Mr. Speaker, I know this is a solemn day and, if I may say, it is the day of awakening for Canada. This awakening has been triggered by the resolution introduced by the Prime Minister. I must admit that I find it rather amusing. Since our arrival here two years ago we have been called all sorts of things. The favourite nickname given to us is separatists, but after two years this government finally gave birth to this resolution which is meaningless, in our view.
Why is this resolution meaningless? Why are the members opposite surprised by our reaction, by our position on all this? I am astonished. Actually, I think I understand. When the Prime Minister says he does not listen to Radio-Canada because he wants a good night's sleep, he has deprived himself of a good source of information. If the Prime Minister had listened to all the media without distinction in Quebec and if he had read all of the newspapers, he would already know that Quebec has already stated loud and clear what it wants.
What we see here today is no response to that. And one should not be surprised. Some of my colleagues from the Atlantic region understand pretty well what I mean because I have been telling them for two years what sovereignty is all about and what the difference between a sovereignist and a separatist is. This is the period for questions and comments, but I think I will focus on comments tonight.
I have been explaining to them for two years the difference between a sovereignist and a separatist. Mr. Speaker, you were here when the issue was raised in this House and I told the House what Quebec wants to be, because if you want to inform people you have to repeat the message people wish to convey. This is why I had explained that a sovereignist is someone who is able to assert and accept himself.
I believe they understood in part what it means to be a sovereignist or to assert oneself. My honourable colleagues have even used the expression in a bill, which says that Canada wants to affirm its sovereignty over its oceans. I have nothing against that, but we have been blamed for two years for using the same expression.
What are we to think when the members opposite try to scold us? We have been told that the regional commissions on the future of Quebec were phoney. They have once more deprived themselves of an incomparable source of information. Mr. Speaker, I can see that you are getting impatient. I will now stop speaking but first I wish to say that I will continue my colleagues' education on what Quebec really wants. May I add that they really did not choose the right way today.