Jean Chrétien

[The Constitution, November 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, here again we see the leader of the third party in bed with the separatist party in the House of Commons.

When we were fighting in Quebec the leader of the third party was in the House shooting at us, contrary to what the leader of the Conservative Party was doing; in the campaign, working for Canada. The leader of the Reform Party was always on his feet trying to ensure he might some day become the prime minister of the rest of the country, because he will never be the prime minister of the whole country, Canada.

[The Constitution, November 22nd, 1995]

They are changing their minds because the people of Alberta at this moment are telling the provincial government that they do not want to see medicare destroyed.

We are working to make sure there is less duplication and a better sharing of responsibilities between the provincial governments and the federal government. We are working on that.

However, if the goal is to destroy the central government in Ottawa so that we will have a community of communities, this Prime Minister is not for that.

[The Constitution, November 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third party always refers to the fact that we do not need any constitutional change. He said that in the House not long ago. He says that he does not want to weaken the federal government but whenever he makes a speech he asks us, for example, to dismantle medicare.

[The Constitution, November 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my speech is recorded and is clear. I said that the party I represent was in favour of a distinct society and that we were going to affirm it. We will have the opportunity to affirm it, even if the Bloc Quebecois does not want us to.

Second, I have said and I have committed to it, that we would not make any constitutional change without the consent of the Government of Quebec or the people of Quebec, and we are going to keep our word. Nothing can be clearer than that, and I repeat it today in this House.

As for better administration and shared responsibilities, we are working on this at the present time and I trust that we will have the co-operation of the new Government of Quebec, unlike the current one, which has never wanted to discuss it seriously with the minister responsible for federal-provincial relations.

[The Constitution, November 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I told Quebecers there would be no constitutional change without the consent of the government of Quebec.

Yesterday the man who wishes to head the Government of Quebec said that this was impossible, that he was a sovereignist, that he did not want any changes to the Constitution. I was not the one who said this, it was the Leader of the Opposition himself. As I have said, I will not make any changes against his wishes; let no one blame me for heeding the wishes of the Government of Quebec.

Second, as for the distinct society, we have affirmed this and will have other occasions to affirm it, and I hope that the hon. member for Roberval will get up in this House and state that he is in favour of a distinct society if that is what is wanted. I can hardly wait for that day to come.

Then we shall see what really happens. During the referendum campaign, they said that in their hearts they were opposed to a distinct society because they are sovereignists, and still unfortunately separatists.

[The Constitution, November 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, what I said in my speech was very simple. I said that my party and I had been, are currently and would be in favour of a distinct society for Quebec, something the Leader of the Opposition and his party fought against in the Charlottetown accord.

Furthermore, during the referendum, he criticized us for not having supported that, when they voted against it in the Charlottetown referendum and all the PQ members voted against the Meech Lake accord in the National Assembly. We are still in favour of a distinct society, as we indicated in Charlottetown and in this House. In order to add it to the Constitution, we require the approval of the Government of Quebec. The Leader of the Opposition has said he

does not want it written into the Constitution. So we will not do it against the wishes of Quebec.

Secondly, I said that we did not want any constitutional changes without the agreement of the Government of Quebec or the people of Quebec, as has happened in the past. Sometimes referendums can be held. Here again, we cannot act without the approval of Quebec. We can, however, impose certain restrictions on ourselves, if we wish. This is perhaps what we will do.

As for sharing responsibilities, the minister responsible has signed nine agreements with the provinces to improve the system and put an end to duplication. The current PQ government is not interested in such an agreement. I hope that, as government leader, the Leader of the Opposition will make good management a priority and help us determine which jurisdictions are in competition so we can ensure that taxpayers in Quebec as in the other provinces receive the most for the taxes they pay annually to the two levels of government.

[The Constitution, November 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has gone back to his old habits of commenting on what we have said. He made absolutely gratuitous statements during the referendum, and we will not let him get away with it any more.

I never said we were going to change the Constitution. He should read the speech I gave. I said we were going to make changes to the federation, constitutional changes, if necessary, but I never said they were going to be constitutional. I also said there would be no constitutional change without Quebec's approval. The Leader of the Opposition said yesterday he did not want any. He wants to remain a separatist-good for him. So we will bear this in mind, we will do what has to be done to keep the federation running and we will get on with the real problems, as the Leader of the Opposition put it, we will be concerned with job creation, good government and the deficit problems of both the federal and the provincial governments.

If the Leader of the Opposition really wants to work on these problems, we are prepared to co-operate with him.

[The Constitution, November 22nd, 1995]

Over the past two years I have really enjoyed meeting him daily and answering his questions. I therefore wish him all the luck in the task he set for himself yesterday of dealing with Quebec's real problems-good management and putting Quebec's public finances in order. Obviously, someone else will be here across the way, in a few months.

However, to answer the hon. member's question, first, we have always said we were prepared to make changes. But we never promised to make constitutional changes, particularly since I promised during the referendum campaign that I would make no constitutional changes and that the House would not debate constitutional change if the Government of Quebec did not approve.

Yesterday, I got an answer from the Leader of the Opposition, who said he absolutely did not want any constitutional change. Therefore I am in no hurry, since he does not want any, and we said would not make any without their support.

However, some administrative changes may be made. There are signs of willingness on the part of the federal government, which could be debated and voted on in the House. I said that we would proceed with certain items between now and Christmas and I asked the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and his committee to report back by Christmas. We are not talking about several months. This is November 22, and in a month from now it will be three days before Christmas. So we are not talking about months, but weeks, Mr. Speaker.

[The Constitution, November 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, first let me say we are very sorry to see the Leader of the Opposition leave the federal scene.

[National Unity, November 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we are working every day to make the federation more efficient. But I am not working from the basis that we have to destroy the federal government to be successful. We believe there should be a resolution that is a two-way street, not a one-way street of devolution.

It has always been my position that there are some things the federal government should do for the good of all Canadians. That is exactly what we are trying to do.

The leader of the third party is always talking in terms of weakening the central government. If we do that, at the end of the road we will not have Canada any more. We are fighting to keep Canada united.