Debates of Feb. 17th, 2000

National Defence

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, while the government has indicated that it will make it easier for those veterans labelled as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder to apply for pensions, the big question of depleted uranium remains unaddressed.

Depleted uranium was found in the body of Nova Scotia veteran Terry Riordon. There are others seeking testing and treatment for depleted uranium.

Will the government ensure speedy, thorough and efficient testing in the treatment of CF members and veterans, and take a leadership role in calling for an international treaty banning the use of depleted uranium in weapons?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the announcement from my colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs is most welcome in terms of the pensions for those who have suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder.

That is completely in accordance with what my department and what the government want to do. We want to look after our troops. We want to make sure if any of them go over healthy and come back sick that in fact we look after them.

In terms of depleted uranium I have indicated that we do want people who feel they might have been affected to come forward. They will be tested. We will give them every opportunity to do so. We want to make sure that they are properly looked after.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I guess maybe the Minister of National Defence should apply to HRDC to get enough money to buy the Sea Kings that we need. That is probably the way he could get it.

The government cancelled the EH-101 contract, which was the helicopter we should have today. We have lost lives. We have heard throughout the past year from the minister that the government is to replace the Sea Kings. When will it replace the Sea Kings?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I answered that in the previous question, but let me say something else. If the Conservatives when they were in power had not bungled the helicopter matter, spending far more money than what was needed for a helicopter that was totally inappropriate for today's needs, we would be a lot further ahead in terms of this replacement at this point in time. They wasted taxpayer money.

Privilege

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during Oral Question Period, I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage to explain the use of public funds for purposes other than those for which they were intended.

In her response, the minister reproached me for having distributed 300 Canadian flags in my riding.

I consider it my privilege to rectify both the facts and the reproaches relating to the carrying out of my legitimate duties as a member of parliament coming from the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

First of all, as far as the facts are concerned, I wish to inform this House that I received from the Minister of Canadian Heritage a single box of 75 Canada flags and not—

[The Speaker]

This is not a question of privilege, it is merely debate.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Perhaps the second part, Mr. Speaker—

[The Speaker]

That is enough.

Points Of Order

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, during the course of the question period just ended Your Honour ruled out of order, I presume, the question I put to the Minister of Human Resources Development and did not permit me to put a second question.

I infer from the Speaker's ruling that you objected to my use of the term not telling the truth. I refer Your Honour to article 490 of Beauchesne's which states:

Since 1958, it has been ruled parliamentary to use—

[The Speaker]

I refer the hon. member to Standing Order 18 on page 522 of the M and M. I would hope that all hon. members would take to heart what has transpired in the last few days. If I might permit myself this small comment, I appreciate the fact that the House generally and all of us here are possibly trying to rectify what went on in the last few days.

As much as possible I am trying to keep it so hon. members can be heard and the people giving answers can be heard. I would hope that we would not use terms which would cause disorder because that is what I am referring to. I consider this matter to be closed.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In preparing for question period every day it is important for us, in preparing our questions, to know what language we can or cannot use. Our only reference is to the standing orders, Beauchesne's and other reference books.

It would help us a great deal, Mr. Speaker, if somehow you could provide a list of what words and terms we can use so that we do not have you interrupt our questions.

[The Speaker]

I wish I could give the member a precise list. Usually I am guided by what transpires in the question period. To that effect, some days members use a certain term and there is no reaction in any part of the House.

When there is disorder I try to rectify it so that we can get on with the question period. Indeed, that is what many members urged me to do yesterday. I am trying to conduct our business in as good a fashion as I can.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have always felt that the work a member does in his riding should be non-partisan. After all, we are representing all of our constituents.

In the riding of Portneuf, there are citizens who want Canadian flags and, until today, I made a point of getting them for them. There is not a huge demand, but I felt that it was my duty as an MP to respond to it.

The minister's remarks suggest that she does not feel that this is my job and I hereby announce that I am going to give her back the flags I have left.

[The Speaker]

That is not a question of privilege.

Business Of The House

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to use very temperate language and make this as straightforward as I can. Could the government House leader give us some idea of what we can expect for government business tomorrow and for the early part of next week?

Perhaps he could also let us know whether he expects the debates to go on and on, or whether he plans to bring in time allocation on any of the bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, today is a Bloc Quebecois opposition day.

Tomorrow, Friday, we will deal with Bill C-16. Naturally, I would have liked to examine Bill C-13 on Canadian Institutes of Health Research but, so far, no consensus has been reached for speedy passage of this bill.

In the afternoon, we will proceed to third reading of Bill C-10, the Municipal Grants Act.

Next Monday we will return to Bill C-23, the benefits and obligations modernization legislation. On Tuesday we will return to Bill C-2, the elections bill. On Wednesday we shall either take up one of the bills listed for Friday morning or we shall commence on the airlines bill introduced earlier this day. Next Thursday shall be an allotted day.

I noted with interest when the hon. member asked me if there was an intention on the part of the opposition to obstruct the legislation presently before the House. I am sorry that I cannot answer that question. I am not privy to that, but he can rest assured that if the opposition provides obstruction the government will behave in its usual and non-partisan objective way to ensure that the program of the government is fulfilled.

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Supply

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the motion of the Bloc Quebecois ordering the legislative committee studying Bill C-20 to hold public hearings in all regions of Quebec and Canada so as to hear as many witnesses as possible having an interest in this bill, and expressing other considerations.

It is important to explain to Quebecers and Canadians why the Bloc Quebecois, with the support of all opposition parties, is so vocal in its condemnation not only of the so-called clarity bill but also of the process whereby this bill will be rushed through the House.

In the short time I have, I will speak of the content of the bill as well as of the accelerated process. This bill, which is entitled—we have no choice but to say it, as but we find that it is not well named—an act to give effect to the requirement for clarity. For the record, this bill was born under the influence of the instigator of the government's plan B, in the days following the referendum where the yes side almost won.

In short, plan B was the stick while plan A, which we have heard little about, was supposed to be the carrot, a very small, transparent, translucent, genetically engineered carrot we have not often seen.

What we have been hearing about, since the 1995 referendum, which was almost won but was unfortunately lost, is plan B. When history is written, it will be clear that plan B was developed at the instigation of the current Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

It is interesting to remind the House that, as early as 1992, this minister, then a professor, gave advice to Premier Bourassa, saying that “Mr. Bourassa must draw the conclusions from these endless negotiations that are leading nowhere. He must come to the defence of Canada such as it is today and tell Quebecers that constitutional amendments will not happen in the foreseeable future, even if it means telling Quebecers that an economic association between an independent Quebec and the rest of Canada would be equally improbable”.

The current Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, realizing that Canada would never follow up on what has been called the traditional demands, or the set of Quebec demands, which were taken up by Claude Ryan, Bourassa and others, said “Since we cannot change it, let us be content with it. Let us be happy. Let us say that we have is good”. But it was not enough because there had been this referendum with a 49.9% yes vote.

What should he do? He had to find the means to scare these proud Gallics from Quebec. To scare them, he developed a scheme and figured it ought to go through the supreme court. He personally put questions to the supreme court, urging it to render a decision on Quebec's right to unilaterally secede. Never did the Quebec plan involve a unilateral declaration of independence or secession.

In spite of the carefully crafted questions put by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, in one part of its opinion, the supreme court said something he did not like: a clear majority on a clear question would require Canada to negotiate. If I am digressing here it is because, through the bill, the minister is getting rid of the only part of the supreme court's opinion that he did not like, that is, the obligation to negotiate.

What does this famous so-called clarity bill do? First, it says that a majority of 50% plus one, which has always been understood in Quebec law as being sufficient to determine if a referendum has been won, is not enough. But it does not say what the majority should be. It only says that the government would consult here and there, and could decide that the majority the referendum got is not sufficient and not clear enough.

What does the bill say about the question? It talks about what the question should not include to get the federal government to negotiate. In fact, it is the federal government, at the instigation of its Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, that would choose the topic of the question. However, this is not included in any way, shape or form in the supreme court's opinion.

We too sought the opinion of a leading expert, in the person of Alain Pellet, a professor at Université de Paris-Nanterre, who is a member and former chair of the UN International Law Commission. He said the following:

It follows that a clear question on something else than secession [...] would not be incompatible with current international law. Neither the supreme court's opinion nor the draft bill introduced on December 10, 1999, if passed, would preclude asking such a question.

The government wants to be able to choose the topic of the question and what the majority should be. And there is more. This government, whose bill provides for every legislative assembly in Canada, the Senate and everyone who has an opinion to be consulted on the question, is ramming this bill through the House, and not allowing the committee to travel and listen to Quebecers and Canadians who, for years, have been emotionally involved in this very important debate on what is called, in Canada, national unity, and in Quebec, the national issue. It will not let the committee go and hear them.

So it proposes a bill that gives it extraordinary leeway and provides that it consult everybody, but there can be no consultation before passing it.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, I toured Canada for two months; we travelled to 22 cities, where we listened to Canadians and Quebecers from 9 a.m. to 11 p.m., for two or three days at a time, before tabling a report which was shelved.

The government is acting in an irresponsible, shocking and provocative manner on a bill that will play a key role in the future of both Quebecers and Canadians. But I think that, in acting this way, it also undermines the significance of this bill. Who will give credit and legitimacy to a bill passed like this?

The government itself is undermining the position that it wanted to be so strong, and Quebecers will not be fooled by this bogus exercise.

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

Mr. Speaker, I found the remarks of my colleague, the member for Mercier, very interesting. I would like to ask her if the government opposite is likely to find support within Quebec's civil society.

It is clear that the three parties in the Quebec National Assembly reject Bill C-20. It is clear that here, in the House of Commons, more than 60% of members are also against Bill C-20. But what about the various groups within Quebec's civil society? What is their reaction to Bill C-20?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry for his question. Quebec's civil society, which the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs arrogantly referred to as a “mothball group”, cares about democracy in Quebec.

It is unacceptable and incomprehensible that intelligent people like the members opposite cannot understand that closing the door on democracy in Quebec is the same as closing the door on the people of Quebec and that civil society will always defend the people of Quebec.

Our colleagues opposite who are from Quebec should have thought twice. Quebec has always known these two tendencies, one of which is a growing movement, with various stages, and that movement will continue. It is a democratic movement that belongs to the people of Quebec. It is a shame to want to sabotage it, to override it, to close the door on democracy in Quebec, but Quebecers will strike back.

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to explain to us how is it that, if this bill is so undemocratic, the Premier of Quebec, Lucien Bouchard, said that the opinion of the supreme court was an excellent opinion. Bill C-20 is based on that opinion and its purpose is to ensure that Quebecers can clearly decide, with a clear question and a clear majority, if they want to separate from Canada. The question and the rules will be decided by the Quebec National Assembly.

I would like the member to explain to us why she says this bill is undemocratic when Mr. Bouchard said that the opinion on which it is based was a good one. Is she against the leader of the separatists?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will gladly answer him.

He did not listen to me. The only thing that the government and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs do not like is that that opinion—yes, we were proud of it—forces the government to negotiate if the question and the majority are clear.

However, what this bill does is discharge the government from its obligation to negotiate because the government will decide what is a clear question and what is a clear majority. It does not say in the bill what majority means. It is leaving open the possibility of setting the majority as high as it wants.

Above all, it chooses the subject. It refuses the idea of negotiation between equal partners. It refuses the concept of sovereignty partnership which is the way for Quebec. Quebec's sovereigntists do not want to build a fortress around Quebec. They want the establishment of a new and modern relationship with Canada, a type of relationship that our friends opposite promote for other peoples.

If this is good for other peoples, why can it not be good for Quebec and Canada?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I speak today, beside my colleague from Laval Centre who has returned to the House today after a period of convalescence.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Now, on a less happy note, I wish to condemn the odious approach taken by the government in Bill C-20, an act to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec secession reference.

With this bill, and I am choosing my words carefully here, the federal government is using the law for purely partisan reasons and is making a sham of it.

First, I must remind the House that the Supreme Court of Canada never gave the government the responsibility and the power to give effect, as it says, to the requirement for clarity, which the court allegedly set out. jugement de la cour. J'ai donc traduit.

In light of the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada, and I quote “It is up to the political actors to determine what constitutes a clear majority and a clear question”. Contrary to what the federal government claims, the court has given no exclusivity or precedence to any political actor regarding the definition of what would be a clear majority and a clear question. Thus, the federal move blatantly exceeds the scope of the supreme court's opinion.

Besides, concerned by the fact that Quebecers are attracted to the concept of partnership, the federal government claims that is has the power to order that an eventual referendum should deal with only one issue, what Ottawa calls secession, which, again, would go against the spirit and the letter of the supreme court's opinion.

Members will recognize that this is not the first time the federal government violates established constitutional conventions and its own constitution. We need only think of the numerous encroachments by the federal government on provincial jurisdictions.

The choice of terms is not, of course, ever neutral. The court stipulates in fact as follows:

—conferring a right to initiate constitutional change on each participant in Confederation. In our view, the existence of this right imposes a corresponding duty on the participants in Confederation to engage in constitutional discussions in order to acknowledge and address democratic expressions of a desire for change in other provinces.

Thus the future proposals for constitutional changes referred to by the supreme court would not, contrary to federal claims, be limited solely to secession.

In its opinion, the supreme court also takes great care in making it clear that it is speaking of a clear majority in the qualitative sense of the word. It is therefore wrong to claim, as the federal government does unreasonably, that 50% plus one would not, in the eyes of the court, constitute a clear majority. In democracy, 50% plus one is a majority, and in a democracy a majority is clear.

In this connection, I would point out that in a 1991 supreme court decision it was stated that:

—each vote must be relatively equal to every other vote. To water down the importance and significance of an individual's vote is to weaken the democratic process.

This is therefore the court's constant opinion, since it has also concluded in the past that a system which dilutes one citizen's vote unduly as compared with another citizen's vote runs the risk of providing uneven and unfair representation.

We must, therefore, conclude, based on precedents established by the supreme court itself, that the federal manoeuvre is not only potentially illegal and unconstitutional, but also basically undemocratic.

This bill is unacceptable also because the House of Commons would be deciding the acceptability of the question even before the debate on that same question in the Quebec National Assembly is over, and the latter is the legitimate decision-making centre for the entire process leading up to the decision by the Quebec people on its own future.

I would like to raise another profoundlu undemocratic element of the process followed by the government, namely the hearing of witnesses during study of Bill C-20 by the legislative committee. If it wants to have a minimum of credibility when claiming that it intends to preserve the integrity of democratic institutions, the federal government must adequately consult the people on a bill that has such an importance for its collective future.

How could the government impose closure on the study of Bill C-20 at second reading? How could it so outrageously limit the number of witnesses that the legislative committee can hear and decide that only those who are duly chosen by one or the other of the five recognized political parties in this House will be heard?

How could it refuse to allow the committee to travel in Quebec and Canada to meet all those who would like to be heard on an issue as fundamental as this one? How could it flout normal parliamentary practice and the most elementary principles of parliamentary consultation, if not because it knows that its tactics does not meet with the approval of the Quebec people and because it wants to proceed quickly enough to prevent any organized opposition to this infamous bill to organize?

Quebec does not have any democracy lessons to receive from anyone, especially not from the federal government. Quebec's democratic institutions are respected and admired all over the world. Furthermore, the level of democratic ethics in Quebec is far superior to the one seen on the federal scene and which sometimes take us back to the dark ages. This is evidenced by the partisan appointment process used by the party in office to select returning officers responsible for the administration of federal elections in each riding, and by the permissiveness that exists at the federal level regarding the rules for political party financing.

Some democracy, when it promotes influence peddling and always allows the affluent to be the strongest voices heard by people's representatives. When one lives in a glass house, one should not throw stones.

“Do as I say, not as I do” goes the old saying. I tell the minister sponsoring Bill C-20, and also government members, that the question asked by the federal government to the Montagnais in the Lac Saint-Jean region is not exactly a model of clarity, a clarity allegedly being sought by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs with his bill.

We are talking here about a rather complex question with two components, with only one possible answer, and with references to an agreement and to two sections of an act.

So much for the clarity of the question. How can we presume that the Montagnais of the Lac Saint-Jean region would automatically give the same answer to the two questions?

Why does the government demand a single answer to these two questions? This government, which boasts about having the monopoly on clarity, is asking a very ambiguous question that lends itself to very different interpretations by voters. Sure, the federal government will claim that the 1995 referendum question was not clear. But another saying provides that when in doubt, do nothing.

Since the turnout for the referendum on sovereignty-association on October 30, 1995 was 93%, we conclude without a doubt that Quebecers understood the question put to them and its issues very well.

In order to show that the federal government is not a prophet in its own land, I would add that, for the referendum it is organizing for the Montagnais of Lac St-Jean, the majority acceptable will be 50% plus one of the voters.

The former chief returning officer for Quebec, Pierre F. Côté, said the following when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in connection with the study of the proposed reform of the Canada Elections Act, and I quote:

For democracy to exist, there must be the appearance of democracy.

In the matter before us here, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Prime Minister have shown us eloquently that they are striking another undemocratic blow against Quebec.

The day will soon come when the black clouds of federal pettiness will disappear from the democratic landscape of Quebec, the day the government stops mocking Quebec democracy.

We have to recognize the fact. In democracy, all the rules of the game are set in advance. They are clear and remain unchanged from start to finish. We intend to ensure this is the case now and on the day Quebecers democratically create for themselves a country that reflects their abilities and their aspirations. And that country is Quebec.