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.