Marcel Massé

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the hon. member opposite questions the use of words. I thought that I had read enough editorials written by contemporary French Canadians from Quebec. They are experts in using the pen and the dictionary. They were not caught up in words. They saw the ruse behind the lack of democracy and called it secretive and a show of democracy. Public opinion in Quebec is clearly that Mr. Parizeau's proposal is not democratic; whether it is called sneaky, a sham or secretive, it is still unacceptable.

Second, speaking of federalism and flexible federalism, our country has evolved over 127 years with relatively few changes to the Constitution, but with tremendous changes affecting the jurisdiction of the provinces and the federal government and with continuous adjustments to a changing economic, political and social environment. We can continue to evolve within the present Constitution and we do continue to evolve, making very considerable changes that affect jurisdiction, the way the country is governed and our social programs, provided that we know how to act as partners.

That is true federalism. History shows us that it has worked and provided solutions and given Canada the highest standard of living in the world.

This did not happen by accident or despite the federal system, on the contrary. The reason Canada, including Quebec, is one of the best countries in the world, maybe the best, is its federal structure, which year after year has proven to be good for Canadians, good for Quebecers and adaptable to change. It will help us adjust to the economic, political and social changes now going on in the outside world.

Third, although there are 54 Bloc Quebecois members in this House, let us not forget that we, Liberals, form a government which is perceived across the country as an efficient and honest government. This is evidenced by the fact that, for the last three months, public support in the polls has been maintained at an all-time high of 63 per cent for any government in the 54 years that such polls have been conducted.

In Quebec, while our leader enjoyed relatively low support, somewhere around 20 per cent, during the election campaign, that support has climbed up to 47 per cent in recent weeks, the same as for Lucien Bouchard. This means that Quebecers themselves have a favourable opinion of the way the federal government is working on their behalf.

As for mandate, it is clear that Mr. Parizeau, and he said so himself dozens of times during the election campaign, was not elected with a mandate to achieve sovereignty: He was elected to provide a new government and, really, to create jobs, just like us. The fact that Mr. Parizeau's party received 44 per cent of the popular vote is tantamount to a rejection of sovereignty. It is totally undemocratic to table a draft bill which takes for granted that sovereignty has already been accepted as a goal by Quebecers, since the facts show that the contrary is true.

By introducing its draft bill, the Parizeau government is trying to fool Quebecers; it is using a ploy which is both a scam and an undemocratic measure. This is a view shared by us, by

our government and by the majority of Quebecers and Quebec editorialists. I am convinced that when the time comes for Quebecers to choose between separation and flexible federalism, they will opt for the latter.

In conclusion, the motion tabled by the opposition clearly does not respect the democratic spirit of Canadians, including Quebecers, and it must be rejected.

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the ancestors of the people of Quebec were among the first Europeans to set foot on Canadian soil. They built this country with their daring, ingenuity and courage, and not even a premier will hoodwink them into throwing in the towel and pulling out of Canada. The men and women of Quebec received this country as their heritage and want to pass it on to their children.

The motion before the House is contrary to Canada's historical roots. It would have us, the people of Quebec, forget our origins and our ancestors, and disregard 127 years of shared history which have resulted in raising us to the rank of one of the best countries in the world.

I will thus vote against this motion out of respect for history, and out of duty to my children and to democracy.

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

I think, rather, that federalism is better suited than almost any other political structure to the modern challenges facing societies today.

We all know that the dual phenomenon of market globalization and the economic revolution shaking the world's industrialized countries requires of each country that it develop to the maximum its potential and its wealth-the things that make it distinct-but also that it be able to act effectively on the international scene, and that is what Canada has done.

We rank seventh among the world's industrialized countries and we enjoy the highest standard of living. Over the past 30 years, we have had the second highest economic growth rate among G-7 countries, behind Japan; among OECD countries, we rank seventh.

Over the past 30 years, we have had the highest rate of job creation among OECD countries and the highest increase in employment per capita. Canada's continued exceptional performance is related to the maintenance and increase of the federal system's effective operations. Federalism permits a central government that efficiently manages activities of international scope-trade, stock markets, environmental protection, international communications.

Not only does this sound international management benefit the members of Confederation, but, within the federal system, economies of scale can also be achieved in implementing

national programs and infrastructure that the constituent members alone could not offer their citizens. Just think of the postal service and the armed forces.

I know that my colleagues on the other side of the house do not share this point of view. For them, Confederation is a dead end, and they want out. But the people of Canada and Quebec instinctively know that, in the new world order, influence on the international scene is important. This influence is directly linked to whether or not you play a role in international forums. You have to be where decisions are made and standards are set. Canada is not a superpower, but it is the world's eighth largest exporter and importer. We are thus doubly entitled to membership in the Group of Seven. No province or regional group could aspire to membership in this forum. I repeat, Mr. Speaker: None. But together, as part of Confederation, they are all members.

Nothing will be said about these benefits of federalism in the consultation that the Government of Quebec wishes to undertake with its friends. Likewise, nothing will be said about the fact that, within Canada, Quebec is part of a Pacific Rim country.

To quote the Prime Minister of Canada, "membership has its privileges". When you consider the dazzling growth of Asian economies, which are very appropriately called the dragons of the East, it is understandable that the separatists do not dare to mention this. The only way they could do so would be to ask Quebecers if they want to give up another benefit of Canada.

It is true that the separatist ministers have already waived these benefits in their surrealistic description of Canada. The Quebec Minister for Restructuring has thus neglected-intentionally or unintentionally-to include the equalization payments that Canada makes to Quebec: $3.7 billion in 1993 and about $3.92 billion in 1994-95.

Quebecers' attachment to Canada is not just a matter of benefits and dollars and cents. The people of Quebec built this country. They shaped it and continue to do so. This country is French to the depths of its heart and soul. From sea to sea, French Canadians know that they can deal with their federal government in their own language.

Bilingualism is enshrined in this country's very Constitution, which can be amended only with the consent of all legislative assemblies. This, in effect, gives Quebec's National Assembly a veto. In the same way, the Canadian Constitution guarantees Quebec three of the nine judgeships on the Supreme Court. No other province has such guarantees. When you consider the increasing impact of this court's decisions, you realize that the soul of Quebec will continue to influence and define Canada as a country for a long time to come.

I confess that listening to the current Premier of Quebec makes me smile sometimes. Not often, but sometimes.

I could not help noting how he went about demonstrating Quebec's know-how in his speeches to the Chamber of Commerce of Montreal and the Canadian Club in Toronto, and even his address this week. No one has ever doubted this know-how. But when I hear him mention Céline Dion, Denys Arcand, the Cirque du Soleil, Bombardier, Lavalin and a host of others, I cannot help telling myself that all of them have succeeded within Canada, some of them with direct or indirect assistance from the federal government.

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

But it would be more useful to ask ourselves why Quebec's separatist government is so intent on using trickery. The answer is simple. If it played fair and square, if it "put everything on the table", as the Quebec premier has said time and time again, if it went to the people and asked them to decide once and for all, I am convinced that the great majority of Quebecers would opt for Canada.

And this is understandable. Canada is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, countries in the world. Do not take my word for it, just ask the United Nations. I know that certain words are taboo for separatists. Federalism is one. But sooner or later, the connection will have to be made between this political structure and the quality of life we enjoy. For is it pure chance that the four oldest federations in the world-the United States, Switzerland, Australia and Canada-are also among the world's richest countries?

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

And let me immediately assure the member that nothing will convince my government to recognize the legitimacy of the process initiated by the PQ government.

The member will agree that many of us have serious problems with the process announced by the PQ government. Let me begin with the leader of the Official Opposition in Quebec City, who aptly labelled it a "misuse of democracy". And for good reason. The Quebec government is asking its citizens to help draw up a constitution for a separate Quebec before they have even had their say on the issue of separation.

I understand why the Premier of Quebec is taking this route. If he asked his fellow citizens the real question, in fact the only legitimate question, "do you want to separate from Canada, yes or no?"the answer would be no. From where he sits, the best approach is to use cunning, and if in the process he flouts democratic principles, so what.

As stated by the member from Sherbrooke, the Premier of Quebec knows his French well. According to the Petit Robert , being cunning means acting slyly to deceive someone for the purpose of doing him harm.

The Quebec media have been no kinder in their assessment of the PQ strategy. An editorial in Le Soleil was headlined The anesthetization of a people'' and spoke of themisuse of our parliamentary institutions and the misappropriation of public funds for partisan purposes''.

According to La Presse , what is unacceptable is that this bill will be passed by the National Assembly before being put to the people via a referendum. Things are being done in the wrong order''. The journalist concluded that we are witnessing amockery of democracy''.

In today's Le Journal de Montréal , Michel Auger pointed out: Although the majority of Quebecers still wonder why they should become independent, their government says the only thing left to decide is how it should be done''. He went on to say:In fact, it is quite clear that according to their terms of reference, these commissions would be able to consider one option only: the one chosen by the government''.

And in concluding: "Before asking Quebecers to draft the declaration of sovereignty, the government should consider those who have yet to be convinced of the need for sovereignty".

And again in today's Le Soleil , Gilbert Lavoie commented: Although the strategy may seem clever to those who devised it, its weakness is that it underestimates the political savvy of Quebecers which has been borne out on several occasions''. He went on to say:The government's initiative will disappoint Quebecers, because the Pequistes have preferred strategy over substance''. And in concluding: ``The trap is so obvious that one would have to be very myopic indeed not to see it''.

Even in Le Devoir, under the headline "The stratagem is too obvious", Pierre O'Neill started his article by pointing out that: "Through academic eyes, the consultation process started by Premier Parizeau is viewed with some scepticism. Political scientist Vincent Lemieux feels that the Pequiste initiative lacks legitimacy. `I think the stratagem is too obvious', commented the Laval University professor yesterday, the man to whom Jean-François Lisée, political adviser to the Premier, referred in 1993 as the Galileo of Quebec politics".

In Wednesday's La Presse , Alain Dubuc comments: ``This pretence of democracy is disturbing. It excludes, for all practical purposes, those who are opposed to sovereignty and turns these commissions into clubs for friends of the PQ, which may attract the attention of the media for a while, at public expense, and maintain temporary the illusion of almost unanimous support for the yes side. This whole strategy, which the Premier himself referred to as cunning, has its own limitations. Manipulation can backfire. Referendums, both here and elsewhere, have shown that if there is anything citizens cannot abide, it is manipulation by politicians''.

Michel David, also in Wednesday's Le Soleil , pointed out: When Mr. Parizeau used the word stratagem two weeks ago, Daniel Johnson immediately concluded it was a scam to fool Quebecers''. Mr. David went on to say:In fact, they pulled a fast one: members of the Premier's staff confided yesterday that the text of the draft bill on sovereignty had been ready since last March. Within the PQ, members had been polled on each section. Each individual section was supported by the majority. In other words, Mr. Parizeau knew well before the election campaign what question he would ask, once he was elected, but he said nothing to the voters. Why, if the case is as clear as he says it is? What about the relationship of trust?''

I could go on for several minutes, quoting people from coast to coast. No one is being taken in by the Quebec Premier's chicanery. Not the media, not the other provincial premiers, not those of us here in Ottawa, not the Quebec Liberal Party and, unfortunately, to the great dismay of our friends opposite, not the citizens of Quebec.

[Supply, December 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my reply will come as no surprise to the opposition member. It is no.

[Collège Militaire Royal De Saint-Jean, December 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to take this question seriously, since we have on the table an offer dated July 19 that was signed by the Government of Quebec, and since September 12, the Government of Quebec has refused to budge. We have a situation where for months the Government of Quebec has undermined the financial security of the teachers at Saint-Jean and has prevented the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean from remaining open. The uncertain economic climate in the Saint-Jean area is being caused by the PQ government which, so far, has refused to implement an agreement that was duly signed.

[Collège Militaire Royal De Saint-Jean, December 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we are now considering the proposals made by Minister Beaudoin and Mayor Smereka.

I think we should remember that a federal proposal was tabled, and signed and accepted by the Government of Quebec, a proposal in which the federal government offered $25 million over five years to cover the transition period.

[Referendum On Quebec Sovereignty, December 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my answer.

The federal government does not want to have a referendum in Quebec. We expect the referendum that is going to be held in Quebec will be a fair referendum that will ask the question clearly. That question is: Do Quebecers want to separate or do they want to stay in Canada?

[Referendum On Quebec Sovereignty, December 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, although the federal government does not want to hold a referendum in Quebec, the referendum question must be a clear and honest question whose results will be meaningful. In our opinion, there are only two options: flexible federalism and separation. We expect the referendum to ask that question.