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.