Mr. Speaker, today I rise to give my most important speech to date of this 35th Parliament. It reflects my personal point of view, not as a representative of any race or of any province, but as a proud immigrant Canadian citizen. It is not directed to the politicians in the House but rather to the people of Canada from sea to sea to sea, the voters who entrust us to work in their best interests.
I will endeavour to treat today's motion in the following way. First I will make my position on Quebec separation quite clear and unequivocal. Second, I will discuss some of the consequences of Quebec separation and then re-emphasize a new vision of Canada as an alternative to separation as earlier presented by our leader, the member for Calgary Southwest.
I humbly realize my opinions and comments on this very important topic may not make a difference in the larger picture. Nevertheless I believe all politicians and Canadians who want Quebecers to remain in Canada need to reinforce their convictions, attack the myths, present the reality and the real face of this great country.
I want Quebec in as I want Alberta in: as part of the great Canadian federation that has served us all so well. It does not make any sense whatsoever to break up after 127 years, especially in a period of high deficits and debt. Together all parts of Canada are stronger. The proof of that is our enviable record of war participation, political stability, prosperity and freedom. If it is worth dying for, it is worth debating for.
To be unable to work together as Canadians to reach an accommodation quite frankly is unthinkable to me. To continue this uncertainty is already straining our economic, social and cultural diversity and the world is watching.
I respect the convention that federal politicians should stay out of provincial elections. I respect the rights of Quebecers to send the Bloc Quebecois to Ottawa. I respect their right to a referendum on separation, but because this affects me directly I feel I have the right to speak out on this issue.
I respect the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and the many members I have worked with on committees and recently on the basketball court, but I truly regret the course they have chosen. The leader of the Bloc Quebecois is intelligent, charismatic and experienced in trying to get the best deal for Quebec that he can. However I fundamentally disagree and stand against the method he has chosen: separatism over a new federalism.
The reality of the consequences of Quebec's separation would in many ways be very costly for all Canadians. I have evaluated this as a businessman with 25 years of experience. To assume entitlement to all existing benefits of the federation by separating is not only dangerous but very naive.
We have no buy-sell agreement in place to handle separation, no terms of reference that were agreed to while we were friendly partners to facilitate the secession of a province. Neither the British North America Act nor the Constitution Act, 1982, defines an orderly breakup of our great country.
In the face of this fact the reality is that all the many views put forth by the separatist forces in the absence of precedent are in many cases inaccurate projections about the way things will be in a sovereign and separate Quebec. All Canadians should make an honest assessment of the pending separation issue and ask themselves if the risk of separation leads to a more predictable future as compared to working together to create a new and better federalism.
Let me raise a few of the questions about separation that are on the minds of Canadians. Who will negotiate this separation? Will we need a federal election to decide? While we fight over the right to break up the country our fragile economy will suffer. Is this what we really want? Our deficit and debt are so high, how can a new nation start off with such a high debt load and what share will it take? What about the value of the dollar and Canadian interest rates? Will Quebec pay? Will creditors refinance two separate entities so deeply indebted? I, for one, fret over making this assumption. The currency issue places Que-
becers in an inferior colonial status at the mercy of Canadian monetary policy. Is this acceptable to the Quebecois?
Have Quebecers evaluated the impact of separation on subsidized sectors of their economy, like textiles, furniture and the protected status of the dairy industry? Will the aerospace industry continue to grow without support from the rest of Canada?
If negotiations become emotional and hostile, what favourable and satisfactory settlement can be achieved in areas like defence, dual citizenship, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the free trade agreement, control over the St. Lawrence River and the boundary in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, all of which require consent of Canada?
What about territory and territorial rights for aboriginals? Can they remain with Canada, or will the majority in Quebec have the right to decide the future for aboriginal peoples?
I believe Canada will accept separatism if it is the result of a clearly worded referendum on the issue and reflects the will of the majority of Quebecers, but who ever said outside Quebec that sovereignty association was a negotiable option? If the referendum question is sovereignty and the vote is yes, how do we negotiate with the other party that says that option was never on the table, only separation and not sovereignty?
In the light of these questions are we not better off working together in kickstarting our economy, by resolving the unity issue once and for all? For those Canadians who may not think that is possible, let me quote one of the Fathers of Confederation, the Hon. Thomas D'Arcy McGee, who faced the same crisis in the 1860s and like me wanted to make Canada the happiest of homes.
"The policy of linking together all our people in one solid mass and making up for the comparative paucity of our numbers by the repeating and detonating moral influence of our unity, the policy of linking order to order, of smoothing down the sharp and wounding edges of hostile prejudices, the policy of making all feel an interest in this country and each man in the character of each section of the community and in each other, each for all and all for each-this policy will never grow old, never will lose its lustre".
Bloc Quebecois members claim that federalism has not, cannot and will not work. They point to the failures of the Constitution Act, Meech Lake and the Charlottetown accord as sufficient proof. While I agree these constitutional efforts represent failure, they failed everyone and not just Quebecers because the wrong people were negotiating the right things the wrong way: top down.
This 35th Parliament has the right people in the right place to negotiate the right way with the new vision of federalism as presented by the leader of the Reform Party together with the Prime Minister and his party who also believe in keeping this great country together.
The leader of the Bloc Quebecois has a tremendous opportunity to apply his great skills in resolving the weaknesses of the current dying federalism, protecting the interests of Quebecers and making all Canada a stronger and richer nation. Madam Speaker, through you to the people of Quebec, demand this of him.
By putting Canada first, a Canada which includes Quebec, we all benefit from a bilingual nation applying the original recommendations of the Laurendeau-Dunton bilingualism and biculturalism report, not the current expensive second language mess created by the technocrats which the majority of all Canadians in and outside Quebec say is not working.
By revisiting and applying the spirit of the British North America Act, restoring to provinces the complete power they should have over resources, education, language and culture, by acting as a true Canadian official opposition party, the Bloc Quebecois together with the Reform Party can more effectively force this indignant, stubborn and weak government to address the real problems of this great country. Together we could force the federal government out of areas of provincial jurisdiction where it has no business being involved.
Together we could convince the government that Canada has a spending problem, not a revenue problem, and that the culprit is the deficit and the debt, not Quebec separation. Let us resolve the deficit and debt problem which is keeping us in this recession, causing high unemployment and threatening our social programs. Let us attack the enormous debt load together with constructive, creative reductions in spending which will restore real confidence in the financial community.
Let us not add to the uncertainty of our quality of life by separating. We need a new balanced democratic federation of provinces with a healthy economic development program sensitive to the environment and a Constitution that recognizes the equality and uniqueness of all its citizens and provinces and that includes Quebec.
In conclusion I will once again use the words of the Hon. Thomas D'Arcy McGee speaking in 1860, a believer in Canada who described the reality that still holds true today and reflects my personal philosophy: "I look to the future of my adopted country with hope, though not without anxiety. I see it quartered into many communities, each disposing of its internal affairs, but all bound together by free institutions, free dialogue and free commerce. I see a generation of-"
