Mr. Speaker, the Reform member's reaction to the bill as introduced is somewhat surprising. He is asking about the post-sovereignty period. Today we will not be the ones accused of bringing up the subject, for we are being asked for a response.
First of all, there was the 1995 referendum. It was lost by about 50,000 votes, or in other words, it was nearly 50-50. The federalists predicted the consequences of not voting against the project presented by the Government of Quebec. What was involved was to say yes to sovereignty, but with an offer of partnership to continue economic relations, and so on. The situation has remained unchanged on the constitutional level, since Quebec is still within Confederation. I therefore find the hon. member's comments, particularly those on the situation in downtown Montreal, somewhat confused.
He has just told us that federalism is serving Quebec badly, Montreal in particular, at this time. One of the reasons why Quebecers wanted to vote yes was, precisely, in order to acquire more autonomy, more means of controlling their economy, in order to be able to live better.
But the situation is still there. The federal government is still interfering in the same areas as the Quebec provincial government, and more often than not in areas of jurisdiction which belong exclusively to the provinces under the Constitution. Quebec is not the one involved in messing with areas of federal jurisdiction. Quebec is trying to extricate itself as best it can, for example in health or education, because it has shared the same fate as the other provinces, federal government slashes to funding. Quebec is doing all it can to get by.
It is doing so within the framework of a provincial state, without all of the means it should have available to it: legislation, programs, money, among other things.
I am not saying that such was the intention of the Reform member who just spoke, since he generally weighs his words and is extremely respectful of others' opinions, so I shall be equally respectful of his, but I do find that somewhat condescending. As for the cost, it is as though we Quebeckers were lucky to be in confederation and looked after by all the other provinces, who are supposedly paying our way.
I heard reactions about EI. It is true. One third of EI benefits go to Quebeckers. But why is this, dear colleague? It is because there is more unemployment, because the economy is in worse shape as things now stand in the Canadian confederation.
What you are telling us is we will be worse off if we leave. That is the message you are giving us, instead of telling us you will do everything you can to help Quebec catch up with British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta. Yes, unlike those provinces, we get equalization payments. But, instead of telling us that, you are condescending.
We are asking for more flexibility, more freedom. We are saying “Give us the means and you will see. We will continue to be economic partners, to have economic relations”. Then you tell us about the north-south direction of trade. It is no different in Quebec.
I do not have all the figures with me. We could discuss this another time, but it is clear that the trend you are seeing in your province is one we are also seeing in Quebec, and that the economy is increasingly along north-south lines. This is an advantage to Quebec, and does not necessarily put British Columbian at a disadvantage with respect to California or Oregon, but we are in the same situation.
Sometimes I want to ask you “If we are costing you so much, why not let us leave? That is all we are asking”.