Debates of Dec. 8th, 1994

Supply

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the Bloc motion that the 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.

The motion raises two essential questions which I would like to deal with one at a time. The first question is: What is the so-called democratic process initiated by the Quebec government? According to the draft bill tabled by Mr. Parizeau in the Quebec assembly, the process consists of the following.

First, the publication of a draft bill, a bill which is clearly illegal in terms of the Canadian Constitution, followed by additional steps designed to legitimate this illegal act;

Second, a period of information and participation for the purposes of approving this illegal bill and drafting a declaration of sovereignty which will form part of its preamble;

Third, discussion of this illegal bill respecting the sovereignty of Quebec and its passage by the National Assembly; and

Fourth, approval of this illegal act by the population in a referendum.

In other words, what we have here is a process designed to attempt to give democratic legitimacy to an illegal act of the Quebec assembly. So far we note that the federal government has been extremely reluctant to point out the illegality of what is proposed. I was hoping the minister might do that today. I am convinced that if some other province such as the province of Alberta were today to table an act in its legislature completely out of its own jurisdiction such as, say, alternative gun control legislation and attempted to legitimize it by a process such as this, it would not take the federal government 30 seconds to make clear the illegality and unacceptability of what was being proposed.

I suggest that even within Quebec if a portion of that community, say the Mohawk Nation through its elected council, were to table such a bill and attempt to legitimize it by such a process, the Quebec government would be the first to declare such an act and such a process illegal and illegitimate.

The second question is the bigger question: What are the generally accepted tests of democratic legitimacy and how does the so-called democratic process initiated by the Quebec government stand up to those tests? The first test is the rule of law.

In free countries democratic legitimacy refers to the general acceptability of a process in the political community. A process is considered legitimate if it is supported by the constitution of a political community, in other words whether or not it conforms to the rule of law. In Canada this means that all proceedings relating to constitutional change, even an attempted secession, must take place within the rules established by the Constitution of Canada. That means that constitutional change of any kind should take place by the means of a formal amendment to the Canadian Constitution. Acts which are clearly unconstitutional are also clearly illegitimate.

In this case, virtually every clause of the act respecting the sovereignty of Quebec is clearly unconstitutional, notably the declaration of sovereignty in section 1, the undefined rules of constitution making in section 3, the territorial provisions in section 4, the citizenship rules in section 5, the treaty rights assumed in section 7, the alliance rights assumed in section 8, the assumption of the ability to overrule federal laws by the

provincial assembly claimed in section 10, the removal of the authority of the Supreme Court of Canada in section 12, and the assumption of the right to make appointments to federal bodies in section 13.

Each of these sections is therefore illegitimate, as is the act as a whole.

If the Government of Quebec wishes to proceed with constitutional changes, including one as drastic as secession, there is a way to do so. That is through a formal amendment to the Canadian Constitution. The Government of Quebec has not chosen that route. Both the route it has chosen and the process it employs do not meet the test of the rule of law.

The second test is direct questions on real options. To be legitimate direct democracy must ask direct questions. The question posed in the act respecting the sovereignty of Quebec is indirect and misleading. It does not ask the straight simple question: Should Quebec secede from Canada, yes or no? Instead it asks: Are you in favour of the act passed by the National Assembly declaring the sovereignty of Quebec? The key provisions of the act however do not go into force until after the referendum is approved.

Section 16 of the act states that section 2, to negotiate an economic association with Canada, section 3, to write a constitution for Quebec, and section 15, to negotiate a division of the assets and debts of Canada, do not go into effect until after it is too late for the voters to change their minds. This is clearly illegitimate from the standpoint of direct democracy. It is even illegitimate compared to Levesque's 1980 question which promised to provide a completed package which would then be submitted to voters for their further approval at a second referendum.

The draft act itself which is at the heart of the process is also filled with misconceptions and misrepresentations. There is the misconception that an economic association with Canada will automatically be attained and agreed to by Canada. There is the assumption that Quebec will retain the boundaries it has within the Canadian Confederation at the time the act comes into force. There is the assumption of dual citizenship which is entirely beyond the capacity of even a sovereign Quebec to grant and the assumption that Quebec shall assume the obligations and enjoy the rights arising out of treaties to which Canada is a part. All of these are misconceptions and misrepresentations which cannot be legitimately promised by any Quebec government, sovereign or not.

The draft bill is a hollow shell with the content to be provided only after the shell has been approved by the public. To use a more down to earth metaphor, the draft bill is a blank cheque which the Government of Quebec seeks to induce the Quebec electorate to sign.

For a process that claims to be democratic, to be legitimate it must also provide opportunity for all the options which might potentially gain majority support, including those that are repugnant to the proponents and managers of the process to be considered. Yet clearly all options for reform within federalism are precluded under the act respecting the sovereignty of Quebec. Only within the constitution of a sovereign Quebec will reforms be considered so everybody, including those who oppose secession, are forced to participate in the process of writing a declaration of independence even if they are not in favour of independence.

The referendum process itself, including the Quebec referendum law, does not provide for adequate consideration of all the options. In particular Quebecers will only be presented with a choice between status quo federalism and sovereignty. The principal alternative option, namely a complete rebuilding of the federal system from the bottom up, is not assured even a fair hearing let alone consideration.

The third test is of democratic legitimacy, inclusiveness and non-coercion. Democracy must be inclusive allowing all who are affected to vote, but the interests of the people in the rest of Canada in whether or not their country will be torn asunder are not even acknowledged. What is legitimate about declaring arbitrarily that democratic self-determination is the exclusive right of the people of Quebec constituted as a single arbitrarily defined collectivity?

The process defined in the draft bill in no way shape or form acknowledges that the people of Canada also have a right to choose their national future. Nor does it deal adequately with the democratic rights of the people of any region of Quebec, many of whom might choose to secede from Quebec and remain a part of Canada.

In addition to all this, the process proposed by the draft bill is essentially coercive. As I said, all options for reform within federalism are precluded under the act respecting the sovereignty of Quebec. Only within the constitution of a sovereign Quebec will reforms be considered.

Even groups that have no interest in broader constitutional questions will be forced to participate in the process of developing an act of secession for fear that if they do not their interests will be left out of the Quebec constitution. As each new group joins in, all those who are left out will feel increasing pressure to join in, thus driving the process toward the inevitable conclusion of separation. This is not democratic consent at all but forced consent which is a charade of democracy.

All the polls to date indicate that a majority of Quebecers do not want to secede from Canada if given a clear choice on that question. The separatist Government of Quebec obviously does not accept that opinion. It has put together a process designed not to give fair and legitimate recognition to majority opinion but to create majority support for a minority opinion.

In conclusion, the bottom line is that the process as proposed by the Quebec government and supported by the Bloc does not meet the great tests of democratic legitimacy. It is not in accordance with the rule of law. It does not ask direct questions on real options. It is not inclusive and it is coercive.

Obviously therefore the process should be rejected by all democrats in Canada whether in Quebec or outside it and regardless of their constitutional opinions and preferences. Obviously the House should defeat the motion.

The proposed bill and processes are also extremely revealing with respect to the character of the current Government of Quebec. All democratic governments, including the Government of Quebec, should be held accountable to respect the rule of law and the basic criteria of free democratic processes. If a government does not respect those processes and uses illegitimate processes to induce its own population to support illegal acts, how can any member of that society be assured that such a government will not do the same thing again at some future date, disregarding both the rule of law again and using illegitimate processes again, this time to manipulate its own people against their will?

The federal government as the government with responsibility for the peace, order, good government and economic well-being of all Canadians has a responsibility to make clear the illegality and illegitimacy of what the Government of Quebec proposes. The federal government has a responsibility as a bare minimum to refute the misconceptions concerning economic association, sovereignty association and dual citizenship which are at the heart of the Quebec government's bill and process. We assume that the federal government will be discharging these responsibilities in the course of this debate and in the days ahead.

The federal cabinet ministers make frequent reference to wanting to avoid playing Parizeau's game, but Parizeau's game is to take initiatives, including illegal initiatives, and assume that the federal government will do nothing but fume and sputter. It is time for the federal government to stop playing Parizeau's game and begin discharging its responsibilities for preserving the peace, order, good government and economic well-being of Canada and all Canadians.

[Philippe Paré, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to emphasize the following point: federalists seem to have been caught unawares and to be panic-stricken. They use everything, every false statement they can think of, to try to show that the process initiated by Quebecers does not meet their standards.

The leader of the Reform Party started by saying that he thinks that the Quebec government's draft bill is illegal. I am sure that the Premier of Quebec had everything checked out before initiating this process. In fact, we are confident that the bill is in accordance with Quebec's Referendum Act.

Second, federalists have been talking all morning about democracy. This has me very puzzled. Federalists are now trying everything to convince Quebecers, especially federalists, not to take part in this process. If democracy is being abused, it is by the federalists who are trying very hard to ensure that Quebec federalists do not take part in this democratic experience.

If we were dealing with an extremely complex draft bill, comprised of hundreds of clauses that the average citizen would have a hard time understanding, they might have good reasons to be concerned. But the draft bill is made up of just 16 very straightforward clauses that only set out the definition of sovereignty that is generally accepted in Quebec. So, this definition does not take anyone by surprise, except the federalists who still think that they can convince Quebecers by making empty speeches on the beauty and the sheer size of Canada.

For the last 50 years, Quebecers have been trying slowly but surely to show that they do not feel at ease within the Canadian federation. They have been expressing their feelings in a very special and original way, by creating brand new political parties that can be found nowhere else but in Quebec. Here are a few of those parties: the Action libérale nationale, the Union nationale, the Bloc populaire, the Rassemblement pour l'indépendance nationale, the Rassemblement national, the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois. Why have Quebecers felt, for the last 50 years, the need to have their own tools to promote Quebec's interests? Obviously because the big parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives, federalists by definition, have never been able to get in touch with the soul of Quebec. So do not talk to us about democracy!

Federalists also seem to have forgotten some important historical events. I would like to remind them that 14 countries were present at the Madrid Conference in 1880. In 1920, 47 countries were represented at the very first general assembly of the League of Nations. In 1945, representatives of 50 countries witnessed the signing of the Charter of the United Nations, in San Francisco. In 1990, there were 175 countries and it is estimated that in 5 or 10 years, the number of countries will reach 200. This goes to show that nations have understood that sovereignty helps to correct inequities. By becoming sovereign,

smaller nations reach the same level as bigger countries. This is essentially what Quebec wants.

In conclusion, I would like to put a question to the leader of the Reform Party: Does he think that the people of Quebec are a nation?

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, the short answer to the latter question is that I believe Quebecers are a distinct people. I do not believe that automatically conveys a right to establish an independent state by illegal means. I will answer some of the other points the member raised in the order he raised them.

We do not shy away from the legitimate use of the democratic process to settle the most profound questions, including the question of secession. We believe those processes should be in accordance with the rule of law, they should ask real questions about the real issue and they should present all the options.

The option we are most concerned about in Quebec that is not being considered, and maybe we are having difficulty communicating it to our Bloc friends, is that there is a legitimate third option. It is not the hon. member for Sherbrooke's third option.

All across the country there are people who want to rebuild federalism from the bottom up in a much more profound way. Meech Lake and Charlottetown were top down. That is what was wrong with them and that is why we rejected them.

All across the country there are people who want to rebuild the federal system from the bottom up. We believe that the process which has been suggested here and the process which has been followed in Quebec for the last 30 years have not given that option a legitimate opportunity for expression, nor does the process outlined in this act.

There are two more points arising from the member's comments. He suggested that sovereignty is a legitimate and principal means of dealing with inequality. I question him. Does the member actually believe that the way to deal, for example, with inequalities within Quebec is that if someone feels unequal the way to cope with that is to declare themselves sovereign and independent from the framework in which they feel the inequality?

That principle can be preached here in defence of Quebec's attempts to secede. I doubt very much whether any of the members would agree to it if it was put forward by someone in Quebec as an argument for addressing their inequality and seceding from Quebec.

My last point is on the question of legality. I would challenge the Bloc members to table in the House a legal opinion from any respected constitutional authority saying that the bill that has been tabled in the Quebec legislature is within the legislative competence of the province of Quebec.

[Laurent Lavigne, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Madam Speaker, my comments are not necessarily for the Reform Party or the Liberal Party. My comments are aimed specifically at all Canadian federalists.

We are being accused of proposing an undemocratic process to Quebecers. Contrary to what we are used to on the Canadian political scene, this is an exciting project in democracy, since not only will Quebecers not have something forced on them by elected representatives in their ivory tower but they are all invited by Mr. Parizeau to take part in the process. And this is what democracy is all about.

So it is totally wrong to pretend that the process initiated by the Parti Quebecois is undemocratic. On the contrary, the proposed process could not be more democratic, since all Quebecers, federalists, liberals or conservatives or whatever will be able to get involved. This project is 100 per cent democratic, since all Quebecers will have their say.

I see that my time is running out. I will come back to this later today because I absolutely want to give further insights into the federal government's sharp dealings with Quebec in the last 40 years or so.

In response to my question, I would like the leader of the Reform Party to tell us what democracy is to him. Is it a decision made by a prime minister or is it a decision coming from the grass roots?

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thought I made myself clear as to what I consider democracy to be. The heart of it is the consent of the governed and democratic processes have to meet certain basic fundamental tests no matter where we talk about democracy in the world.

Those tests are as follows. They must conform to the rule of law. Second, they must ask real questions about the real issue, not indirect questions. Third, they must present all options and allow equal opportunity for all options. Fourth, the processes must result in getting the consent of the governed.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Madam Speaker, before beginning my speech, I would like to advise you that from now on, members of the Official Opposition will make 10-minute speeches.

When I hear the big guns of federalism call undemocratic the process to consult the people announced by the Premier of Quebec, Jacques Parizeau, on December 6, when he presented the draft bill on Quebec sovereignty, I seriously worry about the

political maturity of the federal Liberals and the Official Opposition in the Quebec National Assembly.

I have the rather startling impression of being in front of a class of teenagers who refuse to grow up. Let me explain. Any psychologist can tell you that magical thinking is one characteristic of adolescence. A classical example is a teen-age girl who knows the facts of life but is convinced that she cannot become pregnant because that happens only to others. I am sure that all hon. members could put a face or a name to the young girl in my example. Everybody knows perfectly well that magical thinking cannot prevent the oldest reproductive technique in the world from working efficiently. The number of unwanted pregnancies among teenagers proves it beyond question.

No, Madam Speaker, magical thinking does not make it so, no matter what the Deputy Prime Minister and the premiers of Ontario and New Brunswick, all long-time allies of Quebec, may think. The announced process is highly democratic.

It is unreasonable to claim that the draft bill presented by Mr. Parizeau is unfounded, undemocratic or a fraud or that the Quebec government is trying to win the referendum by deceiving people, because those incisive comments and others like them will never be powerful enough filters to make something democratic, undemocratic.

The hon. member for Sherbrooke used Le Petit Robert to give us a definition of the word astuce''. Everybody was impressed by hiscleverness''. Since he is an experienced and I might even say a clever politician, I thought I could do the same thing and look up the word ``democracy'' in the dictionary. Here is what I found:

Political doctrine according to which sovereignty must belong to the people.

My world goes beyond the dictionary. Patrick Watson, a renowned journalist who was even chairman of the CBC, wrote: "Democracy consists of verbal exchanges. It favours discussion over force, deliberations over mood swings, good reasons over powerful weapons, consensus over conflict, peace over war, co-operation over competition".

It seems that supporters of the status quo or, if you prefer, supporters of "flexible" federalism, have chosen force, mood swings, powerful weapons, conflict, war and competition. What is sad for democracy is to see that democratically elected men and women have rejected discussion, deliberations, good reasons, consensus, peace and co-operation.

The draft bill on Quebec's sovereignty contains 17 clauses. Clause 10 stipulates that existing federal laws that apply in Quebec shall remain in force until amended or repealed by the National Assembly. Is it undemocratic to ask the approval of Quebecers to have, in a sovereign Quebec, laws that meet their needs?

Is it undemocratic to ask them if they are sick and tired of all these endless jurisdictional quarrels over health, education, income security programs, manpower training and social security? The process that the Government of Quebec has launched is very democratic. In the end, the people's sanction will replace the royal sanction. This process is certainly as democratic as the federal government's consultation process on social reform.

The objective pursued by this government of cutting social programs at the expense of the unemployed, welfare recipients, women and students in order to contain a huge deficit, is simply not acceptable to the people of Quebec. The debate proposed by the Quebec government will give them an opportunity to say so once again.

Instead of creating jobs, the federal government chooses to cut left and right. The federal government is unable to make the proper diagnosis; it does not deserve the confidence of the people of Quebec since it is unable to administer the appropriate medicine.

In the area of education, the federal government is innovating by proposing to reduce the federal contribution to post-secondary educational institutions, and by way of compensation it is encouraging our young people to go into debt. There is no question of giving Quebec full jurisdiction for occupational training despite the clearly established labour-management consensus on that. Since the federal government runs the unemployment insurance program, it makes the decisions on manpower training programs. Never mind the inefficiency, the red tape and the waste of taxpayers' money!

The proposed social security reform, especially as regards the Canada assistance plan and child tax benefits, is equally unacceptable for Quebec because it maintains, indeed even increases, federal encroachment on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. Quebec will never accept being subject to national standards-not today, no more than yesterday and certainly not tomorrow.

Is it unreasonable to ask the people of Quebec whether they believe that the Quebec government is able to take on all the responsibilities in these areas of jurisdiction and to make its own laws in these areas?

It would be unreasonable and undemocratic not to listen to what the people of Quebec have to say on that subject. Clause 10 of the draft bill on Quebec sovereignty will give them an opportunity to express themselves democratically.

Clause 11 clarifies a particularly sensitive point. Many of us remember the horror stories told to our senior citizens by the federalist werewolves in 1980, that if they voted yes they would lose their pensions.

Today, nobody would buy these statements made in bad faith. Since bad faith is hard to eradicate, the government wisely saw fit to specify as follows: "Pensions and supplements payable to the elderly shall continue to be paid by the Government according to the same terms and conditions".

I am almost tempted to say that I would not be surprised if Quebecers considered that clause useless, because in 1994 fear is completely out of the picture. Democracy also means being free from fear.

Quebec is a distinct society, and for a long time democracy in Quebec has been just as healthy as it is in any other jurisdiction. Quebecers know it, and they are rightly proud of it.

I will conclude by quoting Patrick Watson: "Through referendums, citizens do much more than choose their representatives; they govern themselves. But, if the referendum process does not include a civic education program or public education meetings, rich and influential people will use it to manipulate voters".

The process outlined in the draft bill on Quebec sovereignty puts the issues on the table and lets all citizens discuss them. I regret that federalists in Quebec will not participate, but I am sure Quebecers will get a better understanding of what democracy means, because their sensible, thoughtful and enthusiastic participation will prevent "rich and influential people" from manipulating voters, because the process set out by the Quebec government will let them govern directly.

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

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.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the government member for her comments. I must admit I did not understand when she said right out that Bloc members' statements were inconsistent.

I failed to understand because in fact there were two speeches and some comments. Obviously no one will support the undemocratic philosophy advocated by our political opponents. Why not admit that NAFTA came about largely because of all the efforts made by Quebecers? I am thinking here particularly about the present Quebec Minister of International Affairs, Bernard Landry, who insisted so much on the necessity of free trade for Canada and of course for Quebec.

In response to the question raised by my hon. colleague who is wondering how in God's name we will make Quebecers aware of all the incredible risks that lie ahead for them, I say this: The best way to inform Quebecers about these so-called risks-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Order, please. I would ask the hon. member to be brief.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

May I go on? Thank you, Madam Speaker.

How can Quebecers be informed about these so-called risks if people will not sit at a table and take part in the consultations which will be held by the provincial government? The debate is open.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, today, as a member of the Bloc Quebecois and as a member of Parliament representing Quebec, I am proud to answer the call of the Premier of Quebec.

The Premier of Quebec has asked us to mobilize our resources, organize consultation meetings and prepare for the Quebec of the future. Today, I would like to focus on two specific points in order to deal with the questions that people are

asking, including the questions asked by the hon. member of the Liberal Party who spoke just now.

What does the draft bill have to say about currency and the apportionment of debt or, as it says in the bill, apportionment of property and debts? I will start with the first item: currency. What criteria will be applied to determine the currency to be used in a sovereign Quebec?

Sovereignists were part of the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, although it was organized by a party in power that, as we have seen throughout, was clearly of the federalist persuasion. The commission did a number of studies, and the two points I want to discuss with you, currency and apportionment of property and debts, were examined in-depth by the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, a commission that enjoyed considerable recognition and credibility in Quebec and was accepted by the entire population.

This commission listed the criteria to be considered, and I will mention the five principal criteria: economic interdependence, minimizing uncertainty, maintaining the same economic space, the stability of a dollar that is broader based, and trade with other countries that do not use the same currency. All these criteria lead us to conclude that it would be better for Quebec and Canada if we used Canadian currency in Quebec.

The hon. member who pointed out that the bill was not clear may wish to listen to section 6, which refers to currency. The draft bill says: "The legal currency of Quebec shall continue to be the Canadian dollar".

A large number of Quebec's exports go to Canada. Many businesses in Quebec and Ontario or elsewhere in Canada, in New Brunswick and the west, that export their products would be better off if we had the same dollar, which would simplify transactions and avoid the additional cost of using a different currency. This would prevent much of the uncertainty that would otherwise be caused by Canada's currency being more narrowly based and the use of a new currency in Quebec.

Therefore both parties would benefit from having the same currency. It would greatly facilitate negotiations on the sharing of assets and the debt if the debt were calculated in the same currency. Therefore a monetary union is clearly desirable.

However, the Quebec Premier said that he wishes to hear the opinion of Quebecers on that matter. Being from a border area I hope and I am convinced that people in my riding and region will express their views on the currency they wish to use in a sovereign Quebec. Many of them will certainly prefer to keep the Canadian currency.

I can see my federalist friends jotting things down and preparing to say: "What guarantee do you have that you will be able to keep the Canadian currency?" Nothing prevents Quebec from doing so. I can hardly imagine the Prime Minister asking the Bank of Canada to print on bank notes: "This note is legal tender everywhere in the world except in Quebec". How would that look? How would it be interpreted? How would he explain to businesses that from now on it will cost more to do business? Because for many people doing business in Quebec is profitable. They do not do it for charitable reasons but because it is profitable. How will he explain to Canadian businesses who export to Quebec that he is adding to their costs on a mere political whim?

Madam Speaker, it cannot go that way, good sense will prevail.

That would considerably alleviate uncertainty while facilitating agreements between Quebec and Canada in areas where they share common interests. Instead of looking for differences, we would be looking for common points.

If there is uncertainty, it is not about the decision that Quebecers will make. If there is any uncertainty, it is in the way Canadians will react to the answer Quebecers will give through a democratic process. The uncertainty lies in the response Canadians would give if Quebecers chose to become masters of their own destiny.

I also want to say a few words about how the assets and liabilities would be shared. I will not mention the legal aspects of the issue, which would clearly favour Quebec; things are very clear concerning assets, much less so concerning financial commitments to creditors. In any case, out of respect and concern for commitments made in the past, the draft bill states: "The Government may conclude, with the Government of Canada, any agreement relating to the apportionment of the property and debts of Canada, and to any matter susceptible of facilitating the application of this Act".

Out of respect for commitments made in the past, Quebec can and must agree with Canada on the apportionment of assets and liabilities. Many people mention the apportionment of the debt, but there are also properties on Quebec territory. These will become the property of the Quebec government. Quebec's share of the assets and debts will have to be established. Again in this case, the findings of Bélanger-Campeau will be used as a basis for negotiations, even as a very firm negotiating position since this is a serious study.

I remind you that we already pay for the national debt. Some people ask how we are going to pay for that debt, as if Quebecers did not already pay their share of that debt! Each year, we pay $30 billion in taxes to help finance programs and pay interest on the debt and the government continues to borrow on our behalf. Now, Quebec would only be responsible for a share of the debt and the interest that is still to be defined, which is normal. I will come back to this. But we already pay for that. People realize

this will not be an additional burden. On the contrary, Quebecers might have to pay less, as we will explain to them.

Using a method based on an evaluation of the assets found in Quebec-and there are various methods to calculate our share-the Bélanger-Campeau Commission came to the conclusion that our share of the debt was 18.5 per cent of the total.

Since our share of the Canadian economy, of the gross domestic product, is a little over 23 per cent, this means that our share of the debt would be even lower than before in relation to the GDP. This is an interesting factor for Quebecers. Moreover, Quebec would have total control over its fiscal policy. We would be able to invest in the more productive sectors, stop receiving welfare and focus on the more productive sectors. This is a very interesting aspect for Quebec's future.

In closing, Madam Speaker, I would like to remind you briefly of the events that led us to the decision the Premier of Quebec made today.

Let us look only at the last four years. On June 22, 1990, the Meech Lake Accord failed. On June 20, 1991, the Bélanger-Campeau Commission was established to examine the possibility and consequences of Quebec's sovereignty. On October 26, 1992, the Charlottetown Accord was rejected. On October 25, 1993, 54 sovereignists were elected to the Parliament of Canada. On September 12, 1994, 77 members of a sovereignist party were elected to form the government of Quebec. On December 7, the Premier of Quebec tabled a draft bill asking the people to define what would be in the preamble to Quebec's Constitution, to define their commitment to Quebec, to define the values they cherish right now and the values they want for the future. This draft bill asks the people to help in shaping the Quebec of tomorrow.

As a young Quebecer, I must tell you that participating in shaping of the Quebec of the future is the finest challenge that my generation has been issued, and it is with pride and dedication that the members of the Bloc Quebecois will accept this challenge. Our answer to the Premier of Quebec is: Bravo! At last we see the light at the end of the tunnel. We support your process and we will build the Quebec of tomorrow.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Rosedale, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased with what the Bloc member who just spoke said about economic integration in particular, because of what it means for the people of Quebec and Ontario.

I represent an Ontario riding. We Ontarians realize that our future and our economy are closely tied to Quebec. Quebec is our best market, our number one economic partner. So, it is only normal that the party opposite talk about the connection between Ontario and Quebec, about the close economic ties that will always exist between us.

The question is: how will we plan our future together? We see it as part of a federal system. You are considering keeping the Canadian dollar as legal currency. I ask you: what is the point of continuing to use the Canadian currency in an independent Quebec? If that is what you want, so be it. At present, in this House, you have a Prime Minister from Quebec and the Minister of Finance, also from Quebec, ensuring that you have some control over this currency. If tomorrow, from an Ontario point of view, you will have an independent Quebec, why are you planning to keep the Canadian currency? It may be a good idea, but then, it must made quite clear to the people of Quebec that the rest of Canada will insist on controlling its own currency, while Quebec, if an arrangement is negotiated, will hold only 25 per cent of the voting power under a possible arrangement on a common currency.

Today, you have some control over this currency. Tomorrow, you will only have an interest, with the rest of Canada, with the others, and yours will be a minority interest. So, when you say that what you do in Quebec will be determined democratically, bear in mind that whatever you do affects the rights and interests of other Canadians who, like me as an Ontarian, have respect for Quebecers and have this to say to them: "Yes to democracy. Yes, Quebecers have the right to decide their future democratically, as long as this is done with full knowledge of what is at stake".

Let us not lose sight of the facts amid this pile of hypotheses, hypotheses that are not at all correct and that you have selected. If you are really democratic, include us in the process, so that the people of Quebec can see, so that they have a chance to see whether these hypotheses are realistic or not. That is the problem with your process. That is why your process is not democratic.

I will conclude with a word on an entirely different matter, which nontheless is related to the democratic process. In Ontario, we have a strong French-speaking minority which has been campaigning for many years for its survival. Bear in mind also, in your democracy, when you make your choices, what will become of the French language in Ontario.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will respond to some of the points raised by the hon. member, whom I wish to thank because he seems to be interested in participating in the consultations and to have a constructive point of view. I urge him to participate in the consultations. He should put pressure on the members of his party and express his fears about the currency so that we can arrive at an even wiser decision.

It would be interesting if he got involved in a great democratic process instead of boycotting it. Just a short word on the French-speaking minority in Ontario. I hope that, as an Ontario

resident, he will continue to press his provincial government to treat its francophone minority the same way we will treat the anglophone minority in Quebec.

However, he said something that was inaccurate. Although the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are from Quebec, they do not control monetary policy, as we have seen in the past. Remember when Toronto faced inflation and an overheated economy? What happened? They implemented an inflation-fighting policy that hurt all of Canada.

Very briefly, if he believes that we will have no more influence on monetary policy, let me tell him that whether we print our own currency or use another one, selling off all our Canadian dollars on the market would cause a major decline in the value of the Canadian dollar.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Sorry, but the hon. member's time is up.

[John English, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in the debate on the opposition motion and indicate why I cannot support the motion.

I cannot do so because I believe that together we are a great nation, a strong, vibrant and wealthy nation that is inclusive, a nation and a society that knows how to accommodate French and English, native peoples and cultures from the four corners of the world.

Quebec within Canada has accomplished an extraordinary amount. To quote Mr. Parizeau:

"-what our people has accomplished in 30 years is remarkable."

To go further into the speech he gave on December 6, he talked as the minister did earlier about the accomplishments of Quebec, a society which lacked a ministry of education that now has a technology so advanced that it exports the majority of it, a society which did not have a business culture, which:

"-has produced internationally renowned industrial and financial giants. A society which was said to be without a history and without a literature now has its own films, singers, dancers, writers who travel the world."

It is an extraordinary accomplishment. In his speech of December 6 Mr. Parizeau said that the preamble to the declaration would be a declaration:

"-like the American Declaration of Independence of which we still hear echoes more than 200 years after it was written."

Exactly. I had a chance to look at the Declaration of Independence of the United States following Mr. Parizeau's comments. I read from that declaration:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them one with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

What are the causes? The Declaration of Independence goes on:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

The Declaration of Independence has the advantage of listing the causes for separation and for breaking the bonds, indicating why there was respect for the opinions of mankind. The causes are listed:

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of absolute Tyranny over these States.

Canada has not been tyrannous and with due respect to the official opposition it has not said it is. The Declaration of Independence declared that the facts should be submitted to a candid world and we ask for these facts. What were their facts? The King of Britain, and I quote:

-has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

In Canada despite the power of the federal government to have disallowance of legislation of the provincial legislatures, it has not been used in the case of Quebec in recent times. Indeed it has not been used over the last half century.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained-He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

No legislature in Canada has been dissolved.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

There may be a point there. I think you will agree, Madam Speaker, that whatever the complications and burdens that

members suffer, it is not so unusual and uncomfortable that it represents a great burden. It goes on:

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies with the Consent of our legislature.

We have heard recently from the official opposition that rather than complaining about standing armies within the province of Quebec, we hear the request that existing institutions which represent the Canadian military be sustained in that province. It goes on:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

We heard earlier today the official opposition speak about the importance of the free trade agreement with the United States, indeed taking some credit as a province, not as a party obviously, for having that particular agreement sustained in the Parliament of Canada. Far from cutting off trade, we have increased the possibility for Quebec, not only through the free trade agreement, but also through the WTO, recently approved. It goes on:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

That has not been done.

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

Or:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

Canada is not tyranny. Separation would be weakness. If we would be weak and not just as a country, the weakened soul as a society, separation would enfeeble all of us.

Out of alliances come strength. Out of separation comes disintegration. Out of inclusiveness comes tolerance. The success of our history to date is proof that it is not necessary to break up a country to satisfy our mutual aspirations.

Since this is our national Parliament, I assume that all of us here have the best interests of the country at heart. I sometimes forget that the agenda of the official opposition is not in the best interests of the whole country but rather the separation, the dissolution of the country.

Where else in the world would a country and a political system be sufficiently flexible to tolerate an official opposition whose only goal is the breakup of the country? That is not tyranny.

Only in Canada, you say? Absolutely, and that is true. The presence of the official opposition of the Bloc Quebecois in Parliament speaks louder than any words. It is a living expression of Canada's deeply rooted and unshakeable commitment to democracy. Our political system respects the wishes of Quebecers and demonstrates that our system can accommodate the expression of the views represented by the official opposition which we hear daily in this assembly. If the opposition truly had the interest of the constituents at heart it would use its presence in Parliament to take every opportunity to strengthen not to diminish the gains acquired over the generations.

Approached constructively this Parliament could be used to further the interests of Quebec. Instead of taking this opportunity to secure Quebec's place in Canada, the official opposition too often undermines Quebec's strong place in Canada as a full partner in the country.

As the official opposition the Bloc has a responsibility to assist in the governance of the country. Its obligation not just to Quebec but to the rest of the country is to work constructively to build a greater and even stronger nation.

As the opposition the Bloc has a legitimate role to play in ensuring that the government does not overlook the interests of anyone. It could keep a watchful eye on the interests of Quebec and at the same time help build something larger. It could ensure that as the country goes from strength to strength, Quebec is along enjoying the benefits too.

We heard earlier today comments about the status quo but surely in Canada, in Quebec, everywhere in the world there can be no status quo today, as the member for Rosedale indicated a few moments ago.

Status quo is to stop growing. To stop growing is to stagnate. There can be no status quo in the modern world. Since its inception Canada has been a nation that has changed. We are changing today. We are changing in the life of this Parliament. For example an historic breakthrough occurred when the first ministers of this country agreed on a process to begin the elimination of internal trade barriers, an agreement that was of great importance and will be built upon and is supported I believe by members opposite.

We did not need, it must be said, a constitutional amendment to do this. When common sense and our own self interest told us that it no longer made any sense whatever to be part of the largest free trade bloc in the world and still maintain internal barriers which are an obstacle to prosperity, we found a way out. In the same spirit we will find a solution to other problems. For example the two territories and eight of the provinces have signed action plans with the federal government to reduce overlap and duplication in a host of areas.

Yesterday the minister of Indian affairs signed a milestone agreement with the native peoples of Manitoba opening the way to full self-government. This is the product of negotiations and a willingness to come to an agreement. It was not necessary to

rewrite the Constitution and this is not preservation of the status quo.

What we are offering Quebecers and Canadians is not the status quo. We are offering a country in evolution that is gearing itself to prosper in the next century. In that next century we expect and we hope that Canada with Quebec will play an even more prominent role. It is obvious to everyone that current political, economic and technological developments around the world are leading to an era of globalism where individual nation states play a lesser role. The previous speaker for the Bloc paid attention to that very concern.

Countries which are not integrally tied into a larger alliance are going to be bypassed. This is not the time to set up borders. It is the time to bring down borders.

The Europeans, for example, have come to realize that the nationalist balkanization of the continent will not be sustainable in the future. They are moving inexorably toward the creation of a European federation. They have a long way to go but the development of the federation is now in sight. Last evening I heard a Frenchman and a German speaking to each other, talking about the common cause co-operation which they have built. I thought to myself, what an extraordinary accomplishment this is, for two nations that have literally killed millions of each other's citizens in the twentieth century, within living memory of many French and Germans. But they have accomplished a lot and that is what they emphasized to each other.

They still have a long way to go but the development of the federation will take place and is taking place. Canada, we must remind ourselves, is light years ahead of the Europeans on this count; it is one of the oldest and most successful federations in the world.

In conclusion, the adventure we have had together in building the country is the best guarantee we have that once again, together, we can continue to build a country for ourselves and for our children that is envied in all the world.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member's speech. I must tell him that, contrary to what he said, the Official Opposition is playing its role of watchdog regarding the government's activities and the legislation tabled in this House.

So far, that is for a year now, the Bloc Quebecois has done all that was necessary to provide the government with the necessary tools to stimulate employment, but the government did nothing. I think that we do play our role very effectively.

Also, after 35 years of constitutional failures, do you not believe that the time has come for Quebec to get the powers it needs to control its destiny? This is what Mr. Parizeau is inviting us to do with his bill. He is inviting all Quebecers, including people in my riding of Chicoutimi and in my region of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, young and old, regardless of their political affiliation, to participate in this debate, which is as important for the rest of Canada as it is for Quebec.

I must recognize that the hon. member was the only one this morning, from the government side, who did not question the legality of the proposed draft bill, and he deserves credit for that.

The member referred to the federation of European countries. I should point out that these countries are also sovereign nations. Quebec simply wants to have the powers it needs to become the country Quebecers want.

I have a question for the hon. member. Some Liberal MPs from Quebec said that the federal government should abstain from holding its own referendum in Quebec.

The hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine told us that, in his opinion, this was a Quebec referendum and that it was up to Quebecers to decide their constitutional future within the federation.

Does the hon. member agree with these two views?

[John English, Liberal, Kitchener, ON]

Madam Speaker, several points and several questions have been raised. I will try to respond briefly to them.

In talking about the role of the official opposition, I did not comment precisely on what was being done in this Parliament. I was encouraging the members to work together with all parties to strengthen the Canadian nation. There are many opportunities to do so; in committees, in Parliament and in the legislation that is brought forward. By working together we could face the many challenges we all admit this country is facing. The role the hon. member suggested of monitoring or supervising the process that occurs here I think is a limitation on the possibility of what a parliamentarian can do.

The hon. member and his colleagues would do well to consider the greater possibilities that reside in this Chamber, possibilities that can lead to a strengthening of the interests of all Canadians and Quebecers as well.

The constitutional failures of the last 30 years were discussed by the hon. member and he asked were these not sufficient proof of the need to consider separation. In Mr. Parizeau's declaration of December 6 he opened with comments about what had been achieved apart from the Constitution.

I would like to talk about what Quebec and Canada have achieved apart from the Constitution but in terms of what Quebec has achieved according to Mr. Parizeau. He said:

"Together, we have made the past 30 years a unique period in our history."

This is extremely important in the view of the premier of Quebec. In the 1960s a vigorous cultural life was built in the province and a modern state was built. In the 1970s the democratization of education of the society occurred. In the 1980s:

[Translation]

"-in spite of a severe recession, we attained economic power-"

He goes on to talk about the widening of Quebec's presence within the world.

Rather than focus on the limitations and the failures, following on the words of the prime minister of Quebec, one could look at the accomplishments of our country which are truly magnificent. They look to the future. They look to the importance of co-operation and they also point to the necessity of keeping the country together.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I recognize the hon. member for Terrebonne. You have about two minutes left to make some comments and ask a question.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have left?

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Two minutes.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have a few moments to elaborate on the comments made by my colleague from the government party.

I also want to thank my party for letting me speak on what I see as a fundamental issue and I want to remind my colleagues that this issue is the one and only reason all of us, in the Bloc Quebecois, have entered public life.

So, today's debate is extremely significant, even though the time at our disposal is limited. In the little time I have, I want to invite the people in my riding of Terrebonne, the people in the Lanaudière region, to take part in the consultation process. Contrary to what we were told earlier, the people in favour of our project are invited to participate in order to examine in depth our position and to show their support. Those who are against are also invited.

Finally, I want to ask my colleague a question related to what his leader said in 1990, during a brunch where 800 Liberals were gathered. His leader said that the Liberal Party of Canada would propose a new social contract and a major constitutional reform. He made that statement on October 28, 1990. Where do things stand now?

[John English, Liberal, Kitchener, ON]

Madam Speaker, the situation that exists in Canada is not one where we are satisfied with the status quo. We are changing the country. We have social security reform. We have a major budget coming forward. We have programs in the area of foreign affairs. We have programs in many areas that will affect very much the way the country is organized and the way it functions.

We are not committed to a federalism that is static. We have a flexible federalism. That is the kind of country we intend to work with.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure and pride that I rise today to speak on the motion presented by my colleague for Laurier-Sainte-Marie: 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.

On September 12, 1994, in Quebec we finally did elect a separatist government which clearly puts its option on the table and asks all Quebecers to take part in a huge democratic operation. This is totally new! It is a clear, simple and open process where nothing is hidden. Liberals from the provincial and the federal levels have claimed that they will not take part in this process, which they consider illegitimate.

The Prime Minister and his friends protest and try to minimize this process initiated by the Quebec government and its impact. Federalists try to ridicule and trivialize the process. This is too bad, since they thus demonstrate a lack of respect for the duly elected Quebec government.

Their reaction appears normal to us and was rather predictable. For once, they are not the ones to set the agenda and the final result of this vast democratic operation will not be a new kind of federalism but rather sovereignty for Quebec, the creation of a new country.

I really wonder what federalists expected of a sovereignist government. Did they think that the Parti Quebecois would ask Quebecers if they would like to have renewed federalism or, as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs recently put it, flexible federalism? Come on! Be serious and show some respect for the Quebec government! I am sure that once you will be over the shock, you will want to sit down with us and express your point

of view. Mr. Parizeau has extended an invitation to you and it would be in your interest to accept it. Besides, I see today that, thanks to our motion, you have already entered the debate and this is a good sign.

I would like now to touch on a sector that Quebec's sovereignty will help simplify and make more efficient and effective, that is, job training. For years there has been a consensus in Quebec that job training has to be under exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Employers, unions, workers as well as social and economic groups all agree: Quebec must have all powers for manpower training. Everybody agrees that federal programs and budgets must be repatriated in order to develop a consistent and intelligent manpower training policy.

For years the federal government has turned a deaf ear to Quebec's request in this respect. It systematically refuses to give Quebec what it is asking for. It hides behind national objectives and its responsibility for unemployment insurance to intervene in an area under provincial jurisdiction.

This intrusion by the federal government has created two manpower networks in Quebec. A vast number of federal programs overlap and duplicate provincial programs. According to André Bourbeau, a former Quebec minister, this situation wastes some $275 million a year of taxpayers' money in Quebec alone.

In 1991, in a policy statement on manpower development, this former Quebec Minister of Manpower, a Liberal and a federalist, said: "For many years Quebec has claimed control over policy instruments that influence the job market. This means that the Government of Quebec and its economic partners are demanding that laws, budgets, institutions, programs and services related to manpower and to the job market be under one authority. Quebecers with an interest in the job market recognize almost unanimously that manpower policies must be developed by those who are closest to the various areas of the job market." What has the federal government done to respond to these rational demands from Quebec? Nothing! It has rejected them out of hand.

Meanwhile, Quebec's workers and employers are suffering as a result of this situation. Indeed, the double system is cumbersome, slow and complex. Workers and employers do not need that. They need the exact opposite. They need training that is effective, fast and convenient.

An employer or a new company looking for workers cannot afford to wait around for years until these people are trained. As soon as companies announce their requirements, the training system must be able to provide a quick response. This kind of efficient and quick response is particularly important, considering the new technologies being used. And the same applies to workers. They must be given the means to acquire training without being penalized.

Recently, I was given an example of this lack of flexibility in the training system by one of my constituents. This person wanted to take an 18-month course in office automation. The Canada Employment Centre told her she could not do that because the federal government had only approved 12-month courses. Many workers who want to get off unemployment or welfare are faced with this kind of situation which makes no sense at all.

In Quebec, we want to make the system more flexible, and we want to make it smarter. Today, we cannot do that. The federal presence prevents us from making these crucial improvements in the system. Today, the federal presence is paralysing the entire system. In 1993, Canada ranked twenty-second and last, and I repeat, twenty-second and last among developed countries because of its very poor level of in-house training. This figure is not often mentioned by these people across the way. It is a little embarrassing, I suppose.

Let us consider briefly why people no longer know where to turn. The federal government is interfering in this area with 27 programs in addition to Quebec's 25. The federal government interferes by maintaining 100 Canada Employment Centres, although Quebec has put in place la Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre. The mandate of the SQDM was originally to establish genuine one-stop counters in all regions in Quebec.

I am referring to genuine one-stop counters for Quebec, not a façade like we saw in the Canada-Saskatchewan agreement which, in fact, subordinates the province's jurisdiction to the federal authority. In other words, the kind of one-stop counter that even Daniel Johnson, Quebec's Liberal leader, criticized and rejected.

Today, the SQDM acts more like a manager of federal funding, without any real say over how it is spent. The lack of co-ordination between the two networks means that the unemployed are not getting the kind of service they need. In an internal memo, the federal government revealed that, in the spring of 1993, close to 25,000 unemployed workers, although they had been referred to a training program, could not be accommodated.

Quebec sovereignty will make it possible to clean up the sorry mess the federal government put us in. The federal lack of willingness to give Quebec what we have been demanding for years in this respect, worse yet, its increasing encroachment on

our turf is the last straw which will make people vote yes, very soon.

Then, we will be able to put in place the system we have been yearning for for so long, an intelligent system which will efficiently meet the needs of the labour market. Bye bye, dirty old federal machine which has not had an oil change in years.

To conclude, I invite all the people in Laurentides, in my area, my riding, to participate in the regional committees which will hold hearings in February. For the first time, Quebecers will have the chance to say clearly and freely what kind of society they want and whether or not they want a sovereign Quebec. Individuals and groups of all allegiance, join us to have a democratic look at the sovereignist option. Express your point of view, voice your fears, suggest improvements; the committees which will crisscross Quebec will welcome you and want to hear from you.

At the end of the day, Quebecers will decide if they want their own country, a country which will reflect their aspirations, a country in which they will be fulfilled.

The process the Government of Quebec is offering us is unique. It is democratic, it will make it possible for each and everyone to be heard.

I will never stop fighting to establish the country of Quebec. I will do so with strength and vigour, because my most fervent wish is to hand down to my children a country called Quebec.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to make a couple of comments on the member's dissertation.

I am very concerned about my fellow Canadians in Quebec. I am concerned when I look at their financial situation in Canada today. The government of that province does not seem to want to address the real problems facing the people of Quebec. I look at a province that has the highest per capita deficit on a provincial basis of all the provinces in Canada: $9,400 for every man, woman and child in the province of Quebec, a debt which is 40 per cent financed not only outside the borders of Quebec but outside the borders of Canada.

These people in the international trading environment are looking very closely at Quebec, at the debate that is going on here today. As the province of Quebec goes out to refinance its debt on the international marketplace it is going to find fewer and fewer people interested in investing in that province. I am very concerned that the average person in the province of Quebec is going to start watching their lifestyle and their standard of living decline.

I note also that the last election in the province of Quebec was basically on the matter of bring us good government. I am concerned with the premier of that province who was a finance minister during a period in time of Quebec's history that drove up the deficit higher than any other administration: 285 per cent during his administration of that system.

I simply want to ask: What is going on here, what is happening? The day after separation no new day, there will be no change. The reality is that we are talking about transferring powers from Ottawa to Quebec City. I do not know how that helps people in Chicoutimi.

The reality is that people want control of their own destinies. Our government has been spending a lot of time discussing social policy review and other areas that affect federal legislation and it is going to the people, it is talking to the people in the streets on how they want to control those aspects of their lives. Creating new embassies all around the world is a duplication of expenditure and a cost to the people of Quebec.

My colleague often talks about Canada as a hypothetical country. To me the state of Quebec is an illusion. People will not be any better off; they will be worse off.

We have some common things, the people of Quebec and the people of the rest of Canada, common things that unite us. One of the major ones is our proximity to the United States and the economic power that country wields on this side of North America.

I think it has always been in our best interest, as a united country and as a united people, to be part of a culture which is both French and English.

I would like to ask my colleague how she thinks things are going to be so magically different.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Madam Speaker, the scare campaigns do not scare Quebecers any more. We have been subjected to them for over 30 years, but they do not work anymore. Quebec has all the tools necessary to take charge of its affairs. For years it has asked for the powers needed to assume responsibility and develop.

At the present time, business is expanding as never before and faster than in any other province. Quebec is very active on the various markets. When it takes on all the powers of an independent country, I am sure it will develop very fast on all markets: the Quebec market, the Canadian market, the international market, as well as the American market. I am not worried about that.

Once we take back our powers, the $275 million wasted annually on manpower training, as I mentioned, will be invested in training for us, training for our people, for the development of

Quebec. I do not fear any kind of collapse the day after the referendum is won, nothing like that will happen. On the contrary, a new country will be born and we will move ahead economically.