Madam Speaker, to begin, I would like to go back to what my colleague for Longueuil was saying. Along the same line, this morning, I read an article on the cost of sovereignty. The problem is that it did not mention the cost of federalism.
In fact, we are forced to recognize that, for the past 25 years, we have seen the centralizing policies of the federal government turn a thriving country into one which is deeply in debt.
No matter how loudly the Prime Minister claims in this House that we live in the most comfortable country in the world, our credit card bill is up to $550 billion. The end of the month is going to be something else!
I would have liked to have had the time to mention all the disgraceful, useless expenses, all the waste originating on Parliament Hill and in various departments. Unfortunately I have only ten minutes. Therefore, I will focus on overlapping, duplication and the cost of federalism in general.
Let us look at the various programs the federal government implements in Quebec and which compete, in one way or
another, with those Quebec is already offering because they are more in tune with our specific needs. Believe it or not, out of 221 federal programs and 244 Quebec programs, 197 either overlap or duplicate another. That means that we could get rid of 197 federal programs and Quebec would be better served for it.
First, we are faced with redundant administrative activities. As part of their mandate, well-meaning federal civil servants are doing exactly the same thing as their provincial counterparts acting in accordance with their mandate specific to Quebec. We pay twice for people who do a good job, but who do it twice. Once would have been enough since the job was well done.
There is worse. There is competition between various programs. Because, of course, the federal government wants to outdo the provincial government, it favours quantity over quality; the quantity of dollars it borrows, spends and, unfortunately too often, wastes. Occasionally, it resorts to conflict. We do not agree on targets. The federal program goes one way, while Quebec-and Quebec knows its constituency well and structures its objectives accordingly-goes another. Therefore, efforts and funds, instead of being pooled, are once again wasted.
At times, the programs are in direct conflict with each other. Instead of one going one way and the other one, the other way, they run counter to one another. How often-and the public is aware of this-do lawyers go to court to make representations on behalf of the federal government and object to representations on behalf of the Government of Quebec, whose lawyers are paid by Quebec taxpayers? It is our money that is financing this legal squabble. Duplication, overlap, waste.
That is not all. Think of the poor citizens. I mentioned the 221 federal programs and the 244 provincial ones. Ordinary people are completely lost. When you make an application to the federal government, you are asked whether you have already applied to the provincial government. If so, you have to wait for an answer from both the federal and the provincial governments. But the provincial government is waiting for the federal government to deal with the issue, with the result that the people are kept waiting and waiting and waiting, while the meter is ticking away on both sides. Such a waste!
Finally, I must say that, on top of all that, is an unquantifiable factor-unquantifiable because this is money that we never see-and that is opportunity cost. While these programs shoot each other down or wander one way or the other, the public waits. And while the public is waiting, we let opportunities go by, right under our very nose. All this to say that there are lengthy delays and some people get so totally discouraged that they give up projects they could have completed otherwise.
A case in point is manpower training. Two years ago, there were 25,000 people on a waiting list for training, but the federal government did not agree with the provincial government on required courses. Even the Quebec Liberals said that Quebec knew what the needs were.
We are still waiting. Do you think that these 25,000 people who were looking for training are still waiting in line? No, they are no longer eligible, because they do not qualify for UI benefits any more. They are now on welfare and programs are shutting them out. It is a disgrace.
The costs of federalism? Let us say quickly that federal institutions definitely lack the flexibility required to compete internationally. In fact, the federal system is inflexible by definition, despite what a certain minister may say, as demonstrated by the many failed attempts to reform it.
Everything has been tried. We are not blaming the federalists. They tried everything. Mr. Lévesque, with the "beau risque", deeply believed in it. Mr. Bourassa tried until the last second to find some accommodation. It did not work. The system is inflexible, cast in concrete. Yet, international competitiveness requires great adaptability.
I will close by addressing remarks made by some of my colleagues opposite, which I found almost insulting. We are talking about democracy, about the democratic process. We are talking about the question. You will agree with me, Madam Speaker, that if the finance minister's next tax increase was the subject of a referendum, you know very well that the people would vote against it and that this tax increase would never ever see the light of day.
That would be democracy. But it will not happen that way. It will happen through phony consultations, through passage of this tax measure here in this House. Canadians will see tax increases of up to $120 billion, $125 billion, $130 billion, who knows?
The Government of Quebec is now following a process whose conclusion will be decided by the people. The people will be able to say yes or no. That is democracy. That is how it should be done and I would urge my colleagues opposite to do the same when dealing with important issues. Our Prime Minister says that the question that should be asked is: Do you want to separate from Canada?
I submit that Mr. Parizeau is asking an identical question and here is why. The Prime Minister's question essentially is this: Do you want to separate from the problem? What Mr. Parizeau says is this: Do you want to adopt the sovereignty solution? Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Mr. Chrétien is
entitled to his; he can keep his problem. Yes, Madam Speaker, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. However-