Jean Chrétien

[The Referendum, November 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the people have spoken. Democracy has spoken. Obviously, the Leader of the Opposition does not agree with democracy. DidMr. Johnson, who lost the election last year with four tenths of 1 per cent-

[The Referendum, November 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, first, Quebecers have spoken. I hope the Leader of the Opposition will accept the verdict of Quebecers, who have decided to remain in Canada. On the night of the verdict, he was saying he was going to start again right away, whereas the people had spoken. He is the one who lost and should have accepted the verdict.

As for me, my job in this country is to ensure observance of the Canadian constitution, only I did not have to use all the powers vested in the government, because the people of Quebec spoke and chose to remain in Canada. I hope the Leader of the Opposition will understand that Quebecers want all elected officials, both here and in Quebec City, to serve the people and look after economic growth and job creation; they are sick and tired of all the talk about constitutional problems. They want the governments to get back to the real problems: the dignity of workers in Quebec.

[The Referendum, November 1st, 1995]

Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. Absolutely not. I should say first that, indeed, 49.4 per cent of Quebecers voted yes. However, probably between 30 and 40 per cent of them voted yes thinking they were going to stay in Canada. They did not all vote for Quebec's separation.

I was in the car a few minutes ago, and people were calling an open line show saying they did not know, they did not suspect the mandate was to separate.

The word "separation" was never again heard from the lips of the Leader of the Opposition after he was obliged to use it in front of the Americans to make himself understood.

[Tribute To The Premier Of Quebec, November 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a short statement I would like to make, with leave of the House.

Obviously, in public life we cannot always agree with everyone, and sometimes this leads to difficult situations.

I know Mr. Parizeau well. I have known him since 1968 and I have had the opportunity to work with him. Despite our significant political differences, I can say he is a man who has given his life to politics. He is a man of considerable talent, who has worked with governments for many years. He was even an adviser to the Government of Canada, to the Department of Finance, when I was parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance.

One day, our paths separated, and he became a sovereignist, a separatist. I respect his opinion and always have, even if I do not completely agree. Now he has decided to retire. I would have hoped it could happen under circumstances less controversial for him and for everyone, but I have no control over circumstances.

I would like to point out that, here, in Canada, we have one of the finest democracies in the world. It is an example. Few countries in the world would tolerate the raising of passions as deep as those involved in wanting to break up a country and use part of it to make a new one.

It is an example for the world that this sort of passionate discourse cannot be permitted without a surprising amount of control. I have travelled with Mr. Parizeau. We have been travelling companions. He could be a most pleasant companion, at times, when we were not talking politics. Obviously, when we started talking politics, breakfasts or dinners were rather tumultuous, but interesting, I must say.

Today, he has decided to retire after serving the public for many years, and we must thank him for serving the public as he did. Unfortunately for me, he did not remain an ardent federalist. He decided not to remain one, and I did. I am very persistent. He became persistent after that and he remained the most persistent sovereignist or separatist of the group. He did not hide his opinion.

At one point, he even left Mr. Lévesque, because he did not agree with the "beau risque". He is retiring, and the people of Quebec should thank him for his contribution to the public debate, even if we did not agree. That is what is so great about Canada: we can disagree and yet serve the public to the best of our knowledge and abilities.

[Constitutional Reform, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. We intend to go ahead with our legislative program, which is widely known, and with what I announced in my speeches last week. I intend to keep my word. How will we proceed? As I said earlier, the matter will have to be discussed with the provinces, because there are certain ways we can do it with the provinces, and there are other ways we can act only here in Parliament. So we are looking at various possibilities.

As I have always said, I recognized Quebec as a distinct society and I did so during the campaign. I supported the Charlottetown accord, whereas the Leader of the Opposition did not. I supported the Charlottetown accord, which recognized a distinct society. I know that the hon. member also supported it. I also know he would do so again, if he had another opportunity.

[The Economy, October 31st, 1995]

In terms of talking with the provinces about a program to reduce the deficit of every level of government, I have to report to the hon. member that the Minister of Finance is always in communication with other ministers of finance. That is a goal every provincial government is trying to reach at this moment. We try to do it in collaboration with each other because it is very important that we manage this problem.

Today, now that political stability has come back to the country the interest rate went down by 1.5 per cent and the Canadian dollar increased its value to 75 cents. We now have to get back on the real agenda of putting the affairs of this nation on the right track and creating jobs. The people will be better off for that.

[The Economy, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to offer my congratulations to the hon. member for his great contribution during the referendum.

We are political opponents and we will remain political opponents. Despite our political differences, we were both fighting to keep this country together. I was very proud to walk with him.

I would like to thank him on behalf of all Canadians, including Quebecers, for the passionate speeches he made during the referendum. It was very much appreciated. He did not try to score any political points. He just wanted to keep his country together.

[The Constitution, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to get involved in long constitutional discussions, as was the case after 1980. That is not the intention of the government. If something can be done with the agreement of the provinces we will do it. Quebec will assess the proposition and will render a view.

I do not intend to put on the table a long discussion on constitutional change. A lot of changes can occur in Canada without touching the Constitution.

We are doing that all the time. To give an example, the Minister of Transport has planned over three years to reduce the size of his department from 20,000 people to 3,000 people. He is giving airports to municipalities and other things are being privatized. There are lot of things we can do without having to change the Constitution and the Minister of Transport is doing some now.

[The Constitution, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, of course if we were to have such negotiations they would be with all provinces. I hope that if they are in the interests of Quebec Mr. Parizeau will accept.

[Official Opposition, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will be the defender of British tradition in the House of Commons. Under this parliamentary system there is an official opposition. We do not choose it; we take it as it comes. The tradition is that in committees we allocate jobs according to the status of the official opposition. They are members of Parliament. They are members of Parliament elected to come to Ottawa.

They wanted to break up Canada and they did not succeed yesterday, so they are still members of Parliament in Canada and they have the right to sit on committees. With respect, it is a tradition developed in the British parliamentary system, and coming from rural Quebec I am happy to defend the British tradition.