Marcel Massé

[The Constitution, October 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this is a hypothetical question on which the Prime Minister commented in general. I certainly do not intend to go any further than that.

[Committees Of The House, September 30th, 1994]

moved:

That a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans be authorized to travel to Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Northwest Territories during the month of October 1994 to undertake a study of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation and that the necessary staff accompany the subcommittee.

[1992 Referendum, September 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Opposition should know that the conversation between

the Prime Minister and Mr. Mulroney took place on September 27 at around 1.30 p.m., thus after the Tuesday morning cabinet meeting. The question is therefore pointless.

That being said, what is important is that the matter has been dealt with in a way that is fair to all Canadians, including Quebecers. That was this government's aim. We did exactly what we said we would, that is if there was written evidence of an agreement, we would reimburse Quebec, and that is what we did.

[1992 Referendum, September 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my answer is yes.

[1992 Referendum, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister spoke to Mr. Mulroney, they agreed that Mr. Mulroney would send him a reply in writing, stating his position on the existence of an agreement between the Government of Quebec and the federal government.

That is what the Prime Minister stated in the House, and the situation has not changed.

[1992 Referendum, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I think the present situation is quite clear and has been explained several times in the House. There is no evidence in our files that a commitment was finalized. In the past few days, the Prime Minister got in touch with the former Prime Minister, Mr. Mulroney, to find out whether there had been a definite commitment, and he asked him to indicate, in writing, what his position was. As soon as we know the former Prime Minister's

position on whether he made a definite commitment, we will act accordingly.

[Government Efficiency, September 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, for a year, we had excellent co-operation with the Government of Quebec, which we hope will continue in the future.

Among other things, we concluded agreements on managing the environment, on environmental regulations for pulp and paper and on exchanging information between those responsible for financial institutions, to name only these.

[1992 Referendum, September 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the first part of the hon. member's question, if Premier Bourassa decided to hold a referendum under his own legislation, he obviously believed it was for the best political advantage of both himself and the province to have a separate referendum.

As for the second part of the question, I cannot help but wonder: if an agreement did exist between Premier Bourassa and Mr. Mulroney, and then Mrs. Kim Campbell, why then did neither Mr. Mulroney nor Mrs. Campbell express their agreement or pay a debt they presumably undertook to pay?

[1992 Referendum, September 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on October 26, 1992, two referendums were held in Canada: one under the federal referendum act and another, under Bill 150 and the Quebec referendum act. These are two different acts. For example, the residency requirements are not the same in the Quebec legislation as in the federal legislation. Therefore, there is no legal basis for paying the government of Quebec for holding a referendum under its own provincial legislation.

The issue being raised could only be settled if we had in our files a clear agreement to waive the application of the act. But there is no evidence of such a document.

[1992 Referendum, September 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speak-

er, the former government made no commitment to compensate Quebec-neither under Prime Minister Mulroney nor under Ms. Campbell. As far as we are concerned, we are not committed either to paying for a referendum which was held under a provincial law and therefore did not depend on us organizationally or financially.