Madam Speaker, it was with considerable interest that I listened to and participated in the debate this morning. I listened closely to the speeches by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot and my colleague from Témiscamingue, for whom I have a great deal of respect. I do not always agree with them and I would even say that I am almost in complete disagreement with their option, but I do agree with one point that both members raised this morning, in this House.
The member for Témiscamingue has just concluded with the remark that flexible federalism, or a flexible status quo, if I may so describe it, is the cause of the problem we are now facing daily in Canada. In this regard, I am in complete agreement with him. It is because of the debt load that has plagued the country for years now.
I also agree with another of their observations, which is that the debt load and particularly the deficit we have had for a number of years are not the result of social programs.
There are two factors, first of all the debt load, which is very high, and the political uncertainty, which has resulted in an incredible jump in interest rates.
As the member has already pointed out, since the report was tabled in December there has been an increase of 300 base points, or 3 per cent. I would remind this House that an increase of 1 per cent represents an additional burden of 1.7 billion dollars. This is why, with the budget soon to be tabled, we are 12 to 14 billion dollars short of our objective to reduce the deficit to 3 per cent of the gross domestic product.
I would like to put a question to my honourable colleague, who said that our problem is one of the main reasons why their future is brighter in an independent Quebec. I cannot believe that an independent Quebec will be in a better position to offer the services that taxpayers now receive.
Take the debt, for example. It is a very good example. The member for Saint-Hyacinthe told us himself this morning that he was prepared to absorb 25 per cent of the debt. Some economists say that this additional burden would drive the debt of an independent Quebec up to 215 billion dollars. That would be 123 per cent of its gross domestic product. There is no way that an independent Quebec can offer the same services that taxpayers are receiving today.
Could the member explain, for the benefit of all those who will soon have to make a decision, how he expects to offer the same services in an independent Quebec without extensive cuts, when the debt burden is so heavy and there is the risk of a premium on interest rates that would add to the load?