Mr. Speaker, first of all, the hon. member opposite questions the use of words. I thought that I had read enough editorials written by contemporary French Canadians from Quebec. They are experts in using the pen and the dictionary. They were not caught up in words. They saw the ruse behind the lack of democracy and called it secretive and a show of democracy. Public opinion in Quebec is clearly that Mr. Parizeau's proposal is not democratic; whether it is called sneaky, a sham or secretive, it is still unacceptable.
Second, speaking of federalism and flexible federalism, our country has evolved over 127 years with relatively few changes to the Constitution, but with tremendous changes affecting the jurisdiction of the provinces and the federal government and with continuous adjustments to a changing economic, political and social environment. We can continue to evolve within the present Constitution and we do continue to evolve, making very considerable changes that affect jurisdiction, the way the country is governed and our social programs, provided that we know how to act as partners.
That is true federalism. History shows us that it has worked and provided solutions and given Canada the highest standard of living in the world.
This did not happen by accident or despite the federal system, on the contrary. The reason Canada, including Quebec, is one of the best countries in the world, maybe the best, is its federal structure, which year after year has proven to be good for Canadians, good for Quebecers and adaptable to change. It will help us adjust to the economic, political and social changes now going on in the outside world.
Third, although there are 54 Bloc Quebecois members in this House, let us not forget that we, Liberals, form a government which is perceived across the country as an efficient and honest government. This is evidenced by the fact that, for the last three months, public support in the polls has been maintained at an all-time high of 63 per cent for any government in the 54 years that such polls have been conducted.
In Quebec, while our leader enjoyed relatively low support, somewhere around 20 per cent, during the election campaign, that support has climbed up to 47 per cent in recent weeks, the same as for Lucien Bouchard. This means that Quebecers themselves have a favourable opinion of the way the federal government is working on their behalf.
As for mandate, it is clear that Mr. Parizeau, and he said so himself dozens of times during the election campaign, was not elected with a mandate to achieve sovereignty: He was elected to provide a new government and, really, to create jobs, just like us. The fact that Mr. Parizeau's party received 44 per cent of the popular vote is tantamount to a rejection of sovereignty. It is totally undemocratic to table a draft bill which takes for granted that sovereignty has already been accepted as a goal by Quebecers, since the facts show that the contrary is true.
By introducing its draft bill, the Parizeau government is trying to fool Quebecers; it is using a ploy which is both a scam and an undemocratic measure. This is a view shared by us, by
our government and by the majority of Quebecers and Quebec editorialists. I am convinced that when the time comes for Quebecers to choose between separation and flexible federalism, they will opt for the latter.
In conclusion, the motion tabled by the opposition clearly does not respect the democratic spirit of Canadians, including Quebecers, and it must be rejected.