Jean Chrétien

[The Late Jean-Louis Leduc, January 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Leduc was a member here, for a few months in the opposition and then on the government side. He was a wise man and, as his successor said, a most pleasant companion. I doubt that many members in this House were as friendly with everyone. He was not very partisan. He was a good supporter but not the kind to pick a fight. He was very dedicated and had a particular wisdom. He was perhaps a little more mature than some, and every time he spoke, both in this House and in caucus, he was always wise, thoughtful and reasonable. I think that he served well the people of the Sorel region, the hon. member's riding, and also that he served his community well both as an elected member and before. When he passed on I am sure that those who knew him very well had the feeling that a gentleman had just left this world.

[National Defence, January 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I just informed the hon. member that the debate ended this week and that it was a useful debate. Before making this kind of decision, we also have to consult with our allies who are over there. The hon. member's party supported maintaining troops in Bosnia, and we appreciate their position. One thing is clear: we intend to finish our mandates, one of which expires at the end of March and the other in April. This means we have plenty of time to make a decision. We are in touch daily with our allies who also have troops stationed in that troubled part of the world, and we intend to make a decision at the appropriate time, by the end of March.

[National Defence, January 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we had a debate on the subject in the House. We listened to the views of hon. members, and we are to make a decision by the end of March, when we will have to renew our mandates. We have two mandates, one expiring in March and the other in April, and we have to make a decision.

In light of this debate, which was very useful and demonstrated the problems that exist, the government will analyse the situation and we will make our decision in due time, but there is no hurry for the time being.

We are monitoring the situation very closely. In fact, thanks to the progress made since our visit to Brussels, Canadian troops stationed in the Srebrenica enclave are about to be replaced by Danish troops. Everything is all right for the time being, and a decision will be made at the appropriate time.

[Leaders' Salaries, January 28th, 1994]

Shame on you.

[Leaders' Salaries, January 28th, 1994]

I would like to say to the hon. member that before talking about a deal he should have some proof.

I never heard about it. I was campaigning. I received the payments that the governor sent to me. I do not know what the precedents were on that but there was no deal. Nobody ever talked to me.

To reflect on the leader of the NDP suggesting that she was part of a deal or that I sat down with the Prime Minister to make a deal is absolutely false. It should be withdrawn. There was no deal and we received our payments as usual.

For myself, I do not know what the precedents are and nobody ever talked to me about it. If it was not right, I would be delighted to pay it back. But to imply that there is something wrong and impute motives as the member does to the leader of the NDP is completely wrong. For myself, I was not even aware there was a problem.

[Auditor General's Report, January 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of confidence in the government's budget policy is a fundamental one for any Parliament. If members were allowed to vote freely on parts of the budget, we would no longer have a government. The government must assume its responsibilities; it is up to the House to decide whether or not it has confidence in the government. No one is obliged to vote for the government. Even on this side, we have seen people do so. But, if they bring the government down, they know full well that elections will be called immediately after. I believe that the budget issue is a question of confidence in the government. The budget is first discussed with MPs, but once the Minister of Finance has tabled a budget approved by cabinet, it becomes a fundamental question of confidence in the government.

[Auditor General's Report, January 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this has nothing to do with how one makes a budget.

Voting after the budget is one thing. How to prepare a budget is something else. If the Minister of Finance reveals what he will do while preparing the budget, he would be forced to resign.

Some ministers in England have had to resign. In Canada there have been a few controversies because there were indications of what was to happen. Some people might buy shares or speculate on what the government will do.

Confidentiality is to make sure that nobody profits from the upcoming budget through speculation. We have to do that, otherwise somebody can get rich at the expense of the work of this House.

[Voter's Rights, January 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing. We have done a lot of things to bring back respect for this institution. One of the ways we have done it, for example, happened in the House this week. Everybody says the mood is much better, there are fewer catcalls, or whatever, from members.

We have had two debates of a type that did not exist before; one on Bosnia and the other on the cruise missile. Everybody, including the leader of your party and the Leader of the Official Opposition and the leader of the NDP all congratulated the government for its initiative in bringing back respect to this institution.

We will undertake many more measures like that in order to gain back the confidence that this House deserves from the Canadian people.

[Voter's Rights, January 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, there are two elements I would like the hon. member to consider. It will cost money to have an election every time the people are not happy with their member. Suppose they were to recall the whole Reform Party, perhaps right away. I will look at the proposition to see if it is a sensible.

I would like to have some information from Mr. Manning Sr. They tried it and it did not work. When a government is in power, that government has to make some tough decisions. If

there is to be a recall it comes four years later when there is another election. That is the democratic process.

I meet a lot of Canadians. Many of the candidates for my party who were defeated tell me that if they had a chance today to run in an election they might do very well in some of the ridings that elected Reform members. Unfortunately we do not have recall and for the stability of Parliament is it a good idea?

There was an incident in this House and the member is no longer a member of our party. Incidents of the same nature occurred in the past with every party in this House. I do not think it is a very practical idea. Again, I repeat, that English precedents are very important in common law, and the precedent occurred within the Manning family.

[Voter's Rights, January 28th, 1994]

-if the hon. member has the time he should call Mr. Manning in Calgary and ask him to have a little discussion with his father over the weekend and report to the House on Monday.