Debates of June 7th, 1994

Supply

[The Speaker]

Order, order, please. I would appreciate it if hon. members would always address their remarks to the Chair.

[Fernand Robichaud, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I simply wanted to say that they tell us they want to separate without harming the rest of Canada, and I find that hard to take! I think Canadians know better than to be convinced by such arguments.

[Benoît Tremblay, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there was at least one contradiction in what was said by the Secretary of State.

He started his speech by commending the Parliament of Canada for enshrining institutional bilingualism in New Brunswick in the Canadian Constitution, as if that were something extraordinary. He went on to say that it was no longer important to talk about the Constitution, that it was just a piece of paper and that we now had to talk about job creation. I wish the Secretary of State would make up his mind. If the Constitution is not important, then please explain why it is so important to have what happens in New Brunswick in the Constitution.

We all know that the Constitution is important as the basic law that determines who can do what in this country, and the many problems we have, including this constant overlapping of two levels of government, because the federal government always thinks it can do a better job than the other governments and encroaches on all jurisdictions of the provinces, can be traced back to this basic law.

But let me at least point out this contradiction: If you commend the Parliament of Canada for adopting a constitutional amendment, how can you say the Constitution is just a piece of paper?

[Fernand Robichaud, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I did not say the Constitution was just a piece of paper. I acknowledged the importance of the constitutional amendment on official languages in New Brunswick. What I meant and what I actually said was that Canadians would prefer to see us discuss the reality they face every day, which is about jobs and the dignity of work.

During the last election, Canadians realized there had been enough talks about the Constitution and that we should focus all our attention on the problems facing them every day: finding a job and having the dignity of working at that job to earn a living.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, before the member got on to his more negative comments about the Reform Party, he did share a bit of his vision of Canada with us. I think he made reference to the historic union of two linguistic and cultural groups modelled by New Brunswick and suggested that was the model for the country.

Is there not a need to expand that vision because that vision is not sufficient for the entire country? Would the member not acknowledge if we tell people in downtown Victoria that this is a historic union of two linguistic and cultural groups that they do not relate to that? If we tell people in most of our aboriginal communities that this is a historic union of two linguistic and cultural groups, that does not describe Canada for them.

Is there not a need to expand beyond the concept of Canada as being simply a partnership of the English and French groups?

[Fernand Robichaud, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I said that I hoped the example of New Brunswick would be followed across the country, and you say that perhaps we should go further.

Of course, adjustments are always necessary, but I am concerned, and I do not see any positive contributions coming from the Reform Party when we hear proposals in this House that are aimed at changing or eliminating the official languages program.

In the case of communities in New Brunswick and many communities across the country, this legislation has played an important role, and I fail to understand why the Reform Party says it wants the well-being of the entire community and at the same time tries to eliminate the programs that helped us survive and in fact develop our potential to a very considerable degree. I am surprised at these statements from the Reform Party.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Leader of the Reform Party for the opportunity to participate in this debate. I was under the impression that he would not give us the chance, since he had said that he would not interfere in what he dubbed a family squabble.

I think he now realizes that this is much more than a family squabble and that we are grappling with a fundamental problem, one that existed before all of our economic problems and deficit woes. I think he realizes, and I thank him for that, that until the issue is resolved, we must confront it head on. At least that is what the Bloc Quebecois has decided to do.

Yesterday, all of the western countries who joined the vast anti-Nazi coalition after 1939 held ceremonies to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Allied landings in Normandy. The thousands of young soldiers who died and all of their comrades in arms were in reality, to quote the cover page of Time magazine, the soldiers of the last great crusade. Upon the cessation of hostilities, two antagonistic blocs emerged, each wanting to bring about lasting peace in the western world.

The western world has known peace for nearly 50 years. Troubles and differences of opinions are of course not uncommon, but today, no country in the western world would consider taking up arms to resolve in its favour a political or economic conflict with another country. Yesterday's adversaries such as Germany and France, once centuries-old enemies, have become the staunchest of allies.

Peace in the western world is based on two major interwoven principles, namely democracy and national sovereignty. The exercise of democracy guarantees the exercise of national sovereignty. These principles provide the answers to two fundamental questions about how societies organize themselves politically, namely how is power achieved and who governs whom.

The western model provides clear answers to these two questions. Nations prefer to govern themselves and within each nation, citizens want to democratically choose their govern-

ment. In short, the democratic nation-state is the norm in our western civilization.

What better opportunity than this solemn celebration of the ideals that brought together 50 years ago as many peoples and combatants under the same banner, to remind all Canadians and all Quebecers of our deep commitment to the fundamental values of peace and democracy!

Giving the national feeling the framework it needs to grow normally is a guarantee of peace. And what an example of constructive co-operation the nations of Western Europe have been giving the whole world for more than 40 years without infringing on national sovereignty on basic issues! This should serve as an example for Canada, a country that is young but, strangely enough, incapable of showing the flexibility it needs to deal with inescapable sociological and economic realities.

Democracy certainly seems the most demanding system for the leaders and for the whole state machinery in terms of restraint, transparency and respect for human rights. During the difficult times that every country experiences in the course of its history, there is a strong temptation to play fast and loose with democracy. Canada is no exception to this rule, as demonstrated by the 1970 War Measures Act.

These difficult times put the democratic fibre of a society to the test but we are not afraid of the immediate future from that perspective. Canada will certainly not backtrack at a time when democracy is gaining ground throughout the world, particularly in Latin America, notwithstanding the unfortunate situation in Haiti, and in Central Europe.

Let us be clear that it is perfectly normal for the federal government to plan a campaign of persuasion to convince Quebecers of the merits of the status quo, but it is also perfectly normal for us to promote the only alternative to the status quo which is political sovereignty of Quebec.

The leader of the Reform Party talks about a new federalism but the last 30 years offer abundant proof that this so-called new approach is nothing but a cul de sac. There are two options on the table. There will be a political debate and the people of Quebec will decide. All of us will have to abide by the results. This is democracy.

This does not mean that anything goes, that blows beneath the belt should be tolerated or that reaching for the gutter should not be singled out for what it is. Are these words too strong? We hope at the outset of this important campaign decency will prevail. One can hold strong views on the issues of the day without demonizing the adversary. This has been and will be our line of conduct.

When all the peripheral noise has been removed one should be able to focus on the central issue. If Canada is performing so poorly it is mainly because there is in its bosom a sharp conflict of vision. In the minds of the people of English speaking Canada there is one national government in Ottawa and 10 equal provinces; in other words, one senior government and 10 junior governments.

For Quebecers their national government is in Quebec and the doctrine of provincial equality represents a denial of their history and of their aspirations for the future.

Being the senior government, Ottawa can intervene in almost all of the provincial domains mainly by using its spending power. What happens when Quebec and Ottawa have different sets of priorities? Not only do their bureaucracies overlap but they are at cross purposes. If English speaking Canada prefers to transfer some provincial powers to the federal government it can do so not only administratively but also legally so that Quebec cannot prevent the erosion of its powers

All this boils down to a simple reality. Canadian federalism means that the Government of Quebec is subordinate to the central government both in large and lesser matters. Quebec does not have today all the powers it needs to be the key player in setting its priorities, be they economic, social or cultural. In other words, English speaking Canada has a veto on the future development of Quebec within the federation.

Nobody ever relinquishes power joyfully, but one can at least expect English speaking Canada to clearly see the impasse to which the present regime has brought us both. The budget crisis is but the most visible symptom of this impasse. Another one is the sheer impossibility of significant political movement in one direction or another. The federal government will never let go of its extensive powers, not only on grounds of ideology but also because many provinces do not have the resources to assume even a few of its powers. In fact the necessity of a stronger central government for English speaking Canada, in the education sector for example, is not in doubt. The more important provinces, seeing the fierce resistance of Quebec to any transfer whatsoever to Ottawa, will hesitate to climb aboard the federal bandwagon.

Thus gridlock and confrontation are built into the system. It is easy to predict, for example, that the eventual blueprint of the Minister of Human Resources Development to overhaul social security will not meet its objectives. Unreasonable deficits will just go on piling up, speeding in the process the relative decline of the Canadian economy.

The Quebec people reject the status quo that will never satisfy them. They spoke loud and clear on this in the last federal election. They understood what the Quebecers sitting on the government benches in this House have not understood yet, namely that there are times in history when governing well means making drastic changes to the system. We are approaching one of these times.

Some prefer to wait until they are confronted with newspaper headlines before admitting that something is happening. It is their right, although it shows a particular kind of historic long-sightedness. In fact, we see with every passing month that the federal government is unable to get Canada and Quebec out of the increasingly devastating economic and budget crisis.

In the February 22 budget debate, we drew the attention of this House to several questionable aspects of the budget and I would like to remind you of two of the points we made at that time. First, the Minister of Finance deliberately inflated his 1993-94 deficit estimate to make his performance for the current year look better. Debt servicing for this year, in particular, was overestimated. A few weeks ago, the Department of Finance proved us right by stating that it now expected the deficit to be under $44 billion instead of the $45.7 billion announced on February 22.

Second, we said that the interest rate projections in the budget were too optimistic. Today no one finds them credible. The interest rates on short- and long-term securities now exceed by almost two percentage points the average level forecast in the budget despite the last few days' decline.

In view of the federal government's poor financial situation, it is impossible for interest rates to decline significantly in Canada without a similar drop in the United States. The American economy is approaching the threshold of capacity utilization which will lead to larger inflationary pressures. Just look at our southern neighbours' unemployment rate: it was down to 6 per cent in May, while ours is still 11 per cent.

Under these conditions, U.S. monetary policy will remain more restrictive and U.S. interest rates could rise further. Add to this an overly optimistic revenue projection and you will understand that the government, like its predecessor, is underestimating the deficits from the outset.

Since the economic hypotheses on which the 1995-96 deficit forecast is based are even more optimistic than those for the current fiscal year, the extent of the underestimate will necessarily be larger next year. Why be surprised then when the financial community does not believe the finance minister's promise to reduce the federal deficit to 3 per cent of GDP in 1996-97? The C.D. Howe Institute has just warned the government in a very recent study that its spending should be cut by $7.2 billion if it wants to keep the promise of 3 per cent. In a few months, the federal government's inability to correct its financial situation except by passing the crisis on to the provinces will be obvious to all. That is what the next federal budget has in store for us.

We must admit right away that the Minister of Finance has already shown his colours. With questions pouring in from all over about the precarious state of the federal government's finances, he promised a month and a half ago to make massive cuts in transfers to the provinces starting in 1996-97. He went even further, since this is his chief method for eliminating the federal deficit by the year 2000.

On the one hand, the federal government pretends to decide everything; it is even eyeing education. On the other, it is prepared to pass on to the provinces the bill for its fiscal irresponsibility. Fiscal federalism is thus more and more disadvantageous for Quebec. The trend of recent years will accelerate markedly. It will become more obvious than ever that Quebec must take back all its resources if it really wants to break the vicious circle of a decaying system which every day is a greater fundamental impediment to its freedom of action.

Thus we know that the political and economic dynamics of the present system are working at a deep level and not only superficially for the sovereignty of Quebec. The coming years will confirm that our historical destiny is leading us to this sovereignty.

I heard the leader of the Reform Party explain his view of what Canada should do to get out of the present crisis. I heard that he proposes something like a new round of negotiations but prior to that many members and ministers of the House should be travelling around, along with civil servants, with city hall meetings all over the country.

When I listened to him I had a sense of déjà vu and I thought it looked so much like the Keith Spicer approach. Do we remember the Keith Spicer train that went all across the country listening to people? It heard all kinds of things, disparate things, and at the end we had nothing. Out of the mountain came a mouse, as we say in French. I am quite discouraged to see that we will begin again if we listen to the Reform Party.

The leader of the Reform Party does not know a lot of Quebec history. I am 55 and I spent most of my last 30 adult years involved directly or indirectly in the sterility of federal-provincial discussions, constitutional quagmire. I have a feeling that we in Quebec, and probably people in the rest of Canada have the same feeling, lost the last 30 years wasting our energy, our money, our political stamina that we needed to build something

real in all parts of this huge country, devoted to the sterile discussions of the Constitution.

Here we are with a new proposal to resume this terrible circus. People have forgotten that we went through the referendum in 1980 in Quebec, that there has been the unilateral patriation of the Constitution in 1982 where Quebec had imposed on it a Constitution which is our current Constitution. We never signed it and every attempt to bring Quebec to the table to sign the Constitution has failed because the people of Canada and of Quebec have said no.

I was in the House when the political establishment of the country, the House of Commons, decided that there should be a deal based on the Charlottetown accord. I was here when we voted-I would exempt the Bloc because we voted against it-and all the federalist parties voted for the Charlottetown accord. We saw the people of Quebec and the rest of Canada reject it.

The right reason and the great reason why the government will not get involved in the debate with a new proposal is that it knows it is not possible. It knows that everything has been done: good faith, bad faith, imaginative strategy, all kinds of things. Everything has been attempted. I would say it is a disease of the country that we cannot move. The country has no power when it comes to changing anything, to adapting the Constitution to reality because the country does not accept reality.

There are two realities as long as no one accepts that outside Quebec there is no possibility for anything. We have two realities: we have Quebec and we have the rest of Canada.

The Quebec people do not think they are better than any other part of the country, but they think they are different. They have done nothing to destroy anything. We do not intend to destroy Canada. We intend to adapt the political structures to the realities.

I have a different vision of the country from what people on the other side of the House have of their country. I respect their vision. I have the ultimate, utmost respect for their vision.

I respect the people who died in the last war. When I laid a wreath yesterday I did it out of sincerity, out of respect. We have people in our families who died in Europe and who fought for democracy, for whatever. We should respect those people and not put words in their mouths because silence is now their privilege. Silence is now their prerogative. We should not resurrect them. We should accept the fact that they died for a great cause, that we have inherited a legacy of their courage. We should respect it and silence about what they thought when they died, what they had in their hearts when they died on those beaches far away from their families, should be respected. It is for them for eternity because they have kept it in their graves.

When I laid the wreath yesterday I asked the member for Quebec to do it. She had never told us before. Perhaps she was absolutely taken by the atmosphere, the tragic and grandiose atmosphere yesterday, when she said: "You know my father was there and he spent the war in Europe". I said: "You should lay the wreath yourself", and she did.

I was so upset this morning, so sad, when I read the comments made by the Deputy Prime Minister about the significance of our gesture yesterday.

I will close my speech. I know it is a very emotional, very difficult debate. I pledge to stay forever a democrat and to respect the opinions of other people. And I would ask people to do the same for us.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I have to respond with a comment on what I have just heard. I have to make it clear to the Leader of the Official Opposition, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, that he does not respect my vision of Canada.

My vision of Canada includes Quebec. My vision of Canada includes Jacques Cartier and Samuel de Champlain who went up this river only feet from where we sit today. It includes the voyageur and the coureurs des bois who opened up the west and the north of this great country. This is my Canada. I say that I will fight in any way I can if you try to destroy that.

My Canada includes Quebec City. It includes the north of Quebec. For me, my Canada includes the ability of Quebecers to feel that the Rocky Mountains belong to them, that the Pacific coast belongs to them, that Halifax belongs to them and that the rocky shores of Newfoundland belong to them.

My Canada is not two Canadas. That is your Canada. My Canada is one Canada. There is not an English speaking Canada and a French speaking Canada. There is a Canada where people who live outside Quebec and are francophone, a whole million of them, can express themselves, live and be served by their government in their own language just as francophones in Quebec can, and just as anglophones in Quebec can.

I realize we have a serious difference of opinion about the country. However I have an opinion, not about its parts, not about those things that divide us. For my children I want the history and the contribution of those great men and women who came from France, who were the original settlers of my Canada, to be part of their tradition and their future.

We are stronger together. We are a more vibrant nation together than we would be as 10, 11 or 20 or even 2 pieces. I do not believe we can end up as two pieces. I believe that the heart is

ripped out of the country if Quebec leaves and I believe the rest of the country will fall apart. I will not let you do that.

[The Speaker]

Again, I know that we are getting not close to the heart, we are in the heart, but I insist that all hon. members please address the Chair. It is very important. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. Please excuse me, I did not know you had a commentary. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Just a short one, Mr. Speaker, to thank you for your wise words.

I would like to say to the member who just addressed the House that I completely respect what she said. I feel genuine sympathy for her emotion because this debate is very much about deep and fundamental emotions.

At the same time I would like to say, if I may, that to respect the vision of someone is also to make sure that one does not impose one's vision on another. This is about democracy. It is not for me as an individual to impose anything on other people. It is not for me to make any decision for collectivity, but it is for the Quebec people to make a decision. Those things are not easy and they have been said before.

I remember very well the last debate about Meech. We had a very limited debate about Meech. I heard a few moments ago the secretary for parliamentary affairs say that the Bloc was very happy to see Meech fumbled but it was not true. I fought hard and for a long time for Meech.

I was not the champion of Meech. Prime Minister Mulroney was. I remember that during those debates at some point Prime Minister Mulroney implied that if Meech was rejected the future of Canada might be compromised. He said something like that. I noticed then there was a very strong negative reaction all over Canada that the Prime Minister was too emotional, that he was not realistic, but here we are.

We tried to get Meech through. We almost begged the rest of Canada. We are proud people but we begged anyway. We asked the rest of Canada to subscribe to five minimal conditions that Quebec proposed, to go to the table and sign this Constitution on the dotted line where there is no signature, Quebec's signature.

I spent two years of my life doing that. I even accepted the bold risk to do that. I left my sovereignist family in 1984 to work for that because I thought, like Prime Minister Mulroney and many people in Quebec, a majority of Quebecers, it was worthwhile to try to reconcile the country. The minimal requirement we could set up to save the honour; accept that something very important in Quebec politics be enshrined in the Constitution, not in the powers but in the preliminaries of the Constitution; that Quebec should be recognized as a distinct society, which is to recognize us as a people. This is the fundamental thing, people in Quebec feel like a people. We cannot change that. It is a fact of public life.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under Standing Order 43(2) and on behalf of the Reform whip I would like to inform the House that our caucus members will be dividing their time when they speak.

[The Speaker]

It is so noted and I return to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from the Bloc should not in any way, shape or form be surprised at the fact that this party would include them in this discussion.

Unlike some parties, we stand for including all Canadians in our decisions. This is not a family feud. What we have is an effort by a group of individuals in the House to fracture the country and I, like the member across the way, will not stand for it.

This is in part accomplished by misleading the people of Quebec as to what is really going on in the country. I would ask at some time what Canada has done against the people of Quebec. I will tell members in part.

The Government of Canada gives to the people of Quebec in transfer payments more money than what the people of Quebec give out to the federal government. I would also say that the federal governments in past years have pandered to the province of Quebec in an effort to keep it within the fold. This is special status. This is special treatment and it only causes division. It is divisive within the country.

In this world, we have tribalism: one group or tribe against another. It is perhaps the singular, most divisive problem that we have in this world. Francophones, anglophones, men, women, black, white, it is all the same thing. All we can hope for in the world is that we are treated equally under the law, that we are free of prejudice. What we make of our lives as individuals is up to ourselves.

I have a question for the hon. member from the Bloc. What is so wrong with a country where we are all treated equally, where we all have the same rights under our laws, where culture and language is the responsibility of each province whether it is Quebec, New Brunswick or British Columbia? What is so wrong with a vision of Canada that includes all Canadians? I would like to ask the hon. member what is so wrong with that.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me say two things to the hon. member.

First, Quebec has already been excluded from the constitutional family by the rest of Canada. Something we should remember is that in 1982 the federal government ganged up with the English speaking provinces to impose the Constitution on

Quebec. That is a fact and cannot be denied. We have been thrown away and here we are trying now to set a political basis out of that.

The second thing I would like to say to the Reform Party is that I hear the leader of the Reform Party proposing a new federalism. I have absolutely no doubt it would be a worse federalism, if it can be, when he begins his proposal by establishing that everything will be based on the equality of the provinces which is what Quebec has fought against for the last 30 years.

All Quebec premiers, starting with Jean Lesage, one of the greatest political leaders of Quebec, always fought against the equality principle. The Reform Party is now proposing a new federalism where a new principle will be enshrined in the Constitution: equality of the provinces. Let me say that even if I were still a federalist I would never accept the fact that this new federalism would exclude official bilingualism.

Any reform proposed by the Reform Party on this basis will not fly. There is no reform possible. There is no possible reform in the country. The decision by Quebecers will have to be made either to accept the status quo, which is stagnation and everything we have tried to get away from for the last 30 years, or a new noble project to build a real country in Quebec so as to allow people in the rest of Canada to have their own country, a country belonging to their minds and hearts.

I do not believe for one minute that there is not a strong national cement binding all English speaking Canadians outside Quebec. In the House I can hear the emotion and I can see that those people have a genuine passion for their country, as I have for mine.

[The Speaker]

It is noted that the Reform Party will now be splitting its time so the speakers will have 10 minutes and 5 minutes for questions and answers.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to give my most important speech to date of this 35th Parliament. It reflects my personal point of view, not as a representative of any race or of any province, but as a proud immigrant Canadian citizen. It is not directed to the politicians in the House but rather to the people of Canada from sea to sea to sea, the voters who entrust us to work in their best interests.

I will endeavour to treat today's motion in the following way. First I will make my position on Quebec separation quite clear and unequivocal. Second, I will discuss some of the consequences of Quebec separation and then re-emphasize a new vision of Canada as an alternative to separation as earlier presented by our leader, the member for Calgary Southwest.

I humbly realize my opinions and comments on this very important topic may not make a difference in the larger picture. Nevertheless I believe all politicians and Canadians who want Quebecers to remain in Canada need to reinforce their convictions, attack the myths, present the reality and the real face of this great country.

I want Quebec in as I want Alberta in: as part of the great Canadian federation that has served us all so well. It does not make any sense whatsoever to break up after 127 years, especially in a period of high deficits and debt. Together all parts of Canada are stronger. The proof of that is our enviable record of war participation, political stability, prosperity and freedom. If it is worth dying for, it is worth debating for.

To be unable to work together as Canadians to reach an accommodation quite frankly is unthinkable to me. To continue this uncertainty is already straining our economic, social and cultural diversity and the world is watching.

I respect the convention that federal politicians should stay out of provincial elections. I respect the rights of Quebecers to send the Bloc Quebecois to Ottawa. I respect their right to a referendum on separation, but because this affects me directly I feel I have the right to speak out on this issue.

I respect the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and the many members I have worked with on committees and recently on the basketball court, but I truly regret the course they have chosen. The leader of the Bloc Quebecois is intelligent, charismatic and experienced in trying to get the best deal for Quebec that he can. However I fundamentally disagree and stand against the method he has chosen: separatism over a new federalism.

The reality of the consequences of Quebec's separation would in many ways be very costly for all Canadians. I have evaluated this as a businessman with 25 years of experience. To assume entitlement to all existing benefits of the federation by separating is not only dangerous but very naive.

We have no buy-sell agreement in place to handle separation, no terms of reference that were agreed to while we were friendly partners to facilitate the secession of a province. Neither the British North America Act nor the Constitution Act, 1982, defines an orderly breakup of our great country.

In the face of this fact the reality is that all the many views put forth by the separatist forces in the absence of precedent are in many cases inaccurate projections about the way things will be in a sovereign and separate Quebec. All Canadians should make an honest assessment of the pending separation issue and ask themselves if the risk of separation leads to a more predictable future as compared to working together to create a new and better federalism.

Let me raise a few of the questions about separation that are on the minds of Canadians. Who will negotiate this separation? Will we need a federal election to decide? While we fight over the right to break up the country our fragile economy will suffer. Is this what we really want? Our deficit and debt are so high, how can a new nation start off with such a high debt load and what share will it take? What about the value of the dollar and Canadian interest rates? Will Quebec pay? Will creditors refinance two separate entities so deeply indebted? I, for one, fret over making this assumption. The currency issue places Que-

becers in an inferior colonial status at the mercy of Canadian monetary policy. Is this acceptable to the Quebecois?

Have Quebecers evaluated the impact of separation on subsidized sectors of their economy, like textiles, furniture and the protected status of the dairy industry? Will the aerospace industry continue to grow without support from the rest of Canada?

If negotiations become emotional and hostile, what favourable and satisfactory settlement can be achieved in areas like defence, dual citizenship, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the free trade agreement, control over the St. Lawrence River and the boundary in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, all of which require consent of Canada?

What about territory and territorial rights for aboriginals? Can they remain with Canada, or will the majority in Quebec have the right to decide the future for aboriginal peoples?

I believe Canada will accept separatism if it is the result of a clearly worded referendum on the issue and reflects the will of the majority of Quebecers, but who ever said outside Quebec that sovereignty association was a negotiable option? If the referendum question is sovereignty and the vote is yes, how do we negotiate with the other party that says that option was never on the table, only separation and not sovereignty?

In the light of these questions are we not better off working together in kickstarting our economy, by resolving the unity issue once and for all? For those Canadians who may not think that is possible, let me quote one of the Fathers of Confederation, the Hon. Thomas D'Arcy McGee, who faced the same crisis in the 1860s and like me wanted to make Canada the happiest of homes.

"The policy of linking together all our people in one solid mass and making up for the comparative paucity of our numbers by the repeating and detonating moral influence of our unity, the policy of linking order to order, of smoothing down the sharp and wounding edges of hostile prejudices, the policy of making all feel an interest in this country and each man in the character of each section of the community and in each other, each for all and all for each-this policy will never grow old, never will lose its lustre".

Bloc Quebecois members claim that federalism has not, cannot and will not work. They point to the failures of the Constitution Act, Meech Lake and the Charlottetown accord as sufficient proof. While I agree these constitutional efforts represent failure, they failed everyone and not just Quebecers because the wrong people were negotiating the right things the wrong way: top down.

This 35th Parliament has the right people in the right place to negotiate the right way with the new vision of federalism as presented by the leader of the Reform Party together with the Prime Minister and his party who also believe in keeping this great country together.

The leader of the Bloc Quebecois has a tremendous opportunity to apply his great skills in resolving the weaknesses of the current dying federalism, protecting the interests of Quebecers and making all Canada a stronger and richer nation. Madam Speaker, through you to the people of Quebec, demand this of him.

By putting Canada first, a Canada which includes Quebec, we all benefit from a bilingual nation applying the original recommendations of the Laurendeau-Dunton bilingualism and biculturalism report, not the current expensive second language mess created by the technocrats which the majority of all Canadians in and outside Quebec say is not working.

By revisiting and applying the spirit of the British North America Act, restoring to provinces the complete power they should have over resources, education, language and culture, by acting as a true Canadian official opposition party, the Bloc Quebecois together with the Reform Party can more effectively force this indignant, stubborn and weak government to address the real problems of this great country. Together we could force the federal government out of areas of provincial jurisdiction where it has no business being involved.

Together we could convince the government that Canada has a spending problem, not a revenue problem, and that the culprit is the deficit and the debt, not Quebec separation. Let us resolve the deficit and debt problem which is keeping us in this recession, causing high unemployment and threatening our social programs. Let us attack the enormous debt load together with constructive, creative reductions in spending which will restore real confidence in the financial community.

Let us not add to the uncertainty of our quality of life by separating. We need a new balanced democratic federation of provinces with a healthy economic development program sensitive to the environment and a Constitution that recognizes the equality and uniqueness of all its citizens and provinces and that includes Quebec.

In conclusion I will once again use the words of the Hon. Thomas D'Arcy McGee speaking in 1860, a believer in Canada who described the reality that still holds true today and reflects my personal philosophy: "I look to the future of my adopted country with hope, though not without anxiety. I see it quartered into many communities, each disposing of its internal affairs, but all bound together by free institutions, free dialogue and free commerce. I see a generation of-"

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am very sorry, but the hon. member's time has expired.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the Reform Party member for his excellent presentation. I simply would like to point out a few facts.

The hon. member, with whom I have often had the opportunity to work in committee and who does an excellent job, said at the beginning of his speech that we must stop telling Quebecers that their only alternative now is either status quo or sovereignty, and that we should instead talk of a renewed federalism. I am still very young, but ever since I was very little I have been hearing about renewed federalism.

Remember the meeting which took place in Quebec City, in 1964, between the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, for whom I have a great deal of respect since he is one of the greatest, if not the greatest Canadian politician, and Jean Lesage, the Quebec Premier of the time. Remember also all the constitutional conferences and meetings held between the Canadian provinces, or between Quebec and the federal government. Remember the 1971 conference in Victoria, with Robert Bourassa.

Remember also the whole constitutional debate of 1980, when the future of Quebec and Canada was discussed. Remember 1981, after the No victory, when Mr. Trudeau, who was then Prime Minister, said to Quebecers: Say no to sovereignty and you will get in-depth reform and renewed federalism, as you have been hoping for since 1867, when you were told that you could have a place as a nation in this new confederation, which was never a real confederation.

Remember also the forced patriation of 1982, when the federal government put Quebec in its place, instead of making room for it, by imposing a unilateral patriation of the Constitution as well as a Charter, a measure which was almost unanimously opposed by the members of Quebec's National Assembly.

In 1984, Mr. Lévesque, a true statesman, was in charge in Quebec and extended a hand to federalists by saying that Quebec was prepared to take a bold risk. Then, there was Meech with Mr. Mulroney and all the subsequent failures.

Ever since I was a little boy, even a baby, I have been hearing about renewed federalism. Recently, the whole debate intensified with the failure of Meech, the Beaudoin-Dobbie Commission, Beaudoin-Edwards, the July 7 agreement which became the Charlottetown accord, and which also ended up being rejected.

This is not the failure of your country; your country is yours. You love it, you love this Parliament, but you should let us build our own. We do not want Canada's destruction, but we are well aware, after 30 years and particularly in later years, that this renewed federalism is a smoke screen. Right now, there are two options: status quo, which is unacceptable for Quebec, or Quebec's sovereignty.

I wonder if the hon. member, who is a friend, is aware of this saga in which a lot of time was wasted. Every time Quebec tried to find its niche in this regime, and every time promises were made and federal politicians talked about a new place for Quebec within Confederation, every time that happened, our province was put back in its place. (English follows)

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, first I would thank the hon. member for his compliment. I know he was sincere in that. I too have respect for him and the work we have done together.

Being inexperienced, it is difficult to express yourself in such a way that you do not offend. You lay out what you believe in. I think it is time we did that. We have to lay out here what we believe in.

I go back to Thomas D'Arcy McGee. I see in this life a generation of industrious, contented, moral men and women free in name, men and women capable of maintaining in peace and in war a Constitution worthy of such a country. That is the important thing.

What we have built for 127 years is important to preserve. We in Alberta may have differences of opinion with the federal government, as we do. You have a difference with the federal government in Quebec, as you do. We should fight together to make the sum total stronger than any one of the individual parts. That is the message we are trying to share.

All the examples that the hon. member gave us about what did not work and the reports and commissions that did not work were all examples of a top down approach to democracy, a top down approach of trying to deliver goods and services to what the people want. We in the Reform Party, as do the members of the Bloc Quebecois, recognize that it does not work.

Why not pool our resources in opposition, fight for Quebec and fight for our areas we represent against the government to show that a bottom up approach-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry, your time has expired. I have gone over.

The Reform Party has advised the Chair that it wishes to split its time. I do not see any other Reform members prepared for debate. Questions and comments are finished. They are splitting their time.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, if we have a half hour allotted to us and I split my time and my colleague for whatever reason is unattainable, is that time still allowed to me so I can finish off a proper answer and continue comments and questions? Would there be unanimous consent to continue comments and questions until our time is up?

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

If we have unanimous consent the hon. member for Calgary North may use the 14 minutes allotted to him. Do we have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Returning to debate, the hon. member for Calgary Centre.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to basically finish the remarks I made earlier to the hon. member of the Bloc Quebecois. What is important about today and what is important about the future of Canada is that we have to get out into the open the essence of what is at stake.

The consequences of separation are uncertain. It is the uncertainty that we must approach. It is the uncertainty that we have to deal with. All the questions I raised in my speech were general questions. The specifics of them and the other side of them will come about if, as and when Quebec decides its future. We will be ready for those. As our leader pointed out, we will have a lot more work done on them and a lot more solutions through the task forces that we are presenting.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker, may I relinquish the remainder of my time to my hon. colleague who is now present to give her 10-minute speech with no comments and questions to allow for the last 10 minutes?