On 23 October, Jean Chrétien sat for an interview with Daniel Thibault of Radio-Canada to mark the 30th anniversary of the general election of 1993, in which he led the Liberals to victory and the first of three consecutive parliamentary majorities. Thibault asked Chrétien, who will turn 90 on 11 January 2024, various perfunctory and respectful questions about his ten years as prime minister, and their exchange included Chrétien’s recollections of Quebec’s referendum of 1995. But here the wily old Jean Chrétien – derided as “Yesterday’s Man” even back in the election of 1993 – still wishes not merely to share his own recollections of significant political events but to spin tall tales in that famous folksiness of the Little Guy from Shawinigan.
This interview will receive little to no attention in English Canada and will disappear into the ether that separates our Two Solitudes.
Chrétien recounted the following to Thibault at around 5 minutes and 40 seconds into the video:
C’était pas une question claire de tout. Rappelle que je faisais des discours où j’ai dit, « Répétez après moi la question : Êtes-vous d’accord avec un accord de telle et telle et telle personnes ? » Ça ne rien dit dans le fonds. Alors, ça n’aurait pas été la fin du Canada si le oui avait gagné avec une question [référendaire] comme celle-là.
That wasn’t a clear question at all. Remember that I gave speeches where I said, “Repeat after me the question: are you in agreement with the agreement of such and such and such people …?” Ultimately, that says nothing. So that would not have been the end of Canada if the “Yes” had won with a [referendum] question like that.
On 30 October 1995, Quebeckers voted on this question:
Acceptez-vous que le Québec devienne souverain, après avoir offert formellement au Canada un nouveau partenariat économique et politique, dans le cadre du projet de loi sur l’avenir du Québec et de l’entente signée le 12 juin 1995?
Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?
In the video that Radio-Canada released, Thibault shows polite interest in Chrétien’s characterization of the referendum question and briskly moves on to another topic. But Chrétien’s statement here merits some examination, because what he said on 23 October 2023 completely contradicts what he stated in a special American-style televised address that he forced the television networks to carry on 25 October 1995, five days before the referendum itself. Radio-Canada’s archives also preserve the contemporary footage from October 1995, where Chrétien gravely warned Quebeckers of the following:
Certains s’apprêtent à dire oui, parce qu’ils pensent qu’ils auront un meilleur rapport de force pour renégocier un partenariat économique et politique avec le Canada. Je veux le répéter encore une fois qu’ils se trompent. Un oui mène à la destruction irréversible de l’union économique et politique que nous avons actuellement – rien de plus.
Some [Quebeckers] are getting ready to say yes, because they think that they will have a better balance of power to renegotiate an economic and political partnership with Canada. I want to repeat this once more that they are mistaken. A “yes” leads to the irreversible destruction of the economic and political union that we currently have – nothing more.
Well, which is it? Was the question in 1995 so convoluted that voting for it meant nothing? Or was the question so dire that voting for it would have led to the irreversible destruction of Canada? Chrétien massively contradicts himself, and he does not contain the multitudes of Walt Whitman. Both of his assertions could be wrong, but one of them must be wrong. Chrétien has given Canadian history itself the Shawinigan Handshake.
Similar Posts:
James Bowden's Blog 