Debates of Dec. 8th, 1994

Supply

[Some hon. members]

Separate.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

All right, separate. It is true, after all. But with all this, they want a Canadian passport. A big cheer for the Canadian passport. They want the Canadian currency. A big cheer for the Canadian currency. They want all the other benefits. They want to be part of the trade agreements negotiated by Canada on behalf of us all. A big cheer for our trade agreements that we managed to negotiate so well. Do you know the best way to keep all these benefits? It is to stay within Canada. It is as simple as that.

Of course, life could be better in this country, but compared to what? Residents of other countries of the world would do anything to be able to come here to Canada. Why? Because they know it is the best country in the world.

Everyone knows that, including the members across the way. They know the truth. They know what it is like.

Today, they do not have the courage to put the real question to the people in their province. They know that, in the last provincial election, separatists only got about 0.5 per cent more votes than the opposition, although quite a few federalists voted for them. What does it mean? It means that close to two thirds of Quebecers are against separation; at least 60 per cent of them are against what is called sovereignty because the people across the way do not have the courage to call a spade a spade. We know all this, so do Quebecers.

Why is it that all the Quebec organizations which voiced their opinion in the last few days condemned the initiative taken by the head of the Quebec government? Why did so many of them condemn it? One of my colleagues is going to list many of these groups. They condemn it because they know that these consultations are a sham. They know that the consultation process is pure make-believe and that the results are predetermined.

Let us look at the draft bill. It states that Quebec is a sovereign country.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

The members opposite can beat their own drum. By doing so and by gazing at their own navel, as they are doing today, they might end up believing that Quebecers agree with their statements. This is not the case. No matter how hard they beat their own drum, it will not make their wish come true.

Members across the way say that the monetary policy of Quebec should be dictated in another country and they say this in the name of sovereignty. How does one become sovereign by having another country dictate one's monetary policy? That is what they are advocating.

They are advocating the use of the Canadian currency in a foreign country. What the members opposite want is to deprive Quebecers of the opportunity to have, in this House of Commons, a finance minister coming from their own province and who could influence the monetary policy; they want to make sure that the Prime Minister of Canada does not come from Quebec to head this country's policy, a policy they will have to adhere to under their phony draft bill.

What the members opposite are doing is shooting themselves in the foot, as the member for Nickel Belt so elegantly put it. That is the real truth. Quebecers will not be fooled. I am the thirteenth generation of Boudrias born in Quebec. Thirteenth! Out of all my ancestors and descendants, my son is the first Boudria to be born in Ontario, the fourteenth generation in Canada.

However, Quebec and the rest of Canada are his country just as Quebec and the rest of Canada are my country. This is our country and it will remain just that!

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, I read the motion today asking this House to recognize the legitimacy of the democratic process initiated by the government of Quebec. I have listened to speeches by the Bloc Quebecois members trying to tell us what they intend to do and ignoring whether or not it is legitimate. I have listened to the members of the government who are telling us how good federalism is while avoiding the issue of whether or not what the Bloc intends to do is legal and legitimate.

The way I see the process is that they intend to introduce a bill in the legislature of the province of Quebec that is going to trample all over federal responsibilities. They are going to debate a bill in the legislature of the province of Quebec that is outside their jurisdiction. They are going to vote on a bill that they have no mandate to vote on. Then they want to dress it all up with some false legitimacy measures by holding a referendum.

It is presumptuous in the extreme for them to think that this bill would be endorsed by the rest of the people in Canada. For them to think that by declaring that these are the conditions the

rest of Canada would in any way support, and I think the process is a fraud, I think is illegal, illegitimate and immoral.

I would ask the previous speaker, as a member of this government, why he does not stand up and acknowledge and tell the people of Quebec that this entire process that is being proposed by the government of Quebec is as I said, illegal, illegitimate and immoral. The process is deceitful and a sham. Tell the people of Quebec that is the way it is.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I did not think there would be any doubt after my speech that I did not like the process very much. But if it needs to be repeated for the member across the way, I am certainly willing to do so in the time that is left.

We are not just debating legality here. Constitutional experts can argue until all the cows in Glengarry come home as to whether or not there is a constitutional provision, implicit or otherwise, for a province to secede from the rest of the country.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

Are those cows from Vaudreuil too?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

That is not the point. The point is to keep this country together and it is the duty of all of us, in all our speeches, in all our comments and everything that we do. We should all speak in favour of Canada the way the Prime Minister does, lauding the virtues of living in the greatest country in the world, Canada, not whether or not there are six constitutional experts who say there is such an implicit power. Five would say otherwise or the reverse. What difference does that make? That does not make any difference if a country is trying to split itself apart. What we need is the intestinal fortitude to state that this is a great country and to work together to keep the country together, this great country of Canada. That is what is important, not the rest of that nonsense.

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wish to make a few comments in response to the speech by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. I am told I have one minute left.

I would simply like to say to the hon. member that once Quebec achieves sovereignty, he will be allowed to keep his Quebec citizenship if he so desires and if his country, Canada, allows him to. I want to add-I will come back to this later-that we have no lesson on democracy to learn from representatives of the Liberal government and certainly not from representatives of the Reform Party.

Let me refresh your memory with three examples. Quebecers were never consulted on the Constitution of 1867. And what about conscription which the federal government imposed in Quebec after promising-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Order! Sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time is up. The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has 30 seconds to reply.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will try to be quick. In fact, the hon. members opposite have much to learn. The separatists have much to learn, if they think that they can deceive the Quebec people with phony consultations on such a contrived bill. It will not work, Madam Speaker. You will see, we will keep this great country together!

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Saint-Denis, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is for me, as a Canadian and a Quebecer by choice, a very sad day. It was 35 years ago that we chose Quebec and Canada. For 20 years now, I have been following Quebec's politics. About 15 years ago, I took part in the first Quebec referendum, where Quebecers indicated they did not want anything to do with sovereignty-association as it was called then, with separation as we would say today. They reasserted their sense of belonging to Canada and to our federation.

Over a year ago, I was elected to this House through a democratic process, but we now see for the first time ever a government that will decide unilaterally not to respect our democratic process. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition in Quebec who said that this is not a consultation process, but rather a propaganda campaign, a subterfuge, an illusion. He added that the issue will be how, and not if, sovereignty will be achieved.

After promising to represent everyone, the leader of the Parti Quebecois has initiated a process which excludes Quebec's federalists, that is the majority of Quebecers. If the government really wanted to find out what everybody thought about its proposal, it would not have launched a consultation process that takes into account only one side of the issue.

The president of the Quebec Chamber of Commerce himself has stated that he disagrees with these consultations. He said that the government will have to rethink the whole process. He added that, given the current situation, with only representatives of the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois sitting at the table, there would not be a balance in the views expressed and that it would make him very ill at ease.

The president of the Quebec manufacturers' association also decided not to take part in these consultations, because he thinks the draft bill is a sovereignty proposal and does not examine every possible option for Quebec.

Moreover, the presidents of the Quebec farmers' union and the Conseil du patronat also refused to take part in these consultations. These four examples clearly demonstrate that the PQ leader is not everybody's premier and that he only seeks the participation of separatists in this debate.

If he really was everybody's premier, he would have asked the clear and simple question that everyone can understand and answer: "Do you want to remain inside Canada, yes or no?" Unfortunately, this is not the case because he knows that the answer to this question would be no.

Finally, two of Quebec's most distinguished political scientists, Léon Dion and Vincent Lemieux, also severely criticized the PQ's breach of democracy. As reported on December 7, 1994, in La Presse, Mr. Dion said: "The process makes me very ill at ease. In such consultations, the public is often won over to a cause even before the process starts. In this case, it is Mr. Parizeau's cause."

The PQ leader continues to call himself everybody's premier and encourages everyone to take part in these consultations on the future of Quebec. At the same time, though, this draft bill does not include Quebec's cultural communities.

Last week, following many statements by members of the PQ government and their representatives, I rose here to ask the government to reaffirm unequivocally that members of cultural communities are, in fact, full citizens of our country. This draft bill confirms that the Parti Quebecois does not consider members of cultural communities as first-class citizens of Quebec.

Can the leader of the PQ government invite the cultural communities to build a new Quebec and then ignore them completely in his plan? Nothing is forcing the Parti Quebecois to subject Quebecers to an agonizing process. As my colleagues pointed out, Quebec is sovereign in all the areas under its jurisdiction. Quebecers live in one of the best countries in the world, a country they have built, a country they have chosen, just like my parents did. That country has evolved and Quebecers are part of this evolution.

Personally, I believe, as the Leader of the Opposition in Quebec said, and he will lead the campaign against separation before the next referendum in that province, that the process announced yesterday by the PQ government can only be democratic if it meets the following three conditions.

First, the process should be based on consultation, not on propaganda. The proposed process in unacceptable since it leads to a foregone conclusion. The solicited advice and discussions have one single purpose: to draft a declaration of sovereignty based on the proposals and suggestions that only supporters of separation will be interested in formulating.

Second, the approach used should focus the public debate on the real issue. The PQ is asking the people to discuss the content of the declaration of sovereignty instead of the advisability of separation in order to avoid the real question: is it in the best interests of Quebecers to separate from the rest of Canada? Not only is the desire of the Parti Quebecois to avoid this question dishonest, but it also shows that the PQ is afraid to hear what the answer of the majority of Quebecers to such a clear question would be.

Third, the process must be fair. In keeping with the spirit of Quebec's legislation on public consultations, both sides should have equal opportunities to put forward and explain their viewpoints. In practice, this means that both sides should have the same number of seats, the same resources and equal time.

Will Quebecers have an opportunity to make a decision on a clear question in the coming referendum? I doubt it.

The question proposed by the Parti Quebecois would ask the people of Quebec whether they are in favour of the Act passed by the National Assembly, which would define the features of Quebec sovereignty. It is a blank cheque the PQ government is asking for, because it knows very well that whole sections of the sovereignist plan would have to be negotiated with its partners in the years following the referendum.

Given these factors, and since I chose Quebec and Canada as my country, this is a very sad moment in the history of Quebec and since the democratic process is not being respected, I will vote against the Official Opposition's motion.

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to tell the hon. member for Saint-Denis that her remarks about cultural communities, which she said are disregarded by the PQ government, are not only false, but also disrespectful to the PQ government and to the people of Quebec, a community that is not self-centred, but, on the contrary, quite open to immigration and newcomers. Let me give her just one example. One of her co-nationals, Nadia Assimopoulos, chaired the executive of the Parti Quebecois in the 1980s. That is a telling example of the openness of Quebecers to cultural communities.

I would also like to comment on the so-called undemocratic character of the PQ process. I would like to remind the hon. member for Saint-Denis, as I set out to do a few minutes ago, of four events in the history of Quebecers that were instigated by the federal government, and ask her to consider whether they were democratic or not.

The first one is the Constitution of 1867. Quebecers never got a chance to have their say on that Constitution. Then, there was

the conscription crisis. In 1940, the Mackenzie King government, which had made an electoral commitment not to impose conscription, reversed its position by holding a referendum in which 70 per cent of Quebecers voted against and 70 or 71 per cent of Canadians outside Quebec voted for conscription. Despite his previous commitment, Liberal Prime Minister Mackenzie King imposed conscription on all Quebecers.

More recently, the Trudeau government decided to proclaim the War Measures Act in Quebec and proceeded to arrest hundreds of people, and search the home of thousands of honest citizens. As a result, 20 people waited for months for charges to be laid against them.

Is that the Liberals' idea of democracy? Those people have the nerve to teach us lessons in democracy. The last event is the patriation of the Constitution in 1982. The current Prime Minister was one of the main players in what was a tragedy for democracy, when they shoved down Quebecers' throats a Constitution they did not want. If that is what they call democracy, my Liberal colleagues and the hon. member for Saint-Denis do not know what they are talking about.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Saint-Denis, QC]

Madam Speaker, every time a member of the opposition rises, it is to give us a history lecture-that is not interesting. Thank you very much, we have all read the history of Quebec and Canada. This is why Canada was chosen twice as the best country in the world to live in-including Quebec and Quebecers.

I would also like to say, just in passing, since he brought it up, that a compatriot of mine told me that she quit the Parti Quebecois because she was not a separatist, she never supported separatism and she does not share that vision of society.

[An hon. member]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. We would all like to hear what the hon. member is saying.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Saint-Denis, QC]

Would you like me to repeat it in English?

If we have interpretation again, I would only like to repeat, as I said earlier, that I do not need a history lecture. I know the history of Canada.

I know what the history of this country is, the greatest country in the world. I want to repeat it.

I want to repeat that my parents chose to come to Quebec and Canada, and I am proud of it. I want to stay in a united Canada and I will fight for it. The Bloc Quebecois also has many history lessons to learn because history shows us that Quebec and Quebecers have really been quite well served by Canadian federalism.

We enjoy one of the best standards of living, we live in one of the best countries in the world. We really have a quality of life which is the envy of the world, and this is due to the unity of our country, to federalism which benefits Quebec. I wish to repeat that Nadia Assimopoulos, of whom you spoke, resigned from the Parti Quebecois because she was not in favour of the separation of Quebec. She is not a separatist, and never was.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville-Gun control.

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to this motion which reads as follows:

That this House enjoin the government to recognize the legitimacy of the democratic process initiated by the Government of Quebec in order to allow Quebecers to chart their own political and constitutional future.

This motion was initiated by the Government of Quebec. Of course, what we are witnessing here today is an attempt to discredit the Government of Quebec, to claim that it is undemocratic, that it does not know what democracy is and that it does not respect democracy in Quebec.

At the outset, I have to say that I, as well as other Quebecers, are clearly shocked to hear the Quebec Liberal Party, the federal Liberal Party and the Reform Party declare that Quebec's proposal is illegitimate. Need I remind you, Madam Speaker, that the Parti Quebecois is one of the most democratic parties of all time. The Parti Quebecois was democratically elected and forms the government.

The Parti Quebecois has a tradition of parliamentary democracy. It is one of only a handful of parties in which members elect their leader by universal suffrage. It has passed laws governing the way in which political parties are financed. It is the only party in Canada to have done so to ensure that each and every Quebecer can make a contribution to a political party and that the government that is elected is free to act. It is not a party controlled by the big interests or by the big unions. When the government makes a decision, it is made freely No other government in Canada can make such a claim.

The Parti Quebecois is responsible for passing of the Referendum Act. It participated in the work of the Bélanger-Campeau Commission which, of course, was set up by the Liberal Party of the day. It participated extensively, intelligently and regularly in the commission's work. Moreover, the outcome of the commission's activities was very positive for Quebec. The Parti Quebecois also took part in the Charlottetown debate. It never refused to participate in this process. This, despite the fact that the federal government was proposing renewed federalism, a kind of draft project. We participated even though we were opposed. We were also involved in the 1992 referendum, as I just mentioned.

The Parti Quebecois has also taken an innovative step by introducing legislation to establish a permanent voters' list. Why then is the federal government refusing to co-operate with the party in power? It is all rather incredible. In my opinion, the main reason why the federalists do not want to take part in this democratic debate is that they have nothing more to say. It is that simple. They have nothing to offer.

Over 35 years ago, Mr. Duplessis used to say we should get what belongs to us from Ottawa because we were cheated out of our areas of jurisdiction. That was back in 1936. I have a cassette tape in my car. I often listen to it, and I can say the speeches of today are exactly the same.

Mr. Lesage said: Masters in our own house. Mr. Johnson, Sr. said: Equality or independence. Mr. Lévesque said: Sovereignty-association. Mr. Bourassa tried twice to improve things. He passed Bill 150 and gave it up later on. What a disgrace.

We have been talking about this for a long time. The subject is definitely not new, at least not for me. In 1984, when I was elected with the Progressive Conservative Party, we talked about decentralization and accountability.

The then Prime Minister, Mr. Mulroney, did all he could to give some dignity back to Quebecers. You will admit he paid a steep price for that. He tried to give Quebecers fairness, not privileges, but legitimate rights that they had been asking for, for decades. Mr. Mulroney's Progressive Conservative Party was completely thrown out of Canadian politics by English Canada. There are only two members left. Why? Because Mr. Mulroney tried to give Quebec some form of legitimacy. That man ruined his political career to fight for the little legitimacy Quebecers need to develop further. This is the main reason why his party disappeared, and it is a well-known fact.

In 1984, while I was campaigning in my riding, Mr. Lévesque, who was my MPP at the time, sent his people to support me. It really happened. Mr. Lévesque talked about the "beau risque" in those days. He said: The Tories seem well-intentioned, we will give them the opportunity to grant Quebecers the legitimacy they have been requesting for so many years. He said: Let us give Mr. Mulroney a chance. I just explained to you what happened to Mr. Mulroney for trying. In 1990, when the Meech Lake Accord failed, when the present Prime Minister of Canada made sure that it failed, it was just because he wanted to get into power and to win the election here in Ottawa. He won his election, but winning that way, on the backs of Quebecers, is not an honour. That is exactly what is going on.

Today, they are trying to tell us that the Parti Quebecois is not credible, that its bill is not legitimate. We know very well that what they are trying to do is strictly an excuse, because they do not know how to justify why Quebecers should stay in this federation. This federation is costing Quebecers an enormous amount of money. I will give you an example. It is an easy one that everyone knows, but they just need to be reminded. Quebecers are not naive. They are not drawers of water any more. They have been out of there for a long time. Quebecers are intelligent people. They are educated, they understand things. They understand very well that the Canadian federation has put a huge debt burden on their shoulders. Quebecers make up 25 per cent of the Canadian population. That means that the federal government is creating a debt of $10 billion a year for Quebecers, without their permission, because they are still a minority in this country.

Canada has an accumulated debt of $550 billion and they are trying to convince us that this Canadian federation is good, that the country is rich. When we look at whether a country is rich or poor, we must also look at its debts. When they say that Canada has the highest standard of living in the world, we must remember that it is a standard of living that was bought on credit. Each year, we borrow money to buy food. If a family borrows every day to buy its groceries, it will maintain its standard of living but one day, it will go bankrupt. Canada is on the verge of going bankrupt.

Just on the subject of money and the economy, we Quebecers do not want to be on this sinking ship. We must take hold of our destiny to be more efficient, to be more successful and to preserve our standard of living. To say that Canada still has the highest standard of living in the world is pure hypocrisy. It is crazy to think that.

That standard of living has been bought on credit and they still keep doing it. The government does not have the courage to cut spending, because of the coming referendum. They continue to borrow on the backs of Quebecers to maintain an artificial

standard of living. We built an artificial economy and we make people believe that the Canadian economy is doing well. It is pure hypocrisy. What we are going through is terrible. It is a disgrace. It is worse than the Second World War. If we continue on this road, Canada will be totally bankrupt in a few years. We are starting to feel it a little more every day.

[Raymond Bonin, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I must admit there is hope, since the hon. member of the Bloc Quebecois has said publicly that he was a member of the Conservative Party. Anyone who has the courage to admit that will certainly have the courage some day to admit his mistake and realize that his separatist strategy will not work. By that time, there will probably be no reason for his party to exist, and to do penance, he may have to join the two members of the Conservative Party and stay in purgatory for a while before he crosses the floor and joins the Liberal Party.

It bothers me to put my question to the hon. member of the Bloc, because I realize the Bloc Quebecois does not represent the majority of Quebecers.

It bothers me, because it is like asking the driver of a limousine to sell me his boss's car. However, since they speak for Mr. Parizeau, I will ask them the question.

Last year, when we were elected as members of the Parliament of Canada, it was a big surprise for members of the Bloc Quebecois when they heard I spoke French, although I come from northern Ontario. An even bigger surprise for most Bloc members was the fact that, in northern Ontario, we have institutions for francophones: we have our own schools, universities, colleges and hospitals.

So I will put the following question to Mr. Parizeau, through his messengers: Since you claim to defend the interests of francophones outside Quebec, will francophones outside Quebec have a role to play? Do you intend to set up another committee consisting of thirteen members of the Parti Quebecois and two others, perhaps a Franco-Ontarian and a Franco-Manitoban, to convince us that this is the way to go? How are you going to defend the rights of francophones outside Quebec? Are you going to say the same thing Mr. Lévesque said when he came to Sudbury, in my riding? He told Franco-Ontarians at Laurentian University: It is too bad for you, franncophones living outside Quebec, but we have too many problems in Quebec to have time to deal with yours. That is what Mr. Lévesque told us in Sudbury.

So do not tell us you defend the interests of francophones outside Quebec but tell us what role you think we will play in this debate?

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

First of all, Madam Speaker, I must say that I am proud to have been with the Conservatives for six years. It is not because I am against private enterprise. I am in favour of a suitable environment for the private sector, in order to create jobs. I think that party did a good job in this regard, even though it did not have the guts, no more than the Liberals today, to cut spending. I would have wished that they cut more spending.

Nevertheless, in 1990 I had the courage to resign, because I realized that there was nothing more to expect-

[An hon. member]

After Meech.

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Yes, after Meech, of course. It was no longer possible to defend the interests of Quebec in Ottawa from within a federal party. It is not possible. To do so, you have to be free to speak. And the only way to speak freely on behalf of Quebec is to belong to the Bloc Quebecois, of which I am one of the founding members. This is why we can now speak freely on behalf of Quebec.

We are the legitimate representatives of Quebec, since we won 54 seats out of 75. I consider that a strong legitimacy. Quebecers trust us and that is why they voted massively for us, especially French Canadians, I mean French-speaking Quebecers. Unfortunately we have not succeeded yet in rallying allophones and anglophones to our cause. I understand and respect their position.

Regarding French Canadians outside Quebec, I must say that we made more statements and asked more questions regarding the interests of francophones outside Quebec than the Liberals ever did when I was sitting as a Conservative. What we want to do is help French-speaking communities all over North America.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Madam Speaker, to begin, I would like to go back to what my colleague for Longueuil was saying. Along the same line, this morning, I read an article on the cost of sovereignty. The problem is that it did not mention the cost of federalism.

In fact, we are forced to recognize that, for the past 25 years, we have seen the centralizing policies of the federal government turn a thriving country into one which is deeply in debt.

No matter how loudly the Prime Minister claims in this House that we live in the most comfortable country in the world, our credit card bill is up to $550 billion. The end of the month is going to be something else!

I would have liked to have had the time to mention all the disgraceful, useless expenses, all the waste originating on Parliament Hill and in various departments. Unfortunately I have only ten minutes. Therefore, I will focus on overlapping, duplication and the cost of federalism in general.

Let us look at the various programs the federal government implements in Quebec and which compete, in one way or

another, with those Quebec is already offering because they are more in tune with our specific needs. Believe it or not, out of 221 federal programs and 244 Quebec programs, 197 either overlap or duplicate another. That means that we could get rid of 197 federal programs and Quebec would be better served for it.

First, we are faced with redundant administrative activities. As part of their mandate, well-meaning federal civil servants are doing exactly the same thing as their provincial counterparts acting in accordance with their mandate specific to Quebec. We pay twice for people who do a good job, but who do it twice. Once would have been enough since the job was well done.

There is worse. There is competition between various programs. Because, of course, the federal government wants to outdo the provincial government, it favours quantity over quality; the quantity of dollars it borrows, spends and, unfortunately too often, wastes. Occasionally, it resorts to conflict. We do not agree on targets. The federal program goes one way, while Quebec-and Quebec knows its constituency well and structures its objectives accordingly-goes another. Therefore, efforts and funds, instead of being pooled, are once again wasted.

At times, the programs are in direct conflict with each other. Instead of one going one way and the other one, the other way, they run counter to one another. How often-and the public is aware of this-do lawyers go to court to make representations on behalf of the federal government and object to representations on behalf of the Government of Quebec, whose lawyers are paid by Quebec taxpayers? It is our money that is financing this legal squabble. Duplication, overlap, waste.

That is not all. Think of the poor citizens. I mentioned the 221 federal programs and the 244 provincial ones. Ordinary people are completely lost. When you make an application to the federal government, you are asked whether you have already applied to the provincial government. If so, you have to wait for an answer from both the federal and the provincial governments. But the provincial government is waiting for the federal government to deal with the issue, with the result that the people are kept waiting and waiting and waiting, while the meter is ticking away on both sides. Such a waste!

Finally, I must say that, on top of all that, is an unquantifiable factor-unquantifiable because this is money that we never see-and that is opportunity cost. While these programs shoot each other down or wander one way or the other, the public waits. And while the public is waiting, we let opportunities go by, right under our very nose. All this to say that there are lengthy delays and some people get so totally discouraged that they give up projects they could have completed otherwise.

A case in point is manpower training. Two years ago, there were 25,000 people on a waiting list for training, but the federal government did not agree with the provincial government on required courses. Even the Quebec Liberals said that Quebec knew what the needs were.

We are still waiting. Do you think that these 25,000 people who were looking for training are still waiting in line? No, they are no longer eligible, because they do not qualify for UI benefits any more. They are now on welfare and programs are shutting them out. It is a disgrace.

The costs of federalism? Let us say quickly that federal institutions definitely lack the flexibility required to compete internationally. In fact, the federal system is inflexible by definition, despite what a certain minister may say, as demonstrated by the many failed attempts to reform it.

Everything has been tried. We are not blaming the federalists. They tried everything. Mr. Lévesque, with the "beau risque", deeply believed in it. Mr. Bourassa tried until the last second to find some accommodation. It did not work. The system is inflexible, cast in concrete. Yet, international competitiveness requires great adaptability.

I will close by addressing remarks made by some of my colleagues opposite, which I found almost insulting. We are talking about democracy, about the democratic process. We are talking about the question. You will agree with me, Madam Speaker, that if the finance minister's next tax increase was the subject of a referendum, you know very well that the people would vote against it and that this tax increase would never ever see the light of day.

That would be democracy. But it will not happen that way. It will happen through phony consultations, through passage of this tax measure here in this House. Canadians will see tax increases of up to $120 billion, $125 billion, $130 billion, who knows?

The Government of Quebec is now following a process whose conclusion will be decided by the people. The people will be able to say yes or no. That is democracy. That is how it should be done and I would urge my colleagues opposite to do the same when dealing with important issues. Our Prime Minister says that the question that should be asked is: Do you want to separate from Canada?

I submit that Mr. Parizeau is asking an identical question and here is why. The Prime Minister's question essentially is this: Do you want to separate from the problem? What Mr. Parizeau says is this: Do you want to adopt the sovereignty solution? Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Mr. Chrétien is

entitled to his; he can keep his problem. Yes, Madam Speaker, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. However-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I would just like to ask the hon. member not to refer to the Prime Minister by name.