Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

-that this document is undemocratic and does not lead to a debate on the options. It is indeed a dictatorship in disguise.

As I mentioned earlier, when Quebecers stood up, they rejected the Duplessis regime, they said no to dictatorship. I am convinced that Quebecers will make a sound decision when asked a clear-cut question, not one like this, which is only propaganda.

I wish to tell the members of the Bloc that, even if they do not want me in Quebec, Madam Speaker, my roots are in Quebec, Quebec is part of Canada, and I will go there whenever I please. Therefore, I think we should stop here because the members of the Bloc are just showing their fellow citizens that they no longer want anyone else. They want to remain isolated. Something I regret.

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, it is obvious-

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

You are going to have to decide at some point. You will have to!

I wish to stress that the document I read, the document before me, calls for the participation of the people, presumably only those of the same political stripe, since I was just told that I do not have the right to take part because I am a federalist. Yet, Mr. Parizeau says I do have the right.

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

You are not inviting me. Therefore, you do not want Quebecers to know exactly what they are getting into. Thank you very much for not inviting me to participate.

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

Are you not inviting me?

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would like to make a few comments and then ask the hon. member some questions.

First, I would like to make a correction. When my hon. colleague refers to English Canada, he refers at the same time to the protection of minorities in Quebec. I am a francophone member of Parliament and a Canadian and I come from New Brunswick which is not part of English Canada or French Canada, but of Canada.

The hon. members across the floor emphasize the importance of being honest and open and say it is all a matter of choice, but I could show you here that the first page of the draft bill is entitled: An Act respecting the sovereignty of Quebec. They do not even have the courage of their convictions. Once again, they talk about sovereignty when in fact, the objective is the separation of Quebec. We are asked to get involved in what is proposed on the first page of the draft bill.

Allow me to turn to the second page. This draft bill sets out the political objective. As a member from the Bloc pointed out a moment ago: Come on, we have elected a PQ government in Quebec. I hope you were not expecting us to offer a clear choice between federalism or separation to the people of Quebec. This is what she said and it is obviously what they have in mind here.

They say that this bill suggests that Quebec will become a sovereign country democratically. How can they talk about democracy when they have already made up their minds about all the issues to be debated, how they are going to proceed, how to use the currency, share the assets and divide the debt? This is not a clear choice. They are not showing the people of Quebec what the real situation is now and what it could be tomorrow. We are invited, in my case as a so-called member for English Canada, a federalist-

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speeches made up to now. As far as I can see, there is not much consistency in the speeches made by members of the Bloc today.

Earlier this morning, we heard a member of the Bloc Quebecois inform us that it is because of Quebec that NAFTA was signed. However, we all know very well, and it is quite clear for me as a member from New Brunswick, that the government of Quebec has been reluctant in recent decades to liberalize trade between the Canadian provinces.

How can they say, on the one hand, that they support free trade with the United States and Mexico and, on the other hand, that they are extremely reluctant to liberalize interprovincial trade?

The member said earlier that Quebecers will have a clear and definite choice. In the process which has started, where is this clear and definite choice? There is none because the working paper presents only one option to Quebecers. Where is the overall plan Mr. Parizeau promised the people of Quebec? Where is this overall plan? Maybe we will keep the Canadian dollar. Maybe we will have Canadian passports. This plan is full of maybes. It is not with such proposals that Quebecers can make an enlightened choice. We cannot make an enlightened choice on the basis on uncertainties.

This is duplicity. I remember reading, and I read a lot, all the history books about Quebec when Quebecers stood up and opposed the dark age of Duplessis. I am also convinced that they will say no to the undemocratic dark age of Parizeau.

My question is as follows: Since the suggested process accepts only the separatist position, how will it inform the supporters of independence of the risks which will threaten them for generations? I am not asking this question and making these comments in a partisan way. I am making them because of the strong roots I have in Quebec and because I am concerned about the present and future well-being of Quebecers.

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

Are we taking about democracy or not?

[Department Of Industry Act, December 7th, 1994]

You will have your question. You had your speech, so I will ask my question.

He said that processing industries are a priority for the regions. I agree, but if the primary industry for developing natural resources in these regions is not a priority in the first place, how can you develop a manufacturing industry in that field?

So the question is this: How can the member, in concluding his speech, ask for a transfer of tax points, when yesterday he wanted to withdraw completely from this beautiful country?

[Department Of Industry Act, December 7th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech delivered by the Bloc member for Lotbinière, which was full of statistics-my congratulations to your researchers.

I find it very hard to understand logically how one can make such a wide-ranging speech in the House while demonstrating to this House that there is a lack of logic in Quebec on the subject of duplication.

The regional county municipalities that were created in Quebec in the last decade add another level of government, thus increasing administration and other costs and generating inefficiency. They then tell us that duplication must be reduced.

On the other hand, I agree that in the last nine years, the hon. member may have felt that the previous government did not look favourably on Quebec's demands.

Naturally, since our government's first year in power, we put in place a process to eliminate duplication. We said that before asking, or requiring each province to put its house in order, the federal government would start by putting its own house in order, thus eliminating duplication in all the various departments. The process is well under way. Public consultations on industry, finance and social programs were held at all levels before we started putting our house in order.

I also find it a pity that the member for Lotbinière does not admit that maybe Quebec should eliminate duplication among levels of government which may not meet the needs of small communities. We know that normally, the larger communities in a group or collection steer the ship.

The member also raised a very interesting point, that the federal government should withdraw from provincial jurisdiction, and he mentioned forestry, for example. Today, there is a very interesting article in which the president of the Quebec farmers' union, the UPA, demands that the federal government not withdraw from programs that subsidize agriculture in Quebec.

So are people talking to each other in Quebec? Are you members from Quebec listening to what your constituents are asking for, like continued federal participation in programs?

Considering the various federal programs which assist development in Quebec, I think that the member's speech should seriously be revised because it is quite illogical.

Something else you mentioned-