I regret, but I do not apologize. I must, however, apologize most sincerely for having called one of my opponents a "fat cow." This is a technical term, meaning "fat cow," or as we say in Quebec, "fat cow." However, I agree this is an outdated phrase that has no place in the Quebec of today, especially after separation has wiped out most of the province's dairy farms. It distresses me greatly that such an inadvertent slip of the tongue could have somehow crept into my prepared remarks, and I can only hope that fat cows everywhere will not take the allusion personally.

While I'm at it, let me disown certain recent statements that might have been taken to mean that only those who speak without an accent are good Quebeckers. In the same vein, for the Prime Minister to make jokes about speaking English with an accent ("When you hear me, you know we are distinct") was insensitive in the extreme. It was many years ago that Mr. Parizeau studied in London; this cannot be held against him forever.

Having said that, it is an insult and a provocation for anyone to suggest there is even a hint of intolerance in the sovereignty camp. That is the kind of talk that I will not put up with. I would say it is humiliating, except I never use that word. I have always said that a Quebecker is anyone who wants to be, along with those who don't.

I withdraw, too, my prediction that one million jobs would be threatened if Quebec votes Yes. That was in an earlier stage in my life, last week, when I was still a federalist. As Mr. Johnson himself has conceded, only 100,000 workers would lose their jobs - and anyway, most of them will be Anglos. I disavow that last remark.

It is quite clear to me now that in fact one million jobs are at risk if Quebec votes No. Already we see an ominous trend: four jobs lost, in the Canadiens' head office alone. At this rate, in 250,000 days, the Habs will be in the playoffs. Fortunately, if Quebeckers do vote the wrong way, we will give them another chance, and another, until they get it right. Only if Quebeckers vote Yes will they be safe: safe as lobsters.

I will say that I am appalled that Quebeckers have been forced to endure all these terrifying predictions about the cost of sovereignty: that it would mean massive deficits, currency crises and isolation from major trade blocs. So don't talk to me about Mr. Le Hir's studies. Those are not my studies. My studies tell me that English Canada will come quickly to terms, now that I am chief negotiator. I know English Canada well: I am liked and trusted there.

I am sorry, however, if I have ever left the impression that English Canadians were obstinate blockheads who would never make the slightest concession to Quebeckers. Once we have destroyed the country, they will feel more kindly toward us. As a gesture of good will, I have already suggested we might let them have our share of the debt. We have also signalled our willingness to let them keep the Canadian dollar.

Finally, I apologize if I have created any confusion about what a Yes vote means. Let there be no misunderstanding: a No vote means another endless round of negotiations leading to nowhere, whereas a Yes vote means another endless round of negotiations after we get there. It is important to keep this distinction in mind. It will come in handy when we are dealing with the Crees.

The No side will tell you a No is not a Yes to the status quo, but only a No to separation. But it's clear that a Yes is not only a No to the status quo, but also a Yes to a new partnership. Yes means Yes, and No really means Yes. The choices could not be starker, nor could I.