You are right, Mr. Speaker. I should have said "the Minister of Finance".
Even the Czech and the Slovak republics, which have just achieved sovereignty, have had the advantage of this accelerated process, the process of joining the World Trade Organization, despite the fact that their economies were far less developed that Quebec's.
The Minister of Finance also contended that Quebec will not be able to sign NAFTA before achieving sovereignty, which, according to him, would take time. However, Quebec retains its legal status, so long as it remains a province of Canada, in my opinion and according to all the experts. As a province and so long as it has not declared its sovereignty, Quebec remains a party to NAFTA.
When we come to declare our sovereignty, we will have had time to talk with people. We will continue to be a party to NAFTA as a Canadian province, and the day after sovereignty, negotiations will be complete, and we will become another member of NAFTA, this time, not as a province, but as a sovereign country. His reasoning falls short here again.
The Minister of Finance raised a third point. He ignored an aspect of the international reality and existing practice, in stating that the American Congress was not keen at the prospect of new negotiations. The Americans have never behaved this way, because state successions promote the continuity and stability of international treaties.
If the United States ever did ignore this rule, it would be to Canada's full advantage to sign a partnership with Quebec, without altering the economic reality of Canada and Quebec, but permitting
continued membership by Canada and Quebec in NAFTA, as provided in article 22.04 of the treaty.
It would be advantageous to both Canada and Quebec, because we must not forget that, if the United States wants to renegotiate with Quebec, it will surely want to renegotiate with Canada, which will have seven million consumers fewer than when it signed the treaty.
A Canada with seven million fewer inhabitants is not the same Canada. It is not the same NAFTA partner. And if Canada wants to maintain its economic weight in NAFTA, it should sign a partnership agreement with Quebec, because it would be to its advantage and to Quebec's to do so.
According to another of Mr. Martin's arguments, the United States will no longer want to allow new members to have a dispute settlement board. This is a half baked argument and should be quickly rejected because it is based solely on a letter written by a candidate for the Republican Party nomination. Just a letter from a candidate making this claim.
Furthermore, Mr. Martin has conceded that the negotiations with Chile include the dispute settlement board. They are currently negotiating, they have recognized the existence, the possibility of extending the jurisdiction of a dispute settlement board, yet they are telling us that the Americans are no longer interested. How can the Americans want this mechanism for Chile but not for Canada? They are consistent.
This makes it difficult to take seriously the finance minister's statement that Quebec will lose a million jobs and endanger 90 per cent of its exports. Just imagine. This is no laughing matter.
This just goes to show once again that ridicule never killed anyone, because the Minister of Finance would have died a long time ago. We can see how exaggeration often leads to absurdities.
We are proud and happy to participate in Canada's development by supporting Bill S-9, because it goes in the direction that we have always advocated. We do not want to destroy Canada, we want to build a country in Quebec, and we want Canada to remain prosperous as well. We want to live in renewed harmony, no longer from coast to coast but side by side. And the only way to live side by side is to support legislation that will make for more harmonious relations between the two countries.
Witch hunts must be stopped. They must stop telling Quebecers that Quebec is too small, that they cannot administer themselves without help, that they will not succeed in their endeavour. Quite the contrary.
Quebec's history has shown that every time Quebecers have really taken their destiny into their own hands, their endeavours were successful. They succeeded. And when Quebecers will decide, as they will on October 30, to become autonomous and to make their own decisions, they will be able to collect their own taxes and to sign their own treaties. It will enable them to make decisions on their own and to invest in projects that better serve the interests of Quebecers the $30 billion in tax money they will no longer have to pay the federal government.
The Laurent Beaudoins who come and tell us that Quebec would be too small to meet the needs of large businesses like their should be reminded that countries smaller than Quebec have about 20 and sometimes as many as 30 companies that are twice, three times and even four times as large as Bombardier. Businesses larger than the one run by Mr. Beaudoin manage to prosper in countries like Switzerland, Norway and Denmark. The strength and vitality of a nation is not dependent on its size, but rather on the resourcefulness of its people, their commitment and their self-respect.
Naturally, Quebecers will want to invest mainly in research and development because this creates jobs. The Chinese have known this for a long time. An old Chinese proverb says: "Instead of handing out fish that will feed the hungry only for one day, teach them to fish". Teach people to fish and they will be able to feed themselves for the rest of their lives.
That is what Canada did with Quebec. Only with respect to unemployment insurance were we favoured. Quebecers did get more in UI benefits than they paid into the plan. That is the fish we were fed. Meanwhile, Ontarians were taught to fish, and teaching fishing requires research and development grants, which we did not get. And they thought we would go for that.