House of Commons Hansard #204 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was million.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Bloc

Ghislain Lebel Bloc Chambly, QC

Mr. Speaker, I also know the hon. member for Saint-Léonard.

I remember that, not too long ago, during an opposition day like this one in this House, when we were talking about the proposed referendum in Quebec, the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria told me: "So, as a francophone living outside Quebec, I do not have the right to participate in this debate". I told her that no, she did not, but that the hon. member for Saint-Léonard did, because he is a Quebecer.

If he is as honest as he claims, he will admit that I made that statement here in this House; you can even look it up in Hansard . No, that is not my intention. What I mean is that some members have the nerve to lecture us here today, telling us that they were the ones who built this country-at least that is how I understood it-because we Quebecers are just a bunch of ``bums''. That is what the hon. member from the Reform Party told us through his thinly veiled remarks. He suggested that we wanted money, that we wanted things, that we came here to get funds. That is what I meant. I meant that we francophones have been in Quebec for 450 years, that we also contributed to this country, that our contribution was at least as important as that of more recent immigrants to Canada. That is what I meant, as the hon. member for Saint-Léonard knows full well.

Indeed, there are none so deaf as those who will not hear. That is so true. Particularly in debates such as this one, it is common for some people to twist what others have said. I am saying that Quebecers who have been here in North America for more than 400 to 450 years on average also have the right to speak up, to decide whether or not they were wronged in the past and whether or not they paid more than their fair share, and to demand that it not happen again. That is what the hon. member for Saint-Léonard should have understood, and I know that, despite his Mediterranean accent, he understands very well the French spoken here. That is to his credit, and I commend him.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine Québec

Liberal

Patrick Gagnon LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where to start following the remarks made by the hon. member opposite.

It is really a shame that, once again, qualifications are made as to who is a Canadian and who is not, who can live in Quebec and who cannot.

It takes some gall to say that we are concerned only with those who settled here some 350, 400 years ago. I find it despicable that the hon. member of the opposition could claim that newcomers to Canada, and Quebec in particular, did not do well or contribute to the economic development of my province.

We must recognize one thing, Mr. Speaker, and that is that ours is a country built on immigration. And the first to settle this land were, to use the terms of the opposition motion, the aboriginals. They are the real, original settlers. Next in line are the French Canadians, Canadians of French descent, the Bretons, the Scots, the Irish, the British and the Loyalists. Then people from other countries came to Canada and Quebec, and put their talents to good use in our country.

In fact, if the hon. member of the opposition cared to check in his own ranks, he would realize that there are members who are not old stock Quebecers in his own party. There are newcomers, new Quebecers, not only within the Bloc Quebecois but also within the Quebec government. Are they not real Quebecers? I would like him to tell me.

All we are asking the hon. member of the opposition to do is to apologize formally in this House and withdraw his remarks. I think that the honourable man he is will recognize that the hon. member for Saint-Leonard and other newcomers, so to speak, people who left their country of origin to settle in Canada, have made an outstanding contribution to this country.

I personally have a great deal of respect for every newcomer who was admitted to Canada, who has elected to make Canada his or her home, to contribute to its development. One even had the qualifications and the courage to go before his peers and get elected, becoming a full-fledged member of the House of Commons. This gentleman was even appointed to cabinet. That is why I am proud to be a Canadian: I can see that, among us, there are people from various ethnic backgrounds, who are the pride and glory of this country.

So, I ask that the hon. member of the opposition withdraw his remarks on newcomers to Canada, nothing less.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Ghislain Lebel Bloc Chambly, QC

Mr. Speaker, it looks as if the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine were dancing the cha-cha-cha in swinging doors. First, I never said that. I never allowed myself to decide who is a Canadian and who is not-and I never will. I will only say that I am not one.

I never said who was a Quebecer and who was not. René Lévesque-a man whom I really appreciated and who came from a Gaspe community close to that of the hon. member who just spoke-once said something with which I fully agree, namely that Quebecers were those who lived in Quebec, regardless of their origin. Quebecers are those who want to live in Quebec. As for myself, it was never my intention to insinuate, either directly or indirectly, anything to the contrary.

If the hon. member wants to do politics on that issue for 10 or 15 minutes, fine. I do not have to apologize to anyone because I did not insult anyone. However, I did want to point out to the hon. member for Saint-Léonard that he has my admiration and my respect. He knows that I was not referring to him and I think he understood it full well. Again, I want to convey to him my admiration, and that also goes for his family. That being said, I do not make apologies. The hon. member for Saint-Léonard has all my respect.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Martin Cauchon Liberal Outremont, QC

Mr. Speaker, you will understand that, before coming to the heart of the matter, I would like to join the hon. member for Saint-Léonard and the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine in denouncing the remarks made by the member from the official opposition, as well as explaining my feeling of dismay-to put it mildly. These remarks are totally inconsistent with the values we have developed in this country, the values we share and the values we have in Quebec. The transcript will bear witness to this.

I must say that, in addition to his personal attack on my colleague, the opposition member took on aboriginal people as well, saying that they were studying only because education was free. There was something fundamentally contemptuous in these remarks. They reflect the official opposition's deeply held feelings of contempt, a state of mind disrespectful of people and even more of the values they share.

In that sense, you will understand that I join my two colleagues in asking, as a Quebecer, that the official opposition member withdraw his words that I find unfortunate, to say the least. That being said, I will now address the issue raised in the official opposition motion.

Anybody who cares to examine the wording of this motion, let alone its substance, will realize that, once again, the people opposite are basically trying to sell us a bill of goods. They are trying to pull the wool over Quebecers' eyes. That same attitude permeates all their policies. That can be said of the Bloc Quebecois, but also, and even more so, of its head office.

Speaking of not being able to rise above petty politics, we can find superb examples not across the way, but with the Quebec government itself, a government whose concern ought to be to look after the interests of the people. This is a serious matter. What is at stake is the interests of citizens who put their confidence in a government, thinking that it would try to build a better society.

Among the most telling examples of the partisan attitude they cannot shed, I should mention the finance minister's budget. It is a real gem. When you resort to such an important instrument, something so essential in any society, to engage in crass political propaganda, something is really wrong.

Speaking to reporters, Mr. Campeau casually dropped these remarks: "If you vote on the right side at the referendum, we may well live in an ideal world, and there will not be any tax increase. It will be some kind of Garden of Eden". Such statements are a serious matter, coming as they do from the Minister of Finance of Quebec. Instead of indulging in petty politics, talking about the referendum, and trying to take Quebec out of Canada, he should be working hand in hand with the federal Minister of Finance in a responsible way to build a better society, a society our children will be proud of, if only we can tackle the real problems we were elected to settle.

Let us take the issues mentioned in this motion. They are serious issues. When I say that these issues are serious ones, I hear members of the official opposition commenting, a big smile on their face, because they do not really care about these fundamental and contentious issues. When we talk about the demands made by a province, it is important. It is also important for us, the federal government, to seriously consider the de-

mands, to treat them fairly and, as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said, to act responsibly.

I must say that I have a lot of trouble understanding all the animosity and fury with which the official opposition is tackling these serious issues, because on this side of the House, as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs pointed out earlier, we are doing everything we can to ensure that the decisions are made as soon as possible and in all fairness to Quebec and all of Canada.

Since I do not seem to understand, would the official opposition tell me if they would like us to pay without looking at the bills, without checking if it is our duty as federal government to pay for these expenditures? I sincerely doubt, Mr. Speaker, that that is what the people in all the provinces expect from the federal government. What we expect is a federal government which does not waste the taxpayers' money and has a good hold on the purse strings, and that is exactly what we are doing.

In fact, not very well hidden behind this motion is a pre-referendum political strategy. The official opposition wants to create a smoke screen. It wants the people in Quebec to rise to the bait. I think these members are basically scornful, and I am weighing my words.

The three serious issues mentioned in the motion are being used for partisan purposes, for referendum purposes. I must say that I do not agree with that and I do not understand anything any more. They are trying to lay down a smoke screen, but this is of course premature. It is premature because, as we all know, the government has not made a decision yet. On the contrary, it is putting in place a procedure by which it will judge each claim on its merits. Also, instead of waiting for the process to end, the Bloc is trying to turn these fundamental claims of the people of Quebec into a purely political question.

This proves that the Bloc does do not have the interests of Quebecers at heart, but that it is only interested in its own agenda, which is, at the risk of repeating myself, essentially the separation of Quebec.

I believe that Bloc members should sincerely listen to Quebecers. As I often say in this House, we were elected democratically. We were elected for the promises we made to Canadians. It goes without saying that the members across the way are not fulfilling their promises. The government of Quebec is not listening to the people. We were elected because we promised that we would rebuild people's trust in government, that we would have an honest government. We were elected because we said we would deliver, because we said we would tackle the real problems. They elected us because we promised them we would be a basically responsible government. We were elected because people trusted us not to throw their money out the window. And I must say that the people of Quebec want exactly the same thing.

I must also say that, by laying down a smoke screen, the Official Opposition will not succeed in making us react in an untimely or hasty way. On the contrary. In the best interests of the people, the best interests of Quebecers, we will follow a fair process to make sure that the hard earned money of the taxpayers of Quebec and Canada is well managed. We will certainly not fall into the trap set by the official opposition.

Speaking about good government and what the people expect from their provincial and federal governments, I would be remiss if I did not say a few words about intergovernmental co-operation. People elected us to solve the debt and deficit problem, create jobs, restore economic growth, help Canada carve out a place in the new global economy, and develop a labour force of which our country could be proud, which would attract new companies and make Canada competitive not just nationally but internationally as well. Co-operation is the key to all of this.

How can this co-operation exist when you have on the other side of the House and in Quebec-and it is unfortunate-a government which does not want the system to work? We do not have to go very far to find some rather striking illustrations.

Let us take, for example, the last visit of the minister from Quebec who came to Ottawa to meet with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Quebecers have to wonder if the minister came to Ottawa to solve problems or to create problems.

When we see the attitude of the members opposite and the attitude of the Quebec government and the minister who just met with our friend, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, I think that the answer cannot be any clearer. But the answer is also unfortunate because the actions of the Quebec government are far from being constructive. It is obvious that these actions are very prejudicial not only to Quebec and Canada today, but also to the future generations.

I have visited Quebec extensively these past few months, I have talked to Quebecers and I can tell you that they are sick and tired of these endless debates. They are really sick and tired of seeing a government in Quebec that is taking steps but in the wrong direction. People want increased co-operation, they want a constructive partnership, they want fiscal consolidation. These are all reasons for us to all sit down together and try to solve these problems as soon as possible so we can start building our economy and create jobs.

When I talk about misleading the people of Quebec, let us think about what happened eight months ago, when Quebecers placed their trust in a provincial political party which, you will remember, spoke of the other way to govern. It reminds me of a federal political party that spoke of the real power. According to the people I met, when they chose the other way to govern, they

wanted a responsible government, a government which creates jobs, a government which is interested in what they have to say.

Well, let us see what this other way to govern in Quebec turned out to be. It is simply a government that governs with its eyes closed and its ears plugged and with only one thing in mind: to achieve its own agenda. And everybody knows that the agenda is the separation of Quebec. It is just unbelievable. This reflects a lack of the most elementary respect for the public and is a denial of the mandate they received from the electorate.

They are trying to give the impression in Quebec that there is something terribly wrong with the present federal system and that some problems cannot be overcome within that system. Of course, if you listen to them, you cannot get anything done within the present system. I say that, if you are prepared to work within the system, in good faith, there is much that can be done.

If governments could get together for two seconds, there are some extraordinary things we could do in Canada today to help this country enter the new era of free trade and maintain its position internationally. There are some eloquent examples of this. When we talk about the real problems, those people on the other side of the House start shouting because they do not want to hear the truth. They do not want us to tell the people of Quebec that they are not acting in the interests of Quebecers.

That is why you hear them shout like that when we, Liberals from Quebec who were elected as well, take the floor. Of course they do not see us as Quebecers because we do not share their philosophy, but we were elected in Quebec, and I am a proud Quebecer, and I believe that if we do a good job we can build a better and in fact exceptional Quebec and Canada.

There are some outstanding examples like the immigration agreement, the agreement on interprovincial trade and the agreements concerning la Francophonie. Finally, there is a lot more we could do, but wasting our time on motions like the one before the House today is not going to help us work in the best interests of Quebecers and Canada.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Bloc

Nic Leblanc Bloc Longueuil, QC

Mr. Speaker, first off, I would like to call the hon. member for Outremont to order, because he accused the hon. member for Chambly of saying something that he did not say. I would also like to call the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine to order for doing the same thing.

I think we have a good example of how members opposite play politics when they put words in the mouths of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues. I simply wanted to say this for the record. What they said about my colleague for Chambly is entirely untrue.

He also accused the Government of Quebec of shirking its responsibilities. I would call that sticking his nose into other people's business. We all know that the federal Liberal members from Quebec are not in the least bit, not even the tiniest bit, interested in the Government of Quebec. They are much more interested in making sure that Ottawa will control, manage and centralize everything. Because that is their outlook, they could care less about what is going on in Quebec right now. They have never had great faith in provincial governments, at any rate. For them, the only government, the only power in Canada, is the Canadian government.

Forcibly, they can only consider the provinces as managers of sorts. They confirmed this in the Charlottetown accord when they gave all of the power to Ottawa and the right to administer to the provinces. That is why this accord was flatly rejected. They claimed that they were decentralizing and giving the provinces the opportunity to manage or administer things. That is not what Quebec wants. Quebec wants powers, not just the opportunity to administer. And that is not just my message, not just the Bloc Quebecois' message, it is the message of the Commission on the Political and Constitutional Future of Quebec, the Bélanger-Campeau Commission.

The Bélanger-Campeau Commission sure was a big production, one of the biggest since Confederation. Altogether, they received 600 briefs, heard 205 witnesses while 55 experts were studying the issue. They concluded that for Quebec's well-being, it had to be given at least 20 real powers, for example, education, tourism, economic development.

And the federal government, with the support of the Liberals, hatched a proposal which purportedly met all of Quebec's aspirations. What hypocrisy!

Charlottetown gave Ottawa even more powers, and Quebec, even more administration. They treated Quebec as if it were a province like any other, with no particular status and nothing distinct about it at all. Now, they butt in and would have us believe that the Quebec Minister of Finance, Mr. Campeau, the eminent Quebecer who co-chaired the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, is botching his job. That complaint probably came from one disgruntled voter in Outremont.

And they are absolutely right when they say that we are playing politics when we say that Quebecers will pay more taxes if they do not vote for sovereignty. The federal Minister of Finance decided to wait before adding to the Quebec tax burden. He will hit Quebec next year only. Yes, we are in for it, and we will end up sending our tax money to Ottawa, and the federal government will skim a good billion from it before shipping it back to Quebec. And it is very clear that, once again, the Government of Quebec will be caught in the squeeze to some

extent, because the federal government fails to live up to its responsibility to give us back the money we send to Ottawa through our taxes. It gives us back less than we gave. It promised to keep paying. It made such promises. However, it does not keep them.

So in all likelihood the Minister of Finance of Quebec will have to raise taxes, because the federal government does not assume its responsibilities, pure and simple.

There was talk of jobs earlier. When it comes to jobs, we know that the job problem in Quebec is the federal government's problem. As I mentioned earlier in my speech, the federal government talks of political uncertainty, but political uncertainty does not take away jobs, economic uncertainty does. Top American experts, economists, American business people say so: they could not care less about politics when they are looking to invest in Canada. They say: "The reason we do not invest in Canada is because of its economic instability". This economic instability is the federal government's doing, as everyone knows. The Bélanger-Campeau commission report said so, and it was approved.

So this fine speech by the member for Outremont seems completely out of date to me. He did not understand. He really has not grasped what is happening in Quebec. I do not know where he comes from, but he is not from the same place as the rest of us real Quebecers.

No, what I mean, really, is that the real Quebecers are those who understand Quebecers. That is what I wanted to say.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Martin Cauchon Liberal Outremont, QC

Mr. Speaker, we do not have to try too hard to rise above our colleagues today. I have just been told that I am not a real Quebecer. Come on. Let us have a little bit of respect for who we are, for the society we represent and the values we have in common.

They have just proved that I was right when I said that they do not consider me a true Quebecers because I do not think as they do. They just said it, it is as simple as that.

To get back to the member's comments, I will be kind and say that remarks verging on demagogy, such as what we just heard, do not deserve a response.

However, on the subject of commissions-the Bélanger-Campeau commission was mentioned-I will say that the PQ regional commissions throughout Quebec were a clear example of democracy being stifled. The commissions were created with the idea that they were to draw the conclusion the PQ wanted to see, namely that Quebec must separate, but in the end it realized that this was not what people talked about. People reminded the commissions that what they wanted the government to do was to rethink the role of government, deal with the economy and create jobs. But, despite this reality in Quebec and throughout Canada, the PQ regional commissions offered in their conclusion solutions and recommendations which have nothing to do with the testimony they heard.

When it comes to commissions, I believe that the PQ national commission is a telling example of a government which refuses to listen to the people, which wants to manage, to rule, and to govern with only one idea in mind. And we all know what that is.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Bloc

Maurice Bernier Bloc Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to reply to my colleague, the member for Outremont. I know you will not allow me to say that 75 per cent of his comments were absolute lies, because I cannot say that, but I will say that 25 per cent of what he said is somehow related to truth and reality.

I would like to reply on one point in particular. He spent a good part of his presentation discrediting the Parti Quebecois government. He said that if all these issues before us, the issues mentioned in the motion, are not solved, it is because there is a separatist government in Quebec. The member for Outremont devoted a good portion of his speech to that point.

The Parti Quebecois government has been in place for six months. In Ottawa, the Liberal government has been in office for a year and a half now. Why did they not settle these issues when they were dealing with obedient federalists, ready to accept any kind of compromise to come to an agreement with the federal government? They had one full year to settle issues that have been dragging on for ten years. They did nothing. It is easy to see that the member for Outremont is taking us for a ride. Does he really think Quebecers are all that gullible? He is trying to delude us. He has lost all credibility in my view. He should have chosen to face reality, talk specifically to the motion and demand that his government find solutions to problems that have been dragging on for ten years, as I said before.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Martin Cauchon Liberal Outremont, QC

Mr. Speaker, earlier, during my short speech, I explained quite thoroughly how the federal government deals with the claims. The public understands very well that we are acting as a responsible government. So I am sure you see why I will not reply to comments that seem to come from someone who was not even here during my speech.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Bloc

Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC

Mr. Speaker, I always wondered what Pontius Pilate looked like in the praetorium. I think we saw that this afternoon. I will say no more.

We heard the hon. member making groundless accusations against us when he ought to have been defending Quebec. We are politicians in the House and our actions are political. We do not have to be ashamed of it, since we are paid for that. The hon. member boasts about the integrity of his government. It is not because one says that one is honest that one is, but because one acts honestly.

It is true that the population elected Liberals. Very often, it is because people did not have a real choice. When people had one, in Quebec, they elected the members of the Bloc Quebecois.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Patrick Gagnon Liberal Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC

Not everywhere.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Bloc

Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC

No, but they did have a choice. Sometimes, they had no choice, so they elected Liberals.

What is important is the fact that this government has done absolutely nothing since it took office. That is why it is so popular. When one does nothing, one is not open to criticism.

This government has simply introduced in the House the legislation the Conservative government left behind. Once the Liberals introduced these Conservative bills, they had nothing else to propose.

One thing should be important for them. They have a new member who comes from Quebec and, as my colleague for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead reminded us, the federalists had one full year to resolve the problem with the federalists in Quebec. Now, the population was misled by the hon. member for Outremont who barely mentioned what the whole issue was about. I would like to give the facts about the issue before us.

First, the motion. What does the motion tabled this morning by my colleague say? It says: "That this House deplore the federal government's delay in responding to Quebec's demands with regard to the education of young Aboriginals in Northern Quebec amounting to $199 million, to the compensation of $135 million under the 1991-92 stabilization program and to the $79 million claim for expenses incurred during the events at Oka in the summer of 1990".

That is to say the federal government owes Quebec $333 million.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

An hon. member

That is not peanuts.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Bloc

Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC

That shows that this government which claims to be a good manager of public money is very bad at paying its bills. This government brags about reducing the deficit, but to do so, it shifts its problems to the provinces.

We had already noticed it in the last federal budget, when the federal government announced a cut in health and education transfer payments. Now the government has decided it will not pay the $333 million it owes Quebec. Yet, other provinces received a positive reply and even got back what was owed to them. Quebec has to wait once again, and the federal government even suggested that it should not expect much.

When Quebecers ask themselves who defends their interests in Ottawa, the answer is certainly not: the government of Jean Chrétien.

Since we cannot count on government members from Quebec to defend the interests of Quebecers, I will explain in simple words the grievances of Quebec regarding the payment of $333 million, which is owed to us, but which the federal government refuses to pay.

As the motion already mentions, there are three amounts of money at stake. I will explain the $79 million, incurred during the native crisis of the summer of 1990, which should have been paid back to Quebec under the financial support agreements in case of disaster.

Nobody can deny the fact that the summer of 1990 was a disaster in Quebec, in terms of what happened in Oka and, above all, of the federal government sending in the army to deal with a catastrophic situation. That is why these $79 million were spent by the Quebec Ministry of Public Security and by the Sûreté du Québec to maintain public order and protect the residents of the affected area.

The cause of the conflict was simply that a native group claimed to own the lands surrounding its territory. Natives are under federal jurisdiction. That is why the Canadian Army intervened in the Oka crisis.

Bill McKnight, then Minister of National Defence, told minister Claude Ryan, in a letter dated January 24, 1991, that is six months after the conflict ended: "The federal government has special responsibilities regarding the Indians". In that letter, he also made a firm commitment to the Quebec government: "In addition to the expenditures already approved, we will provide financial help to the province, in accordance with the guidelines on the implementation of disaster relief agreements".

This letter from the Minister of National Defence to the Quebec Minister of Public Security is as clear as it can be. The government admitted to having a disaster relief program and, therefore, it was obligated to reimburse Quebec's expenditures.

In 1992, the government wanted to show what a good player it was, so it admitted owing Quebec $84 million and that it would give $5 million to the province, an action by which we think the federal government indeed recognized its responsibility in this issue. It still owes us $79 million. Why did the federal government change its mind afterwards? Why is it now refusing to recognize its responsibilities?

The government used faulty reasoning to avoid paying. Let us look at three of its reasons. First, it claimed it was making a distinction between public order, that was supposedly in jeopardy, and public well-being, that was not. These are the sorts of nuances that the government is capable of invoking. Beyond the fact that this distinction does not appear anywhere in the disaster financial assistance arrangements, it is obvious that public well-being was threatened by this crisis that affected all Quebecers.

Second, there was political interference in this issue. Indeed, it seems that the decision not to reimburse the expenses incurred by the Sûreté du Québec was taken in 1992 by the Treasury Board of Canada, despite an opinion given by its own experts and the Office of the Auditor General, who had recognized that at least a part of these expenses qualified.

So, how can it be claimed, as the minister did the other day, that someone refused to open the books? If the Office of the Auditor General has already recognized that at least a part of these expenses ought to be reimbursed, someone must have looked at the books at some point.

Third, the federal government gave as its criterion for refusing the amounts of money involved. The hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine used this argument this morning. Yet, the objective of the program is to help provinces or territories to face a disaster the costs of which would be an excessive burden on them. To accept the federal government's claims is to not only go against the spirit of the financial assistance program, but also to create a dangerous precedent.

If we follow this reasoning, the federal government could decide to stop paying old age pensions or UI benefits to Quebecers, simply because it would cost too much this year. In return, people would not pay their federal income tax, because they would feel it is too high. One can see how such fallacious arguments could lead us to disaster.

Let us be reasonable for a moment. There are laws and regulations providing for the payment of certain sums to Quebec under specific terms and conditions. Quebec citizens pay taxes to Ottawa and they have the right to recover part of them. Whether or not the Liberal government likes the legitimate government of Quebec or the official opposition should not be a factor. Our $79 million claim is only a matter of equity and fairness.

I will now move on to the $119 million the federal government owes Quebec for the education of young aboriginal people. It owes us this money under the James Bay agreement. In this case, the federal government seems more open, as it does not deny having responsibilities in this area. However, it refuses to pay, because these amounts were spent without a prior agreement between the federal government and the province.

Of course, the federal government does not appear eager to come to an agreement. It would then have had to pay its share. In this whole matter, the Quebec government acted in a perfectly responsible fashion. It acted like a reasonable man, as the saying goes. Instead of abandoning the aboriginal people to their fate, with no resources, to suffer from this wrangling between two levels of government, instead of closing schools for one, two or three years while this government negotiates an agreement, the Government of Quebec took its responsibilities, kept the schools open and kept young aboriginals in school, fulfilling its part of the bargain as well as that of the federal government.

And it is still waiting. The Quebec government has been waiting since 1986 for the federal government to pay back what it owes the province for paying both the federal and provincial share of expenditures. Now, if Quebec had decided to close schools, the federal government would have dragged the Quebec government all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada and the aboriginals would have gone to the United Nations to complain about it. We took our responsibilities, Now, there are bills to settle.

I am baffled though. We have had consecutive governments, under Mr. Bourassa and Mr. Johnson for instance, that were federalist. Yet, and that is what amazes me, you were unable to come to an agreement among federalists and, as a result, the sovereignists now have to get up in this House to protect Quebec's interests.

Finally, there is this huge amount, $135 million, owed to Quebec by the federal government under the 1991-92 fiscal stabilization program. Liberal federalists in Quebec had already put in a claim for this amount when they were in power. The Minister of Labour could certainly brief the Prime Minister and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs on this issue.

As for the Minister of Finance, he flatly refuses to make any payment. Once again, the government is applying a double standard, since provinces much better off than Quebec-namely Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia-already received payments under the same program. In this case, as in the other two, the amounts to be paid should be based on objective criteria. Yet, the federal Minister of Finance refuses to go to arbitration and settle the issue without seeking to score political points. Instead, the minister suggested that the Quebec government take its case to the Federal Court, and eventually the Supreme Court. So much for the brilliant ideas of this government. The government owes us money, but tells us: Take the taxpayers' money. We will do the same. We will continue to pay lawyers and go to court, even though we are perfectly aware that, under the existing regulations and agreements, we owe you that money. Is this the finance minister's idea of flexible federalism and friendly

administrative arrangements? We can only conclude that, with friends like him, Quebec does not need enemies.

I am beginning to understand what government and federalist members mean by "flexible federalism". The expression refers to a vision of Canada whereby Quebec must always yield to Ottawa and English Canada. Let me simply tell you that the Bloc will never ask Quebecers to yield. Quebecers are proud. They want to take control of their destiny, and they will soon set up their own country, in the upcoming referendum, with or without those $333 million.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine Québec

Liberal

Patrick Gagnon LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata while she kept hacking at federalism and the Canadian government. I would like to hear her criticize in the same way the threats made by the government of Quebec and its Minister of Education, Mr. Garon, to the university located in Rimouski, in her own riding.

Some people dare to accuse the Liberal members and to accuse me, the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, an elected representative from grassroots Quebec, of not standing up for Quebec and my own area, and I find that totally unacceptable.

In my riding and in the vast majority of rural ridings in Quebec, people are mostly concerned about the economy. They are concerned about jobs. We are thinking about our future, but we know very well that the federal government, the Canadian government, is a worthy partner for us. I think the federal government has shown in the last few weeks or the last few months, in fact in the 18 months since it has been in office, that we want to get Canadians and Quebecers back to work. We set up an infrastructure program. In fact, the current government of Quebec is glad to use it. It is glad to show that it can get some of the workers in smaller localities in grassroots Quebec back to work.

By the way, on the native issue, I have not heard the hon. member say a word about their living conditions in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. They did not tell us about how dismayed the whole world was when these unfortunate events happened in Quebec and what it did to the reputation of Quebec and Canada. True, I was not in Canada at the time, I was in Japan and, for a while, in France. But, believe me, all my friends, my associates and my acquaintances kept telling me about this problem with natives in Canada. And it saddened me to know that the government could not find a peaceful solution to the problem. But the Quebec government did call on the federal government for help. The premier of Quebec has the right to call on the Canadian army in a very difficult situation.

That is what happened. It is Quebec that asked for the army's involvement, not the Canadian government. The federal government spent $133 million to send in the army and the RCMP.

The Canadian government spends millions of dollars every year to maintain the peace elsewhere in the world and to ensure that other countries will follow Canada's example. But I do not want to digress. About the natives, it is the federal government which takes on the responsibility of creating a healthy economy at the local level for these people. We build houses and even cabins for them. We do everything to help them.

All we are asking of the government of Quebec is that it stop playing politics to the detriment of the most disadvantaged people. Everybody here knows that natives are not the most spoiled people in our country. Nevertheless, we hear the opposition and even some government members say that natives are treated differently. The claim that they are better treated than most Canadians is false. Suicide, alcoholism and all the social ills imaginable are more prevalent in aboriginal communities.

I grew up one kilometre away from an Indian reserve. And believe me when I say that I saw with my very eyes how these poor people were treated. People were reluctant to give them jobs, to let them play on their hockey teams or to welcome them in our French Catholic schools. Unfortunately, I think we all should examine our consciences.

Today's debate was an example of negotiations to come between a sovereign Quebec and Canada. We got stuck on tiny details: who owed who $333 million, $79 million, $125 million and for what, and how Quebec has been taken for a ride for the past 125 years. How will we ever manage to negotiate? Now I ask the people watching us on television, do you think that we will ever be able to orchestrate a separation if, today, all they could do was condemn the federal government for wrong-doing? And they want to divvy up the debt, and share our currency and passport? They just want to coast on Canada's prestige.

The opposition should be told to go back to the drawing board. This new approach they are proposing to Quebecers is utterly unacceptable. They should just ask the question once and for all: "Do you want to stay in Canada, yes or no?"

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Bloc

Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC

Mr. Speaker, what is surprising about these Liberal members of Parliament opposite is that they try to distract people's attention and talk about any old thing. I spoke of three specific matters: the federal government's debt to Quebec of $333 million. We are not talking about peanuts, this is a lot of money for a people that needs every penny to grow and develop.

The Liberals call $333 million peanuts because they are used to wallowing in money with the Bronfmans and Power Corporation and because there are ministers in cabinet who are millionaires and who sail their boats under the Panamanian flag to avoid paying taxes in Canada.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Order, please. The hon. parliamentary secretary has risen on a point of order.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Patrick Gagnon Liberal Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says I described $333 million as peanuts, what about the $2.5 billion we send to Quebec every year?

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Order. With all due respect to my colleagues on both sides of the House, this was not a point of order, it was a matter of debate.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Bloc

Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC

Mr. Speaker, in 1985, the government of Mr. Lévesque was the first to sign an agreement with the native peoples. It was this government that went the farthest and that accorded the most to the native peoples in 1985.

In 1990, the October crisis unfortunately cast a shadow over relations between native peoples and the people of Quebec, perceptions changed.

This crisis arose, once again, because of the indecision of the government of the day, a Liberal and a federalist government, led once again by Mr. Bourassa. Both times the army moved into Quebec, Liberal federalists were in power.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

It being 5.15 p.m., it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 81 to interrupt proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

All those in favour will please say yea.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

All those opposed will please say nay.