Jean Chrétien

[Quebec Referendum, September 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I answered all those questions yesterday and the day before. I even quoted from René Lévesque's program, in which he mentioned the concept of a referendum as consultation, the need to respect the laws and constitution of a country and the need for a clear majority.

As Daniel Johnson said in the National Assembly, we are not about to divide Canada following a judicial recount to see whether there is one vote more on one side or the other.

Obviously I want a genuine debate on this problem because it is clear that the Leader of the Opposition and his leader in Quebec City, Mr. Parizeau, are hiding the truth from Quebecers. This morning in the National Assembly, they were once again unable to explain why studies by Professor Bernier stating that it was "unrealistic" to have a partnership with the rest of Canada were kept under wraps.

Could the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether he agrees with Professor Bernier when he says: "I think some of my conclusions were not politically acceptable"? He added that it was not his intention to write to please the reader. He said that a partnership was "unrealistic and an illusion".

Does the Leader of the Opposition agree with the tactics of his leader in Quebec City, Mr. Parizeau, which consist in keeping documents under wraps and asking professionals to act less than professionally for the partisan purposes of a lost cause?

[Post-Secondary Education, September 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as Prime Minister, I am quite satisfied with the answer given by the minister responsible.

[Quebec Referendum, September 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is very sad to see the leader of the Reform Party asking exactly the same questions as the Bloc Quebecois.

I have said all along the minister replied very clearly yesterday that we want a clear question on separation. This is not a clear question on separation. It is a confusing question which we are denouncing. When I hear that confusing question from the leader of the Reform Party, saying that with one vote he will let Canada go, it is a very sad day for the people of western Canada.

[Quebec Referendum, September 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, for 32 years I have travelled to every part of Canada and have made the same speech about this great country. I have travelled to Quebec and to the west, Alberta and B.C. It is my duty to say what I said. They want to create separation but they do not have the intellectual honesty to ask a clear question. This is what I have to tell them.

In a country like ours to recognize that at one time a rule of majority plus one could break up the country would be irresponsible on my part. Even in the Reform Party, as a journalist wrote this morning, in order to change its constitution one has to ask for two-thirds of its membership.

Therefore I will not break up the country with one vote. It is not real democracy. Real democracy is to convince the people they can express themselves clearly, which is what we are doing.

This is why we are telling Quebecers these people want to separate but they will not succeed because it is our collective duty to tell all Quebecers the scheme they have, the virage, the mirage and so on will not work. They will not succeed in fooling the people of Quebec because the people of Quebec will know when they vote 39 days from now that they will not separate. They will stay in Canada because it is their destiny, their future and their desire.

[Quebec Referendum, September 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I always said that the goal of the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois is to separate from Canada. It is clear to me.

I am very disappointed that the leader of the Reform Party is trying to position himself in a situation like this. I would like to tell him that as Canadians we have to be united to make sure that Quebec remains in Canada.

[Quebec Referendum, September 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Johnson understands the current debate very well. He has said we are not about to divide a country following a judicial recount to find out whether there was one more vote or not. It was in fact Mr. Lévesque himself and his government that clearly established the rules whereby a majority must be clearly expressed in such a situation. These are the words of the person the Leader of the Opposition wants to replace. He admires and reveres him, he is always saying. I am therefore simply following the democratic principles established by Mr. Lévesque; and Mr. Johnson has said so as well: Democracy begins with treating people honestly and asking them a clear cut question.

I challenge the opposition once more; I defy the Leader of the Opposition to call Mr. Parizeau. With one day of debate still to go at the National Assembly, let him replace the question with a clear one: Do you want to separate from Canada on a given date? They will have a clear cut answer. Quebecers will say: We are staying in Canada. That is being clear.

[Quebec Referendum, September 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

I would like to thank the hon. member for criticizing me for being too subtle. This is the first time this has happened to me in my life, and so I am very happy. For me, my duty is clear. I do not need any lessons from the hon. member for Roberval on what my duty is. I understand my duty very well. I was elected to administer this country, to give Canadians good government, to create jobs and to make this country even better. To do so, we must ensure that Canada remains united.

This is what I am going to do over the next forty days with Mr. Johnson in Quebec City, to do my duty as Prime Minister and keep this country united for the future.

[Quebec Referendum, September 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, is the Leader of the Opposition saying that when Quebecers voted against the Charlottetown proposal that would have given Quebecers a distinct society-the Leader of the Opposition himself voted against it-the referendum was legitimate because everyone was consulted? Canada's future is not the business of a single group of citizens. This has an impact on all Canadians.

I must say I hardly have to consider holding a national referendum as authorized by Parliament, since Quebecers will realize that the separatists are trying to hide the truth. The leader of the Leader

of the Opposition has refused to table documents paid for by taxpayers because these documents will clearly prove they are trying to hide the truth from Quebecers, because they know perfectly well that Quebecers want to stay in Canada.

[Quebec Referendum, September 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I do not even have to consider that, because we will tell Quebec that the Leader of the Opposition is proposing Quebec's separation from the rest of Canada. They will vote to stay in Canada. If the question had been clearer- The leader of the Leader of the Opposition said this during the election campaign: Do you want Quebec to become a sovereign country on such and such a date? He said that would be the question.

However, when the Leader of the Opposition realized he could not win, he said: We will come up with a winning question. Is that respect for democracy, coming up with a winning question because they cannot convince Quebecers to leave Canada?

I have great confidence in the judgment of Quebecers. They will stay in Canada, and the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition is doubly hypothetical.

[Quebec Referendum, September 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, what I said yesterday in English was translated into French, as you can see in Hansard . We have a system: if I speak French, it is translated into English, and if I speak English, it is translated into French. I said the same thing.

And perhaps I could explain this to the Leader of the Opposition. I would like to quote to him from a document produced by the government of Mr. Lévesque, and of course he knows Mr. Lévesque. In 1977, in a document which appeared under the title: La consultation populaire au Québec , they said: Referendums would be consultative in nature''. I agree. The document says:The first imperative of politics in a democracy is a clear majority''. I agree. The document goes on to say: The consultative nature of referendums'', they should have said referenda, in any case,means that it would be unnecessary to include in the legislation special provisions on the majority required or the minimum participation rate''.

It is a consultative system, as Mr. Lévesque and his government admitted in 1977. Today, we have a confusing and ambiguous question, and I am asked whether we would recognize a vote with a majority of one. As Mr. Johnson put it so well yesterday, we are not about to separate from Canada on the basis of a judicial recount.