public in general and the political milieu recognize the flexibility of the Canadian legislation, and we will make sure that the best interests of students in Quebec remain a priority—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister took over two months, two tulip festivals, before appointing a negotiator. That makes no sense.

Can the minister, who today is appointing a negotiator, tell the House what his mandate will be in meeting the Quebec negotiator, when the negotiator will report to the minister and when the minister will report to the House? It is time to stop beating about the bush. Tulip time has arrived, and we need a solution.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, I appointed Robert Bourgeois, assistant deputy minister with the Department of Justice, as the facilitator in the matter of the millennium scholarships.

This matter has moved along considerably in the past two months and reached the point where now the Government of Quebec has agreed to return to the Gautrin motion, the three principles of which are provided for in the agreements signed with Ontario and Alberta.

The mandate of the facilitator, Mr. Bourgeois, will fall within the legislation that parliament passed last year.

Aboriginal Affairs

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

The minister has a responsibility to disclose his views on the Nisga'a treaty, yet he sat here during three days of questions and did not answer any of them.

This treaty creates a new Nisga'a state in the heart of British Columbia. The Nisga'a government will have absolute power in 14 constitutional areas and the Nisga'a can grant civil rights based on ethnicity.

This same minister has refused to grant Quebec these same powers, and rightly so. Why has he caved in on the Nisga'a treaty?

[The Speaker]

I remind members that the question is posed to the government and any minister or anyone on this side can answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party has every right to question the treaty with the Nisga'a.

What is not legitimate is that it has tried to analyse what we mean by the spirit of our country, comparing what would be seceding with an agreement on what is within the Canadian constitutional framework.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking secession here; we are talking sovereignty association, a sovereign state.

I asked the minister about creating a state within a state in the province of British Columbia. I am sure that he wants to respond again.

He says that Quebec cannot take over the federal government's powers, and we agree. He says that Quebec is not a nation state, but he obviously thinks the Nisga'a nation is. Why the double standard?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, we need to do some educating for the sake of the other side.

The questions they are asking get to the heart of the issue of the inherent right to self-government. We are not talking about ethnicity; we are talking about indigenous people to Canada, people who lived here before my ancestors came and before many of theirs.

The understanding is that indigenous people, first nations, were governing themselves before we arrived and, as one of the rights protected in our Constitution, aboriginal rights, the inherent right to self-government is such.

International Relations

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, no doubt the business people accompanying the Quebec Premier on his economic mission to Mexico will appreciate the fact that not only did the Canadian embassy not help them one bit, but also that the Prime Minister thinks they are troublemakers, emmerdeurs. They are going to bother—emmerder—people in Mexico because they want to discuss economic development for Quebec.

Does the Prime Minister feel that the visit, 15 days ago, by his Newfoundland friend Brian Tobin to the Prime Minister of Ireland was also a trip made to bother people, a trip of emmerdements?

[The Speaker]

I would prefer that we did not use words like “emmerdant”.

[An hon. member]

The example comes from the Prime Minister.