Madam Speaker, first of all, I wish to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie.
When I read the title of this motion, I was worried, and even more so when I learned that it came from the NDP. However, when I read the motion in its entirety, I no longer knew what to think, except that it was very clear that this plan had absolutely nothing to do with Quebec.
I understand that it is a plan to save Canada, based on the assumption that Canadians expect Quebec to leave, and we are anxious to do so. However, this plan raises questions. Canada—and I could speak about it as would a professor speaking about a neighbouring country—is still a confederation which is, in fact, a federation of ten provinces.
These provinces have powers, jurisdictions, and I would even go so far as to say that these provinces—which could be called something else in a country as large as Canada—are essential to the attainment of generous objectives, which are expressed here.
These objectives are generous, but since no account is taken of the need to involve the organization in the provinces, most of these generous ideas remain, in my view, unrealistic. I am not saying that a real plan would not be needed, and perhaps the party will take steps to come up with one following this debate.
I will begin, however, by reading an article which appeared in La Presse on April 4, 1962. It was written by a young journalist by the name of Guy Lamarche. It describes an interview with T.C. Douglas and is entitled “A federal party should not be afraid to affirm Canadian bi-nationalism”. Here is how T.C. Douglas explained, in 1962, what he would do so that there would be no more separatists in Quebec.
I refer you to our program, replied Mr. Douglas. Our social and economic planning will be decentralized and each level of government will be able to act within its jurisdiction. When a problem that is national in scope arises, the federal government will call the provinces together, and they will reach an agreement themselves.
The journalist went on to say:
Mr. Douglas used an example that was in the news: the national hydro-electric system. There was no doubt in his mind that Canada needed one. In this case, the federal government should call the provinces together, ask them to conclude an agreement, and provide the money necessary for its implementation: nothing more.
It is worth noting that 1962 is the period during which hydro-electricity was nationalized in Quebec.
We know Quebec paid for its own hydroelectric development, whereas development of nuclear power in the rest of Canada was done with sizeable federal subsidies.
I read this because the rest of the plan is centralist. It is based on the fact that the source must be here, with the fedreal government and the federal public service.
I would like to speak of Quebec. Taking point 5, on the eradication of child poverty, I would refer to what has been done in Quebec, starting back when René Lévesque was a federalist. He said, “A plan to eradicate poverty must be totally made in Quebec by Quebecers, because they will ensure that measures are integrated with each other, and can be effective”.
I will read a little further on if I may, the conclusion of the text, which we know he wrote himself at the federal-provincial conference on poverty in early 1966.
He said:
It has become imperative to establish a genuine economic and social policy. This policy should be integrated, flexible in its mechanisms and include a social security system centred on the family and based on the right to assistance on the basis of need.
For the sake of efficiency and on constitutional grounds, the Quebec government alone can and should, within its own territory, design and implement such a policy. Quebec cannot not let the Government of Canada assume this responsibility. Quebec does not, however, exclude interprovincial co-operation and mutual consultation.
Mr. Lévesque went on to say:
The social and economic development policy we have formulated will create an integrated social policy, regional development policy, manpower policy, health policy, housing policy and job training policy. not all these policies have been described in the present document, but we feel it is important to indicate in these conclusions that they are all among the instruments we plan to use in order to attain our objectives.
Finally, he said:
The general policy, while we do not necessarily condemn it, does not necessarily correspond, in terms of its spirit and terms of application, to one the Government of Canada might opt for. The people of Quebec will, however, enjoy at least as many if not more benefits than other Canadians.
I just got back from a meeting held here with parliamentarians from the Council of Europe. The issues discussed included children, poverty and early childhood. In the package relating to this conference and prepared for the Canadian parliament, there is a document from the Library of Parliament in which Quebec is mentioned as showing leadership in this area. The document refers, among other things, to the $5 daycare policy.
At the very end, a participant representing civil society talked about the $5 daycare and quoted me as having said that, since 1984—he could have said 1962—Quebec has had an integrated policy that includes this and that element. Quebec implemented that policy. It found the economic means to implement that policy. The participant also indicated that this is what the rest of Canada needs.
If I had said that, I would not have convinced my fellow European parliamentarians nearly as much. Nevertheless, I was very pleased that this person said that.
I am using that example because, to save Canada, which is Quebec's neighbour, it is clear that this model is based on people taking charge, people, community groups and municipalities that cannot be funded exclusively by Ottawa. There must be an integrated plan.
In Canada, this may be integrated right across the country, but socially and economically integrated policies are necessary; otherwise, we will not be getting anywhere.