House of Commons Hansard #225 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was development.

Topics

Quebec ReferendumOral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yes. Yes.

Quebec ReferendumOral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

Quebec ReferendumOral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC

-and he killed the Meech Lake accord. He is the one who is creating problems.

Quebec ReferendumOral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yes. Yes.

Quebec ReferendumOral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

Quebec ReferendumOral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC

Mr. Speaker, to the man who said in 1980 that No meant Yes and that Yes meant No, I ask the following question, and we would like an answer.

Does the Prime Minister of Canada realize that by refusing to admit that he will respect the results of the democratic referendum to be held in Quebec, he is contradicting the chairman of the No committee and his boss in this case, Daniel Johnson from Quebec, as well as his minister responsible for constitutional matters and the referendum in Quebec? Does he realize that his irresponsibility is creating uncertainty and that he is duty-bound to give real answers?

Quebec ReferendumOral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Saint-Maurice Québec

Liberal

Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister

Mr. Speaker, how can Quebec separatists talk to me about the Meech Lake accord when they were against it? They were against the Meech Lake accord, and so too was Parizeau.

Quebec ReferendumOral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

Quebec ReferendumOral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Liberal

Jean Chrétien Liberal Saint-Maurice, QC

And you stabbed-in the back. Yes.

Quebec ReferendumOral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

Quebec ReferendumOral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Liberal

Jean Chrétien Liberal Saint-Maurice, QC

Although the Leader of the Opposition was not present at the end of the Meech Lake debate, he claims that it was a humiliation for Quebecers. They claim in their propaganda that the rejection of the Charlottetown accord in a referendum was a humiliation for Quebecers. Yet, they all voted against it. They helped humiliate Quebecers by voting against the accord.

I reiterate to the opposition that only 3 per cent of Quebecers see the Constitution and the referendum as priorities. The remaining Quebecers want their parliamentarians to deal with the real problems such as job creation, social justice and Canada's place in the world. They want us to deal with the real problems and, on October

30, Quebecers will say clearly to the separatists that they want to remain in the best country in the world, Canada.

Quebec ReferendumOral Question Period

2:25 p.m.

Reform

Preston Manning Reform Calgary Southwest, AB

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want this Quebec referendum to be decisive and conclusive. They do not want any confusion or ambiguity concerning the meaning of the vote, before or after.

Yet the Leader of the Opposition clouds the issue when he says that he is prepared to accept a yes vote as binding and conclusive but not a no vote, and the Prime Minister does not help things when he implies that he is prepared to accept a no vote as binding and conclusive but waffles on the meaning of a yes vote.

For the benefit of all Canadians including Quebecers who want clarity and certainty in interpreting the Quebec referendum, will the Prime Minister make clear that a yes vote means Quebec is on its way out, that a no vote means Quebec is in the federation for the long haul, and that 50 per cent plus one is the dividing line between those two positions?

Quebec ReferendumOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Saint-Maurice Québec

Liberal

Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister

Mr. Speaker, if we had a clear question. They are asking the people of Canada: Do you want sovereignty? At the same time they say they want to stay in Canada.

Last week The Economist had the title ``They want a divorce today and they want to be lovers tomorrow''. It is not a very clear question. I have been asking them for a long time in this House of Commons to give us a real question, an honest, clear question on separation. They have clouded the issue talking about divorce and remarriage at the same time. They want me on behalf of all Canadians to say that with a clouded question like that with one vote I will help them to destroy Canada. You might, I will not, Mr. Manning.

Quebec ReferendumOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

Quebec ReferendumOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

The Speaker

I would ask all hon. members to please direct their remarks to the Chair.

Quebec ReferendumOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Reform

Preston Manning Reform Calgary Southwest, AB

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple supplementary in response to the Prime Minister's reply. If the question asked in the Quebec referendum is not clear and is ambiguous, is he prepared to ensure a clear question is put to Quebecers?

Quebec ReferendumOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Saint-Maurice Québec

Liberal

Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister

Mr. Speaker, there will be a clear answer by Quebecers on the 30th of October. They will say they will stay in Canada so the question is purely hypothetical.

Quebec ReferendumOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

The Speaker

Colleagues, the questions today have bordered on the hypothetical. I would ask all hon. members in phrasing the questions to please pay strict attention to the fact that they be questions which deal with policy matters of the government as opposed to hypothetical questions. I would ask you to do that.

Quebec ReferendumOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Reform

Preston Manning Reform Calgary Southwest, AB

Mr. Speaker, I find the Prime Minister's answer adding to the ambiguity which as I said at the beginning Canadians do not want. He just said that the question was unclear and therefore the answer would be ambiguous. Then he said that the response to that question would be a clear answer.

The majority of the members of this House believe that a yes vote in the referendum means the separation of Quebec and an end to its participation in the Canadian union. The separatist members can talk about a new marriage or partnership but it will be a partnership without a partner, a marriage without a spouse and Quebec will find itself at home alone.

Will the Prime Minister therefore state unequivocally that a 50 per cent plus one yes in the referendum will mean, sadly, an end to Quebec's position in Canada and not a new and better union?

Quebec ReferendumOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Saint-Maurice Québec

Liberal

Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister

Mr. Speaker, very often when the PQ and the Bloc Quebecois say that they will all have an economic and political union, that they will have a passport, citizenship, that they will have the same currency and so on, they are not being very frank with the people of Quebec. That would be decided by the rest of Canada if it were to be the case.

But why waste our time? We have so many other problems facing this nation. Six weeks from today the people of Quebec, the people who were here, who opened up this country, when the francophones of this land left the Saint-Maurice valley to open the prairies, do we think these people will want to let go of the best country in the world? They will not.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, you should have the rules of the House respected. Hypothetical questions are not permitted in this situation.

Quebec ReferendumOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

Quebec ReferendumOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In his autobiography, In the Lion's Den , published in 1985, our current Prime Minister, undertook to abide by the decision made by Quebecers, saying that his party was betting on democracy. That they would convince that they should remain in Canada and would win. If they lost, they would respect Quebecers' wish and accept separation.

How does the Prime Minister explain his about-face in refusing to accept the outcome of the Quebec referendum?

Quebec ReferendumOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Saint-Maurice Québec

Liberal

Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister

Mr. Speaker, I actually made this statement in the riding of the Leader of the Opposition, in Alma. At the time, when they asked me, I said there would be a referendum and we would win. And we had a referendum. All this took place before the first referendum. Since then, the Leader of the Opposition and the separatists have been saying that they will never take no for an answer. So they have never said they would accept a no vote as valid.

The Leader of the Opposition has again said recently himself that there will be referendum after referendum-except Quebecers have heard enough talk about the constitution and do not want to hear any more about it. They want to hear about the real problems concerning Quebecers: job creation, income security, peace for seniors. This is exactly what this government wants to do-look after the country's real problems-while they are busy playing with hypothetical questions. However, they will be making no more speeches after October 30.

Quebec ReferendumOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, my question was not about hypothetical remarks, but about remarks the Prime Minister took the time to write. I imagine it was he who wrote his book. It was before 1985, well before the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, well before Meech and all that. I am asking the Prime Minister how he can justify changing his mind on such a basic question, when he stated before the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, in 1990-1991 I would remind you, and I quote: "I am a democrat, and I said so in 1980. Had we not recognized that Quebec could decide to separate, we would have acted differently".

Why is he not saying the same thing today? Are the years eroding logic?

Quebec ReferendumOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Saint-Maurice Québec

Liberal

Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister

Mr. Speaker, I made that statement before the other referendum. We had a referendum, but Canada won. So the problem was settled.