Jean Chrétien

[Social Program Reform, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I find it quite surprising that the CSN has a bill I have not yet seen.

The government is still looking at the problem, and we have not made a definitive decision. Furthermore, I am in contact with the provincial premiers, as I indicated two weeks ago in this House. The maritime premiers have made representation in this regard, and I have not finished consulting the other premiers. I hope to do so soon.

When we are ready, the government will approve a draft bill, which will be submitted to this House. The members will be able to make suggestions and amendments and, after it has been duly studied, the bill will be passed.

At this point, however, I have to say that cabinet has not yet approved any draft bill on the matter.

[Referendum Campaign, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, education comes under the full responsibility of Quebec's Minister of Education.

I am happy that the matter was raised because he should do a good job. Quebec has the highest dropout rate in the country. This has nothing to do with the policy governing transfer payments. The policy is exactly the same for all provinces, including Quebec. Why are there more dropouts in Quebec? They should start by dealing with that problem.

Provinces have complete control over the hospital sector. We do not do a thing in that area, except send money. If they want us to stop collecting taxes and sending money, we can, but that is not what they want, of course.

They do not want to do the dirty job of collecting taxes. They want us to do it and to send them a blank cheque.

However, we have national responsibilities. The federal government is the one providing a national health care system to which all Canadians have equal access, instead of what some provinces would like to put in place at this time, that is to say, one system for the rich and one system for the poor. It is thanks to the Canadian government that we have a national health care system ensuring that all Quebecers as well as all other Canadians have equal access to health care. Under this system, when you are sick, you can be admitted to a hospital not because you have money but because you are a Canadian. It is a simple as that.

[Referendum Campaign, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this document has been issued collectively by all members of the coalition. That is clear as day. However, before attacking us on this kind of thing, because this is a written document, Bloc Quebecois members should start by- When you see their leader crisscross Quebec with his magic wand in hand and come out with a statement like: "I am for sovereignty pure and simple; we will not even need Canadian citizenship or Canadian passports".

That same afternoon, he said: "Well, no, we will negotiate a partnership", but later qualified his statement. He was not so categorical any more. He was apologetic. That is in essence how the week started off, with all this talk about being among ourselves, francophones, people of colour, with women bearing more children and so on. Later in the week, they changed their tune once again. That is what really happened.

They do not want to tell people the truth. We, on the other hand, put our position in writing.

A moment ago, I asked the hon. member for Roberval if he wanted to remain a Canadian. Let me put the same question to the hon. member: Does she want to remain a Canadian or would she rather abandon Canada completely? She should answer this question, so that her constituents know where to stand come October 30.

[Referendum Campaign, October 20th, 1995]

The hon. member should blame René Lévesque, who, with the leaders of the other eight provinces, imposed this formula on the federal government. It is true that unanimity is required. We were against this. Still, it was the Quebec government led by René Lévesque which imposed this amending formula, and now he is saying that it will be difficult. I agree that it will be difficult, because of the mistakes you have made in the past. Quebecers, however, will not let you make other mistakes when the referendum is held on October 30.

[Referendum Campaign, October 20th, 1995]

No, you may be reluctant to admit it but, on the night of the convention, the vast majority of Newfoundland delegates supported my candidacy. So I thanked the people of Newfoundland for voting for me at the convention. However, that is not what they want to say. It was during the celebration following my election as leader of the Liberal Party, and I was saying thanks to Mr. Wells and all my other supporters. I also expressed my thanks to those who had run against me. I said

that, for the sake of the party; to have a good convention, one needs opponents, and after it is all over, one should thank everyone and help the Liberal Party move forward. That is why I am Prime Minister today.

[Referendum Campaign, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the number of unfounded statements in that question is unbelievable. First of all, yesterday, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs did not discuss the right of veto issue with anyone. So much for that. There was no mention of a right of veto in the Meech Lake proposal. It was not an issue because the amending formula had been accepted by René Lévesque several years earlier. Another faulty interpretation by the hon. member.

Third, he said that on the night I became leader-I explained this but they do not want to tell the truth. I simply said-

[Foreign Affairs, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, for a person who has spent his career as a high ranking officer in national defence-who as a member of Parliament is double dipping by having his pension from the army-he should know there are always discussions at the military level on how to deploy troops. It has never been done by parliamentarians. It has always been done by the military under instructions by the government.

At this time peace is coming to Bosnia, which we hope will be a permanent peace situation. Canada is always there when there is a need for peace. If we are needed we will look on it favourably. However, I have not made up my mind. If Parliament were to tell us not to go there, we would not. However, it would surprise me if the people of Canada did not want to be in a place where we can save lives, have peace and make progress for the poor people who have suffered so badly over the last four years.

[Foreign Affairs, October 20th, 1995]

The decision has not yet been made because I have not taken the problem to the cabinet and to the House of Commons. The only thing we know for certain is that the Reform Party does not know anything about the facts and it is already against it.

[Foreign Affairs, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, for the first time we have had debate in the House about our presence in Bosnia before the decisions were made. Today I am standing here saying that the Americans, the British, the French and others have asked us if we would participate. We told them we would consider it.

[Foreign Affairs, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the ongoing initiative at this time to have a permanent peace situation in Bosnia should be welcomed by everybody. At long last the Americans seem to be willing. I am not sure if they will be able to send some troops but the president says that he will send 25,000 soldiers there.

I was talking a few days ago with the Prime Minister of Great Britain who told me that he would send some soldiers there. I talked with the President of France who said that he would send soldiers there. I said that we would consider being there.

I said in the House that before we made the final decision there would be a debate in the House of Commons. We have to talk with them first to know what they want, what kind of role, and nothing has been determined yet. We will come to the House of Commons. It is the first time in the history of Parliament that we have had a debate before a final decision of this kind.

We have the right to talk with the people who are asking us to be there. We cannot do it in a vacuum. Probably there will be another flip flop. For months they all supported the presence of troops in Bosnia. However, yesterday they said they did not vote for it. They supported it all along at a time when they were trying to score political points. They are now gauging the wind, and it would not surprise me if they flip flopped again.