Jean Chrétien

[Referendum Campaign, October 20th, 1995]

Yes, but so were you.

I said at the time that it was not satisfactory, and you did not find it satisfactory either. Then, after we made the necessary changes and it became Charlottetown, I was in favour, and you were still opposed. So you have always been in favour of Quebec developing within Canada? This is where your problem lies. We, on the other hand, want Quebec to develop inside Canada. And when you talk about culture, there was a proposal in Charlottetown, and you voted against it. So shame on you, you are always opposed. Quebecers will be in favour of staying in Canada on October 30, in two weeks' time.

[Referendum Campaign, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, what a distortion of history, again. We were talking about the Meech Lake accord; the PQ was opposed. You were against it. Why are you criticizing us for siding with you at the time?

[Referendum Campaign, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we voted for a distinct society, and he voted against. He has the gall to rise and talk about it.

Secondly, he does not show a lot of respect for Mr. Lévesque in saying that he did not know what he was doing when he signed it. I think Mr. Lévesque was intelligent enough to know very well what he was doing when he signed it. I have never underestimated Mr. Lévesque's intelligence as the hon. member is doing. He did it

consciously. What were his reasons? I am not a member of the PQ, I do not know. We, however, were in favour of a veto, and it was Mr. Lévesque who did not want the veto.

Imagine rising and talking this way. As far as the distinct society is concerned, in Charlottetown, we voted for it.

We campaigned for a distinct society, like Ms. Frulla-Hébert. Yes. It was the PQ, Mr. Parizeau and Mr. Bouchard and all of you, who once again scuttled that, because you want separation and anything goes in the name of separation, except telling Quebecers the truth.

[Referendum Campaign, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to clarify one of the hon. member's statements. The program being circulated was prepared and accepted by all partners on the No side.

It says in this program that it would be desirable for Quebec to have a veto, and the answer I gave yesterday in the House was clear. We were in favour of a veto for Quebec, but René Lévesque and the separatists dropped the veto. You cannot blame me.

We voted for a distinct society and you voted against it. So today you rise in the House. I want to ask you a very short question: Do you want to remain a Canadian? It is not a difficult question, but you are afraid to tell the truth. He does not want to answer any questions because he is afraid of the truth. We are not. We are Canadians, we want to remain Canadians, and Quebecers want to remain Canadians.

[Referendum Campaign, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, all countries conduct negotiations. We negotiate with the Americans. We negotiate with Trinidad and Tobago. We negotiate with countries large and small. That is normal. The political clout, however, is not the same. That is where I notice another change in perception.

For the first time, the hon. member for Roberval said they are going to have a country. He was not talking about partnership. He referred to his country.

When will they have the courage to come out and tell Quebecers: "I am a separatist"? It is nothing to be ashamed of, so why not admit it instead of playing with words and saying at one point that "we will have a partnership", and then "we will not" and then "we will have half, or three quarters". Be honest.

Just say: "We want to separate", and Quebecers-30 per cent of the people who are now saying they intend to vote yes think they will stay in Canada- Does the hon. member want to remain a Canadian, yes or no? I would like to know.

[Referendum Campaign, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to know what kind of negotiations they have in mind, because when the Leader of the Opposition is on the hustings, at one point like yesterday, for instance, in the morning he was all for sovereignty without association or without a partnership, while that afternoon and evening it was not the same message.

It is clear, and this bears repeating, that when in Quebec they say that, after Quebec separates, there will be a new structure in which Quebec will have exactly the same number of representatives as the rest of Canada, which represents three times as many people, the rest of Canada will never go along with that. This is like suggesting that in the parliament of an independent Quebec, just because Quebec City is the capital, it should have the same number of members as Montreal.

In a democracy every person counts. If there is to be a Canadian structure, it must respect the democratic principle according to which members are elected in their respective ridings, while the Canadian constitution provides for a minimum level of representation for the smaller provinces like Prince Edward Island, which is protected in the constitution.

However, when someone claims, in referring to the issue of a future partnership, that the rest of Canada will have a parliament with the same number of members as Quebec, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in referring to this, says that is out of the question, this is exactly what the provincial premiers have said. Anyone who is the least bit realistic, is not a magician and really wants to face the facts will have no problem understanding this.

[Referendum Campaign, October 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am not very impressed by the hon. member's exaggerations, because at a time when we are facing a very serious situation in Quebec, members of the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois refuse to tell Quebecers that they want to separate. In the public opinion polls, 30 or 40 per cent of the people who say they will vote yes believe they will keep their Canadian passports and Canadian citizenship and are convinced they will stay in Canada and that there will still be federal members in Canada. They are not telling them otherwise. They will tell them after the referendum instead of telling them the truth before.

That is why in my speech yesterday I told Quebecers that reality is not a magic wand that will deal with the problems, not a leader who appears and disappears, like the one we have now. He was supposed to come to the House to crush us, and now he has disappeared. Poof, we do not see him any more.

The important thing is to realize that when Quebecers have to pay their bills at the end of the month, they do not need a magic wand but jobs and prosperity. Everyone in Quebec knows perfectly well that the Canadian alternative is the only one that will provide prosperity, security and progress for Quebecers.

[Referendum Campaign, October 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we are on the No side, and we have a very clear policy on what has to be done now, and it is to vote in the referendum and stop the political and economic uncertainty hovering over Quebec and Canada because of the determination of members opposite to separate Quebec from Canada. They do not even have the courage to say they are separatists. In this brochure, the No side has presented a text that reflects the consensus reached by all members of the No committee. Spending powers and so forth are all proposals that were accepted and which the members of the Bloc Quebecois turned down. They voted against the Charlottetown accord which included all that. We supported the Charlottetown accord, and this particular text reflects the Charlottetown accord. You were against it. You might as well stop talking because you keep contradicting yourselves.

[Referendum Campaign, October 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, I want to make sure that the Canadian constitution is complied with. Sometimes, there are sectors in which our respective jurisdictions have a bearing on one another. The spending power has been in our constitution since 1867 and, at this point in time, we cannot really abuse it, since we have little money.

[Referendum Campaign, October 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is beyond me how the hon. member, who voted against the distinct society clause, can ask me to make all kinds of promises in this respect. She was against this concept and voted accordingly. Now she claims that it was not really the concept of distinct society, that it was not the right term. The question that was just put to me was: Do you support the concept of distinct society? My answer is Yes and I might add that the hon. member voted against the distinct society clause.