Jean Landry

[Agriculture, May 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this place today to set the record straight about the agricultural industry.

The government introduced a motion in which it boasts about its proactive work in the agriculture sector. To listen to it all is well with the world. But then that is often the case when the opposition ventures constructive criticism.

I can tell you that my riding is mainly rural. So, I have excellent feelers in that sector. I may surprise you by saying that the federal government is indeed pro-active in the agri-food sector, in Western provinces. You can certainly count on the government to be active in Western Canada!

I will give you supporting figures in a moment. Before I do however, I want the government to understand that it is not enough to be pro-active or claim to be; you must also know where you are going and, more importantly, if you are on the right track.

Quebec has a real plan for the future of the agri-food sector. The agricultural community knows what it wants and has taken the necessary steps to achieve its goals.

When the government decided to impose its policy, it did not stop to think for one second that this may not be consistent with the priorities and development targets set by the community concerned. Unlike the government, this community takes a concerted approach.

Here are a few examples. In February 1991, Quebecers involved in regional development and in the agri-food sector met in Montreal, where it was decided that the community had to take its future in its own hands.

Other objectives developed during this summit conference of the rural community included: respect and promotion of regional and local values; joint action by regional and local partners; diversification of the regional economic base; protection and regeneration of resources; restructuring of the political power from the base up, an objective we did not hear the people across the floor mention.

This led to the creation of advisory committees, which are incidentally very active in my riding.

These committees raised consensus on the general approaches to be favoured in promoting the development of the Quebec agri-food industry at the Trois-Rivières summit in June 1992. Some recommendations to come out of it are: recognize, value and support the training of human resources; ensure the permanence, development and growth of agri-food companies; readjust current income security programs based on production costs; develop income security programs compatible with international trade rules; provide financing for agricultural enterprises and their transfer without massive debt; consider support for non-viable companies that could be reoriented within the sector and help people leaving farming.

We see that the farm community has taken action to control decision making in fields of concern to it, but the government must avoid making life difficult for them. Our party has also dealt with the situation.

Agricultural companies and processing plants must be encouraged to be self-sufficient by helping them adjust to new market requirements, to win new markets and to increase their competitiveness by lowering their production costs. The government should note this. We could finally break the vicious circle of dependence on subsidies.

But be careful! This does not mean blindly cutting budgets. The transition will take some time. We want this transition to go smoothly, but this is unlikely since the government signed the GATT agreement.

The agri-food sector competes directly with foreign competitors now that the Canadian government has thrown farm programs and practices into upheaval.

Let us talk about GATT. Does the government think it acted proactively when it signed the GATT agreement on November 15? This government did not even ensure a settlement of the trade disputes that could arise with the Americans. The Americans, who still seem to have the upper hand at their own game-and you know that baseball is their national sport-managed to lead Canada to the negotiating table on all agricultural issues.

Are all negotiations in good faith not conducted on a case-by-case basis? Unfortunately, our government tried to play cautiously and defensively. Yet our national sport is hockey. A long

time ago, experts realized that offence is the best defence. The Montreal Canadiens could only count on Patrick Roy this year and you saw where it got them.

Why not denounce the barriers the Americans put up against our products? Why not denounce the numerous measures taken to subsidize U.S. agricultural products? Why not condemn the hypocrisy of the Americans who accuse Canada of practices they themselves have used for a long time? The government may call this being proactive, but where I come from we refer to it as inertia.

Meanwhile, the Americans are having fun at our expense. The GATT and NAFTA agreements did not resolve all Canada-U.S. trade disputes. Far from it. The Americans even decided that quotas will be imposed on durum wheat exports effective July 1. This date would be quite a coincidence, if negotiations fail! In return, Canada threatens to retaliate against certain American products if the U.S. carries out its threat of imposing quotas.

A trade war is looming. The Bloc Quebecois is asking the government not to yield to American pressure, and not to sign a bad agreement for Quebec and Canadian farmers for the sole purpose of ending the conflict.

Another indication of the Canadian government's apathy in these negotiations with Americans is its willingness to negotiate a ceiling on Canadian exports of durum wheat to the United States. Canada is not guilty of any illegal trade practice in this case; yet, it is prepared to penalize itself. Americans are the sole responsible of their problems, since they subsidize their durum wheat exports. You can understand American producers who prefer to export their production. Canada is only satisfying a need. It is a simple market law which Americans do not respect because it is detrimental to them. Oh, inertia.

In the context of our party's position regarding the future of this most important industry, we feel that farmers must be considered as entrepreneurs and that regional entrepreneurship must be supported; also, agricultural development policies must be distinguished from regional development policies; finally, the government must promote an awareness by farmers themselves of the importance of the environment to promote agriculture.

The government does nothing in its negotiations with Americans, and it does nothing inside our borders either. I did say at the beginning of my remarks that the government can have a proactive approach. But I also added that it was mostly proactive in Western Canada. The federal government subsidizes Western crop diversification, and so much the better for that region. However, this is done to the detriment of Quebec. We say: Whoa, there! Here are some facts: Between 1981 and 1991, cultivated acreage for potatoes increased by 30 per cent in Western Canada, by 9 per cent in the maritimes, and by a mere two per cent in Quebec.

During the same period, beef production in the West increased by 4 per cent while it fell by 13 per cent in Quebec. In pork production, an area which Quebec has been developing for some years, the situation is critical. I know whereof I speak, because there are processing plants in my riding.

Again during the period from 1981 to 1991, the swine population in Quebec fell by 16 per cent and increased by 39 per cent in Western Canada. In the production of lamb, Quebec is also at a disadvantage compared to the West. While Quebec's lamb population increased by only 8% between 1981 and 1991, that of the West grew by 33 per cent. Even in hothouse crops, despite its energy advantages and its proximity to markets, Quebec lagged behind the West.

During this same period of 1981 to 1991, the area devoted to hothouse crops increased by 67 per cent in the West, compared to an increase of only 46 per cent in Quebec.

The proactiveness of the federal government here takes the form of unfair competition at the expense of Quebec producers because of subsidies to Western farmers. It is as simple as that. If only these subsidies made sense, but they do not. As in many areas, the government intervenes without consultation or consults the wrong people.

Departments should assess the results of their actions. In agriculture, the Department is involved in the analysis, organization and dissemination of information on agri-food markets. Very well, but, here as in other areas, the Auditor General notes serious shortcomings. He found that the information gathered did not necessarily meet the users' needs. Another example of public money being wasted, with decisions being made in ivory towers, when it might be easier to check firsthand what the clients' true needs are.

The government always takes heavyhanded action, when it should concentrate on avoiding duplication with provincial initiatives. Quebec has understood this, as industry and government have been working together for a long time to implement strategies to conquer new markets. It is not only Quebeckers who have understood this.

At the Sixth Outlook Conference on the future of the agri-food sector, which took place in Quebec City on March 9, Ms. Cooper, project co-ordinator at the Guelph Food Technology Center, made this point: "In the fight between the federal government and the provincial governments to decide who is going to lead the industry, the governments developed programs that overlap or conflict with others. This is a waste of public money and increases the debt".

Ms. Cooper, whose remarks were published in the journal La terre de chez nous , maintains that an effective government

encourages companies to become more competitive. Governments should be more responsible and more effective in their actions.

She also stated that governments should ensure more and more transparency and relevance with respect to money invested.

Many agricultural producers in Quebec are sovereigntists. I understand them. In a few minutes, I have shown how the federal government is ineffective for them, and they could go on at length about this subject. What is known is that the number one solution for our agricultural producers is to decentralize decision-making mechanisms and to provide effective budgets. Is the government willing to take this approach?

[Intergovernmental Affairs, May 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. The October 26, 1992 referendum was held in Quebec according to the Quebec legislation on referendums and paid for solely by the Quebec government. However, through its taxes, Quebec paid for part of the federal government's expenses, and the previous government had promised to reimburse this sum which amounts to $26 million.

My question is this: In all fairness for Quebec, has the minister decided to grant this request which has been presented several times to the federal government, and more precisely in this House, on January 28 last?

[Canada's Credit Rating, April 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the president of Moody's, a New York bond rating agency, stated the following: "The Quebec election is not a factor to be analyzed in reviewing Canada's credit rating". The president of Moody's acknowledged that Canada's credit rating was being closely monitored because of the country's financial situation and high debt levels. The outcome of the current review could prove costly in terms of high interest rates.

In fact, since the Liberal government brought down its first budget, the gap between Canadian and American interest rates has widened considerably. The markets are reacting this way because foreign investors are worried about the lack of concrete deficit reduction measures in the first Liberal budget.

These comments from the president of Moody's confirm that the recent volatility of the market is due to the sorry state of public finances, not to the political situation in Canada.

[Employment Forum, April 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the findings of a study conducted by the employment forum and made public yesterday show that the very high rate of unemployment cost the Quebec economy $30 billion and the Canadian economy $109 billion last year.

This situation cannot go on any longer. The members of this forum unanimously reaffirmed the consensus in Quebec: one solution for the problem of unemployment is to give Quebec full and complete responsibility for labour force training. This solution is a necessity, not a whim.

In the daily Le Devoir , Jean-Robert Sansfaçon wrote: ``If Jean Chrétien's Liberals stubbornly ignore this, it means that they have learned nothing about the dynamics of Quebec society. Sooner or later this error will turn against them.''

[Supply, April 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question. How do members of the Reform Party explain the economic decline of francophones outside Quebec and what policy do they propose to reduce the gap?

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994, April 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak on Bill C-18, concerning the revision of the electoral map. I must tell you that, when I heard that the Liberal Party had decided to introduce this bill, there was no doubt in my mind that they could count on my support.

The first thing I wondered about was those people who had decided to draw lines any old way, in their offices, without knowing what they were doing. When they got to my riding of Lotbinière, a beautiful riding along the St. Lawrence River up to the Pierre Laporte Bridge, in Quebec City, or just about, let me tell you that what they had in mind, what they wanted to do to my riding was complete nonsense. It made no sense in practical, professional, political, social or cultural terms.

I can tell you this: many of my constituents called to ask me: "Mr. Landry, what is going to happen to Lotbinière? Will you, as a Bloc Quebecois member from Quebec, come to our defence or settle for come what may?" At that time, to reassure my constituents, I told them in a conference and the newspapers: "Look, I am a Quebecer. I am in Ottawa and I intend to stand up for the riding of Lotbinière at the federal level, as well as the interests of Quebec and Canada. That is my duty, and as long as I will be sitting in the federal Parliament, this will remain my vision of the riding of Lotbinière at the federal level."

But there is more to it. From then on, I looked at the basic criteria used by the commission. I was told: "Look, we have to standardize all this as much as possible to make ridings match the RCMs." I was told that the population pool also had to be taken into consideration. I must say that, in my riding of Lotbinière, we met all the requirements. We had the required population and regional county municipalities. What the revisal office was planning to do was basically to tear apart this most beautiful riding of mine because there is only one major town in my riding, namely Victoriaville-Arthabaska.

Let me tell you what was going to happen to Victoriaville-Arthabaska. In their office here in Ottawa, officials decided to draw a line right across here and chop off Victoriaville-Arthabaska, the biggest town of the riding, and tack it onto the riding of Richmond-Wolfe. Which meant I would find myself with no large town in the riding of Lotbinière. That is nonsense. I must also tell you this because it is very important. Not only were they taking away a town, but there were ties involved, the ties between the people of that town and the rest of the population of the riding. Victoriaville-Arthabaska is the queen city of the area which includes Princeville, Daveluyville and Warwick, and it was shunted off towards Sherbrooke, to be attached to Richmond-Wolfe.

Such a drawing of electoral boundaries leaves me speechless. To me, and to the whole riding of Lotbinière, it did not make sense.

If such electoral boundaries had been implemented, the riding of Lotbinière would have been wiped off the federal electoral map in a few years.

If that was the intent, it was a mistake. I am glad to see that our colleagues from the other side adopted the same position as we did because it is sad to see so much money being wasted. Some would say that money is not the only thing, but we are going through difficult times and we need money.

Instead of going ahead with the new boundaries suggested, I would rather see the money used to create jobs and train workers. Then, I would find that we put the money to good use. We must not forget that we are talking about not a few hundred thousand dollars, but millions. And you know that millions can go a long way.

Of course I do not accept the Reform Party's amendment at all. I am glad that we took a position that will soon be adopted, confirming the present boundaries of the riding of Lotbinière. In four years from now, if the Bloc Quebecois is not here any more, I will at least be able to say with pride that as the member for the federal riding of Lotbinière, I took a stand when I had to. That is what is the most important for me and my constituents. In four years from now, we will see whether we have to change our position.

In my riding, social and cultural life is centred on Victoriaville and Arthabaska. It is all there.

I am glad that there has been a change in direction because I felt we were heading the wrong way. My constituents are quite pleased also because I told them last week that we would probably not have to appear before the commission. I certainly hope this bill will be passed soon and that all consultations will be called off.

Mr. Speaker, when my colleagues across the way or my colleagues on this side come up with good ideas on electoral boundaries readjustment, I can look at them with an open mind. I like to be able to stand back to get a better understanding before I make a decision with this team.

I like this House and, for the time being, I am here to defend the interests of both Quebec and Canada. At this very moment, I do not talk as a separatist as such. I am here to look out for the interests of Quebec and Canada, and my position on the electoral boundaries readjustment is quite clear.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express to this House my support for the amendment moved on March 25 by my colleague, the hon. member for Mercier, respecting Bill C-17, an Act to amend certain statutes to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 22, 1994.

How can we endorse these amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act? How could we support this government, even for one minute? Do you think we were elected to help the government swap its promise of jobs, jobs, jobs for bang, bang, bang? That is the sound of unemployment insurance reform crashing down on the heads of the unemployed if we allow the government to come down hard on them, because that it what it intends to do, Mr. Speaker.

In moving her amendment, my colleague gave two reasons why this House should refuse to proceed with the second reading of this bill. I fully agree with them. How will the proposed amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act redress the imbalance between have and have-not regions? Where are the measures to reduce youth unemployment? How does the government explain its pursuit of a conservative policy and the finance minister's refusal to cancel this year's increase in unemployment insurance premiums?

These are all questions that I have been hearing from my constituents and that are being asked across Canada. Is the government deaf? I hope that it is not and that it will take these concerns into account. The people deserve more than recycled conservative policy.

There is nothing in this bill that leads us to expect that the inequities between the provinces will be eliminated. Who will be affected by the amendments to the unemployment insurance system? Quebec and the Maritimes. Increasing the number of weeks needed to qualify for benefits affects mainly the Maritime provinces and Quebec. In the regions hardest hit by unemployment, people will have to work two weeks more to obtain benefits, that is in regions where unemployment is over 16 per cent.

Let us suppose, an unpleasant hypothesis, that this measure had applied in the past few months. Seven of thirteen regions would have been affected in the Maritimes and six out of thirteen in Quebec. In real terms, we are talking about 277,000

unemployed people in Canada, of whom nearly 210,000 live in these regions suffering from the economic climate.

Many young people who have to rely more and more on insecure employment will be victims of these measures. They will not collect UI, no, they will have to live on welfare. What a program, Mr. Speaker!

We learned some good news last week: unemployment had declined. Bravo! But that is mainly thanks to the economic recovery in the United States, so the government should not boast. Nothing in its budget has helped the economy recover in this country, Canada. But at least, if the economy is recovering, the government should not put obstacles in the way of those who want to participate in this economic recovery.

When I hear the Minister of Human Resources Development say that he wants to require beneficiaries to work for longer periods to qualify for the same number of weeks of benefits, my hair stands on end! As if the unemployed chose to be out of work. That is not the problem, Mr. Speaker. Unemployment in our area is due to the lack of jobs and to the fact that more and more people have to go from one temporary job to another.

Do not mention the infrastructure program to me; it only creates temporary jobs, not real permanent jobs. There is nothing to give confidence back to the 1.5 million unemployed people throughout Canada and the 428,000 in Quebec. No. The eligibility conditions will not be tightened and the number of weeks of benefits will not be reduced. It is a big deal.

As I just said, the result will be to shift claimants from unemployment insurance to welfare. This passing the buck to the provinces, which is what it is, Mr. Speaker, will cost the provinces at least $1 billion, of which $280 million is for Quebec, according to the figures put forward by three economists from the Université du Québec à Montréal. The government, more generous, no doubt, estimates the costs at between $64 and $135 million only.

Clause 28, Part V, of Bill C-17 is complete nonsense. This clause modifies the number of weeks of benefit entitlement and abolishes the qualifying salary range for UI. As I have just demonstrated, these measures affect areas with the greatest needs. Again, the unemployed do not choose their situation, no matter what certain dinosaurs seem to think in Canada.

Still, according to the previously mentioned study conducted by three economists from the University of Quebec in Montreal, 90 percent of the unemployed in Quebec did not voluntarily quit their jobs. We are talking here about lay-offs, job losses, illnesses or buy-outs. Others are looking for a first job, but are not receiving any UI benefits. Job security is practically non-existent. We have no control over the length of employment. Workers accept casual, precarious or seasonal jobs. Not by choice. It is not that they refuse stable jobs and decent salaries, but rather that only these types of jobs are available. I cannot believe that we must still explain that to the government.

Another point which supports our case for amending this bill is the government's decision not to lower immediately the UI premium rate from $3.07 to $3 for employees, and from $4.30 to $4.20 for employers. The Minister of Finance decided to postpone this move until 1995. I think the good news from last week concerning the reviving economy should prompt the government to reinstate the $3 rate as soon as possible. You know as well as I do how fragile an economic recovery can be.

Cavemen did not spit on the fire they wanted to light. Rather, they blew carefully on it to make it brighter. It is that kind of care that is needed to ensure economic recovery. Why jeopardize the recovery when one could have frozen the rates in January and could still do it with an amendment to the bill?

Not later than last week, the minister of Finance recognized in an interview with Canadian journalists that, considering their current levels, U.I. premiums killed jobs. The Minister of Finance said and I quote: "The problem today is not that we must take fiscal measures to encourage job creation. Rather, we have to eliminate fiscal measures that deter employers from hiring people. That is the real problem."

I am glad to see that the minister has identified the problem. Now he only has to take action. Why was Bill C-17 not brought in with that in view? When a job is botched, there is no shame to do it again. When the government brings in the House a bill which will reduce iniquities between richer and poorer provinces, measures which will create jobs for the young and cancel the raise in both employers' and workers' premiums, it will have done a real good job.

As the slogan of a well-known Quebec humorous magazine says, it is not because we laugh that it is funny. Yet, I feel that this is the reaction of Canadians to the government's promises. The government claims that the reduction in the unemployment insurance premiums in 1995-96 will create 40,000 jobs by 1996. Those who prepared the budget have taught us a few things. Every 1 per cent reduction creates some 1,300 jobs. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that any increase leads to a loss of jobs in the same proportion. The government talks about 40,000 jobs that were eliminated in its last budget. Where will the government re-create these 9,000 lost jobs? In its budget, the Liberal government proposes to re-create these same 9,000 jobs by lowering premiums to their 1993 levels. There is the catch! The government will re-create what it had eliminated. The remaining 31,000 jobs will not appear as if by magic.

I think these 3,000 workers could return to the labour market; is it not the wish of all members of this House to see these 3,000 people regain their pride? This country needs more people working to turn the economy around, but under the current system every time you hire someone, you get hit by a whole lot of new taxes.

The government must be consistent. Yet, it hopes that this House will pass its bills without reacting. It should listen to the Canadian people expressing themselves through us: let businesses and the unemployed breathe; do not stand in the way of the economic recovery; refuse to proceed with second reading of this bill before it is too late.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 24th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in this House to speak to Bill C-18, an Act to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.

As you know, Madam Speaker, my party does not wish to run in the next elections. We hope that, by then, Quebec will be independent. Nonetheless, the proposals made by the Electoral District Boundaries Commission upset several of my colleagues across Canada.

I am not the kind to shirk my responsibilities. When I saw that the commission had carved up my riding of Lotbinière, I did not have any other choice but to react strongly.

In no time, it created an uproar in my constituency. Following the announcement of the proposed reform, around 20 articles, editorials and letters to the editor appeared in local newspapers. It is hardly surprising since the Bois-Francs area was split into three different ridings. The commission wanted to combine regional county municipalities into federal ridings, ignoring certain historical, economical, social and cultural factors.

To combine RCMs into ridings is reasonable to a point but not if the cities themselves see no benefit in it. For instance, by being shifted from Richelieu to Lotbinière, Bécancour was being moved into the same riding as the other municipality in the Bécancour RCM but was being separated from Nicolet.

In an article published on Thursday, February 24, 1994, in Le Nouvelliste , Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois, Mayor of Bécancour, said, and I quote: ``It is quite obvious that this exercise by the commission members was essentially a demographic one, and that they did not take into account the sense of belonging in these communities''.

And Mayor Dubois added that the Bécancour-Nicolet area cannot be divided. And what about the city of Victoriaville-Arthabaska, the heart of the Bois-Francs area, which was being separated from several area municipalities such as Princeville with which it had real and tangible links.

I can only congratulate the government on its decision to impose a two-year moratorium on this electoral boundaries readjustment process. We are talking about an $8 million exercise. Eight million dollars to move little lines around on the electoral map, displeasing the majority of national, provincial and municipal authorities in the process, all the while trying to preserve electoral quotas and in fact spending public funds needlessly.

Of course a revision of the electoral boundaries is necessary when certain elements of the Elections Act are not adhered to.

Factors to be taken into account, besides electoral quota, are described clearly in section 15 of the Act: community of interests of the inhabitants of a given electoral district in the province or its historical development. Also, care must be taken to ensure districts are not too large in sparsely populated, rural or northern regions of the province.

Recent revisions have shown that more often than not, commissions had used purely mathematical rules to readjust electoral boundaries.

The intent, in this bill, to preserve the integrity of RCMs within districts is commendable but hardly immutable. As we have seen, in certain cases, others factors must be taken into account.

In a commentary published on Tuesday February 22, 1994, in L'Union , the chairman of the CNTU Bois-Francs, Mr. Denis Champagne, gave a general idea of what people think: For an electoral map to be good, it must reflect the various communities and identify the connections between these well enough. Finally, the administrative structure has to adhere to it. Right now, we are in an undescribable administrative muddle''. And he adds:Boundaries now divide RCMs; they overlap different administrative areas. . . In a word, I cannot see the current revision meeting our needs in that respect''.

That is what commissions must look at. It stands to reason that we should review the legislation governing this process. A parliamentary committee should oversee the review of the Act and electoral boundaries should be readjusted. It really needs to be done. It has not been done in 30 years.

Sir John A. Macdonald himself recognized that electoral power parity was essential, while not being the only factor to be taken into account to ensure effective representation. He introduced the Representation Act, 1872, in recognition of this basic truth: "Although the rule concerning the population of each district has been widely obeyed, other factors have been considered relevant to ensure a variety of interests, classes and communities can be represented and the rule of numbers is not the only one used".

This quote was used as part of a ruling made by the Supreme Court of Canada on June 6, 1991, in the case of the Attorney General of Saskatchewan against Roger Carter et al.

It would therefore be worthwhile to review the Act to make sure that electoral boundaries commissions take all these factors into consideration rather than set arbitrary boundaries.

[Prix Du Mérite Du Français, March 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the president of the Union des artistes, Serge Turgeon, presented sportscaster Richard Garneau, with le Prix du mérite du français dans le secteur culturel, a merit award for French language use in the cultural sector. For some time now, the Conseil pédagogique interdisciplinaire du Québec has been recognizing each year the outstanding contribution of an individual or organization to the promotion of dynamic and correct use of the French language.

Mr. Garneau reminds all Quebecers as well as francophones across Canada that correct use of a spoken language forms an integral part of everyday life, both at work and at play.

On behalf of all the members of this House from Quebec, I would like to pay him a well-deserved tribute.

[Supply, March 14th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, obviously an election is looming on the horizon in Quebec and clearly a major movement is emerging at the present time in the province. I listened to my colleague speak of democracy and I believe that in Quebec there is also a similar process of democracy. In the upcoming election and referendum, the people will be called upon to make a choice, through a democratic process.

When the hon. member speaks of a strain on the economy, I for one do not believe that the economy will suffer. The hon. member must know that the federal government and the provinces have been examining for some time now the issue of overlap and duplication. It is not a question of saying that Quebec wants to separate. That is not the point at all. You can rest assured that when Quebec decides democratically to become sovereign-you can forget the word separation because since coming to this House, all we hear is separation and we are not separatists at all-you can rest assured that when Quebec decides to take charge of its own destiny as a nation, an economic union will be forged.

This fact is never mentioned. It goes without saying that there will be an economic union and I believe that this will be an extremely positive development. Let me tell you something. When I was a boy, my father travelled across Canada, from east to west, doing business. When he returned from conferences in the west, from Vancouver and elsewhere, he would say to me: "Jean, do you know which regions are the most separatist-minded?" I would answer: "No, dad, which ones?" And he would say: "The western regions. I have just returned from a three-day, or one-week, business trip out west".

Believe me when I say that this is our goal. From an economic and monetary standpoint, we want to assure you-and this is one of the reasons why the leader of our party went to the United States, to reassure the Americans-that there will be no barriers or borders, as there were between East Germany and West Germany. Right now, we already have tariff barriers between Quebec and Ontario or the other Canadian provinces and I would like to see these barriers removed. Quebec wants to do away with them.

If we can eliminate these barriers while acting as serious, honest individuals, and if we can make the people of Canada and Quebec understand Quebec's economic viewpoint and resources, we can be good friends and partners. Personally, I will always work with Canada and Quebec. Rest assured that I will be honest and frank. If we explain our position clearly, all Canadians and Quebecers will be reassured.