Lucien Bouchard

[Quebec Referendum, September 29th, 1995]

You are afraid of Parizeau.

[Quebec Referendum, September 29th, 1995]

He thinks he showed courage by summoning Parliament. But that is his job.

[Quebec Referendum, September 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we live in a democracy, and democracy needs enlightened opinion. One of the most crucial moments in any electoral or referendum campaign is when the protagonists with the highest

profile meet face to face before the public and debate the merits of their options for an hour and a half or two hours.

Could it be, as Canada and Quebec face their destiny and as the people of Quebec make a fundamental decision, that the Prime Minister of Canada, the defender of Canadian unity, is afraid of his option to the point of refusing to take part in a televised debate of an hour and a half?

[Quebec Referendum, September 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we never asked that the House be adjourned. We were immediately delighted to learn that we could talk with the Prime Minister every day and converse about the future of our respective options and we will be here every day until the end.

We wanted to add to what we already have, because we only have a few seconds, which go by too quickly for my liking. I think that Canadians know full well that a question period, however practical it may be, does not provide the depth that a debate, a real intellectual confrontation on the things opposing us can give.

I think we would learn a lot more, because, had we not had the opportunity to see the Prime Minister for a number of weeks, we would not have known, for example, that he is refusing to recognize a democratic yes vote and we would not have known that he is preparing to slash the old age pensions of those approaching 65 years of age. We are learning things. The more we talk to him, the more we learn.

So we ask him, one last time, to agree to come, as the Prime Minister of Canada, and face those who do not think the way he does on television, live, for an hour and a half.

[Quebec Referendum, September 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Quebecers will decide their political future on October 30. In order to make an enlightened choice, they are entitled to know the whys and wherefores of the two options before them: sovereignty-partnership, on the one hand, and the status quo, on the other.

I am therefore asking the Prime Minister if he and his ally, Daniel Johnson, will agree to take part in a real four-way televised debate with Jacques Parizeau and myself. Does he recognize that it is all the more vital he take part in such a debate because he alone is in a position to tell Quebecers what exactly awaits them if they vote no?

[Social Program Reform, September 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister wants to reassure foreign markets, he should tell them he will behave reasonably, will respect Quebec's democratic Yes vote and will negotiate. Investors tend to shy away from lending money to undemocratic governments.

This does not fool anyone. The Prime Minister wants to postpone the tabling of this reform, because he has every reason to fear the devastating scope of the cuts he is about to make. Does he not realize that by taking his cue from the simplistic and heartless solutions proposed by Mike Harris, he is preparing the ground for a fractured and divided society in Canada and Quebec, of which we saw a sample last night at Queen's Park, unfortunately?

[Social Program Reform, September 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the federal social program reform is reminiscent of Penelope and her weaving. Every night Penelope, who was playing for time, would unravel what she had woven during the day. In the case of the federal government, every night it ushers its officials into the office of the Minister of Human Resources Development to undo what was written the day before, to make sure the reform is not ready before the referendum.

According to various leaks and to information reported just this morning in the Globe and Mail , the social program reform is ready but the government has decided to postpone its release.

My question to the Prime Minister is: When will he put an end to the uncertainty and apprehension of the unemployed and immediately release this reform which is locked away in the vaults of the Minister of Human Resources Development, so that Quebecers can make an informed decision on the kind of society they want on October 30?

[Social Program Reform, September 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, when pressed with questions yesterday about the dreaded federal reforms in unemployment insurance and old age pensions, the leader of the No side, Daniel Johnson, did not answer, saying this was up to the federal government. Since Mr. Johnson has refused to take any responsibility for the future of social programs, including those that apply to Quebec, I will direct my questions to the Prime Minister.

Will the Prime Minister admit that the best way to respond to the concerns of the unemployed and the elderly would be to table his social program reform now, so that Quebecers will know what to expect after a No to the referendum question?

[Canada-Quebec Economic Union, September 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, paragraph 4 of article XXIV, which I just cited, was negotiated only last year and is currently in effect. This article provides, even in the case of a national treatment clause, for automatic exception when a parallel agreement is to be concluded between two countries, provided its intent is to free up trade. The whole point was to free up trade, not stop it. It is a bit odd to hear a government, which vehemently opposed free trade and us in order to prevent its passing, now citing it.

The Minister of Finance also intimated that the Americans could oppose a partnership agreement between Quebec and Canada the day after a yes vote. Will he not admit that the Americans, as reasonable and experienced individuals, will rather want to avoid any upset in the existing economic flow between Quebec and Canada, particularly because they will continue to enjoy the same conditions of trade and access to the Quebec and Canadian markets as they do now? Does he not see that any steps the Americans take will only be to calm the nervous and the emotional who want to refuse to negotiate and who prefer to see everything in terms of gloom and doom?

[Canada-Quebec Economic Union, September 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I think we can all see that the minister is in the same apocalyptic state as he was yesterday. The minister is grossly twisting the reality of freer trade between countries by wrongly ascribing to NAFTA the power to prevent greater integration between Quebec and Canada, as the partnership in fact proposes.

Will the minister acknowledge that his gratuitous remarks are contradicted by established rules of international trade and by the prevailing custom whereby sovereign states can conclude more complex regional agreements in parallel with other agreements such as NAFTA? Will he not acknowledge that this doctrine has even been enshrined in paragraph 4 of article XXIV of the GATT?