Jean Chrétien

[The Constitution, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, all the powers the member mentioned are provincial powers. The only intervention by the federal government is to give money to the provinces in these areas. We use our spending power to give money in these areas. In the area of culture, for example, yes, the province of Quebec receives more than the proportion of population because it is where the milieu of the French culture is found. The reason a lot of the grants in relation to the French language are given to Quebec is that Quebec est le foyer de la langue française. We recognize that.

However, we do not have the constitutional power in those areas. The powers are with the provinces. We sometimes distribute money to give an equality of chances to the people. The reality in Canada is that we have parts of Canada where people are rich and parts of Canada where people are poor. It is the value of the Canadian mentality that the parts of Canada that have money help the people who need money in other parts of Canada.

[The Constitution, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased at the big rally in Montreal, where there were more than 100,000 people, to see the premiers of Ontario, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia there to show their solidarity. They showed the Quebec people that they wanted Quebec to remain in Canada. They also wanted to show their appreciation for the contribution of Quebecers since Confederation. I was very proud to see the premiers there. I noted there were not many Reform people there.

[The Constitution, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, there are in the Constitution provisions that are not the same for everybody. For example, there is a proposition coming from Newfoundland at this time, which has a system of education that is different from the ones in Ontario and Alberta.

Some provisions in the Constitution guarantee forever that there will be four seats for the citizens of the province of P.E.I., even if the proportion of the voters is much lower than some in Toronto. There is also a provision that one can argue does not guarantee absolute equality, but I think it is right for the province of P.E.I. to keep its four seats. It was among the first to join Confederation.

[The Constitution, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in 1980 we put in the Constitution a charter of rights that gave equality to every Canadian.

[Canadian Unity, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, if the leader of the third party had been in Quebec he would have realized that nobody in Quebec voted to dismantle medicare, free medical care for everybody in Quebec. Nobody voted for that. Nobody voted for the agenda of the Reform Party to destroy the social safety net that exists in Canada.

What the leader of the third party is trying to do at this moment is sell its very right wing agenda, to the right of Gingrich. He is using this occasion to pass his own political agenda rather than arguing for the survival of the country.

[Canadian Unity, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in a federation like Canada we have to talk with the premiers too, who during the campaign, contrary to the leader of the third party, did everything they could to help me and everybody on the no side to win.

I had the chance to talk with the premiers yesterday afternoon. We discussed a certain possibility of change, not necessarily all constitutional. They are willing to work with us. That is the way to do that, which is not what the leader of the third party has done. Rather than unite with everybody to give a front of a united Canada for the referendum, the leader of the third party was always out trying to score some cheap political points.

[Canadian Unity, October 31st, 1995]

Mr., Speaker, we had a plan and the people of Canada responded well to it. We had a close referendum, which was the expression of the will of the people of Quebec. Their views were expressed. It was closer than we expected. We wanted more.

I know the leader of the opposition wanted to win. There was no doubt in his mind that he wanted to win, which is normal in such a contest. But we won.

I made a speech on Tuesday in which I said I was in favour of certain changes. I will bring about these changes very quickly. As far as the will of the people of Canada is concerned, yes, they have helped a lot. A lot of members on this side were in Montreal with the people of Canada. However, I realize that during all that

campaign the leader of the third party did not do much to help us to win.

[Social Program Reform, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have never mentioned future recipients. We are speaking of those receiving pensions. That is always what we have said, that we had no intention of changing the plan for those in receipt of old age pensions.

We have said that the federal government needs to ensure, over the long term, that the plan will be available for people who will reach retirement later, because everyone feels this is a plan requiring adjustments. There are more Canadians than in the past, proportionally to the pension, and we need to look to the long term. We have spoken of reform for the years 2005 and 2010, and not of the immediate future.

[Social Program Reform, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I was very clear in this House prior to the referendum and I am still clear after the referendum: we have no intention of cutting the federal pension benefits being received by those who are already retired-as I have said, and as I say again-either in November or in the next budget.

I was very clear before the referendum, and I am as clear today.

[Social Program Reform, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have just answered the question. I repeat that no draft bill has yet been approved by the government. No draft bill has been submitted to cabinet. When it is submitted, the ministers will consider it, and there will be a resolution. I have to say we are well

on the way, but I want to talk to one or two premiers who have made representations, before approving the final bill. No draft bill has been approved by the government to date.

So, we are waiting. When it is ready, we will table it in the House, and members can make suggestions or amendments, if they do not like it.