Jean Chrétien

[National Unity, September 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in our party one thing is very clear and not very complicated. I told the Canadian people during the campaign that if they wanted to have Parliament discussing the Constitution all of the time not to vote for me. Now it is the Reform Party members who want to talk about the Constitution because when they try to talk about something else they are a complete failure.

[National Unity, September 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is not very complicated. We said the people of Quebec will stay in Canada if they have a good government in Ottawa that is preoccupied with the real issue of Canadians and Quebecers. I am talking about the creation of jobs and security of income for those who need it. That is the program of this party and this government.

Of course the PQ and the Bloc Quebecois just talk Constitution and separation even though the people of Quebec would like them to talk about job creation.

[1992 Referendum, September 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, everyone in the Press Gallery, everyone in this Parliament except the hon. member, knows that cabinet meets Tuesday mornings at 10 a.m. All the reporters are there for the Tuesday morning scrum. I raised the problem. I did not call a special meeting of cabinet. The problem had been making the headlines for several days. I talked about it. I said: This is what we could do if we receive confirmation from Mr. Mulroney, which, in fact, came two days later. We acted on that confirmation, but we also made sure we had the versions of Premier Harcourt, former Premier Bourassa, and the Premier of Ontario. You cannot be too careful when you are about to spend $34 million. I did what I was supposed to do. I got the support of cabinet and the approval of Treasury Board for making this payment.

[1992 Referendum, September 30th, 1994]

The Prime Minister can make commitments but has a duty to go to cabinet with his commitment, which I did this week. I talked to cabinet about this and they said: fine. The document then went to Treasury Board, to determine the amount. This is entirely legal. Payment is authorized by the government in accordance with certain government mechanisms. The commitment made previously was not a clear commitment to pay, and, in fact, Mr. Mulroney said so himself in the document you received. There was never any reference to specific procedures. As far as I am concerned, this payment is entirely legal.

[Government Expenditures, September 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, if it is a provincial referendum that is one thing. In this case, however, there was a national referendum where the same question was asked of all Canadians.

What we did was very easy. We divided the per capita costs of having a referendum in the rest of Canada and that is what we paid. If there is a provincial referendum in Alberta or B.C. or Nova Scotia or Quebec, they pay the bill. This is a democracy.

This was a national referendum and there was a commitment I have respected.

I wanted to have good documentation. I am happy to recognize by his silence that he accepts that we made the right decision.

[Government Expenditures, September 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I explained to the House clearly what happened. I have nothing to add. There was an agreement between the Prime Minister of the day and the premier of Quebec that he would recommend a payment. He never proceeded with it, perhaps due to circumstances. I do not want to get involved with what happened in those days.

I said I was confronted with a problem and I tried to find the proof that was needed to justify the payment. The payment was made. If the hon. member says we should not have paid, that would be another argument. That is not what he is saying.

Rather than to pass judgment on the substance, he is trying to play on the process. I am saying that there was a commitment by the previous government and we respected that commitment.

[Government Expenditures, September 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this is an obligation that was committed to by the previous government to the premier of Quebec. It was discussed among the premiers in Charlottetown or Halifax at a time when there were laws in Alberta, in B.C. and another in Quebec about provincial referenda. There was a discussion at that time on whether there should be one national referendum or a series of provincial referenda.

The conclusion was that the premier of Alberta decided to join in the federal referendum. The premier of B.C. did the same thing. But Quebec did not. Mr. Harcourt made a public statement that he understood that if he proceeded with his own legislation he expected to receive some compensation. I was not there but I tried to find out from the participants what had happened to get the best proof I could.

It is not a question of having a contract or not having a contract. I said in the House that there was no documentation on it. That is why I was prudent. I tried to have good witnesses and that is what I have done. However, it is an obligation that was contracted by a previous government.

In fact the taxpayers have paid for the referendum in all other provinces but not in Quebec. It was making an argument about fairness and so on. When I had all the files in front of me and the discussions that my staff had with the people concerned, I did my best. When I had the complete file in front of me I acted.

That is the difficulty. As I said before there were no documents. That was the problem. But there was a commitment by the Prime Minister of Canada to certain premiers that I am respecting.

It is just like when I get up in the House and I am asked a question and I say I will do something, sometimes I have to act after I said that. But if a Prime Minister cannot deliver on his word, who can?

[1992 Referendum, September 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I explained that the letter arrived when the House was convening. It takes a few moments to go over a document, and I was not there. The Deputy Prime Minister sat in this House and answered based on what she knew. We received a letter at 1.55 p.m. and we are being blamed for not providing an appropriate answer until 2.55 p.m. when the first question was put to us. If the letter had been sent to us at noon, we would have been able to answer at 2 p.m, but, as it happens, we received the letter at precisely 1.55 p.m. So, it took us exactly 70 minutes. We are fast, but not that fast. If we have not seen something, we cannot have read it.

[1992 Referendum, September 30th, 1994]

I did not send that letter. It is up to the sender to make sure the letter reaches its recipient. I did not receive that letter. Since when do we blame people for not having a letter they did not receive? I received that letter at 3.05 p.m. and the issue was settled two hours later. This shows how efficient our government is.

This morning I was expecting the Leader of the Opposition and other MPs to congratulate the government for taking swift action and making the right decision. I am surprised at how partisan they can be.

[1992 Referendum, September 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I could not inform the Deputy Prime Minister, since I was only told about that letter at 3.05 p.m. I decided not to show up for Question Period because my meeting with the Prime Minister of Tanzania took longer than expected. The letter was sent to my office but I was not there; I was at home. I was informed about it by telephone at 3.05 p.m. Obviously I could not tell the Minister of the Environment at 2 p.m. about something I received at 3.05 p.m. My office received a letter at 1.55 p.m., but I was not there. I am being criticized for not reading a letter which arrived in my office across the street, and not at my office here. I was not in my office. I am therefore being criticized for not having read a letter I had not seen.