Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speeches made up to now. As far as I can see, there is not much consistency in the speeches made by members of the Bloc today.
Earlier this morning, we heard a member of the Bloc Quebecois inform us that it is because of Quebec that NAFTA was signed. However, we all know very well, and it is quite clear for me as a member from New Brunswick, that the government of Quebec has been reluctant in recent decades to liberalize trade between the Canadian provinces.
How can they say, on the one hand, that they support free trade with the United States and Mexico and, on the other hand, that they are extremely reluctant to liberalize interprovincial trade?
The member said earlier that Quebecers will have a clear and definite choice. In the process which has started, where is this clear and definite choice? There is none because the working paper presents only one option to Quebecers. Where is the overall plan Mr. Parizeau promised the people of Quebec? Where is this overall plan? Maybe we will keep the Canadian dollar. Maybe we will have Canadian passports. This plan is full of maybes. It is not with such proposals that Quebecers can make an enlightened choice. We cannot make an enlightened choice on the basis on uncertainties.
This is duplicity. I remember reading, and I read a lot, all the history books about Quebec when Quebecers stood up and opposed the dark age of Duplessis. I am also convinced that they will say no to the undemocratic dark age of Parizeau.
My question is as follows: Since the suggested process accepts only the separatist position, how will it inform the supporters of independence of the risks which will threaten them for generations? I am not asking this question and making these comments in a partisan way. I am making them because of the strong roots I have in Quebec and because I am concerned about the present and future well-being of Quebecers.