André Caron

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, October 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to hear the minister admit that the bill does exist.

Will the minister try to deny the obvious or will he admit that his bill will reduce UI benefits, exclude thousands of young people and women from the system, and put in place a two tiered system for seasonal workers? What is keeping the minister from admitting the truth? The imminence of the Quebec referendum?

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, October 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. Yesterday, the CNTU revealed that the HRD minister's bill on UI reform does exist. And its provisions are identical to what has been leaked from various sources since June. The draft bill is dated October 10, 1995.

Will the minister admit that the bill on UI cuts is indeed ready, as evidenced by the existence of this document, and that its tabling is being delayed by the government to hide these cuts from Quebecers until after the referendum?

[Small Business Loans Act, October 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on behalf of my party to Bill C-99, an Act to amend the Small Business Loans Act.

The parliamentary secretary made it very clear that small businesses play a very important role in the Canadian economy and, of course, the economy of Quebec. Both the government of Canada and the government of Quebec have set up programs to support small business, because one of the problems facing people who want to launch a small business is the financing.

Often these people are very keen and have interesting ideas, and if governments do not find ways to support them, their ideas often remain undeveloped and the business never materializes. Both the government of Quebec and the Canadian government have taken steps to provide assistance to entrepreneurs.

Of course there are private investment funds in various provinces including Quebec, such as the FTQ's Fonds de solidarité which has some impact in this sector. However, the parliamentary secretary said that today in Canada a total of nearly $8 billion is invested under this program, which is an indication of its importance.

Another indication is the fact that the program is popular among entrepreneurs. In our riding offices, we often see people with good ideas who decide to ask their member of Parliament for information on programs that could help them start a business.

Canada has legislation, the Small Business Loans Act, which was adopted several years ago. This legislation has made it possible to lend money and start businesses. The bill before the House today proposes a number of amendments to this legislation.

Originally, the purpose of this legislation was to provide guarantees for bank loans to entrepreneurs who wanted to start a business. This guarantee could vary from 85 to 90 per cent, and in fact varied from year to year.

The cost to the Canadian government is what it costs someone who wants to guarantee loans. If the individual's business is not as successful as he expected, if he goes bankrupt, then the government of Canada has to pick up the loss incurred by the banks. In 1992, these losses totalled $44 million. The maximum was changed in legislation adopted in 1993 and a number of provisions were changed as well, so that in 1995-96, the government of Canada could be faced with picking up a total of as much as $100 million in losses.

Considering the current state of federal finances, it is understandable that the minister should be concerned and that the debate on small business in the Standing Committee on Industry had to consider this aspect as well.

That is why we have a bill before the House today. The purpose of the bill is to reduce the maximum for guarantees provided by the federal government. The maximum would be reduced from 90 to 85 per cent of the loans approved. By reducing the maximum, the government of Canada is of course reducing its responsibility for amounts to be paid in case of bankruptcy.

There is of course a corollary to all this: if the guarantee is less extensive, people with higher risk projects that may be more innovative will have more trouble obtaining guarantees. This is not unusual, and if the banks are unwilling to take the risk, some projects may be rejected.

In fact, the 85 per cent rate goes back to before the amendments in 1993. It is of course an area where the government could save money. We hope there are no business people with clever and brilliant ideas, who are refused loan guarantees because of this provision.

Also, an important aspect of this provision concerns us in the Bloc Quebecois considerably. With the amendment, the ceiling could be lowered even further, should the government decide to

regulate it lower. As one of my colleagues was saying earlier, for the moment it is at 85 per cent. It could drop to 60 per cent. It could drop to 50 per cent. We really do not know.

What is of concern in all this is that the government is giving itself the option in the bill before us to lower the ceiling by regulation. Government by regulation is reprehensible. I think the House of Commons has to take measures to ensure that the bills passed are good for the country. I think, when legislation gives the government the option to decide things of this importance by regulation, we are running the risk of hurting the country's business people.

There is also another provision in the bill that causes us some concern. Basically the aim of amendment in the bill is to have moneys paid by the Minister of Finance in the event of a bankruptcy absorbed some other way. In other words, the Minister of Finance does not want to see the $100 million planned for this year back again next year. Another way for the government to ensure that losses are cut or even eliminated is for the program to be self-sufficient.

My colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, said it well: "How are we going to go about recovering costs?" Administrative measures will be taken. An annual administration fee will be charged. There will also be a claim processing fee.

The bill provides that these administrative fees are not to be paid directly by the business people. It does provide that they can be paid by the business people indirectly. In other words, the interest rates on loans could be raised to cover the administrative fees that the banks would have to pay.

This means doing rather deviously or hypocritically what cannot be done directly.

I would like to think that government finances are important, but the program's efficiency is going to be reduced by this measure. It will be reduced, because the banks are not going to go out of their way for business people. By definition, the banks want to be profitable and they charge the highest interest rates the market will bear.

As a result, entrepreneurs will have to bear higher costs in order to meet program requirements. This is one measure that causes serious concern among the members of the Bloc.

There are some items that we would certainly have liked to see included in the bill which are not there. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry has said that the measures proposed in the bill were discussed in the Standing Committee on Industry and are contained in its report tabled in October 1994: Taking Care of Small Business .

Although the Bloc was considerably involved in the drafting of this report and endorsed the bulk of its recommendations, it made a number of comments, in the form of recommendations, amendments or notes, which we felt improved upon the proposals for making the Small Business Loans Act more efficient and effective. One of these proposals was that "the Small Business Loans Act ought to provide guarantees for small business operating capital loans. To implement such a measure, the government should carry out a cost analysis of such a program and take a responsible fiscal approach".

We know that the loan guarantee given is intended to help businesses meet expenses related to very specific aspects such as buildings and equipment, but not working capital. The problem is that, in recession conditions and crisis situations, and as a result of certain changes in the Bankruptcy Act as well, there are many small businesses which need financing for their working capital for a time, but they cannot take advantage of the act as it stands to obtain either financing or a guarantee of financing.

To improve the way we help our small businesses, the Bloc Quebecois would have favoured an amendment saying that the operating capital of a business could also be financed with a government guaranteed loan under the Small Businesses Loans Act.

There are a number of things we find disturbing in this bill. I mentioned the reduction in the maximum rate, which means fewer businesses will have access to the program or those that do may have to meet more requirements. Second, there is the matter of administration fees which we think will be passed on to businesses through an increase in the interest rates they will have to pay. And third, there are aspects that are not covered by the legislation such as the financing of operating capital.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois will discuss the bill in committee, and propose amendments that will probably be along the lines of the comments I just made.

I would like to make a few more comments as I conclude my speech. This may annoy some government members who will probably think that I am not on topic or other members who will say: "Duplication and overlap, here we go again. It is the same old sovereignist or separatist refrain from the Bloc". In any case, as I mentioned in my introductory remarks, in Quebec we have a number of programs with substantially the same objectives. Take the Paillé plan, named after the present Minister of Industry, which also provides for loan guarantees. Take what is being done by the Société de développement industriel du Québec. Since I became a member of Parliament, I noticed that many constituents who want to start a business are told to go to the provincial office and the federal office. In fact the situation is not quite clear. Often there is out and out competition.

Who is responsible for this competition or overlap? I do not want to get involved in all that, but I simply want to point out that there is some overlap that is counterproductive. It does not do the entrepreneurs any good because they often do not know where they stand. And when governments at the provincial and federal levels do not belong to the same party, people often believe that if they go to one government, the other government will be annoyed and that will get them in trouble. I myself have never noticed that since becoming a member, but there are people who think they can play one government off against another or people who think there may be difficulty applying to one level of government when application or representation has also been made to the other government.

So I think that, when measures such as this are before the House, we should note-and I am not saying criticize, but we should at least note-that there are overlaps, which could hurt business people and the government's budget.

The same taxpayers, whether they are from Quebec or Canada, are helping to fund these programs through their taxes. And I really think a number of people use this sort of competition to try to get the best out of both programs. I think, in the long term that governments put themselves in situations where their expenditures under these programs will increase because of the competition, because of the overlap and because people try to take advantage of the opposition or even the competition between governments.

With bills like this one, it is important to point out problems of overlapping created by such programs.

In concluding, I would like to make one comment. More and more in the business community in Quebec and Canada, in the government and even in the Liberal Party, which did not follow such policies in the past, we are hearing talk of how the government should step aside, and the people who go into business should take on their responsibilities.

There is a movement to re-establish the laws of free competition, to promote globalization, to pare down the size of government. The Minister of Finance is often seen to support such ideas.

When the time comes to make cuts in social programs, in education, in unemployment insurance, we hear "the government is overspending, it is too costly, the government must interfere less and less in the economy". On the other hand, when we come to bills like this one, when we realize that when it comes down to it the government is guaranteeing eight billion dollars worth of loans this year, and I think that the legislation allows up to $12 billion. We realize that the neoliberal discourse of the governments was the same; it is the Liberals this time, but it was the same thing when it was the Conservatives. I cannot see much difference in practice between the policies of the former Conservative government and those of the present Liberal one. They both took a neoliberal stance, calling for government to withdraw from the economy, but yet when we get down to practicalities, to instances where according to the very theories they espouse the government's presence might be questioned, then we see that they are continuing the same kind of intervention as before.

Not that I condemn such intervention-the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of a healthy government involvement in economic affairs-but, on examining the bill and everything that goes with it and looking at what the Small Businesses Loans Act has done in the past, despite the fact that it has been extremely effective and much appreciated by entrepreneurs, I am forced to conclude that the government is saying that cuts must be made, the government must withdraw. In situations like these one realizes that not only is the government not withdrawing but it is even becoming increasingly involved.

A few years ago there were $2 to $3 millions in loan guarantees annually, and this year the figure will be $8 billion. Perhaps, the way things are set out, the figure next year will be even higher. There is one big question mark: the government is acting in such a way that it will not cost anything on the budget. All the better, one might say. It is the banks and the entrepreneurs who will pay, but basically it is the government which gives the guarantees but wants to arrange things so that it will cost nothing. In the long run, the businesses themselves pay, because of the interest rates charged on the loans.

One wonders really what purpose these programs serve. This morning I was looking at the industry committee's report "Taking Care of Small Business". Experts appeared before the committee stating that there was no certainty that business started up under the projects in question would not have started up anyway.

I heard, in fact I listened carefully to the speech made earlier by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry. He talked about a lot of things, but I would have appreciated it if he had tried to be more specific about the rationale underlying this bill. Is it effective? Is it true that about three-quarters or at least half of the businesses that were started with the help of this legislation would have been started in any case? What use is a program that guarantees loans but which basically does not cost the government a penny? We could say this is wonderful, it does not cost the government a penny, but on the other hand, if that is true and if the impact is neutral, why is the government involved in this kind of program?

Do not get me wrong. As a member for the Bloc Quebecois, I will debate the bill in committee, we will ask questions and we will propose amendments, but I am very disappointed that a government that wants to make cuts everywhere and has not done so in

this sector although, according to its ideology, it probably should, has introduced a bill like this one.

I am very disappointed when a government introduces a bill providing for measures that, as was pointed out in the standing committee, were ineffective, and in the presentation given by the parliamentary secretary is incapable of proving otherwise.

One wonders what the government is doing. Basically, it extends legislation, changes maximum guarantees and tinkers with details. Personally, I think this kind of legislation is effective and that the government has a role to play in the economy, but I would have liked to see the people who administer or claim to administer billions of dollars of taxpayers' money be more consistent and more credible when they introduce bills like this one.

We will probably vote against the bill, considering my comments on this legislation, but once again, in concluding, I am inclined to be rather wary of a government that again is asking us to extend and restructure a bill, although it is incapable of demonstrating the bill is effective and produces the desired results for entrepreneurs and the Canadian economy.

I will conclude my speech after comments that have indicated I am somewhat disillusioned with a government I thought would be more consistent in the way it manages the affairs of state. After two years as a member of the House of Commons, one becomes increasingly convinced there will have to be some major changes made in Canada, starting with the Canadian federation-or with the government that now claims to head that federation.

[Canada Social Transfer, October 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, will the minister admit that the federal government's choice to transfer its enormous deficit to the provinces by cutting Canada social transfer payments promises nothing positive for the future if Quebec were to say no, for Ottawa will be the one to set the national standards and Quebec will have to manage as best it can to apply them, with consequences one can well imagine for social programs?

[Canada Social Transfer, October 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

Despite the efforts made by the government to keep bad news under wraps until the day after the referendum, we know that unemployment insurance and old age pensions will be affected considerably by federal government cuts.

When the Minister of Finance states that a no will make it possible for Canada to continue to evolve since change is already underway, as he says, is he giving us confirmation that Canada will continue to evolve along the path of cuts to education, health, unemployment insurance, old age pensions on which it has already set out?

[Senate, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois on the motion by my colleague, the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam, which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, representation in the Senate should be equal from each province, elected by the people, and have sufficient power to make it effective in order to better represent the people of the less populous provinces.

This will be recognized as the proposal for the triple E Senate, that is elected, equal and effective.

Let me state right at the onset that I am going to oppose this motion and I shall close my remarks with what it leads me to conclude about the present Senate.

First, I want to deal with the concept of an elected Senate. To start with, obviously, we know that the Senate is one of the two Houses in this country. A number of countries have two houses, the USA and France, for instance.

What sets the second chamber apart in Canada, as in England, is that it is not elected, in other words the members are appointed. The Senate we have is an elitist Senate, an aristocratic Senate, one that is not accountable. Often its appointees are men or women who have had a long career in politics, or business leaders who backed a given political party, or party organizers who find in the Senate the income and means to allow them to continue to serve their party.

The Senate in its present form is an extremely negative aspect of our democracy. When reference is made to an elected Senate, I think that most people who want to have a Senate, to retain the Senate, would agree that in the current political situation and in response to current views on democracy, the Senate ought to be elected.

Now, for the concept of an equal Senate. From what I have been able to understand, each province would have the same number of senators, like the U.S. Senate. I think some people here either watch too much American television or are at least very much aware of the American philosophy and would like to see in Canada people with the same power as American senators. When we look at American history and the process by which every State large and small, was given the same number of senators, we see that at the time the political philosophy was such that people wanted to create a certain equality between the States by having the same number of senators from each State.

However, that was in the 18th century, and we are in the 20th century. I think that in the 20th century, people do not look kindly on the fact that states or provinces with a population that is relatively low compared with the more densely populated provinces, and I personally and the people of the Bloc as well do not look kindly on the fact that some provinces are given so much power, considering their low population numbers.

If we look at the current system in Canada, each province is represented in the House of Commons, according to a certain ratio

that is used to determine proportional representation. I think that considering the present state of democratic thinking, people are well represented.

There could be some special considerations on the basis of which one part of the country would be better represented than another part, there is the historical aspect, there is the cultural aspect and there are all kinds of considerations, but I do not see why, considering the present state of Canadian culture or Canadian politics, Prince Edward Island would have the same number of senators as Ontario. It would be interesting to see some evidence that this would be better than what we have now.

The concept of an equal Senate takes us back to the Constitution of 1982, in other words, Canada as checker board, a vast country divided into ten parts, with each part being equal to the other. That is what we saw and that is what we see now, to a certain extent under the current amending formula for the Canadian constitution, and I think that if we consider the effectiveness of this mechanism, we may have some reservations about giving certain parts of the country so much power that they could easily obstruct the operations of our institutions.

I am referring to the potential power of entities that may represent as few as 300,000 people out of Canada's total population of 28 or 29 million, so I do not think that today's proposal for an equal Senate is in the interests of Canada and Quebec.

And now, let me deal with the concept of an effective Senate. When the hon. member for the Reform Party introduced her bill, she made a connection between effectiveness and the Senate's power to obstruct, to hold up legislation passed by the House of Commons. I think there is something a little dangerous in all this. It would mean having a Senate that would obstruct the will of the representatives of the people. Two, three or four hundred years ago, the people in the Commons were not always considered to be sufficiently intelligent, knowledgeable or enlightened to debate the real problems, so people were appointed to block their decisions.

Today, however, if we look at countries with only one house, we can see that democracy functions effectively and well there. In Quebec and Ontario there is no longer a second appointed house, and democratic institutions are functioning well. So I do not think we need a second house to block the democratic will of the representatives of the people, as is currently the case.

Reference was made to the gun control bill. It is totally unacceptable, in my opinion, for appointed senators to be able to block legislation passed by a large majority of the representatives of the people. I see it as dangerous for democracy in Canada when people who have not been elected are given the power to prevent the will of the people's representatives from being effectively expressed in the administration of the country.

Therefore, we in the Bloc oppose the motion. The motion is not a votable item, but if it were, we would vote against it, particularly because we have repeatedly called in the House for the abolition of the Senate. We consider the present Senate ineffective. We consider it too costly. According to the budget, the Senate will cost Canada $42 million this year. The services the Senate currently provides have a certain value. However, in comparing their cost with the Senate's potential influence, its effect, if it were operating at maximum capability, I think that, right now, the $42 million spent on the Senate is too much, given the needs and the cuts being made in various areas, where there are desperate needs.

We are calling for its abolition, particularly because we have no hope or expectation of its being reformed. It is impossible. With the Canadian constitution as it currently stands, if we look at sections 38 and 42 of the constitution, we see that Senate approval is required to amend the powers, role, election and appointment of senators in Canada.

So, from what I understand of the way the institution works, I do not think the senators would go so far as to commit hara-kiri. So, I think the only way to abolish the Senate is along the lines of the motion I made in connection with the bill to implement certain elements of the latest budget. It would simply be a matter of cutting off the Senate, of arranging for senators not to be paid anymore, of abolishing the funds needed to operate the Senate so that the Senate dies on its own. With the state of Canada's constitution and the way institutions work, it is beyond reform, it is ineffective, it is not elected, and the powers currently in its hands serve more to hamper the flow of democracy in Canada than to help Canadians live better in this country.

[Income Tax Conventionsimplementation Act, 1995, October 19th, 1995]

Even so, Mr. Speaker, clause 6 makes provision for a regulatory power. I believe that departments often go too far in the definition of what constitutes a regulation. I believe that it would be worthwhile and even appropriate for the Standing Committee on Finance to be consulted when a regulation pertaining to this bill is issued.

[Income Tax Conventionsimplementation Act, 1995, October 19th, 1995]

Mr. Chairman, would it not be appropriate, since it is a regulatory power being granted the minister, to see to it that the minister consults the House or the appropriate standing committee before issuing the regulation?

[Income Tax Conventionsimplementation Act, 1995, October 19th, 1995]

This was of course an oversight, Mr. Speaker. We always refer to him in conversation as Mr. Chrétien, but it is the hon. Prime Minister.

The hon. Prime Minister-Mr. Speaker, do you not think this is extraordinary? -the hon. Prime Minister of Canada said last night in a speech in Quebec, and I should have brought the quote with me, the hon. Prime Minister of Canada said there would be no more Canada if Quebec were to leave. This is really incredible.

If the province of Newfoundland ever decided to withdraw from Canada, would there still be a Canada? The people of Newfoundland-I have met a number of members from that province-are people of great warmth who was very attached to their province.

However, if Newfoundland were no longer a part of Canada, we can assume there would still be a Canada, as there was in 1948 and 1945, when Newfoundland was not part of Canada.

Similarly, if British Columbia withdrew from Canada, saying: "Listen, we are on the west coast, that is where the markets are", because it is always a matter of markets. Today, countries are markets, and their purpose is to engage in trade, not to protect the well-being of their citizens or ensure the continuity of nations. Let us suppose that the people of British Columbia decide that they face west, towards Japan, the Rockies are too big, there will probably be no more train service through the Rockies, with privatization and all that, the train costs too much. If they decide to become a sovereign country and then, to improve trading with Asia, they form a sort of North American Singapore, will Canada still exist?

I do not think the Prime Minister of Canada would go to Vancouver and say: "Do not leave Canada; if you leave Canada, the country will no longer exist." But this is what happened yesterday. The Prime Minister of Canada said that Canada would cease to exist if Quebec left. Is Canada only Ontario and Quebec? This is what we will end up thinking. It is as if this were 1840 and Canada were Lower and Upper Canada-joined later by other provinces and territories-but they remained the heart of the country. Ontario and Quebec form the heart of Canada, why, because they are the two biggest markets?

Certainly, with today's mentality, that is what those opposite will have us believe. Is it not, rather, that Canada at the outset was Ontario and Quebec, because Ontario was English Canadian and Quebec was French Canadian, and each country had minorities, official language minorities different from the majority. That was Canada.

Canada did what it could for minorities. Look at Quebec, there is a very strong English Canadian minority that has its universities, its school boards, its hospitals, its representatives in major institutions. I would like to be able to say the same of our Franco-Ontarian and Franco-Manitoban friends who had to fight for their schools, and who still have to fight for their schools, and for control over them. They are not fighting for control over universities, they are fighting for control over elementary schools and high schools, because that it where assimilation occurs.

We challenged, two days ago, statistics stating that there were a million francophones outside Quebec in Canada. We said that, out of the one million Canadians outside Quebec who claim French as their mother tongue, 650 speak French at home. We did not mean any disrespect to our Franco-Ontarian and Franco-Manitoban friends or our friends in the Yukon or the Northwest Territories. We just wanted to say how sad we were to see the French language die out outside Quebec. What we intend to achieve among other things through sovereignty, besides allowing Quebec to develop with its best interests in mind, is to ensure, through our own institutions, that French will still be spoken in America in a hundred years and that a French or Quebec culture will still be alive in Quebec at that time.

That is what we want to do. We want to live on without constantly having to protest, like our friends opposite do, just to survive. It is important to be able to survive. But we think that there are enough of us, and that we have enough education, enough capital, enough stamina, and enough willpower to do better than survive.

When I was in grade school, money was collected throughout the Quebec school system, a dime at a time, for the survival of the French language in Canada. Grade school children gave money for use in Manitoba and Ontario. This was fine. But look at where they now stand. It is sad in a sense to think that there are only 640 of them across Canada, including Acadians.

It is most unfortunate, but as a francophone and a Quebecer or a French Canadian living in Quebec who calls himself a Quebecer, I do not want anything to do with a system that will lead, fifty years from now, to a situation where we have a nice official languages act and many officially bilingual institutions, but where French will no longer be a living language in Quebec.

People can say we are spiteful, I say that we are just stating the facts. The fact is that Canada started off as a bicultural country, a bilingual country, where you had French and English Canadians. The very reason there is panic in some political back rooms is that, yes indeed, this is what Canada was initially.

The Prime Minister said so: If Quebec goes, that is it for Canada. Look, this is a basic issue. What is Quebec? It is not an economy; it is a culture, and a language. With this culture and language gone, Canada as we know it will no longer exist. This means that we have reached the bottom line.

Canada is more than a checkerboard with ten squares representing each of the ten provinces and that we call Canada. Try as we may, and Reformers will insist that that is Canada and that each little square should be assigned the same number of senators and the same responsibilities, we have to admit that this view of Canada does not agree with reality.

Initially, the real Canada was made up of French Canadians and English Canadians. French Canadians did not benefit from this agreement. And French Canadians in Quebec who are now called Quebecers decided to withdraw from the agreement, to declare themselves sovereign, that is to say, in control of their laws, taxes and treaties, and then to propose a partnership treaty with English Canada.

English Canada likes us so much that it is threatening to cut us off. It is so pleasant to stay in a country like this one. They like us so much that instead of telling us, "Stay with us and everything will be fine", they say, "If you vote Yes, we will cut you off; if you vote No, nothing will happen and you will stay the way you are now".

It is over for French Canadians in Quebec who are now called Quebecers, and I hope that, on October 30, these Quebecers will be able to sign treaties such as this one, agreements with other countries, so that they can benefit from international trade and eventually have access to the economic instruments they need to remain what they are, a French speaking people with their own culture in North America. This is my dearest wish and I think that the people of Quebec will listen to our proposal and vote Yes on October 30.

[Income Tax Conventionsimplementation Act, 1995, October 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs called me on relevance because I thought it was rather obvious. Here is a country, Canada, with 28 million people. This country may well rank sixth in the world in terms of per capita gross domestic product, given purchasing power parity. This is based on 1991 figures.

This country, this great country which is a member of the G-7 and the international jet set, sees fit to enter into trade relations with countries that I would not describe as small-I will not use this qualifier often used by our friends opposite, because it evokes little people and conveys the somewhat pejorative idea of being of minor importance-but rather as countries with not as large a population as Canada.

Latvia, for example, has a population of 2.6 million; Estonia, 1.5 million; Trinidad and Tobago, 1.3 million; and Hungary, 10 million. While these countries do not have the economic prestige and stature of Canada, as it stands and as our friends opposite see it, Canada has negotiated tax treaties with them based on the OECD model. This is normal. Earlier, the spokesperson for the opposition said: this is normal; this is the way things are done between civilized countries of the world, that is those countries which look after their best interest.

We did not see or hear anything from Latvia, Hungary, Trinidad and Tobago to the effect that Canada is too big, that its economy is too strong, or that it will impose unacceptable conditions to those countries.

I do not know for sure, since we do not have newspaper articles from Latvia, Hungary, Trinidad and Tobago, and all the other countries, but we do not feel that Canada acted improperly with sovereign nations.

The point which I am making is that, right now, English language newspapers in Canada are constantly saying: "If Quebec becomes a sovereign nation, Canada will not deal with it because Canada is twice as big as Quebec. You will not count at all on the North American market. You will probably not be able to trade any more. Americans will probably stop buying your aluminum or your paper, and you will stop buying their cars, their refrigerators and IBM computers. You will have to go down on your knees and pay twice the price, because the United States is too big. Americans will not comply with international standards; they will try to crush you".

When I look at the bill before us this morning, I realize that this will not be the case. We are talking about Latvia, Estonia, Hungary, Trinidad and Tobago. We are talking about countries which do not have close relations with Canada, which have not been part of Canada for 130 years; there is no problem with these countries. Canada does some trading and has good diplomatic relations with these countries, and there is no problem when the time comes to sign conventions.

However, when they are talking about Quebec, which has been part of Canada for 130 years, they kowtow to the U.S. They seek a statement from the U.S. secretary of state, in the hope that he will say: "Should Quebec become sovereign, we may decide to renegotiate NAFTA, we may impose additional conditions; your cultural industry may be crushed; American movies will flood the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean market, which is 98 per cent French. Movie theatres showing French language movies will close; French language newspapers will have to be highly subsidized and may even have to stop publishing. It will be the end of the world".

When you see bills such as this one, which is described by the government's spokesperson as being the normal thing to do, without any problem, you tell yourself: "Indeed, there is no problem signing commercial treaties with Latvia, Hungary or any other country. Why then should there be problems if Quebec becomes a sovereign nation"?

I think it might be worthwhile to use some examples. If they had said "We will make an exception for Latvia and Estonia, because

they were part of the soviet block for a long time, because they lived through difficulties, because they are small countries which valiantly defended their sovereignty, which survived the soviet empire's steamroller, which maintained their language, which maintained their cultural identity, which defended themselves, and which succeeded against all odds in becoming sovereign as soon as the soviet empire loosened its hold slightly. If they have succeeded in doing so, it might then have been said that we Canadians, rightfully considered the boy scouts of the world, are prepared to defend widows and orphans everywhere in the world."

As soon as Estonia and Latvia were free of the Soviet Union, the first thing they did was to demand sovereignty and seek recognition. We could have said "We will give Estonia and Latvia special treatment, we will help them, we will support them because this is an acknowledgment of their contribution to the world balance of democracy." But no. We echo what the spokesman for the opposition said just now: "It is a matter of interest. We have investments over there; they probably have some here. We sign. No problem. A matter of interest. Not a matter of politics. Not a matter of feelings. Not a matter of anything at all. Not of acknowledging countries which have succeeded in gaining sovereignty, which have lived through 50 years of communism and the Russian steamroller. Which have survived all that. No, just a matter of interest. Well, all right then.

Take the example of Hungary. We know what happened in Hungary in the 1950s, an attempted revolt against the Soviet empire. The Hungarians were crushed. Canada took many of them in, to its credit. Although I was very young at the time, I remember it because it made a strong impression upon me. But the bill does not say "We are entering into a protocol with Hungary because it did great things during the 1950s and because there are many Hungarians in Canada and so we will help them now". No. They say: "No, we signed a protocol with Hungary because it is in our interest to do so. Hungarians have investments in Canada, and we have investments in Hungary. We want to continue to trade with them, so we sign agreements. That is how things work at the international level". The same for Trinidad and Tobago. In fact, the opposition critic explained that some harmonization was necessary in our trade with Trinidad and Tobago. No problem at all.

So I read this bill and, speaking on behalf of the official opposition, I say: "We have agreements with Latvia, Estonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Hungary and 55 other countries in the world. Wonderful". So I start off by saying: "There are certain things that are done involving large countries and small countries. Small countries which Canada does not seem to look down on, which it respects because they are sovereign". That is the beauty of sovereignty: you get respect. Whether you are big or small, when you are sovereign, you are respected because there are international conventions and practices, and the rules of the game are clearly

established. And that is why certain countries want to become sovereign. Today, Quebec is one of those countries. I say country, because to me, Quebec is a country.

Look at Quebec. When you see Quebecers and hear them talk and look at their history, you realize that, like it or not, Quebec is different from other parts of Canada. This is not to denigrate the people of Newfoundland, Franco-Ontarians, Westerners and British Columbians, but Quebecers are a bit different, and today, some of them are saying: At the international level, we are going to make this country a sovereign state. And now, one of the arguments being made in this debate is that Quebec will be in for hard times.

Daniel Johnson said: "Oops, if you become sovereign, there go 92,000 jobs". The very next day or three or four days or a week later, when they had a chance to think about it, they realized that 92,000 jobs was perhaps not impressive enough. So a respected federal finance minister told Quebec: "92,000? Probably more like one million". Not 900,000, not 900,100 or 909,150 but one million. That is impressive. We are "millionaires" in terms of job losses. He is not saying: "Oh, you will not lose one million jobs", but: "You might lose one million jobs", because if you ever do, since you are not big guys but little guys, with a small economy, you will definitely not be in the big league. If you are little, maybe Canada, which is bigger than you, or the United States, which is bigger than you, will say, we do not trade with the little guys, we only trade with the big guys.

So then there would be no more trade with Canada, no more trade between Quebec and Canada, no more trade between Quebec and the United States-this means a million jobs. Obviously it is a million jobs, if nobody buys what we produce and we do not buy what others want to sell us. Obviously, in trade and in production, there are going to be losses, but that is the way it works.

How does it work internationally? It works the way it does in this bill. Countries, states, make treaties and agreements based on their interests. That is how it works. For sure, some people are touchy because of certain events, they are unhappy, they say that things are going to work differently, and we hope this is not the way it is going to be.

The Leader of the Official Opposition, Lucien Bouchard, will come and start negotiations. Maybe people will say they do not want to negotiate with us, they do not like us, we are demagogues, we are ethnic, we are out to do a number on ourselves and we are shrinking our economy. We will say to them: well, we had a vote, we want to reach an agreement with you, and we will reach it even if we do not reach it on the basis of the friendship that still developed over the years and centuries.

Quebec and Canada, and Quebec and the United States are not the same as Quebec and Latvia. With all due respect to Latvia, it is not the same. I see a member opposite listening intently and rolling his eyes skyward saying: "Oh, what clever remarks". The hon. member was born in Hull, and I congratulate him on it. There are members like us; the hon. member for Québec-Est was born in Penetanguishene, Ontario. There are still ties. Perhaps there are ties between my hon. colleague opposite and people in Quebec. Perhaps he has ties with people living in Latvia and Estonia.

But it is not on that basis that we want to negotiate. We do not want you to negotiate with us because you like us, because we were with you for 130 years. It is not on that basis that we want to negotiate. We want to negotiate on the same basis as that in Bill C-105, which is not contentious and poses no problems. This basis is the interests of nations negotiating as equals because they are sovereign. This is the way things are done at the international level.

We in Quebec think we can do as well as Latvia, as Estonia, as Trinidad and Tobago. Why? For two good reasons. The first reason is that, if you look at what is currently happening in the world, according to some theories, the most populous countries, the countries with the largest domestic markets, are those that do best.

Then look at the most populous countries in the world and see how they are doing. Let us look at the U.S., which has the highest GDP. I will not talk about the other countries for fear of being accused of discrimination: "You said that France was No. 4 or 5. You are discriminating against the U.S. You like France a little less than the U.S. What is the matter?" "Would a Bloc member say that he liked France less? He is more of a Franco-American; he is not a francophile". In a campaign like the one under way, one must be prudent.

However, if we look at the world's countries on the basis of their GDP per capita and their population, we see Switzerland, with 6 million people, in second place, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg in third place, Denmark, Austria, Belgium, Sweden, Iceland, Norway, the Netherlands, Finland- Did I mention any poor countries? These countries are among the top 20, and the top 10 include four or five countries with populations of five, six or seven million. Population is no longer as important a factor as it used to be.

Empires expanded. The British Empire, that my hon. colleague opposite is so fond of, expanded to increase business opportunities for British merchants who wanted to gain access to the market in India, Africa and so on. In those days, this was important, but it is no longer the case today. The size of any given country is not relevant. I am not theorizing. This is a fact confirmed in the economic accounts of respected countries such as Switzerland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Austria, Belgium, Sweden, and Iceland, which are not as large as some others.

The Austrian population is certainly not as large as the Chinese population, yet Austria does very well for itself. Back in 1991, Austria ranked 10th in terms of per capita gross domestic product. That is not bad at all. This country, a former empire, has had its problems and suffered greatly during the second world war. Today, Austria is a player.

What I mean by that is that globalization is giving smaller countries the change to enter the global markets. It is not up to their neighbours to decide whether or not they can enter these markets. There are international regulations for that as the OECD has regulations governing treaties between various countries or tax conventions. There are rules.

The size of the country is no longer the determining factor. The main thing is to gain access to international markets. Second, and this is a major factor, there must be a demand for what you produce, your products must be well made and you must have what the economists call a niche of your own, an area in which you excel. You need not be great at everything, just in certain areas and develop markets from there. That is why I think that, in terms of size, Quebec, as a country, would compare favourably with Austria, Denmark, Switzerland, Sweden and the like, and do quite well.

Quebec is not a poor nation. Some people seem to want to put up a fence around Quebec, including the Minister of Finance who says: "Listen, when that fence is up, you will lose one million jobs". I am sorry but there will be no such fence, because this is not the way things work. Why did the minister say one million jobs? One million, as in the word millionaire. The Minister of Finance knows about millionaires, but he would be better off talking about the billions of dollars worth of freight transported on his ships, or the millions in goods produced in his plants. It is inappropriate on the part of a finance minister to tell Quebecers that one million of them will become unemployed if sovereignty is achieved, and that a fence will be built around Quebec.

The issue of Quebec's population in relation to the prosperity which it can develop is not a factor here, because it is not for other countries either. As I said, Quebec is not without assets. Its GDP stands at 160 billion dollars. Quebec is a modern state with major institutions, including a deposit and investment fund, Hydro-Quebec and a pension board, and with large corporations which developed over the years, even though, at one point, some of these big entrepreneurs invested in Northern Ireland and in Belgium, and said: "In Quebec, we started off in a small village". I could mention the community of Valcourt, where a major Canadian and Quebec multinational is based. One would think that it is a Quebec company, but we were told: "It is not a Quebec corporation, it is a

Canadian one. And if Quebec becomes sovereign, do not expect us to stay here: we will move back to Canada".

Over the last 30 or 35 years, Quebec developed industrial structures and trade policies which will enable it to join the countries which I mentioned earlier. We rank 16th in terms of the GDP. This is quite something. Quebec is part of Canada. Our friends across the floor say: "Quebec is part of Canada. If you leave Canada, you will become poor, while Canada will keep on being rich".

That is all very fine, but the wealth of Quebec and the wealth of Canada are similar in terms of domestic product. Quebec sovereignty does not take our engineers from us. Quebec sovereignty does not take our capital from us. Quebec sovereignty does not take our administrators, our poets; it takes nothing from us.

Quebec sovereignty gives us additional powers in terms of laws, gives us additional powers in terms of treaties we can negotiate. Treaties like those Canada has with 55 countries, we will have too. We will have them because we have something to offer. There are people in those countries who may come to invest in Quebec and people in Quebec who may go and invest there. We will be able to have as many treaties as you have managed to have.

That is why it is most appropriate to bring up the case of Quebec in my intervention concerning Bill C-105, for it shows us that it is completely normal for the Government of Canada to have treaties with Latvia, with Estonia, with Trinidad and Tobago, with Hungary, as it will be completely normal for there to be one between Canada and Quebec, once its citizens have decided on sovereignty. And we will have such a treaty.

We keep hearing "But you are not telling Quebecers what you will do afterward. What will the partnership be like? We do not have much of an idea". Just do a bit of reading. I imagine that the hon. members have most definitely familiarized themselves with Quebec's bill on sovereignty, that they are also aware of the agreement signed this past June between Messrs. Bouchard, Parizeau and Dumont on the matter of the partnership treaty between Quebec and Canada.

And what will that partnership treaty cover? A customs union, free circulation of goods, free circulation of individuals, free circulation of services, free circulation of capital, monetary policy, manpower mobility, citizenship. It is a treaty between sovereign states. By the very fact that we shall be a sovereign state, we shall have the possibility of signing treaties. If Canada wants to sign treaties with Quebec in other areas, we are open to any and all discussion.

My point is that once we are sovereign, even if our economy is not as big as Canada's, we will be able to sign treaties just like Estonia, Hungary, Trinidad and Tobago and Latvia.

And they will be signed for the same reason they were signed with the countries I just referred to, because it is in our interest to do so. We claim, and I am sure that the people of Quebec will trust us to do the right thing, that this is in the interest of Quebec and of Canada.

Of course Canada will maintain up to the last minute that there will be no negotiations and no agreement ever. Our Canadian friends are so anxious to make this point that yesterday, when the Prime Minister of Canada was in Quebec, he said: "There will be nothing, because Canada will disappear if Quebec leaves. We do not know what will happen. There will be nothing left, because once Quebec has gone, there will be no more Canada". That is how we understood Mr. Chrétien's speech.