House of Commons Hansard #80 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was quebec.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Do we have unanimous consent to return to the original scheduling of the debate?

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Alfonso Gagliano Liberal Saint-Léonard, QC

Madam Speaker, I give consent on a condition. The member already used a few minutes so the next member may have the remaining time and not necessarily the 10 minutes.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Do we have unanimous consent?

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Reform

Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary North, AB

Madam Speaker, the motion before us today reaffirms the desire of Canadians to remain federally united as one people and asks the House to support them in that desire.

Surely nothing could be a higher priority for those of us who have accepted positions of trust and responsibility in the Parliament of Canada than to preserve and protect the unity and character of the country we have been elected to serve.

Unity is more than an abstract concept, more than some ideal detached from practical realities. There are things that unify people in the structure and operations of a federation. Citizens must realize concrete benefits from their association in the confederation.

In Canada our social support systems have for decades been an important element in making us the envy of the world. Unfortunately our current economic situation has eroded those traditional support systems. In light of this our citizens want to be assured that leaders of the new Canada of the 21st century will act and act decisively to ensure they continue to benefit from affordable and sustainable social services.

A fresh approach to the delivery of social programs is imperative for one simple reason. Our country's financial resources are being increasingly drained away by Canada's huge debt. Over one-quarter of our total spending is paid out in interest every year, a whopping $41 billion this year alone on the more than $500 billion which was borrowed by past Conservative and Liberal governments.

Incredibly this present government intends to borrow a further $100 billion which will diminish our cash resources by an additional $4 billion to $6 billion each year in higher interest charges. These are billions of dollars that will be lost when we need to fund health care, pensions and education for Canadian citizens.

For more than two decades those we have elected to manage the affairs of this great nation have seen fit to violate the most basic rule of sound fiscal management, living within one's means.

In order to buy the goodwill of every interest group in society and to fund extravagant and wasteful government, Conservative and Liberal decision makers have placed a mortgage on our country which as of today stands at nearly $518 billion. That is more than $18,000 for every man, woman and child in Canada. We owe almost $1,500 more every single second than we did the second before. In fact, in the time it takes me to complete my remarks in today's debate, our country's debt will have shot up by nearly a million dollars.

This incredible mismanagement and the resulting debt has severely reduced our ability to pay the cost of the social programs that we have enjoyed in the past.

With this evidence before them of instability and unsustainability of current social programs, it is no wonder many Canadians are losing faith in our federal system.

It is no wonder they believe a united Canada offers little long term personal benefit in return for the huge long term liabilities it has amassed.

As services are reduced so is the incentive to stay together as a country. Raising taxes with decreased benefit to the citizens

being taxed has throughout history been a sure fire recipe for social and civil unrest, instability and eventually even revolt.

If Canadians willingly continue to turn over a large amount of their earnings to the federal government, they will expect value for their money. Canadians have in the past been proud and thankful for the fact that they can rely on programs to ensure that their basic needs will be met when they are most vulnerable, when they are young, old, sick or destitute.

It worries many of us when services and benefits are wasted on those who do not truly need them. For too long our political leaders seem to have lacked the will to make the hard choices, the courage to do the right thing, to put social programs on a sound financial footing for the long term.

Reformers believe that Canadians want to preserve federal funding in support of health care, advanced education, the child benefit, the guaranteed income supplement for seniors, veterans' pensions and old age security for households below the national average household income.

They believe their contributions to the Canada pension plan should be managed in such a way as to ensure that benefits will be available to them in their retirement years. This means that there will be less money available for OAS for seniors with a household income above the national average, for federal support for UIC and to some extent for welfare and equalization payments.

Canadians are committed to caring for those who cannot care for themselves, the most vulnerable members of society, but they know we cannot possibly sustain our present social program spending without some intelligent priorization and reorganization.

Unfortunately in spite of the current roles with our shaky social safety net, our federal government continues to refuse to take the bold steps necessary to save it. When others like the Reform Party offer specific and concrete proposals designed to preserve and protect essential services, they are derided and met with fearmongering.

One particular blatant example of this attitude is our present health minister labelling those who want changes designed to preserve health care funding as advocating a two-tier health care system. She knows full well there are at least 10 tiers of health care in this country, her own privileged access to DND medical services being one of them.

The ministers of the government should fear the consequences of not acting to bring about the change. Threatening provinces will accomplish very little. What are Canadians to think when the cost of services goes up? The level of services goes down but they are told that constructive proposals for better management are harsh and unfair.

An explicit element of the Reform Party motion being debated today is recognition of and support for the desire of Canadians to remain federally united as one people, committed to sustaining social services. We believe present and future Canadians could count on receiving the services they most need and want if we took the following steps.

First, reorganize contributory social programs like UIC and the Canada pension plan so that they pay for themselves. Our unfunded CPP is a political and fiscal time bomb. The Reform Party believes that Canadians need the financial security which would be provided if CPP were fully funded. If this does not happen, the CPP premiums of working Canadians will be hiked, something that is already happening. CPP premiums started out at 3.6 per cent of income and today they are 5.2 per cent. By 2016, premiums are expected to be 10 per cent of income.

Second, focus the benefits of non-contributory social programs like old age security on households whose incomes are below the national average Canadian family income. With good management, we can continue to assist seniors who need help from society. We cannot do this if we give away money to citizens who are not in need.

Third, give students and job trainees a greater say in how education dollars are allocated by the use of education vouchers. Let user needs and demand drive the provision of education services rather than automatically awarding institutions scarce funds without reference to provision of effective training.

Fourth, amend the Canada Health Act to allow provinces more flexibility in the funding of health services to better rationalize diminishing resources and ensure that essential services can be maintained.

No one should be denied adequate health care in Canada because of inability to pay. It is clear that if we want to count on this we can no longer afford to pay 100 per cent of the cost of 100 per cent of the services for 100 per cent of the people regardless of need.

It fools no one to pretend that nothing has to change in the provision of health care services. Rather, we ought to honestly face the new realities and work to ensure that Canadians can have confidence that certain core services will be maintained and indeed be sustainable in the long term.

I believe that Canadians want to live in a country whose social spending is organized fairly so that we pay our own way. We expected individuals, groups, governments and our country as a whole to operate under that principle. We know that if we do we have ample wealth to preserve and sustain essential social

program spending and fulfil the obligation of any civilized society to care for those who cannot care for themselves.

I challenge members of the House, the leaders and elected representatives of the people of Canada, to work together to build a new Canada to meet the challenges of the 21st century, including managed essential social programs secured for this and future generations of citizens.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Alfonso Gagliano Liberal Saint-Léonard, QC

Madam Speaker, before I begin my speech, I want to inform the House that government members will be dividing their allotted time into 10-minute speeches and 5-minute periods for questions and comments, except ministers who will take up all of the allotted time pursuant to the Standing Orders.

I have had the honour of representing the people of Saint-Léonard since 1984. During that time, I have never forgotten for one minute that, since the birth of Canada, generation after generation of members have sat in this House to express their pride and their confidence in Canada.

These men and women, of different ages and different backgrounds, also come from the various regions that make up one of the largest countries in the world. Too few of them represented in the past or represent today the people who lived here hundreds of years before the first European even set foot on this continent.

All of these people, whose memories are still with us here, today, belonged to different political parties which took part in some pretty vicious sparring matches. As you know, Madam Speaker, unanimity is not the rule in this House. It is more the exception. However, members who sat in this House until recently all shared the same desire to serve their constituents and to contribute to the growth and unity of Canada.

In time of peace as in time of war, in time of prosperity as in time of economic crisis, every generation of members has strived to make Canada one of the most prosperous, peaceful and admired countries in the world.

Our sovereignty as a nation and our maturity as a society have gradually, patiently and relentlessly been built by those who believed in the rule of law, the invincibility of justice and respect for our differences, those who know the value of experience, efforts, destiny and solidarity. It is now our turn to add to this magnificent institution designed by our predecessors who also laid out the foundations.

Whether we were born in Senneterre or in Siculiana, in Saskatchewan or in Sicily, whether we speak English with a Bonaventure accent or French with a Berlitz accent, in our own way, we all say the same thing.

Like thousands of other hon. members before us and like millions of Canadians, we say that, today and yesterday, this is the country that we love, this is the great and magnificent country that we want to protect.

Since the last election, there is in this House a group of members whose numbers are large enough to form the Official Opposition and whose ambition is to put an end to the Canadian experiment. I respect unreservedly and unhesitatingly the decision of many Quebec constituents to send separatist members here, in Ottawa.

All Bloc Quebecois members were elected here as were the members of the Liberal Party, of the Reform Party and of other political groupings. These federal separatist members speak, sometimes with emotion, of the need to protect bilingualism in the Canadian Armed Forces and to take care of our Canadian publishers. But nobody in this House nor elsewhere in Canada has any illusion about the real objectives of the Bloc Quebecois. The Bloc Quebecois does not say this in so many words, but what they want is to destroy Canada, since Canada without Quebec will not be Canada any more.

The Bloc members claim to be good surgeons. They want us to believe that, with the help of the PQ, their big brother, they would be able to painlessly sever one of the parts of the Canadian Federation. The operation could be a success; the only problem is that the patient, that is Canada, will die.

Now, these few members of the Bloc are protesting their temporary patriotism, even boasting about it. This is the first stage of the surgical operation they want to do. This is what I call the anaesthetic.

But I can assure you that nobody will be beguiled by this. Quebecers, the sons and daughters of explorers, of discoverers, of inventors will never turn their backs on the country which gave them the freedom, the wealth and the dignity to grow up and develop.

I think that the presence among us, in this Parliament, of members who claim to be able to represent Her Majesty's loyal opposition while working towards the break-up of Canada could have a beneficial effect on all Canadians, particularly on Quebecers. By reminding us every day of what we could lose as Quebecers if Canada broke up, members of the Bloc, who are allies of the Parti québécois , help us to better appreciate the value of our Canadian citizenship.

And because of the presence here of separatist members, all Canadians are finally becoming aware that Canada's unity and the preservation of our cultural heritage and of our economic security are not a problem unique to Quebec.

In the 1980 referendum, a majority of Quebecers reiterated their attachment to Canada before the whole world. Of course, we have important problems to solve, and a lot of these stem directly from the relationship between Quebec and the rest of Canada, but the Bloc is not a remedy for Quebec's problems. It

is partly a symptom of the frustration that many Quebecers feel because of our failure to break the constitutional deadlock. Yet, the Bloc has done nothing to help solve these problems.

Similarly, the Reform Party is not a remedy for Canada's problems. It is largely a symptom of the impatience that many Canadians feel because of economic and political problems for which the Reform Party offers no solution.

You cannot cure a disease simply by monitoring the symptoms. We need to have the courage to solve the problems that hinder our progress as a federation and the wisdom to preserve that which made Canada one of the greatest success stories in the history of mankind.

I speak French and I am proud of it; my wife and my children speak French and are also proud of it. We are Quebecers as well as Canadians.

For me and for all my family, the knowledge of the French language and the bonds of friendship it enabled us to form have become deep roots. The French language has been for us the passport to contributing to a generous and dynamic society, the only French society in America, that welcomed us with open arms.

My deepest wish and my strongest resolve as a member of Parliament and as a Canadian citizen will always be to have the privilege to be able to contribute to the security of Quebec and to the unity of Canada. Earlier I heard my colleague from the Bloc list all the constitutional conferences that came close to giving Canada a new constitution. He forgot that during these 30 years, during which we were regrettably unable to solve our constitutional problems, some things helped Quebec develop itself. The Quebec Pension Plan and the agreement on immigration, for example, are two of them. At present, there is also the three-level infrastructure program that is working well.

During that time, Quebec developed. What programs, what things prevent Quebec from developing and being a dynamic society within a Canadian federation? I am proud to be a Quebecer, but I am also proud to be a Canadian. I will always work very democratically. I have always felt much respect for those who, even in this House, are using all the tools they have to defend their cause; but democratically, like the Bloc Quebecois, I will fight to keep this country united and to ensure that Quebec is strong, but within the Canadian federation.

That was the dream of the founding fathers of this country; that is the dream that we too, as members of Parliament, must pursue every day and at every opportunity, for the preservation of this country. We must recognize that, in spite of all our problems, millions of people would give up everything they have to come and live here in Canada.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Bloc

Benoît Tremblay Bloc Rosemont, QC

Madam Speaker, it is pretty clear that the hon. member for Saint-Léonard is not very knowledgeable about surgical procedures. We found out not long ago that he is a chartered accountant, and I think he should have stuck to his speciality. If he looked at what is happening in Canada and Quebec from the accountant's point of view, he would realize that Canada has the largest foreign debt of any country today.

Current interest rates are not going down, because 45 per cent of Canada's debt is covered by foreign loans and lenders are starting to have a substantial part of their portfolio invested in Canadian loans. According to the last budget, the government will have a deficit for many years and it will be extremely difficult to control government spending when in addition to being unable to manage areas that are a federal responsibility, the federal government regularly decides to encroach on jurisdictions belonging to the provinces, in the belief it can do better.

This week in Le Devoir , Lise Bissonnette gave the following analysis. The federal government has decided to intervene in literacy programs. Quebec already spends $63 million, and now the federal government is going to add $2.5 million! Two and a half million, with probably one million spent on advertising, with a lengthy press release from the Department of Foreign Affairs-does the federal government already consider Quebec to be a foreign country?-plus the whole federal-provincial bureaucracy, because in the final instance, after a lot of discussion, the federal government acknowledged this came under Quebec's jurisdiction and that it was necessary to co-ordinate approaches and agree on certain criteria. A host of officials met for months to try and agree on these criteria.

And after all that, about $25,000 per school board in Quebec may be spent on literacy training!

My goodness, $25,000! This is less than the annual salary of a teacher, but the federal government will probably spend more than $2.5 million on advertising to give $25,000 per school board. How can someone who is a professional accountant lecture us on surgical procedures? Give us a break! I hope that in his next speech, the hon. member for Saint-Léonard will stick to dollars and cents.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

Alfonso Gagliano Liberal Saint-Léonard, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his comments on my accounting expertise even if I have been out of practice for the last ten years. The member says it shows. Perhaps.

When it suits them, the Bloc Quebecois often uses the same argument as the Reform Party on the national debt. They bring that argument forward in order to make their point. But the member knows very well that I am aware he has a sound economic background and is very familiar with the national debt system. We are not dealing only with the federal debt. Quebec, which is developing in all its splendour, also has a debt as do all

other provinces and even every country in the world. This is part of our system.

We might also show that the problem of the debt has played a role in the development of Canada and Quebec. We enjoy a high quality of life. For the second consecutive year, the United Nations have declared Canada the country enjoying the best quality of life in the world. Talking about our financial problems, I hope the member will also acknowledge the fact that we have the best system and the highest quality of life in the world. Those things must be said. The Canadian experience has not been all negative. It has been good to us. The hon. member talks about interest rates. He wants me to talk about economy and finance.

When I arrived to Canada in 1958-my time has expired but I would like to have two more seconds-Montreal was the metropolis of Canada. All the large companies had their corporate offices in Montreal. The people across have been trying to separate Quebec from Canada for the last 30 years and during that time, Montreal has lost its title of metropolis. It has become the metropolis of poverty.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Lachine—Lac-Saint-Louis Québec

Liberal

Clifford Lincoln LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment

Madam Speaker, a German federal minister was telling me the other day that after the war, when the allies decided to give Germany a new system of government, they opted for a federal system because it would give more flexibility to the various parts, provide a better balance between stronger regions and weaker ones, and also because it had worked particularly well in several countries, namely Switzerland, the United States and Canada.

Among all these countries, Canada is certainly the most decentralized. Having a very complex Constitution dating back to colonial times, it is a difficult country to govern. Certainly, Descartes would have concluded that the Canadian system of government is unpractical and that Canada, as is it, is impossible to govern.

The Canadian system defies the rationalism of constitutional and governmental concepts. The miracle is that-despite some frustrations and a scattered population over an immense territory, despite regional disparities that resist all our efforts, despite the formidable obstacles we are faced with every day-Canada has not only survived, but progressed in a unique way among world nations.

The descendants of the two founding peoples, who had fought each other in the past, have chosen against all odds to build a new country based on peace, fraternity and sharing.

The miracle of Canada is that it was born in peace. It has endured in peace inspired by a spirit of freedom, of justice and of tolerance. Indeed, viewed from afar, from the point of view of a stranger, our so-called quarrels, our so-called bickerings and debates, our verbal battles every day seem so picayune, so futile, so small.

Having had the chance over the years of listening to a number of citizens from various countries of the world, I know how surprised, indeed astounded, they are at our endless family debates. I see it in their eyes. I see it in their expressions. They view us as spoiled children who cannot appreciate the measure of our countless blessings and advantages.

We enjoy the special blessings of wide open spaces, the immensity and ever changing beauty of our landscapes and seascapes. We enjoy the quality of life only a rich and privileged country can offer. Above all, we share the valuable wealth of enduring values which have stood the test of time and common sacrifices: values of humility as a people, values of generosity within our community and toward others, a continuing ideal of social justice in spite of the inevitable hurdles of colour, of creed and of economic constraints.

The fabric of our values is enduring. It is firm. It is steady. The fibre of Canadian unity runs very deep. It may be quiet and understated but it is extremely strong.

Those who seek to destabilize Canada and to reject this common heritage bear an immense responsibility towards our fellow citizens. Sadly, I listen day after day to the laments of Bloc members who attack Canada and the federal system. All the ills that plague Quebec, so we heard earlier today, can be attributed to the federal system.

Independence will solve everything. This will be heaven on earth. Soon, it will be perfect bliss. The new independent Quebec will build the nirvana. Whoever sounds a warning, even an institution like the Bank of Montreal the other day, is reviled and there is a general outcry. Immediately, separatist forces call for a boycott by the people.

Those who would destroy the country, its heritage of values, its system of shared wealth, its balance of equity and fairness, hold a very deep responsibility to not only their fellow citizens in their own province but to all citizens of Canada. Inevitably separation and the risks of it, the recklessness of it, will not only bring economic hardship but will tear people apart within our communities, within Quebec; not only there, but province against province, destabilization of a wonderful country, the separation of the maritimes from Ontario, the geographical tearing apart of a country which has shared a wonderful destiny for nearly 13 decades.

Those of us who have been given the privilege of preserving this country, of preserving values we have shared for 127 years, must be prepared to defend these ideals fiercely, passionately. Madam Speaker, fraternity is a lot more productive, a lot healthier than internal squabbles! A lot more productive, a lot healthier than division! A lot more productive, a lot healthier than destruction! It is a lot more productive, a lot healthier to build bridges than to dig trenches to separate us!

Is it not better to do than to undo, to rise beyond and above instead of bickering and bemoaning, to work toward the common will instead of for sectarian objectives and interests, to build bridges that will unite us and cross the differences between us rather than walls which will separate a few of us from the others and tear us apart?

I believe passionately in Canada because Canada is a kind country, a generous country. It has been very generous to me and to my family. Quebec has also been generous to me and I cannot conceive of Canada without Quebec. Quebec is wise. It is vibrant. It is dynamic. It brings a difference to Canada that makes it unique.

Those of us who believe in our country have to fight passionately for the ideal of preserving a country that is blessed among all. I share the profound wish that Canada live long and that Quebec always be a vibrant part of it.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am please to respond to my Liberal colleague. As long as we have known him, either as a member of the National Assembly or as a member of this Parliament, we have grown accustomed to his lyrical speeches which bear no meaningful relationship to the political realities and debate now taking place in Quebec and in Canada.

A while ago, he called us prophets of doom and individuals who have taken a hard-line approach with financial institutions. I would remind him that each time financial institutions take it upon themselves to get involved in political debates that concern Quebecers and their democratic right to choose sovereignty, it will be our duty to single them out and to denounce their activities, since they should normally be confining themselves to economic and financial analysis.

Let us look at the financial institutions which have over the past two years harshly criticized in their reports the sovereignty option. The list includes the Royal Bank, the Bank of Montreal, the CIBC and Scotiabank. When we look at the list of major contributors to the Liberal Party of Canada, we will find the names of the Royal Bank, the Bank of Montreal, the CIBC and Scotiabank. These are financial institutions which supposedly conduct objective analyses.

Considering that these financial institutions make substantial contributions to Liberal Party coffers-and I am not talking here about small donations of $2,000 or $3,000 dollars, but about $35,000 to $47,000 per year-I would not be surprised to learn that the Prime Minister and these financial institutions hold regular, open discussions on the national unity issue.

Therefore, enough about the freedom of financial institutions to wade into a political debate. They do not have the right to get involved and we doubt their credibility. Personally, I intend, along with all my sovereigntist colleagues, to openly denounce in the coming months any political involvement not clearly based on a serious analysis, whether financial or economic, of the situation.

Earlier, the Liberal Party whip spoke about the fact that we were all one big family. Let me just say in conclusion that the lyrical speech about Canada which the hon. member has just given us is without foundation. It has no basis in fact.

We should look at the real problems facing this country. If you are true Canadians and if you want to build a new Canada without Quebec, look at the problems now facing Canada, economic problems keeping the unemployment rate at 11 per cent, one of the highest rates in the Western world.

Look at the debt rate. Canada is the second most indebted nation in the world and the finance minister's budget will not solve the problem. A week or so ago, the C.D. Howe Institute strongly reminded us that the finance minister's budget will not do anything to bring public finances under control, does not contain any measure except for undermining the rights of the unemployed and cutting their benefits by $5.5 billion over the next three years. As a whole, the budget is so lacking in credibility that the extra interest charges alone will just about cancel out the savings achieved on the backs of the unemployed.

Look at how much Canada invests in worker training and compare its record with that of the other industrialized countries that take control of their own destinies and manage to meet the challenges of internationalization. Look at Canada's child poverty rate. When the UN told them Canada had one of the highest child poverty rates, the Tories were so ashamed-and you too, I think, because you perpetuated the situation-that they changed the formula used to determine the poverty rate. That is Canada's reality.

If you continue with your lyrical speeches-since I have known you, all your speeches have been lyrical-nothing concrete has ever been put on the table and I am not surprised by your arguments-

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

I remind the hon. member that comments must be addressed to the Chair and not directly to the member. I was not indicating that your time was up, but I also wanted to tell you that your comments must deal with the speech made by the previous speaker.

The parliamentary secretary has the floor, very briefly.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

Clifford Lincoln Liberal Lachine—Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Madam Speaker, that is not very fair. The Bloc member took up all my time. Am I not entitled to two minutes?

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

There must be unanimous consent of the House to extend your speaking time.

Do we have unanimous consent?

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Reform

Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK

Madam Speaker, we would also like to be able to ask a short question following the hon. member's answer.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

I am sorry, I am afraid we cannot extend the debate indefinitely. The parliamentary secretary has about 30 or 45 seconds.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

Clifford Lincoln Liberal Lachine—Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

It just shows the arrogance of the Bloc Quebecois. He accuses me of being a lyrical speaker, a speaker lyrique.

I would rather be a lyrical speaker than a bitter one. I would rather be lyrical than always try to pick quarrels with all those who do not agree with me. The financial institutions which denounce the Parti Quebecois do not have the right to make political statements. We must remember that. According to the hon. member, they do not have the right to make political statements. The Bank of Montreal does not count as they are anglos. The same goes for the Royal Bank.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

No, no.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

Clifford Lincoln Liberal Lachine—Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

I did not interrupt the hon. member. He should at least have the courtesy of listening to others. It just shows their arrogance; they never want to listen to others.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Reform

Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK

I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder if I might have the consent of the House, as I asked earlier, to ask a short question. The other hon. member took so much time and made a statement rather than asking a question.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

I am afraid it is impossible to extend the hon. member's time. If you ask a question there must be a response.

Do we have unanimous consent to extend the time for a question and response?

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Reform

Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK

Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will be brief.

The hon. member in his statement mentioned that the Bloc is not correct in suggesting that if Quebec separated from Canada everything would be heaven. I agree with his statement.

However there are a lot of Canadians both in Quebec and outside Quebec who are concerned because our economy may be going to the other place. I am not talking about the Senate when I say "the other place".

I wonder what the hon. member might offer in the way of some economic hope that would make all of us want to stay in Canada and have none of us worry about going to that other place.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Clifford Lincoln Liberal Lachine—Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

Madam Speaker, very briefly I refer the hon. member to a headline today in Quorum : ``Economy outpaces Martin's budget forecast''. Canada will have growth of 3.9 per cent estimated in the coming year. We have taken over a country with a very bad economic forecast. We have committed ourselves to reduce the budget to 3 per cent of GNP within three years. We are going to do this. Things are going to get better under the Liberal government.