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.