Maurice Godin

[The Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 10th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, this is undoubtly a serious matter.

I think that where there is a little confusion is that it is not a new product being introduced, but rather an old product being withdrawn. This is totally different from a new product; such a product must be approved and greater caution must be exercised.

I believe this is not the issue. The issue is that Ontario, especially Ontario, with a subsidy of, I think, $70 million, wants to produce ethanol, wants to monopolize the market. I believe this is the real issue. They come from Ontario, I understand that, and they want to immediately take over ethanol production, and the purpose of eliminating MMT is to replace it by ethanol.

[The Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 10th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. There is no doubt in my mind and in the mind of Bloc members that the issue is a very serious one indeed.

I went through all the documents made available to us, either by the health department or others; I mentioned earlier a couple of specific examples, and I will not go over them again.

I will be pleased to provide the member with a copy of this information, if he does not have it already.

Neither the health community nor the car manufacturers can provide us at the present time with any conclusive example, test or study showing that MMT is a hazard. We are told, for instance, that it causes damages to vehicles. Again, as I said earlier, I believe that those who are in the best position to notice that MMT causes damages to cars are the users.

All of us are users. I am one. I have been driving for years, and when I put 150,000 kilometres on my car without any repairs, I have my doubts when car manufacturers tell me that MMT is a problem.

With regard to the health issue, it is more difficult of course to show, to clearly demonstrate which product is harmful and which one is not. I mentioned a slew of cases before the American courts; there again, it proved impossible to show that MMT was a health hazard.

Third, I cannot understand, if it were that much of a health hazard, why Canada, not another country, would allow it to be manufactured, exported, and added to unleaded gasoline. It would not make any sense if it were that harmful. It does not make any sense to tell us it is extremely harmful and then, turn around and allow it to be added to gasoline.

With regard to the poll, I must sincerely tell you that if someone called me at home asking me whether I agreed or not, given how little I know about the production of MMT, I would have to listen to the preamble. And when you tell people in the preamble that it is harmful, they say: "If it is harmful, ban it".

For my part, I agree with the member that this issue is very serious, but the government has not been serious enough for me to vote in favour of the bill.

[The Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 10th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on this bill, which is being read for the third time. We are debating Bill C-29, an Act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances.

The main product affected by this bill is a fuel additive called MMT, which has been in use since 1976 to increase the octane rating in almost all unleaded gasoline. The Canadian General Standards Board has set the maximum quantity at 18 milligrams of manganese per litre.

I am not a chemist, but I think it is appropriate and legitimate for each and every one of us to wonder about the ongoing battle between two large industries, the oil industry and the auto industry, and about the nature and the effects of the products these industries are manufacturing and marketing. Often, catastrophes happen because of a lack of vigilance.

In my riding alone, we are still dealing with the problems of the lagoons in Mercier which were contaminated by stored toxic waste and with the Chateauguay River which was contaminated by chemical fertilizers.

The Bloc Quebecois was in favour of this bill at the second reading stage. This was to allow the government to proceed with a more thorough study of its bill. However, it did not take advantage of this opportunity. It is trying to ban a substance without demonstrating that this is a necessary and reasonable solution to a real problem. We are not convinced at all that it is right. Thus, the Bloc Quebecois is forced to oppose this bill.

We consider that the fundamental reasons of this bill remain obscure. The government and the industry suspect the manganese-based substances damage automobile anti-pollution systems. But nothing proves this beyond a reasonable doubt. Independent tests could not prove that MMT has a negative effect.

Here is what was concluded from a test program carried out by the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, in the United States:

As for the arguments put forward by the American Automobile Manufacturers' Association opposing the conclusions of the EPA to the effect that MMT does not alter "all or part" of the operation of the vehicle exhaust system, the court decided they were of absolutely no value. First, the court indicated that the EAP had established "that the additive used by Ethyl had easily passed the tests required for the study of the most severe requests ever made statistically speaking". Moreover, the court noted that the EAP had examined according to more severe criteria the Ethyl data on the use of the additive in the vehicles produced by the highest technology and had indicated that the APE could not detect any real increase of the emissions.

When we are talking about car problems, I think that all of us who have cars are the best experts. I have a car that reached 50,000 kilometres last week. Yet, after 50,000 kilometres, I get exactly the same distance per litre as when I first bought the car. My previous car, which I changed just 20 months ago, had 150,00 kilometres on it. It never needed major repairs or maintenance, just an oil change every now and then.

I understand perfectly well when automakers tell us that their research is secret, that they cannot say anything to us about it, that it is difficult to demonstrate that MMT is harmful to vehicles. I have proof. We all drive cars and we are all in a position to know if MMT is really harmful to vehicles.

Some say also that this product could be harmful to our health and to the environment. Nothing could be less certain. Until now, neither Environment Canada nor Health Canada has banned MMT. Ethyl Corporation goes even further, saying that MMT helps reduce nitrogen monoxide emissions, one of the causes of urban smog. If MMT was banned, this could result in an increase in the amount of smog in our cities.

Here is what was said about a series of tests conducted by Ethyl Corporation. It was said that, to satisfy the U.S. Clean Air Act requirements for the reintroduction of MMT in unleaded gasolines in the United States, Ethyl Corporation conducted the most extensive series of tests ever undertaken on a gasoline additive. The testing program was designed with the assistance of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. automakers to evaluate and document the effect of MMT performance additive on automobile tailpipe emissions and to determine the implications for air quality if MMT additives were used in the U.S. gasoline.

Four different pairs of cars were driven 75,000 miles with and without MMT to evaluate the effectiveness of MMT in oxygenated fuels (MTBE and ethanol). The tests showed that adding MMT to these fuels reduces nitrogen monoxide levels as well as the toxic and chemical reactivity of unburned hydrocarbons.

The testing carried out by Ethyl Corporation went far beyond the tests conducted by automobile manufacturers in Canada and in the United States, as confirmed by the United States Court of Appeal in its ruling handed down April 14, 1995, ordering the EPA to grant Ethyl an exemption.

The purpose of the bill is to ban manganese-based substances because they are apparently dangerous. Yet, this same bill allows the use of MMT in gasoline containing lead. If it is okay in gasoline containing lead, why is not okay in lead free gasoline?

The situation is not clear. In the United States, the ban on MMT has been the focus of a legal war with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which sought to have it banned completely. The Court of Appeal decided otherwise, which leaves me thinking that it has not yet been shown that MMT is a product dangerous to the health or the environment.

The following is a summary of the ruling handed down by the Court of Appeal ordering the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to issue an notice lifting the ban on MMT.

On April 14, 1995, the U.S. Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia handed down its decision in the case of Ethyl Corporation vs the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in which Ethyl challenged the July 13, 1994 rejection by the EPA of the application by Ethyl to have the ban on MMT in lead free gasoline lifted.

The Court established that the director had breached the conditions clearly set out in section 211 by turning down Ethyl's application to have the ban on MMT for public health reasons lifted. According to the Court, because Congress had given the EPA the mandate to evaluate solely in terms of emissions the implica-

tions of applications to have bans lifted, and because Ethyl had met the prescribed requirements, it felt that the director of the EPA had overstepped his authority by turning down Ethyl's request to have the ban on MMT lifted. In light of these facts, the Court issued a direct order to the EPA to grant Ethyl's request and lift the ban on the corporation's fuel additive.

Here are the very two points they would have us believe, and which are the reasons behind the tabling of this bill, that is, the damage that can be done to automobiles, and the health problems that can arise. In both cases, neither the automobile manufacturers nor certain courts in the United States have come up with conclusive evidence.

We are, however, entitled to wonder why the government is so bent on replacing MMT. The determination of the federal Liberals to ban MMT will cost Quebecers and Canadians several tens of millions of dollars, and possibly over $100 million. Gas consumers are going to pay the bill, largely through increases of probably 1 cent per litre in the price of gas at the pump.

The costs generated by this bill could escalate further. On September 10 this year, the Ethyl Corporation, an American company, filed a notice of intent to submit a complaint, with a view to obtaining compensation totalling $201 million in American currency or $275 million in Canadian currency, pursuant to section 1116 of the North American Free Trade Agreement signed by the Canadian government. The company claims that Bill C-29 violates certain provisions of NAFTA and that as a result, it subsidiary, Ethyl Canada, will suffer losses when the bill comes into force.

In the circumstances, it is surprising to see the government continue this exercise. The issue is divisive, and the debate still goes on, even within the government caucus. It would seem that with this bill, the Canadian government knowingly exposes itself to legal action, which today seems imminent.

Last February, the Minister for International Trade warned the Minister of the Environment in a letter of the possibility of legal action. With Bill C-29, Canada seeks to prohibit imports of MMT, without in any way restricting the domestic production, sale or use of this product. This is further evidence of the bill's lack of purpose.

The government continues this exercise regardless because some major interests are at stake. What is at stake is ethanol. We know that Ontario and western Canada, with a research budget of $70 million from the federal government, want to take over the production of ethanol and in the process replace MMT. The problems this may cause for employment are of minor importance to the federal government. We in Quebec have had a taste of this kind of medicine in the past.

Previously, the federal government caused a real disaster in the petrochemical industry in East Montreal, that benefited western Canada. The Borden line, established in 1963, led to Montreal's losing four of its six refineries in the seventies and eighties. Nearly 8,000 jobs were lost as a result. In fact, I would like to take this opportunity to renew an invitation from Quebec's Minister of Finance, Bernard Landry, to his federal counterpart and the Prime Minister of Canada, asking them to pay regular visits to Montreal east so they will remember the damage done by the federal government and the consequences that are still being felt today.

The same happened in the case of the Auto Pact in 1965. It led to a concentration of the automotive industry in southern Ontario, thus encouraging closer ties with the American automotive industry. I know the federal government will not admit that this industrial raiding is the cause of Quebec's current economic problems, but I can tell you it is the main reason why Quebecers want to see a sovereign Quebec.

Another example of disinformation: 76,000 lost jobs in Quebec in July and August, supposedly because of the political uncertainty. The Prime Minister of Canada made the effort to travel to Beauce this summer to voice his claim that Quebec's economic woes were the result of political uncertainty. Yet, in August, when Quebec created 41,000 jobs, or 50 per cent of the figure for all of Canada, no one in the federal government could be found to visit Quebec and talk to us about political uncertainty.

As for the sad fate of the other provinces, it did not occur to any Liberal MP to link that to political uncertainty. As well as operating from a double standard, the government is moving ahead with no concern for its partners in the federation. Six provinces already, in other words a majority, have made known their opposition to Bill C-29. The provinces have a say on the issue of gasoline additives.

In passing legislation on interprovincial trade, the government is again interfering in areas of provincial jurisdiction. What has become of the decentralizing federalism promised during the referendum campaign? We are still stuck with the never-ending centralization of powers and decisions on the federal level.

Since the Liberals regained power in Ottawa, the last thing in the government's mind is respect for the fundamental law of this country. For example, it systematically refused to comply with Alberta's request to include the subject of MMT on the agenda of the conference of natural resources ministers, which took place in Yellowknife recently.

In short, we are faced with a battle between two major industries; the automotive industry and the petroleum industry do not agree on the use of their products. Who will back off? Who is right? Who will win?

Who will pay? The user, I am sure. But I am equally sure that we would be able to predict the outcome if we were only able to see who has contributed the most to the slush fund.

In conclusion, we on this side of the House are going to vote against Bill C-29. It is more the result of efforts by lobbyists and corporate self-interest than a reflection of real public interest. As far as the content is concerned, nothing leads us to believe that MMT will be banned along with manganese-based products. As far as form is concerned, this is a hastily thrown together effort which is simply adding fuel to the fire.

[Quebec Economy, September 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last week, Saturne Solutions, which has plants in Canada, the United States and Ireland, announced that it would invest $20 million in Montreal's west end.

Mr. Campbell, the company's executive vice-president, spoke highly of Montreal and the province of Quebec, saying that a qualified manpower is available, that salaries are reasonable, that rental and power costs are low, and that free trade is good for Quebec.

At the same time, Montreal's major hotels were full, thanks to the large number of tourists, participants at various conferences and businesspeople from the United States, Europe, Canada and Asia.

In spite of the Canadian government's plan B and the statements made by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to the effect that Quebec's economy must be weakened in order to weaken the nationalist movement, reality shows that investors recognize Quebecers' skills and competitiveness, which are the primary tools of economic success.

[Economic Development, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform this House that an international event took place in the riding of Châteauguay at the end of May. The Société de développement économique de Roussillon organized the first ever international matchmaking session.

People from fifteen countries took part in this event, their objective being to develop and strengthen contacts with businesses

from other countries. They came from the United States, Mexico, Europe, Asia and several Canadian provinces.

I want to congratulate SODER, its industrial commissioner and all the volunteers who contributed to making this event, the first of its kind in Quebec, a success. I salute this outstanding initiative which shows the strength of a Quebec that is open to the world, capable of forming partnerships, particularly with the rest of Canada, and ready to take its place within the international community.

[Oceans Act, June 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in this debate at report stage on Bill C-26, an Act respecting the oceans of Canada. This bill proposes that a tariff be unilaterally established for all services offered by the Coast Guard to the marine industry, including ice breaking and aids to navigation. It gives the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans all the powers he needs to collect the set fees.

The Bloc Quebecois, under the leadership of my colleague, the member for Gaspé, presented a series of 57 amendments in order to make the fees more equitable and to bring the minister to consult the industry and the provinces before implementing or increasing any fees.

During public hearings, all stakeholders condemned the fact that the Canadian Coast Guard was planning to collect fees without any previous consultations. They asked the minister for a moratorium until the results of impact studies on the marine industry and industrial sectors relying on marine transportation are known.

Given the need for governments to rationalize their expenditures one can only agree with the general principle of user fees set on a base rate. However, the fee charged the service user must be proportional to actual use. Otherwise the fee schedule could be a life and death issue for a number of companies. In other words, it would be another policy based on a double standard.

While ships will have to pay more in the St. Lawrence River and in the Great Lakes, the port of Churchill, in Manitoba, would be exempted from paying for some services provided by the Coast Guard. And yet this port uses icebreakers more than any other, and is getting generous support from the Coast Guard. A policy with a double standard.

This policy appears to be just another part of Plan B against Quebec and its economic hub, Montreal. We are forced to wonder if the federal government is trying to starve out the Quebec economy in order to cool its demands for independence. That would, however, indicate a serious lack of knowledge of Quebec. Such an offensive would only reinforce our sovereignist intentions.

Quebec and Montreal cannot help but be negatively affected by this bill.

In support of this statement, I have an April 25 press release from the office of Quebec's ministre d'État à la métropole. The minister is concerned about the economic impact on the Montreal region, and the Canadian Coast Guard's planned fees.

If I may, I would like to make a few points about this. On April 25, Serge Ménard, the Quebec minister responsible for Montreal, along with Mrs. Véra Danyluk, chairperson of the executive committee of the Conseil régional de développement de l'île de Montréal and of the executive committee of the Montreal Urban Community, and Mr. Patrice Simard, President of the Metropolitan Montreal Chamber of Commerce, all people very familiar with this matter, issued a press release. The salient points were as follows: they regretted the lack of an economic impact study; they called for a moratorium on this bill; they were amazed at the lack of any rationalization measures on Coast Guard operations. These are the points they made in their release. There was also condemnation of the hit or miss way the matter was being handled, and they also stated that the burden was assessed at that time at 48 per cent for mid-Canada (the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes), 30 per cent for the east, and 22 per cent for the west.

But the main part of their press release dealt with the importance of its metropolis for Quebec. This is what it said: "Every year, the port of Montreal handles 20 million tons of cargo and 726,000 containers transit through its facilities. This activity generates 14,000 direct and indirect jobs and revenues of $1.2 billion annually. Many Quebec industries depend on this mode of supply. Furthermore, the port of Montreal must support strong competition from American east coast ports. Fifty per cent of the port of Montreal's container traffic comes from industrialized regions of the United States, namely the Midwest, New York state and New England."

"Since 60 per cent of the freight passing through the port of Montreal is shipped by railway to various continental destinations, the profitability of the railway network of the metropolis would also be affected by the tariff project. The Canadian government's proposed fee structure threatens the competitiveness of the port of Montreal on the American market, as well as the transportation and supply needs of Canadian industries", concluded Minister Ménard.

Again, this bill deals with all kinds of things, but brings no solution. Most of all, it annoys everyone. Let us consider motions in Groups Nos. 11, 8 and 9 dealing with recreational crafts and emergency situations. There was an emergency situation in my riding in January, when flood waters affected 1,200 people and cost $3 million in Châteauguay. The problem was mainly due to the fact that the Coast Guard Rovercraft could not be used at the time because it was being repaired.

When we asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in the House, he told us that the rescue services on tributaries of the St. Lawrence and on the other rivers in Canada are under provincial jurisdiction. The Canadian Coast Guard provides ice breaking services on these tributaries at the request of the Quebec minister. He simply said the tributaries were a provincial responsibility.

In this bill, with the intention to regulate all types of boats, whether rowboats or pedal boats, on rivers or streams, I wonder what the Coast Guard has to do in this area.

On the whole, this about summarizes the bill. It affects nothing and everything. In my opinion, this bill is another bill in the style of the government. It intervenes everywhere and resolves absolutely nothing. Therefore, we simply have to vote against this bill.

[Questions On The Order Paper, June 11th, 1996]

Concerning the hovercrafts owned by the Canadian Coast Guard: ( a ) how many are owned; ( b ) where are they based; ( c ) what are their respective descriptions and purposes for which they are used; ( d ) are there plans to acquire new hovercrafts and, if so, for what purposes and according to what schedule; ( e ) what is the estimated value of the present hovercrafts; and ( f ) what is the estimated cost of the planned acquisitions, if any?

[The Constitution, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's question. I believe that in a referendum, the important thing is to make sure that all citizens can express their opinion and exercise their right to vote. If, in a referendum, the majority has spoken in favour of the process, in my mind, the referendum is legitimate.

I would like to point out to my colleague that when Newfoundland joined the Canadian Confederation, it took two referendums, and the results of the second one were only 54 per cent in favour of it. I cannot see why this was good enough to let Newfoundland in and 52 per cent might not be enough when a province within

Canada expresses its opinion by way of a referendum. I believe that 50 per cent plus one vote is good enough when people are called on to express their opinion and do so.

[The Constitution, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in the debate on the referendum held in 1995 on the denominational school system in Newfoundland. On September 5, 1995, the Newfoundland government held a referendum on denominational education in the province, which is protected under term 17 of the union conditions signed by the Canadian government and the Government of Newfoundland in 1949.

Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982, deals with the amending process to the Canadian Constitution. Section 43 allows the federal government to amend the Constitution in relation to any provision that applies to one or more provinces. Such an amendment requires the passing of a resolution by the House of Commons, the Senate and the legislature of the concerned province or provinces.

Three times already since 1982, the Canadian government made constitutional amendments under section 43: first, in 1987, to put the Pentecostal schools of Newfoundland on an equal footing with the seven denominations recognized in the 1949 terms of union; second, in 1993, to guarantee the equal status of French and English in New Brunswick; and third, again in 1993, to facilitate the building of a fixed link between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.

However, this case is an exception. Indeed, this would be the first time a referendum preceded the adoption of a constitutional amendment by the concerned legislature. It must be said that this referendum was not a prerequisite to the proposed constitutional amendment.

Let us recall the objectives of the Newfoundland government. This project is part of an effort to streamline the provincial education system in order to save $17 million.

Newfoundland wants only one education system instead of four, only one school for all denominations. The number of school boards will be reduced from 27 to 10. From now on, the schools will be multiconfessional. By the way, this reform project is in line with the recommendations of the Newfoundland Royal Commission on Education, which where made public in 1992.

In the 1995 referendum, the following question was asked, and I quote: "Do you support revising term 17 in the manner proposed by the government to enable reform of the denominational educational system?" Certain commentators said that the question was not clear, that is was complex and that it favoured the yes side. Such comments remind me of others made about the question of the last referendum in Quebec. Yet, at no time did we hear the federal government condemn the situation.

I know the results of the Newfoundland referendum do not compare with those of the Quebec referendum. First of all, the participation rate reached only 52 per cent of eligible voters when it reached almost 94 per cent in Quebec. That low participation rate in Newfoundland means that 28.75 per cent of the voters were in favour of the change. The 19,941 voter majority in favour of the government plan may seem very thin.

Nevertheless, all these considerations did not prevent the federal government from recognizing the result of this referendum. After the Newfoundland legislature approved, by resolution, the referendum result, Canada's prime minister expressed his intention to go ahead with the requested constitutional amendment.

I acknowledge the recognition of a referendum result by the federal government. Even though the government is very careful not to give that interpretation to its decision, we can give this moment in history all its meaning because it is undoubtedly a precedent that we will be able to use to our advantage in the future.

That precedent is indeed established through the recognition of the result of a referendum in which 52 per cent of eligible voters went to the polls and only 54 per cent of them voted in favour of the proposed constitutional amendment.

The Bloc Quebecois has chosen to support Newfoundland's decision since it was made in accordance with recognized democratic rules, through a referendum in which the majority of voters who took part voted in favour of an amendment.

However, we are concerned about the inadequacy of the education rights of the francophone minority in Newfoundland. The Roman Catholic Church, through the Roman Catholic Bishops of Canada, has also expressed its concern, as well as the Fédération des parents francophones de Terre-Neuve et du Labrador. Therefore, we sincerely hope that the Newfoundland government will seize the opportunity to revise its legislation with regard to education in order to allow francophones in that province to assume total responsibility for the management of their schools.

However, I deplore the fact that premier of Newfoundland, Brian Tobin, is saying high and low that, by supporting this motion, the Bloc Quebecois proved that the rule of law would prevail at all times and that it recognizes the Constitution's legitimacy. Yes, we support the rule of law if it is for the emancipation of peoples, but we reject the rule of law in cases where it would force peoples into subordination.

Besides, Mr. Tobin, our ex-colleague, should be reminded that this matter is about the enforcement of clause 43 in the Constitutional amending formulas according to the specific needs of a province or group of provinces.

Quebec's sovereignty cannot go through that process which is far too restrictive. To recognize the right enshrined in section 43 of the Constitution does not lead to recognizing the political legitimacy of the whole. Let us not forget that the Constitution Act of 1982 has not yet been signed by the Government of Quebec.

But above all, we, in the Bloc Quebecois, claim that it is the political, not the legal, legitimacy of the referendum results that matters. In this case, as in a future referendum in Quebec, politics take precedence over the legal niceties. This is why this House is complying with the result expressed by the people of Newfoundland. Mr. Tobin must understand that our support for this motion is based on the principle that democracy takes precedence over law. What government would dare to go against the freely expressed will of the people?

Summing up, we are faced with a participation rate of 52 per cent, considered sufficient enough by the federal government to recognize the referendum results. We are faced with a federal government which has recognized a referendum question written solely by the Government of Newfoundland. We take note of it and we will draw from it the appropriate conclusions for Quebec.

[Supply, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the hon. member had to say. I can tell you that her speech will not go down in history since she constantly changed subjects and contradicted herself. Let me quote some of her comments. She talked about confusion. If there is someone who is confused in this House, it has to be the Prime Minister. We were given an example earlier. We were told that in 1970 he did not do the same thing as he did in 1985.

One day, he says something, the next he goes back on his word. Let me give you an example. Not so long ago, the Prime Minister said in this House that we would "have to face the music" at the next referendum. At the time, he was sure he was going to win. When you are sure to win, there are rights, no such considerations. He was sure to win, so he could say anything.

The situation has changed since then, with the growing popularity of the sovereignist movement, the results of the last referendum and the things yet to come. After the next referendum, it will be over. Why? Because the federal government has not been able since 1867 to deal with federalism as it should have. Initially, within the federal system, the federal government and the provinces were supposed to share Canada's sovereignty. Little by little however, the federal government got involved in areas of provincial jurisdiction, so much so that we now have a dominating and centralizing federal government.

As for the hon. member's conclusion, we will come back to that. I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are indicating I have only one minute left. I will not be able to say much, but let me sum up what I wanted to say. When we are told that we lost the last referendum, I always answer that federalism did not even exist in 1867.

Everybody agreed more or less with what was put on the table. But in 1980 the results were 44 per cent and in 1995, 49.6 per cent. Quebecers are becoming aware that, within the current system, we are not progressing, we are moving backwards, and at the next referendum, I am convinced we will get between 55 per cent and 60 per cent of the votes.

I just wish people would understand one thing: the only way to put an end to the constitutional debate is for federalists to propose a real program if they have one, but unfortunately, they do not have any.