Debates of Nov. 1st, 1995

Distinct Society

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I myself asked the Prime Minister what kind of distinct society he favoured. He never answered the question. Today, I will ask him. Considering his-

Would you ask the Deputy Prime Minister to be quiet,Mr. Speaker?

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

The question, please. The hon. member for Roberval.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, considering his sterile and meaningless draft resolution, will the Prime Minister acknowledge that his positions are identical to those of the Premier of British Columbia, and are we to understand that this Prime Minister has no trouble recognizing Quebec as a distinct society but only in so far as this does not really mean anything and does not change the status quo?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has not seen the resolution. I do not know where he got his text.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Which resolution?

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

He said there was a resolution, and he does not even have it.

[An hon. member]

It is in the papers.

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

My point is that the Parliament of Canada has already spoken. And the Parliament of Canada could speak again, but as far as we are concerned, we have always been in favour of a distinct society. And now very shortly, Quebecers will again see the members of the Bloc Quebecois, like the separatists they are, vote against distinct society in this House of Commons.

Quebec Referendum

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, almost two days have passed since the Quebec referendum and as yet no one has accepted responsibility for the mismanagement of the federalist strategy which brought the country to the very brink of disaster, mismanagement which simply cannot be repeated in the future.

Seventeen months ago the Prime Minister was strongly urged to clearly define the costs of separation by answering 20 questions on the negative meaning of a yes vote. The Prime Minister dismissed those questions as hypothetical and did nothing. As a result he almost lost the country to Quebec voters who thought they could vote yes and still be Canadian.

Canadians want to know who is responsible for those miscalculations in that campaign. Was it the Prime Minister's advisers, was it the no side strategists, or was it the Prime Minister himself?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the only person more disappointed than the Leader of the Opposition that the no side won is the leader of the Reform Party.

During the whole campaign, every day and every week, he was trying to bring in some new twist to create a problem for those who were fighting to keep Canada together. The leader of the third party was always there saying we should do this and we should do that, while the leader of the Conservative Party, the leader of the Liberal Party of Quebec and I were working out our differences to keep Canada together.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can question the loyalty of millions of Canadians who disagree with his-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Nothing will change the fact that it was his lame brain strategy that brought the country-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

The Prime Minister did not wake up to Quebec's profound demands for change until the last week of the campaign. For months and months in the House and outside the House, he insisted the status quo was good enough, plus a little administrative tinkering. It was not until the last days of the campaign that he belatedly recognized the need for change and began to talk about it.

I ask the Prime Minister, given the obvious desire in the country for change, who was the genius who decided that status quo plus administrative tinkering was good enough? Was it the Prime Minister's advisers? Was it some fossilized senators, or was it the Prime Minister himself?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Reform Party again is trying to do the same thing. He is just trying to build himself a position from extremely difficult circumstances which we were fighting for.

When it was very important, the leader of the Conservative Party was there, I was there and a lot of members of Parliament from this side were there, but the leader of the Reform Party was not in Montreal last Friday. He was just criticizing us like he has done during the whole campaign. We have won. Canada has won despite him.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to compound the errors of the no side campaign, we now have the crowning miscalculation. Apparently the federal government is responding to the demands for change in Quebec by falling back on the tired old cliches of distinct society and a constitutional veto for Quebec, asking Canadians to wallow once again in the stagnant waters of Meech Lake.

This Liberal-Tory approach to national unity with its top down process, constitutional mumbo-jumbo and hollow symbolism has not worked for 30 years, and Canadians know it. They ask the Prime Minister, who in their right mind is responsible for this

misguided strategy? Is it the same people who devised the no strategy? Is it his new constitutional adviser from Sherbrooke, or is it the Prime Minister himself?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, when there was an amending formula accepted by all the provinces at the time of Victoria, the party of the father of the leader of the Reform Party, the Socreds, was in power in Alberta. It accepted the amending formula at that time.

[The Speaker]

I wonder if we might shorten the questions and answers.

Distinct Society

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

Mr. Speaker, after a crushing repudiation by his own constituents in Saint-Maurice, the Prime Minister has lost all credibility to propose any constitutional change whatsoever, because it is obvious that he is out of touch with the Quebec reality.

Is the Prime Minister aware that his inability to understand the Quebec reality renders him unfit to properly translate the needs of Quebec to the rest of Canada, and as long as Canadians and Quebecers speak to each other through him instead of as equal to equal, the misunderstanding will continue?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliament of Canada will speak on behalf of all Canadians when it is presented with a resolution concerning this problem. This I have promised and this I will do. Then the pretences will be over. The separatists have always been saying that they had not obtained their distinct society. But they do not want it.

Another vote will be held, and you will see that they will again vote against a distinct society for Quebecers.

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

Mr. Speaker, even the voters of Saint-Maurice feel that the Prime Minister has never supported a distinct society. The Prime Minister does not understand the people in his constituency and the people in his constituency no longer believe him.

Does the Prime Minister not agree that he is wasting everybody's time by pretending to Canadians that he understood what Quebecers wanted?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, what is worrying the Bloc Quebecois is that they know very well we are going to act. But this time they will be forced to vote. There will be no fine words. They will vote against the distinct society, and the truth will out. They are separatists who do not want to admit it to Quebecers frankly and honestly.

National Unity

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

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

It seems that the Prime Minister is preparing to offer Quebec a special deal that consists of the old traditional federal chestnuts of a distinct society and a constitutional veto. For 20 years the separatists have been saying that because Quebec is a distinct society and people it should therefore become a sovereign state.

Why does the Prime Minister think that by conceding the first part of that proposition he can prevent the second? I think the Prime Minister would like me to repeat that question.