Marcel Massé

[Referendum Campaign, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I see the opposition is opinionated, not to mention hard of hearing. This is the sort of question that makes it hard to concentrate on the goal of the referendum. The goal of the referendum is as follows: "Do you want to separate from Canada?" This is the question. All the rest are hypothetical questions, which have no bearing.

In the present matter, once again, we must not get carried away with marginal issues. What those of us on the no side want is for Quebecers to remain in the federation, because it is in their interest and in Canadians' interest for them to do so and this is why we are going to vote no.

[Referendum Campaign, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, there has always been a place in my heart, in my soul, in my

intellect, for Quebec as a part of Canada, because it is within Canada that Quebec succeeded in developing the world's best standard of living.

It is within Canada that Quebec and the people of Quebec have succeeded in attaining a level of democracy unequalled anywhere in the world. In what country in the world could there be a leader of the opposition with the right to speak out in the House on what he sees as the future of Canada as an entity?

I am proud to belong to a country with such democratic values. I am proud to belong to a country which values sharing as Canada does. I am proud to belong to a country which redistributes the wealth of advantaged provinces to the least advantaged. And for these reasons, the men and women of Quebec will vote no in the referendum on October 30.

[Referendum Campaign, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, all of the questions by the Official Opposition are along the same lines and our response is that the federation, that Canada, has been very flexible in the past.

It has allowed the province of Quebec, like the other provinces, to acquire a considerable amount of power, even spending power. In the sixties, the federal government had around 60 per cent of the spending power, and now it is the provinces and municipalities which have more than that 60 per cent.

The immigration agreement is one that was signed without any constitutional amendment. It is totally possible to settle the problems that exist without constitutional amendments. And if I may remind the Opposition of one final point, it is they who refused to allow Quebec the decentralization contained in the Charlottetown accord, while the Prime Minister approved it.

[Referendum Campaign, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, what the Quebec Minister of Labour called the agreement does not alter the facts.

The facts are that the federal government offered to transfer to the provinces, including the province of Quebec, all spending on educational institutions in the provinces, including both programs and money. The province of Quebec turned down this offer and in my opinion proved once again they did not want to negotiate any accommodation with the federal government.

We are prepared to make certain accommodations, but they are only interested in separation.

[Referendum Campaign, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as far as duplication is concerned, I think what we must consider here is whether both parties are acting in good faith when they want to negotiate agreements to eliminate overlap.

I may point out that before the Parti Quebecois was elected, we had signed twelve agreements with the province of Quebec to eliminate duplication. We have signed a total of 64 such agreements with the other provinces. However, since the Parti Quebecois was elected on September 12, no agreements concerning duplication have been negotiated.

My point is that the Parti Quebecois has shown it did not have the slightest interest in reducing overlap of any kind because, as Mr. Parizeau pointed out, it is not interested in making federalism work. It wants to get out. That is their goal, that is what they want to do, and that is what they are working for.

[Canadian Economy, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, when it comes to concealing things from Quebecers, I believe that we have said, and have proof of having said, what was going to happen; it is the members of the opposition who have tried to make Quebecers believe that partnership is possible.

It is the members of the opposition who have tried to make people believe that a large number of Quebecers could retain their Canadian passports. And it is the members of the opposition too who are trying to convince people that it will be possible for Quebecers to keep the Canadian dollar.

I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is the members of the opposition who are trying to invent stories, tell stories, fairy tales, to the people of Quebec. I repeat, October 30 is about separation. That is what the leaders of the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois are saying and it is the truth.

[Canadian Economy, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition is clearly attempting to cloud the issue; it is spreading ideas that are totally contrary to reality. On the question of a distinct society, the leader of the no committee and the Prime Minister have stated their position very clearly.

In the case of the right to veto, the no manifesto is clear, and the Prime Minister has also indicated that the entire membership of the no side approves. But the problem we are facing now in the referendum is that the official opposition is attempting to make people believe that the referendum is about something other than separation. That is why we must repeat again and again that what the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois are attempting to do, what their leaders clearly state as their intention, is to separate Quebec from Canada. There is no other truth, and the opposition's questions are aimed at having Quebecers believe something that does not correspond to reality. The issue is separation.

[Referendum Campaign, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, what counts at the moment is finding out which option will enable Quebec to best cope with the problems of the world to come. The Prime Minister of Canada agreed with Charlottetown, which contained a whole series of measures that would have enabled Quebec to acquire certain jurisdictions it wanted. The Parti Quebecois was the one opposed.

The option that will enable Quebec to continue to develop and cope with its problems in the future is the option that implies that Quebec will remain in Canada, where it has developed harmoniously for 128 years and that it will continue its quiet revolution within the constitution. I would point out that the first quiet revolution took place while Quebec came under the constitution.

[Referendum Campaign, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to repeat the last paragraph of the statement again, because the answer is the same.

However, what is important to see is that the official opposition is trying to shift attention away from the real issue of the referendum debate. In the referendum debate, the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois want to separate Quebec from Canada. Their aim is not a partnership, as Mr. Bouchard has finally agreed. Their aim is not a distinct society either. These are empty questions, because Mr. Parizeau has clearly indicated that he could not care less about a distinct society.

Their aim is to separate Quebec from Canada, and they will be responsible for breaking up Canada and causing the ensuing negative effects for Quebec.

[Referendum Campaign, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for the Bloc Quebecois does a poor job, as he often does, unfortunately, of presenting the position of the Prime Minister of Canada.

In his speech in Quebec City last Thursday, the Prime Minister said: "Quebec is a distinct society because of its language, culture and institutions". Those who were opposed to change in recent years were the members of the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois.

We should remember that the Parti Quebecois not only rejected the changes proposed in the Charlottetown Accord but also campaigned to ensure that Quebec would not have the powers and jurisdictions included in Charlottetown.

We must set the record straight. Those who are in favour of continuing change and development in Canada and Quebec and who support the best interests of Quebec are not those who want to break up the country and separate Quebec, with all the negative consequences that would ensue.