Debates of Sept. 19th, 1995

Studies Commissioned By Government Of Quebec

[Denis Paradis, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

On September 2, 1994, Quebec's premier wondered out loud about alleged studies that the previous government would have kept from Quebecers. He said to the Journal de Montréal : These studies exist. They were commissioned by Robert Bourassa. If he does not make them public by September 12, we will have to draw conclusions about the honesty of these people.

One year later, after the minister responsible for restructuring wasted millions of dollars in fancy studies, the pequiste government too finds itself with studies which it refuses to make public because they do not serve its separatist propaganda. Will the pequiste premier finally agree to make public all these studies which Quebecers paid for with their tax dollars, and will he stop hiding the truth on the real cost of separation? Separation is a costly proposition and Quebecers will say no to the waste of public moneys used for the ego trips of the likes of Lisette, Jacques, Mario and Lucien.

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, in a slight departure from our normal routine, I wish to draw to your attention the presence in the gallery of the Governor of the Tula region in Russia, Mr. Nikolay Sevryugin.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Quebec Referendum

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the fog thickened yesterday around the Prime Minister's real intentions, following statements he made in this House. When he speaks French, he remains ambiguous about the recognition of a Yes vote, but when he answers in English, he makes it clear he will reject a Yes from Quebecers.

Since the very future of Canada and Quebec is at stake, the public has the right to expect the Prime Minister to be consistent and to be clear about his position.

My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Will he, as the Reform Party did yesterday, respect Canada's democratic traditions and recognize a Yes or a No to the Quebec referendum question as equally valid?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, what I said yesterday in English was translated into French, as you can see in Hansard . We have a system: if I speak French, it is translated into English, and if I speak English, it is translated into French. I said the same thing.

And perhaps I could explain this to the Leader of the Opposition. I would like to quote to him from a document produced by the government of Mr. Lévesque, and of course he knows Mr. Lévesque. In 1977, in a document which appeared under the title: La consultation populaire au Québec , they said: Referendums would be consultative in nature''. I agree. The document says:The first imperative of politics in a democracy is a clear majority''. I agree. The document goes on to say: The consultative nature of referendums'', they should have said referenda, in any case,means that it would be unnecessary to include in the legislation special provisions on the majority required or the minimum participation rate''.

It is a consultative system, as Mr. Lévesque and his government admitted in 1977. Today, we have a confusing and ambiguous question, and I am asked whether we would recognize a vote with a majority of one. As Mr. Johnson put it so well yesterday, we are not about to separate from Canada on the basis of a judicial recount.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister just quoted Mr. René Lévesque. However, I am sure he will remember, the day after the 1980 referendum, that Mr. Lévesque accepted the people's decision. He did not see it as just a consultation, a point of view. He agreed and bowed to the people's wishes, while the Prime Minister reneged on commitments he made to get a No from Quebecers in 1980.

[Some hon. members]

Right on.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

We are all aware the Prime Minister is trying to treat the current referendum as a mere consultation without consequence. I would ask him to confirm, and he also hinted at this yesterday in one of his replies, whether it is true he is preparing to call a federal referendum to put pressure on the Quebec Yes side?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I do not even have to consider that, because we will tell Quebec that the Leader of the Opposition is proposing Quebec's separation from the rest of Canada. They will vote to stay in Canada. If the question had been clearer- The leader of the Leader of the Opposition said this during the election campaign: Do you want Quebec to become a sovereign country on such and such a date? He said that would be the question.

However, when the Leader of the Opposition realized he could not win, he said: We will come up with a winning question. Is that respect for democracy, coming up with a winning question because they cannot convince Quebecers to leave Canada?

I have great confidence in the judgment of Quebecers. They will stay in Canada, and the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition is doubly hypothetical.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister continues to maintain a state of confusion and ambiguity. He refuses to tell us outright whether or not he will feel bound by the results of the referendum. He refuses to set aside the prospect of a counter-referendum by the federal government.

I would ask him to raise the veil of secrecy at least partially and clarify the following: Would he not see as illegitimate any federal referendum aimed at short-circuiting a democratic decision by the people of Quebec on their political future?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, is the Leader of the Opposition saying that when Quebecers voted against the Charlottetown proposal that would have given Quebecers a distinct society-the Leader of the Opposition himself voted against it-the referendum was legitimate because everyone was consulted? Canada's future is not the business of a single group of citizens. This has an impact on all Canadians.

I must say I hardly have to consider holding a national referendum as authorized by Parliament, since Quebecers will realize that the separatists are trying to hide the truth. The leader of the Leader

of the Opposition has refused to table documents paid for by taxpayers because these documents will clearly prove they are trying to hide the truth from Quebecers, because they know perfectly well that Quebecers want to stay in Canada.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the Prime Minister's efforts to create a diversion in order to avoid answering the real question that the Leader of the Opposition has been asking and that all Quebecers have been asking through us over the past two days. I will try for an answer once again.

He is becoming the ambiguity champion, shifting subtleties according to whichever language he is speaking or leaving the possibility of a second referendum in doubt. His answers are never clear. I will ask him the question once more. I want to give him an opportunity to respond clearly.

Does the Prime Minister of Canada not realize that he himself is confusing the whole question with his ambiguous statements? Does he not realize that his role as Prime Minister in fact is to act democratically and responsibly in response to the choice of Quebecers and to say so clearly and unambiguously?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

I would like to thank the hon. member for criticizing me for being too subtle. This is the first time this has happened to me in my life, and so I am very happy. For me, my duty is clear. I do not need any lessons from the hon. member for Roberval on what my duty is. I understand my duty very well. I was elected to administer this country, to give Canadians good government, to create jobs and to make this country even better. To do so, we must ensure that Canada remains united.

This is what I am going to do over the next forty days with Mr. Johnson in Quebec City, to do my duty as Prime Minister and keep this country united for the future.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that subtlety is a quality, but shifting subtleties according to the language you are speaking is devious.

Speaking of Daniel Johnson, the chair of the "No" committee, he refused this morning to reiterate before the National Assembly the commitment he made last week to honour Quebec's yes vote.

Are we to understand that the Prime Minister of Canada has just called the chair of the "No" committee in Quebec to order as he did last week in the case of his Minister of Labour? Did he use the same process?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Johnson understands the current debate very well. He has said we are not about to divide a country following a judicial recount to find out whether there was one more vote or not. It was in fact Mr. Lévesque himself and his government that clearly established the rules whereby a majority must be clearly expressed in such a situation. These are the words of the person the Leader of the Opposition wants to replace. He admires and reveres him, he is always saying. I am therefore simply following the democratic principles established by Mr. Lévesque; and Mr. Johnson has said so as well: Democracy begins with treating people honestly and asking them a clear cut question.

I challenge the opposition once more; I defy the Leader of the Opposition to call Mr. Parizeau. With one day of debate still to go at the National Assembly, let him replace the question with a clear one: Do you want to separate from Canada on a given date? They will have a clear cut answer. Quebecers will say: We are staying in Canada. That is being clear.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has rightly accused the separatists of softening and confusing the referendum question in a vain attempt to guarantee a yes vote. This is obviously the separatist strategy and we denounce and deplore it. However, the Prime Minister is also sending out contradictory signals on the meaning of a yes vote that is hurting the federalist cause.

Last week the Prime Minister said that a yes vote would be a one way ticket to separation, but yesterday in question period the Prime Minister implied that the one way ticket might include the return fare.

Will the Prime Minister now make it perfectly clear to Quebecers that a yes vote means separation and not just a new round of bargaining with the federal government?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I always said that the goal of the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois is to separate from Canada. It is clear to me.

I am very disappointed that the leader of the Reform Party is trying to position himself in a situation like this. I would like to tell him that as Canadians we have to be united to make sure that Quebec remains in Canada.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for 25 years I have worked in the political wilderness of western Canada, working to build a better-

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

If the Prime Minister wants to make comments about the loyalty of members to Canada let him direct them to the Leader of the Opposition, not the leader of the Reform Party. The difference is I am committed to federalism with my head as well as my heart. My head tells me-

[The Speaker]

I am having a little difficulty hearing.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am committed to federalism with my head as well as my heart. My head tells me the only way Canada can lose this referendum is for some Quebecers to think they can vote yes for separation and avoid the consequences of that vote. They think they can vote for separation and still enjoy the benefits of federalism. That is why we asked the Prime Minister to make clear that yes means separation and only no means federalism.

I will again ask the Prime Minister sincerely, as we are not playing games here, why he is so reluctant to make that distinction crystal clear.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, for 32 years I have travelled to every part of Canada and have made the same speech about this great country. I have travelled to Quebec and to the west, Alberta and B.C. It is my duty to say what I said. They want to create separation but they do not have the intellectual honesty to ask a clear question. This is what I have to tell them.

In a country like ours to recognize that at one time a rule of majority plus one could break up the country would be irresponsible on my part. Even in the Reform Party, as a journalist wrote this morning, in order to change its constitution one has to ask for two-thirds of its membership.

Therefore I will not break up the country with one vote. It is not real democracy. Real democracy is to convince the people they can express themselves clearly, which is what we are doing.

This is why we are telling Quebecers these people want to separate but they will not succeed because it is our collective duty to tell all Quebecers the scheme they have, the virage, the mirage and so on will not work. They will not succeed in fooling the people of Quebec because the people of Quebec will know when they vote 39 days from now that they will not separate. They will stay in Canada because it is their destiny, their future and their desire.