Debates of Dec. 8th, 1994

Supply

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

moved:

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.

Mr. Speaker, there will be a referendum on sovereignty in Quebec. That referendum will be preceded by a broad democratic consultation throughout Quebec.

Federalists, both in Quebec City and in Ottawa, refuse to take part in that consultation process. But before we discuss the reasons why federalists refuse to participate in that debate, we must put that process into perspective, explain its nature and verify its legitimacy, since federalists are questioning its legitimacy.

First of all, let us make it clear that federalists, headed by the present Prime Minister, are in a very bad position to talk about legitimacy, respect for democracy and clarity. Remember that the present Prime Minister was responsible for patriating the Constitution in 1982. Remember also that there was absolutely no consultation when the Constitution was patriated. There was no referendum. The Quebec National Assembly was against that patriation. The opposition leader in Quebec city and Liberal Party leader, Daniel Johnson, denounced that patriation.

Just recently, during the election campaign in Quebec, it was again the present Prime Minister, with the hon. member for Sherbrooke, who was responsible for the demise of the Meech Lake Accord, through the Charest report, and with the help of Clyde Wells, from Newfoundland, and the help of the present member for Churchill, in Manitoba, who is sitting in this House today.

Quebecers do not need any advice on democracy from the current Prime Minister because the process proposed by the Government of Quebec is entirely legitimate, clear and democratic.

In fact, that process derives directly from the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, which we should not forget. This commission said there were two options: renewed federalism and sovereignty. However, a referendum was held in Quebec as well as in all other parts of Canada on renewed federalism Charlottetown style. The Charlottetown Accord was rejected by Quebec-

ers because it was not enough for Quebec and by the rest of Canada because it was too much for Quebec. So only one option remains: sovereignty.

That is the rationale behind the Bélanger-Campeau report, which was signed by Robert Bourassa, Daniel Johnson and all the members on that commission, except the current Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The Government of Quebec must act upon the Bélanger-Campeau report. The question is how. With the proposed consultation process. I have difficulty understanding why the federal government is opposed to such a consultation process since that is all we have been doing here for over a year.

The Committee on Human Resources Development is holding consultations everywhere in Canada, the finance committee just did the same; the Minister of Justice consults left and right without proposing anything concrete to this House. All these consultations are being held without a clear plan, without a bill. They consult for the sake of consulting. On the contrary, the Government of Quebec's initiative is based on a bill, a draft bill which is clear and specific and proposes a plan. To me, this is democracy, this is consultation.

Federalists tell us that there is only one option, a plan for sovereignty. What an amazing discovery, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, it is a plan for sovereignty because a pro-sovereignty government was elected in Quebec in September. What is surprising about a government proposing a plan to achieve its option? The opposite would have been surprising.

As I recall, Meech and Charlottetown were federalist projects. We were not scandalized, we knew that federalists would propose a federalist option to us. It seems logical to me, although the Charlottetown proposal was not all that clear. When the referendum campaign was launched, we did not have the text. There is no need to recall the incredible series of events before we could obtain those texts; in fact sovereignists themselves had to publish the Charlottetown Accord. This time, the texts are there and clear.

You will recall that sovereignists took part in the debate, first on Meech from 1987 to 1990 and then on Charlottetown in 1992. This was not our option but we played our part as elected representatives. Every day in the House, we present our views on bills we are against even though we know from the start that they will be passed. The government has the majority. We are in the minority, the Official Opposition, but nevertheless we express our disagreement, we try to convince people that the bills do not meet the needs of the population as a whole. This is the essence of democracy. We do not take part in debates only when we agree or when we are sure to win. Otherwise democracy would have no meaning. The democratic way is to take part in a debate where the majority expresses its views and so does the minority who also has rights and must express its opinion.

They also tell us that there is no parity. But, Mr. Speaker, was there parity in Bélanger-Campeau? There was no parity in that commission, neither among elected representatives, who were mainly federalists because at that time there was a federalist government in Quebec, nor among non-elected people. You only have to look at the results of the votes that took place at the Bélanger-Campeau Commission. The federalists won. Of course, we already knew it would be the case but we used it as an educational campaign. We were not afraid of expressing our ideas.

Was there parity in Meech and Charlottetown? And let us not forget all those committees on Charlottetown: the Spicer Commission, the Beaudoin-Edwards and Beaudoin-Dobbie committees, where there was no parity. Members of the Bloc were not even invited.

[An hon. member]

You did not even exist back then.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Yes, we existed. We were here at the time of Spicer, Beaudoin and company, but we were not invited.

At the Charlottetown conference held after Meech, after having stated that he would never be one of eleven, Mr. Bourassa found himself one of seventeen. Is this the idea of federalist parity, one of eleven, or one of seventeen? How high will it go? Is this the parity we are being proposed?

Sovereignists nevertheless took part in the debate on the Meech Lake Accord. In Quebec, from 1987 to 1990, the PQ, which was the Official Opposition, took part in this debate, in the Bélanger-Campeau Commission and in the Charlottetown exercise, always as a minority. Were we, from the Bloc Quebecois, given parity in this House? We were eight out of 295 to oppose Charlottetown. We were sitting right by the curtain, in what they called "the lobotomy corner". It would seem that only those without any brains could see the truth. We debated Charlottetown. We took part in the debate. There was only one option in this: renewed federalism, which is now called flexible federalism. Why not federalism in search of itself while we are at it?

This is the option they give us. But we had another point of view. Need I recall the results of Charlottetown? We were eight out of 295, but it was rejected in Quebec and rejected in Canada, which proves that democracy must prevail over parity. The majority rules, and commissions follow this pattern. Beyond the numbers there are the ideas, and they succeed if they are good. But then, you need to have ideas.

The bill is entirely consistent with the law governing referenda in Quebec. Those who argue the contrary should at least be honest enough and serious enough to read that law on referenda

in Quebec before spreading falsehoods. It would improve the level of the debate. Need we restate that the legislation will not come into force before it is approved in a referendum?

Finally, Quebecers will be called upon to debate the bill before it is put to a vote in the National Assembly. Elected representatives, before they vote, will have to take into consideration the opinion of the people. Now, I am addressing the Reform Party which has been talking about direct democracy for a year in this House. Granted, what the Government of Quebec is doing is not direct democracy, but it is a very interesting consultation process. Yes, we are going to consult Quebecers in all regions before studying the bill in committee, in Quebec City. The bill cannot come into force before a referendum, and even then, another year will pass before sovereignty really takes effect.

It appears to me that this process is very close to democracy. I must say that I do not understand why anyone would be opposed to this process, unless they are afraid to present their ideas to the people.

The process is clear, open and democratic. The decision belongs to Quebecers and nobody else. This is called the right to self-determination, in this case the self-determination of the Quebec nation, a right, need we remind you, recognized by the Conservative Party at its Toronto convention in August 1991, a right recognized by the New Democratic Party as early as the 1960s, and a right recognized especially by the present Prime Minister, who mentioned it in his autobiography. By participating in the 1980 referendum, he recognized in practice the right of Quebecers to decide their own future.

In this regard, I commend the hon. members for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine and for Mount Royal for acknowledging yesterday that the decision would have to be made in Quebec by Quebecers. It is much to their credit that they set themselves apart from the rest of the Liberal caucus.

Indeed, the decision must be made by Quebecers, in Quebec, under the direction of the National Assembly and in accordance with the law governing referenda in Quebec. On this point, the PQ and the QLP, Jacques Parizeau and Daniel Johnson, agree totally. The process is clear.

Why then turn it down? Because federalists have no other option to offer. They cannot even agree among themselves. The former Premier of Quebec, now Leader of the Opposition, Daniel Johnson tells us that status quo is unacceptable. "I will never accept the 1982 Constitution". However, the present Prime Minister considers this Constitution the high point of his career. These people will find themselves under the same umbrella. That is the rub.

As far as the so-called third option presented by the member for Sherbrooke is concerned, well, he would rather not talk about it. That is the rub. They refuse to have a debate. They refuse to crisscross Quebec and have a debate with the citizens of each region. That is the rub.

What is the government proposing? To understand what the Government of Quebec is proposing, we must go back to the Charlottetown Accord. At that time, every party in this House, the Conservatives, the NDP, the Liberals, the Bloc Quebecois, as well as the PQ and the Liberals in Quebec agreed on one thing: the political structures in Canada and Quebec are inadequate in view of today's economic challenges. Everybody agreed on that point. That is the reason why Charlottetown came about. Charlottetown was voted down for the reasons we know: Quebec thought it was not enough, the rest of Canada believed it was too much.

But the structures have not changed since. Canada is no more prepared than Quebec to face the challenges of the modern economy, no more prepared than they both were in 1992. Nothing has changed, yet Canada has to change and so does Quebec.

That is what Quebec's proposal is about. We suggest having two sovereign countries, sharing a common economic space, as all modern countries do, with full participation in international organizations. This brings to mind GATT and NAFTA. On this subject, let me remind you that had it not been for Quebec, there would have been no free trade agreement, because the rest of Canada was against free trade with the United States. It is Quebec that, to a certain extent, imposed free trade on Canada as a whole in 1988.

This proposal shows respect for Quebec's English-speaking minorities, much more respect than French-speaking minorities are shown across Canada. Before coming and telling us about the dangers of sovereignty, Bob Rae should look after having washrooms installed in Kingston high schools. That is the primary duty of any good government. This proposal recognizes the rights of aboriginal nations. Quebec was the first province to do so, as early as 1985, and this draft bill goes much further than any existing Canadian legislation, but we will come back to this later.

Some say there will be no common economic space. Does this mean that there is no room for negotiation? That is what Bob Rae told us, and he is facing an election in the near future. Did he think about the 100,000 jobs in Ontario that depend on the Quebec market? Did he think about the $1.8 billion surplus Ontario businesses make in their commercial transactions with Quebec? Is he going to tell them: "Forget about it, my friends. It is gone, a dead loss"? I doubt it. Did he think about the Auto Pact? Will Bob Rae go to Oshawa during his election campaign

and tell the auto workers: "There will be no common economic space. We will not negotiate with Quebec. We will no longer be selling them cars. Let them make their own or buy from Michigan. My friends, we are choosing unemployment out of patriotism"?

Bob Rae can go ahead and tell them that. We will see what comes of it. He will probably not be around to discuss the issue. But we will see where the debate will lead. I am told that he will not be there. I agree with you for once. At any rate, this is where we stand. We want a dispassionate debate and we urge the government to support this process. The hon. members of this House who are from Quebec in particular are invited to express their views, put forward objections, demonstrate in what way our option is dangerous. That is what they have to do: to discuss the implications.

The Government of Quebec and the sovereignists have never been afraid to discuss. Never, ever have they been afraid of the democratic process. And I will close on this. I hope, with respect to federalism, both in Quebec City and in Ottawa, that this government will now show us that it can and will take on the challenge of democracy.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member and I think he said that one reason he is for separation is that the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords failed. I wonder what the position of the Parti Quebecois and the PQ government was on these two accords.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I recalled Meech and Charlottetown because they are actual facts which show that this system cannot be reformed. The PQ government was against Meech and against Charlottetown, clearly. It said so and we attended many committee hearings and took part in these debates both here and in Quebec City to explain our stand. We were not afraid of it. Besides, we were right and we won. But we were against those accords. It shows one thing, that we won against all the federalists put together. I think that the member of the Reform Party voted with the eight members of the Bloc Quebecois then, so maybe we were nine.

There were 286 members convinced and captivated by the Charlottetown Accord. We saw the results. This shows the impotence, not because people cannot change things but because these things cannot be changed. There are two realities. Quebec is not better or worse than the rest of Canada, it is simply different, just as Canada is different from the United States. If I asked all hon. members whether Canada should be a sovereign country separate from the United States, they would say yes. Does this mean that they have contempt for the United States because Canada wants to stay sovereign? No, certainly not.

Neither do we have contempt for Canada. We want to become sovereign for ourselves and have better ties with our Canadian and American friends and all countries in the world.

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my reply will come as no surprise to the opposition member. It is no.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

And let me immediately assure the member that nothing will convince my government to recognize the legitimacy of the process initiated by the PQ government.

The member will agree that many of us have serious problems with the process announced by the PQ government. Let me begin with the leader of the Official Opposition in Quebec City, who aptly labelled it a "misuse of democracy". And for good reason. The Quebec government is asking its citizens to help draw up a constitution for a separate Quebec before they have even had their say on the issue of separation.

I understand why the Premier of Quebec is taking this route. If he asked his fellow citizens the real question, in fact the only legitimate question, "do you want to separate from Canada, yes or no?"the answer would be no. From where he sits, the best approach is to use cunning, and if in the process he flouts democratic principles, so what.

As stated by the member from Sherbrooke, the Premier of Quebec knows his French well. According to the Petit Robert , being cunning means acting slyly to deceive someone for the purpose of doing him harm.

The Quebec media have been no kinder in their assessment of the PQ strategy. An editorial in Le Soleil was headlined The anesthetization of a people'' and spoke of themisuse of our parliamentary institutions and the misappropriation of public funds for partisan purposes''.

According to La Presse , what is unacceptable is that this bill will be passed by the National Assembly before being put to the people via a referendum. Things are being done in the wrong order''. The journalist concluded that we are witnessing amockery of democracy''.

In today's Le Journal de Montréal , Michel Auger pointed out: Although the majority of Quebecers still wonder why they should become independent, their government says the only thing left to decide is how it should be done''. He went on to say:In fact, it is quite clear that according to their terms of reference, these commissions would be able to consider one option only: the one chosen by the government''.

And in concluding: "Before asking Quebecers to draft the declaration of sovereignty, the government should consider those who have yet to be convinced of the need for sovereignty".

And again in today's Le Soleil , Gilbert Lavoie commented: Although the strategy may seem clever to those who devised it, its weakness is that it underestimates the political savvy of Quebecers which has been borne out on several occasions''. He went on to say:The government's initiative will disappoint Quebecers, because the Pequistes have preferred strategy over substance''. And in concluding: ``The trap is so obvious that one would have to be very myopic indeed not to see it''.

Even in Le Devoir, under the headline "The stratagem is too obvious", Pierre O'Neill started his article by pointing out that: "Through academic eyes, the consultation process started by Premier Parizeau is viewed with some scepticism. Political scientist Vincent Lemieux feels that the Pequiste initiative lacks legitimacy. `I think the stratagem is too obvious', commented the Laval University professor yesterday, the man to whom Jean-François Lisée, political adviser to the Premier, referred in 1993 as the Galileo of Quebec politics".

In Wednesday's La Presse , Alain Dubuc comments: ``This pretence of democracy is disturbing. It excludes, for all practical purposes, those who are opposed to sovereignty and turns these commissions into clubs for friends of the PQ, which may attract the attention of the media for a while, at public expense, and maintain temporary the illusion of almost unanimous support for the yes side. This whole strategy, which the Premier himself referred to as cunning, has its own limitations. Manipulation can backfire. Referendums, both here and elsewhere, have shown that if there is anything citizens cannot abide, it is manipulation by politicians''.

Michel David, also in Wednesday's Le Soleil , pointed out: When Mr. Parizeau used the word stratagem two weeks ago, Daniel Johnson immediately concluded it was a scam to fool Quebecers''. Mr. David went on to say:In fact, they pulled a fast one: members of the Premier's staff confided yesterday that the text of the draft bill on sovereignty had been ready since last March. Within the PQ, members had been polled on each section. Each individual section was supported by the majority. In other words, Mr. Parizeau knew well before the election campaign what question he would ask, once he was elected, but he said nothing to the voters. Why, if the case is as clear as he says it is? What about the relationship of trust?''

I could go on for several minutes, quoting people from coast to coast. No one is being taken in by the Quebec Premier's chicanery. Not the media, not the other provincial premiers, not those of us here in Ottawa, not the Quebec Liberal Party and, unfortunately, to the great dismay of our friends opposite, not the citizens of Quebec.

[Ben Serré, Liberal, Timiskaming—French-River, ON]

Quebecers are not crazy.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

But it would be more useful to ask ourselves why Quebec's separatist government is so intent on using trickery. The answer is simple. If it played fair and square, if it "put everything on the table", as the Quebec premier has said time and time again, if it went to the people and asked them to decide once and for all, I am convinced that the great majority of Quebecers would opt for Canada.

And this is understandable. Canada is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, countries in the world. Do not take my word for it, just ask the United Nations. I know that certain words are taboo for separatists. Federalism is one. But sooner or later, the connection will have to be made between this political structure and the quality of life we enjoy. For is it pure chance that the four oldest federations in the world-the United States, Switzerland, Australia and Canada-are also among the world's richest countries?

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

And the USSR?

[Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais, Liberal, Madawaska—Victoria, NB]

Are we taking about democracy or not?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I think, rather, that federalism is better suited than almost any other political structure to the modern challenges facing societies today.

We all know that the dual phenomenon of market globalization and the economic revolution shaking the world's industrialized countries requires of each country that it develop to the maximum its potential and its wealth-the things that make it distinct-but also that it be able to act effectively on the international scene, and that is what Canada has done.

We rank seventh among the world's industrialized countries and we enjoy the highest standard of living. Over the past 30 years, we have had the second highest economic growth rate among G-7 countries, behind Japan; among OECD countries, we rank seventh.

Over the past 30 years, we have had the highest rate of job creation among OECD countries and the highest increase in employment per capita. Canada's continued exceptional performance is related to the maintenance and increase of the federal system's effective operations. Federalism permits a central government that efficiently manages activities of international scope-trade, stock markets, environmental protection, international communications.

Not only does this sound international management benefit the members of Confederation, but, within the federal system, economies of scale can also be achieved in implementing

national programs and infrastructure that the constituent members alone could not offer their citizens. Just think of the postal service and the armed forces.

I know that my colleagues on the other side of the house do not share this point of view. For them, Confederation is a dead end, and they want out. But the people of Canada and Quebec instinctively know that, in the new world order, influence on the international scene is important. This influence is directly linked to whether or not you play a role in international forums. You have to be where decisions are made and standards are set. Canada is not a superpower, but it is the world's eighth largest exporter and importer. We are thus doubly entitled to membership in the Group of Seven. No province or regional group could aspire to membership in this forum. I repeat, Mr. Speaker: None. But together, as part of Confederation, they are all members.

Nothing will be said about these benefits of federalism in the consultation that the Government of Quebec wishes to undertake with its friends. Likewise, nothing will be said about the fact that, within Canada, Quebec is part of a Pacific Rim country.

To quote the Prime Minister of Canada, "membership has its privileges". When you consider the dazzling growth of Asian economies, which are very appropriately called the dragons of the East, it is understandable that the separatists do not dare to mention this. The only way they could do so would be to ask Quebecers if they want to give up another benefit of Canada.

It is true that the separatist ministers have already waived these benefits in their surrealistic description of Canada. The Quebec Minister for Restructuring has thus neglected-intentionally or unintentionally-to include the equalization payments that Canada makes to Quebec: $3.7 billion in 1993 and about $3.92 billion in 1994-95.

Quebecers' attachment to Canada is not just a matter of benefits and dollars and cents. The people of Quebec built this country. They shaped it and continue to do so. This country is French to the depths of its heart and soul. From sea to sea, French Canadians know that they can deal with their federal government in their own language.

Bilingualism is enshrined in this country's very Constitution, which can be amended only with the consent of all legislative assemblies. This, in effect, gives Quebec's National Assembly a veto. In the same way, the Canadian Constitution guarantees Quebec three of the nine judgeships on the Supreme Court. No other province has such guarantees. When you consider the increasing impact of this court's decisions, you realize that the soul of Quebec will continue to influence and define Canada as a country for a long time to come.

I confess that listening to the current Premier of Quebec makes me smile sometimes. Not often, but sometimes.

I could not help noting how he went about demonstrating Quebec's know-how in his speeches to the Chamber of Commerce of Montreal and the Canadian Club in Toronto, and even his address this week. No one has ever doubted this know-how. But when I hear him mention Céline Dion, Denys Arcand, the Cirque du Soleil, Bombardier, Lavalin and a host of others, I cannot help telling myself that all of them have succeeded within Canada, some of them with direct or indirect assistance from the federal government.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the ancestors of the people of Quebec were among the first Europeans to set foot on Canadian soil. They built this country with their daring, ingenuity and courage, and not even a premier will hoodwink them into throwing in the towel and pulling out of Canada. The men and women of Quebec received this country as their heritage and want to pass it on to their children.

The motion before the House is contrary to Canada's historical roots. It would have us, the people of Quebec, forget our origins and our ancestors, and disregard 127 years of shared history which have resulted in raising us to the rank of one of the best countries in the world.

I will thus vote against this motion out of respect for history, and out of duty to my children and to democracy.

[Bernard Deshaies, Bloc, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have some comments to make in response to the speech by the hon. member opposite.

He harshly criticized the Quebec government's draft bill, which he has a right to do. However, his very federalist and quite ordinary speech, except for the first part in which he used the word "astuce" in French, only referred to the status quo, something which we have been hearing here in this House for some 20 years and which Quebecers are sick and tired of listening to.

We looked up the definition of the word "astuce", because it may be the only interesting point that you raised at the beginning of your speech. Forgive me, Mr. Speaker, I should address my comments to you.

The word "astuce"in old French means this:

Ability to deceive others in order to harm them or get something out of them.

I agree. Rather than the old French definition, the hon. member opposite should use the modern-day definition, which is "ingeniousness and inventiveness".

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Bernard Deshaies, Bloc, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the opposite of astute is crude and unintelligent.

I would like us to use current terminology to describe Quebecers as ingenious and inventive.

As the hon. member opposite pointed out, Quebecers have shown inventiveness through companies like Bombardier, artists like Céline Dion, etc. Yes, Quebec wants to chart its future, and Quebec's draft bill is a way to do this.

To return to the old definition of "astuce", the federal government may not be in a position to teach Quebec anything. In 1982, when the Constitution was patriated unilaterally, the federal government deceived René Lévesque during the night of the long knives. Was it a federalist scam? We should really talk about it.

One fact cannot be denied. Quebec citizens sent a 54-member majority to the House of Commons, and they knew about our allegiance. My hon. colleague would surely like to tell me that all those who voted for the Bloc Quebecois may not have been sovereignists, sovereignists and separatists.

[Ben Serré, Liberal, Timiskaming—French-River, ON]

Separatists.

[Bernard Deshaies, Bloc, Abitibi, QC]

Sovereignists or separatists, whatever. If you want to use the old terminology, that is your choice.

Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I am getting carried away.

The people who voted for the Bloc Quebecois were also fed up with the current federal system, because of mismanagement by the central government. According to a poll, 66 per cent of Quebecers reject the status quo or the current federal system. The hon. members opposite might reply that federal Liberals offer flexible federalism. Allow me to question this flexibility, when Quebec and several other provinces are still waiting for this flexibility, promised in every election, after 10 years under Tory governments and the 10 years before that under the Trudeau government and others.

What is important to me and to all the people in the riding of Abitibi, who ask me when they will receive information on the sovereignty plan, is that the draft bill is a way to receive this information. People want to know more about the grounds on which their decision will be based.

I have a question for the hon. member opposite: What about the need to address Quebecers' needs, to give them information, and not just federalist rhetoric? Why should they stay in the federalist system, why?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the hon. member opposite questions the use of words. I thought that I had read enough editorials written by contemporary French Canadians from Quebec. They are experts in using the pen and the dictionary. They were not caught up in words. They saw the ruse behind the lack of democracy and called it secretive and a show of democracy. Public opinion in Quebec is clearly that Mr. Parizeau's proposal is not democratic; whether it is called sneaky, a sham or secretive, it is still unacceptable.

Second, speaking of federalism and flexible federalism, our country has evolved over 127 years with relatively few changes to the Constitution, but with tremendous changes affecting the jurisdiction of the provinces and the federal government and with continuous adjustments to a changing economic, political and social environment. We can continue to evolve within the present Constitution and we do continue to evolve, making very considerable changes that affect jurisdiction, the way the country is governed and our social programs, provided that we know how to act as partners.

That is true federalism. History shows us that it has worked and provided solutions and given Canada the highest standard of living in the world.

This did not happen by accident or despite the federal system, on the contrary. The reason Canada, including Quebec, is one of the best countries in the world, maybe the best, is its federal structure, which year after year has proven to be good for Canadians, good for Quebecers and adaptable to change. It will help us adjust to the economic, political and social changes now going on in the outside world.

Third, although there are 54 Bloc Quebecois members in this House, let us not forget that we, Liberals, form a government which is perceived across the country as an efficient and honest government. This is evidenced by the fact that, for the last three months, public support in the polls has been maintained at an all-time high of 63 per cent for any government in the 54 years that such polls have been conducted.

In Quebec, while our leader enjoyed relatively low support, somewhere around 20 per cent, during the election campaign, that support has climbed up to 47 per cent in recent weeks, the same as for Lucien Bouchard. This means that Quebecers themselves have a favourable opinion of the way the federal government is working on their behalf.

As for mandate, it is clear that Mr. Parizeau, and he said so himself dozens of times during the election campaign, was not elected with a mandate to achieve sovereignty: He was elected to provide a new government and, really, to create jobs, just like us. The fact that Mr. Parizeau's party received 44 per cent of the popular vote is tantamount to a rejection of sovereignty. It is totally undemocratic to table a draft bill which takes for granted that sovereignty has already been accepted as a goal by Quebecers, since the facts show that the contrary is true.

By introducing its draft bill, the Parizeau government is trying to fool Quebecers; it is using a ploy which is both a scam and an undemocratic measure. This is a view shared by us, by

our government and by the majority of Quebecers and Quebec editorialists. I am convinced that when the time comes for Quebecers to choose between separation and flexible federalism, they will opt for the latter.

In conclusion, the motion tabled by the opposition clearly does not respect the democratic spirit of Canadians, including Quebecers, and it must be rejected.

[The Speaker]

There are approximately 60 seconds left in the debate, or 30 seconds for each side. The hon. member for Chambly.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, can the hon. minister explain in what respect the Charlottetown process was more democratic that the one proposed by the Quebec government? In the Charlottetown process, I remember that we were even asked to vote on unwritten agreements, and, in the third round of the 1992 referendum, when the government realized that the house was on fire, they had to hurriedly write up the infamous Charlottetown accord, where they asked Canadians, and Quebecers in particular, to vote on something which did not even exist in concrete terms.

We kept hearing: "Trust us, because we know, we feel, and we tell you what is right", but nothing was written up. In what respect was that process more democratic than the present one? I would appreciate an answer from the minister.

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House attempts to determine, rather it states the Bloc Quebecois's position on democracry, based on what Mr. Parizeau did. In fact, what he did is clearly undemocratic because his bill takes for granted an answer to a question which was never asked, and because this regional commission procedure is really a joke, as it recreates fifteen yes committees. That is the unanimous view of Quebecers and that is clearly why these are undemocratic proposals.