Jean Chrétien

[Referendum Campaign, October 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Johnson voted for the distinct society in the Charlottetown referendum, while the Leader of the Opposition voted against the distinct society when we had a referendum. Mr. Parizeau voted against the distinct society when we had a referendum. Funny how they have changed their minds today. Why did they not consider what they were doing at the time?

They wanted to vote against the accord so they could go on complaining and then have a referendum on separation. We will have one two weeks from today, when people will answer the question on the separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada. The people of Quebec know that their future is about remaining full members of the federation of this great country, Canada.

[Referendum Campaign, October 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, twice Canadians have been asked to vote on this. I remember the distinct society was part of the Charlottetown accord. I voted for the accord, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition voted against it. The leader of the Bloc Quebecois voted against it. The members of the Parti Quebecois voted against it. Jacques Parizeau did. We were in favour of the accord.

They voted against it, but today they want it back. I think that is a little ridiculous. As we said before, today the issue is not the Constitution. Today we have to answer a question put by the Leader of the Opposition and his former leader, the Premier of Quebec, about whether we should separate.

When asked the question: "Should we separate?", the people of Quebec will say no. Today we are not talking about the Constitution but about answering the question put by the Leader of the Opposition.

[Nuclear Industry, October 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the development of a nuclear industry in Ontario came about because that province had fewer hydroelectric resources than Quebec. Canada's development is based on potential, resources and population. I am sure that some provinces did not receive anything for nuclear energy development because they do not have the necessary resources.

Quebec received federal assistance. Hydro-Quebec has nuclear facilities in Gentilly. Quebec got its share, but the fact is that it did not need as much nuclear energy as Ontario. That is the way it is in Canada. This is a diversified country. Although we are trying to distribute everything among the various parts of Canada, some things cannot be distributed solely on the basis of population, as I was saying the other day. We are not about to start digging rivers in Saskatchewan so we can give that province its share of the national ports budget.

[Department Of National Defence, October 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence got up many times in the House and explained that under the laws of this land when there were cases in front of the military courts we could not proceed with an inquiry because it could have invalidated trials that were going on. It is the way we operate. There were some charges against some military people and we could not have a public inquiry on the same element of proof because it would have been used by the different lawyers or the prosecution to destroy the case.

We have to respect the law of the land. After the judgments were rendered we had a public inquiry. We could not have both together. With time, when he gains experience, he will know the law of the land a bit better and perhaps one day he will be ready to take over what will be left, if anything, of the Reform Party.

[Department Of National Defence, October 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have said to the House many times that we initiated the public inquiry into the matter. Now I see the Reform Party is taking credit for that.

I was in opposition when the parliamentary secretary was on his feet asking for an inquiry. We are having a public inquiry and all the documents are available.

Of course there are problems in the army. In any department there are problems. We are working to solve them. We will accept the recommendations if they are valid and we will change what has to be changed.

To try to create the impression that we have a terrible army in Canada when it is lauded by everybody around the world I think is going the wrong way.

The young member has a lot of personal ambition. He should tell his colleagues to slow down, because there will not be much of a Reform Party very soon.

[Department Of National Defence, October 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a little problem today. From watching the hon. member I realize not many of them will be re-elected when they act like that.

The member talks like that about the Canadian Armed Forces which have been an honour to all Canadians. Those Canadians have been doing a great job in Yugoslavia for the past three and one-half years, yet a former member of the armed forces is using those kinds of words about his colleagues who were with him in the army, who have always been a great part of the Canadian strength. We have the best soldiers in the world.

Not long ago I was talking with the President of Croatia and the President and Prime Minister of Bosnia. They told me the best soldiers in the former Yugoslavia were the Canadian soldiers.

When I see a former soldier acting like the hon. member, I know those members will not be back in great numbers after the next election.

[Social Program Reform, October 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the unemployment insurance program was explained in the budget, and we are preparing legislation that will be tabled very shortly.

Just this morning I received a call from a provincial premier who wanted to see me to discuss the legislation, and who begged me not to go ahead immediately because he had a number of representations to make.

I told him: "Fine. As soon as I have time, we will have a meeting, and we will table the bill as soon as possible, because we want people to have time to discuss it".

The hon. member referred to senior citizens. I made it clear here in the House that we have no intention of affecting senior citizens. I made that quite clear. But I also said that we will have to make sure we can still pay the old age pensions of the people who will retire in 2005 and 2010. Good government means planning for the future. And people who are retired now do not have to worry.

We want to be able to pay old age pensions in 2005, 2010 and 2015 because many of us will still be here, although there may not be that many on the other side, and we have to consider the future. As far as pensioners are concerned, they do not have to worry, I made that clear, and old age pensioners will not be affected, not in November and not in the finance minister's next budget.

[Social Program Reform, October 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the hon. member for Roberval says, we are not hiding a thing. We announced our schedule for transfers to the provinces at the beginning of our mandate. We gave them three years. We told them from the outset: we will continue to increase a little bit next year, and that was 1994, and then in 1995 we will go on increasing, and the cuts will come in 1996 and 1997.

However, next year the subsidies we pay will still be higher than they were at the time we formed the government. The Minister of Finance explained to the provinces that he would give them time to adjust and that he would even continue to increase payments during the first two years. However, they were told to expect adjustments.

The provinces were aware of this and initiated their own cuts. For instance, last year in December, Quebec's health minister announced cuts totalling $500 million. We still gave slightly more than the previous year, but he made cuts. Obviously, everyone has to make adjustments. Provincial governments across Canada are making adjustments. The Government of Quebec has started to do so as well, and it will have to make more adjustments after the referendum.

We told all provincial governments ahead of time what to expect. I think this is all very fair and very open and shows a government that has absolutely nothing to hide before, during or even after the referendum.

[Official Development Assistance, October 5th, 1995]

Excellent question. We had been expecting it for a long time.

[Access To Information, October 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs gave a more than adequate explanation on this matter a few days ago in this House.

[English]