Jean Chrétien

[1992 Referendum, September 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I myself answered all the questions I was asked on this subject in this House. I have just explained clearly that it involved $34 million of Canadian taxpayers' money, as a result of the question raised by the Leader of the Opposition claiming that the federal government had made a commitment.

I took the necessary action to find out if there was a commitment from the federal government. He would have been the first to criticize me if I had acted on mere hearsay. I did what was necessary to assure myself that we could act as soon as possible with all the information in hand. A prime minister must act in such a prudent fashion. I acted with caution, as a reasonable man would.

[1992 Referendum, September 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I said in this House that I had discussed the problem with Mr. Mulroney. I had not received a satisfactory answer from Mr. Mulroney at that time. I told him that I had sent him a letter and he told me that he would answer. We discussed the matter but I was waiting for his written reply. I never said that I had not talked about it with Mr. Mulroney. On the contrary, I informed the House that I had spoken with Mr. Mulroney.

Furthermore, he told me that he would send me an official reply. During our discussion, he told me certain things. Was I satisfied with his answer? Was it enough? I do not think so. But I had enough after I had spoken with and received information from Mr. Harcourt, who was involved in the discussions in Charlottetown, as were Mr. Rae and Mr. Bourassa, and after I had reviewed the whole matter.

The letter itself is not absolutely clear. It was only after reviewing the whole matter that I concluded that there was

indeed a commitment and that Mr. Bourassa had received a commitment from the then Prime Minister. I took precautions.

As I said earlier, on Tuesday, I discussed the matter hypothetically in Cabinet, saying in effect, if we receive some information confirming all of this, can I go ahead? The Cabinet did give me the go-ahead; as for the amount of money, it was set, as required by Cabinet, by Treasury Board, which sat yesterday afternoon. It always sits on Thursday afternoon.

I myself was notified of Mr. Mulroney's letter or of Mr. Shortliffe's telegram giving us Mr. Mulroney's version, and we accepted it. It is no more complicated than that.

[1992 Referendum, September 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, last weekend we contacted several persons to make sure we got all the facts. We had the privilege of speaking with Mr. Harcourt, calls were made to Mr. Bourassa, and I personally spoke with Premier Bob Rae. I also called Mr. Mulroney. Our brief conversation did not satisfy me and we agreed that the best thing would be for him to send me a written statement.

When one has a $34-million decision to make involving taxpayers' money in a matter one did not handle, which had been on the table for a long time and involving discussions to which one was not privy, as a Prime Minister one must make sure that all the facts are in the open and quite clear.

I reviewed the matter and on Tuesday consulted the cabinet and was authorized to act with the permission of Treasury Board. When the documentation was received I was not in the House myself, having been held up with the president of Tanzania. I was informed at 3.05 p.m. yesterday that the written communication had come in.

I authorized my minister to take the necessary steps to make headway with this matter, but I acted cautiously because it involved taxpayers' money and was a matter that was not really the responsibility of this government. It had been dragging on for some time and we did not have the proof required to authorize payment. Once proof was received, we authorized it. It is that simple.

[1992 Referendum, September 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, a prime minister cannot act alone. The opposition would be the first to blame me if I took on financial commitments without cabinet and Treasury Board approval. Of course, if I give my word, they will honour it; on the other hand, legally, without a cabinet decision and Treasury Board approval, there can be no government commitment.

If Mr. Mulroney made a personal promise to Mr. Bourassa, I will go before my Cabinet to ensure that the word of the former Prime Minister is honoured, even though he did not act prudently. If he promised something without having it approved by Treasury Board and the government then in office, I will not act illegally without the approval of cabinet, Treasury Board and my party.

[1992 Referendum, September 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition says that there was an agreement. In my opinion, any agreement requires the consent of both parties. We found no evidence that the former government gave its consent. We recently asked Mr. Mulroney. We asked Privy Council officials and others who worked with these former first ministers, and they told us that there never was a commitment.

I went one step further: I called Mr. Mulroney himself. I talked to him on the telephone and he told me that he would confirm his position in writing. Once we know his position, we will take action. If he made promises to Mr. Bourassa, I will be very happy to honour them. If he did not make promises at the time and personally refused to pay when he was leading the government, I am not responsible for the actions of another government that did not want to pay. I was not involved in this matter.

I would like to say to the opposition that Alberta and British Columbia also wanted to hold provincial referendums but, under the circumstances, they preferred, to avoid the costs involved and to be sure they would get paid, to have the referendum held under federal legislation.

[1992 Referendum, September 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would not advise the Leader of the Opposition to go back to practising law, if he makes statements like that.

He says that Mr. Bourassa said that Mr. Mulroney-whom you know very well, who took you at your word and then you went back on it-told him such and such a thing. I do not doubt that Mr. Bourassa wrote the letter, since I read it. However, I asked the Privy Council to go through all the documentation. Was there anything in writing? Did a discussion take place in cabinet or elsewhere to confirm this letter? I was told that nothing could be found.

I called Mr. Mulroney and I told him: Mr. Mulroney, I am sending you a letter with a request to clarify the situation. He said that he would reply very shortly. I said in the House that if there was a commitment, it would be respected, and if there was no commitment, you can blame Mr. Mulroney.

[1992 Referendum, September 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bourassa and Mr. Gérald-D. Lévesque wrote to the government about this. I am aware of that. The Minister of Finance also discussed the matter with the Minister of Finance of Canada. This is about a request, a claim made by Quebec. It is not a commitment. A commitment exists when the federal government agrees to pay. However, there is no indication in any document that the government agreed to do so. If conversations took place between Mssrs. Mulroney and Bourassa, I would be delighted to know what they were about. I called Mr. Mulroney, who did not give me an answer, but perhaps the Leader of the Opposition, who knows Mr. Mulroney very well, could call him and ask him whether he gave his consent, yes or no.

[1992 Referendum, September 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hide anything from the House. I said that in the government's files I found no commitment by Mr. Mulroney's Conservative government indicating that it would compensate the Government of Quebec. I was aware that requests had been made, and I did not make a secret of that. Some were made publicly. I knew that Mr. Bourassa had talked about this in the National Assembly. But what I did not find is a commitment from the federal government. I got in touch with Mr. Mulroney to ask him whether he had made a commitment. I wrote him a letter about this, and I am waiting for his reply.

[Haiti, September 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that unfortunate incident. We believe that operations in Haiti are progressing rather well and that a much more serious bloodbath was avoided through the negotiating efforts of former President Carter.

We hope that President Aristide will be back in office in the next few days, and we intend to lift embargoes at the earliest opportunity, so that Haiti's economy can function normally and that the situation can go back to normal as quickly as possible in a country which has already experienced too much suffering.

[English]

[Gay Rights, September 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in my party as in others, many opinions are expressed. Our members can speak freely. When the government introduces a piece of legislation, government members vote according to the party line or else a free vote is held.

If party leaders were to be responsible for all the opinions expressed in this House, they would have a lot of problems. This is a democratic country, and every citizen can express an opinion. The government listens to all views expressed, introduces legislation and then the party supports the government.