Madam Speaker, this is for me, as a Canadian and a Quebecer by choice, a very sad day. It was 35 years ago that we chose Quebec and Canada. For 20 years now, I have been following Quebec's politics. About 15 years ago, I took part in the first Quebec referendum, where Quebecers indicated they did not want anything to do with sovereignty-association as it was called then, with separation as we would say today. They reasserted their sense of belonging to Canada and to our federation.
Over a year ago, I was elected to this House through a democratic process, but we now see for the first time ever a government that will decide unilaterally not to respect our democratic process. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition in Quebec who said that this is not a consultation process, but rather a propaganda campaign, a subterfuge, an illusion. He added that the issue will be how, and not if, sovereignty will be achieved.
After promising to represent everyone, the leader of the Parti Quebecois has initiated a process which excludes Quebec's federalists, that is the majority of Quebecers. If the government really wanted to find out what everybody thought about its proposal, it would not have launched a consultation process that takes into account only one side of the issue.
The president of the Quebec Chamber of Commerce himself has stated that he disagrees with these consultations. He said that the government will have to rethink the whole process. He added that, given the current situation, with only representatives of the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois sitting at the table, there would not be a balance in the views expressed and that it would make him very ill at ease.
The president of the Quebec manufacturers' association also decided not to take part in these consultations, because he thinks the draft bill is a sovereignty proposal and does not examine every possible option for Quebec.
Moreover, the presidents of the Quebec farmers' union and the Conseil du patronat also refused to take part in these consultations. These four examples clearly demonstrate that the PQ leader is not everybody's premier and that he only seeks the participation of separatists in this debate.
If he really was everybody's premier, he would have asked the clear and simple question that everyone can understand and answer: "Do you want to remain inside Canada, yes or no?" Unfortunately, this is not the case because he knows that the answer to this question would be no.
Finally, two of Quebec's most distinguished political scientists, Léon Dion and Vincent Lemieux, also severely criticized the PQ's breach of democracy. As reported on December 7, 1994, in La Presse, Mr. Dion said: "The process makes me very ill at ease. In such consultations, the public is often won over to a cause even before the process starts. In this case, it is Mr. Parizeau's cause."
The PQ leader continues to call himself everybody's premier and encourages everyone to take part in these consultations on the future of Quebec. At the same time, though, this draft bill does not include Quebec's cultural communities.
Last week, following many statements by members of the PQ government and their representatives, I rose here to ask the government to reaffirm unequivocally that members of cultural communities are, in fact, full citizens of our country. This draft bill confirms that the Parti Quebecois does not consider members of cultural communities as first-class citizens of Quebec.
Can the leader of the PQ government invite the cultural communities to build a new Quebec and then ignore them completely in his plan? Nothing is forcing the Parti Quebecois to subject Quebecers to an agonizing process. As my colleagues pointed out, Quebec is sovereign in all the areas under its jurisdiction. Quebecers live in one of the best countries in the world, a country they have built, a country they have chosen, just like my parents did. That country has evolved and Quebecers are part of this evolution.
Personally, I believe, as the Leader of the Opposition in Quebec said, and he will lead the campaign against separation before the next referendum in that province, that the process announced yesterday by the PQ government can only be democratic if it meets the following three conditions.
First, the process should be based on consultation, not on propaganda. The proposed process in unacceptable since it leads to a foregone conclusion. The solicited advice and discussions have one single purpose: to draft a declaration of sovereignty based on the proposals and suggestions that only supporters of separation will be interested in formulating.
Second, the approach used should focus the public debate on the real issue. The PQ is asking the people to discuss the content of the declaration of sovereignty instead of the advisability of separation in order to avoid the real question: is it in the best interests of Quebecers to separate from the rest of Canada? Not only is the desire of the Parti Quebecois to avoid this question dishonest, but it also shows that the PQ is afraid to hear what the answer of the majority of Quebecers to such a clear question would be.
Third, the process must be fair. In keeping with the spirit of Quebec's legislation on public consultations, both sides should have equal opportunities to put forward and explain their viewpoints. In practice, this means that both sides should have the same number of seats, the same resources and equal time.
Will Quebecers have an opportunity to make a decision on a clear question in the coming referendum? I doubt it.
The question proposed by the Parti Quebecois would ask the people of Quebec whether they are in favour of the Act passed by the National Assembly, which would define the features of Quebec sovereignty. It is a blank cheque the PQ government is asking for, because it knows very well that whole sections of the sovereignist plan would have to be negotiated with its partners in the years following the referendum.
Given these factors, and since I chose Quebec and Canada as my country, this is a very sad moment in the history of Quebec and since the democratic process is not being respected, I will vote against the Official Opposition's motion.