Jean Chrétien

[Ethics, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I said that we would proceed in these areas. We hope to be able to give a name to the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Leader of the Reform Party in the next few days. The bill on lobbyists will be tabled shortly after the person is appointed. We would like to consult with that person before introducing the bill, because we think it would be useful to have his or her opinion.

I hope we can agree shortly on an appointee, and that the promise will be fulfilled before the summer recess.

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, after 32 years in the House of Commons and in Parliament what happened to the Solicitor General? Rightly so. At that convention, he refused to reply to a hypothetical question.

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, under the Canadian Constitution the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is the one responsible for natives in Canada.

Because there was a lot of debate about hypothetical questions, he gave a hypothetical answer. At that time I said we were all wasting our time. That was my answer.

We are talking about a hypothetical situation that will not exist. I do not want to spend my time on that because I want members of my cabinet and members of this Parliament to be preoccupied with the jobs that are needed for the Canadian people.

To speculate on what would happen, as Mr. Trudeau said one day: "If my grandmother had wheels, I would have been a bus". I do not want to speculate; I do not like if, if, if. I like to do things. What is important at this time is job creation and giving a good society and a lot of confidence to the Canadian people and Canadian investors so that everybody will be there.

I do not want to reply to hypothetical questions. It is not permitted by your rulings, Mr. Speaker. One cannot ask hypothetical questions in the House.

[Federalism, May 24th, 1994]

The best way to answer the question is to do what we are trying to do. That is to give good government to the people of Canada which is what they want, to reopen that type of debate, to talk about the values of Canada. I do it all the time. In fact I will have the pleasure of saying that to 1,000 people in Calgary this week. I said that in front of 12,000 people in Winnipeg last week. I will have another great occasion to say the same thing to a great crowd in Edmonton.

I say to everybody who listens to me that we have problems. Every country in the world has problems. It is not easy, but I would not change the problems of Canada with the problems of any other nation of the world. We live in the best nation in the world, the most generous country that exists with a tolerant society. It is a country that has such an open democracy we can tolerate the separatists in front of us who want to break up the country. You do not find a better country than Canada.

[Federalism, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, now the leader of the Reform Party says there is no need to talk about the Constitution. Fine; I agree with him. That is why we are working on reforms to social programs at this time. We have tried to have fundamental reform and to make sure we approach the problems in a modern way by putting the emphasis on the right thing: job creation and dignity of work.

In terms of trying to make arrangements with the provinces, that is what the minister for federal-provincial relations is doing at this time. He is working to try to end the duplication of many programs. That is a practical way to have better federalism. We have been working that way since the beginning.

To come in with so-called new things and get people around the table like we have done over the last three years and talk Constitution all the time will lead to that. That is the speech this member of Parliament is making across the country today and he knows it makes no sense. The people do not want us to spend our time on constitutional matters. They all know that we live in the best country in the world and that we can solve our problems in a practical way. The big scheme à la Reform would never work.

[Federalism, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, during the campaign I went across the land and made a promise to all Canadian citizens that I wanted to become the Prime Minister of Canada and talk about job creation.

The leader of the Reform Party wants me to reopen the debate on the Constitution. I think it is completely wrong to do so. People are completely fed up with discussions on the Constitution. They want us to create jobs, and that is what we will do.

[Quebec's Right To Self-Determination, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the territory as a whole means all of Canada. That is what the opinion which Mr. Parizeau had in front of him the other day said but he forgot to mention that. This is our objective. And while we are discussing hypothetical issues, there is a lot of talk on international markets about the political instability in Canada and that has the effect of making interest rates go up, as the Minister of Finance can confirm.

It is because these people do not care about the economic interest of Quebecers. If they did, they would help us stabilize interest rates, create jobs and give Quebecers what they want. Quebecers do not want to talk about the Constitution: They want jobs and they want to be able to come home at the end of the day with their dignity intact.

[Quebec's Right To Self-Determination, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to quote the opinion used by Mr. Parizeau last week, to the effect that Quebec natives must remain in Quebec and that Quebec must remain in Canada. Mr. Parizeau forgot to add that part. It is the international law for the time being. I want Quebec's territory to be fully protected, and the best way to ensure that is for the province to remain part of Canada, because the Canadian Constitution says that as long as Quebec remains part of Canada, no one can change its borders without its approval. Quebec's territory is protected by the Canadian Constitution. This is the best protection Quebecers can ever hope for.

[Quebec's Right To Self-Determination, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want a referendum with a very clear question, not playing on words to try to confuse people, not talking about sovereignty, not talking about sovereignty association, but talking about the real thing: the separation of Quebec from Canada.

I am a democrat but I am not going to spend my time debating that because I know clearly that the preoccupation of the people of Quebec is exactly the same as the preoccupation of all Canadians. They want jobs, job creation and growth. They want all parties to work toward that goal rather than have the Leader of the Opposition, who is supposed to protect the interests of Canada when abroad, creating uncertainty around the world. He is guilty.

[Quebec's Right To Self-Determination, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very broad question. It is more or less what the Leader of the Parti québécois said last week, when he commented on an international opinion according to which Quebec's borders would have to remain as they are. In the same opinion, it was also said that according to international law, Quebec could not separate from Canada without the consent of Canada, and that we would have to allow a vote to be held on the question.

That was done in 1980. I worked for the federal cause in a democratic vote, and Quebecers decided to remain in Canada. When I read current reports, I am convinced that this is not what Quebecers are concerned about, and that we are wasting our time. And as the Leader of the Opposition traipses around the world, he is creating problems for the Canadian economy, because talking about separation has a destabilizing effect. I am talking about a united and prosperous Canada that will go into the twenty-first century as a country that is a shining example to the world, and with all the provinces in Canada.