Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how to respond to that. It sounded more like an extension of the member's speech than a question put specifically to me.
Let me repeat that Reform members do not doubt for a minute that the policies being pursued by the government in Quebec are also being pursued by it in other parts of the country. What we quarrel with is the appropriateness of those policies.
Our governments do not need to be involved in giving large sums of money to major corporations, which also happen to contribute to the Liberal Party, in order to spur economic development. What the country really needs, for example, is a lighter tax burden. Take away the subsidies and lessen taxes, both in Quebec and in other regions of the country and the private economy could exploit the advantages which our resources and the North American market offer to us.
It should be mentioned that Quebec was a leader, not just the federalists but also the separatists, in the free trade debate. They supported the extension of free trade and the economic opportunities that brings. Let us exploit the opportunities of a market economy rather than trying to do it through big government and corporate subsidies. That is one objection I have.
I also have to mention the reference to the distinct society motion, which my party opposed and will continue to oppose. We will continue to say that the solution to this problem is not for so-called federalists in Quebec to walk around repeating separatist claims that the French language is in some kind of jeopardy in the province of Quebec, which it is not, and needs some kind of special status to protect it. We have said repeatedly that there are things which can be done to improve this federation, but putting separatist slogans in the Constitution is not the way to proceed.
Separatists themselves recognize that the true distinct societies of this world sit at the United Nations. Quebec is a province of Canada. It fulfils an important role and its name must not be changed.