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

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

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

I certainly hope so.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

And I hope with all my heart that the great defender of this great country, none other than the Prime Minister of Canada, will join hands with the Conservative member of this House, the leader of the Conservatives, and with the Reformers too, because they all came out of the same mold. They will all try to sell flexible federalism to Quebecers.

But we will also be on the scene to push our position. We will also point out that the federal government's first reaction is always to say no to Quebec. The hon. member made comments on my speech, that is his right. But I find it strange that he did not really talk about the important points I made in my speech. Was money spent during the Oka crisis, yes or no? Did the federal government consider it a catastrophe, yes or no? Did the federal government send the army because it considered the incident to be a catastrophe as defined under the accord, yes or no? Why did the federal government spend $122 million, like the hon. member said, if it had no business in Quebec, if the incident really was a purely provincial matter?

Because Quebec asked it to? Of course. But that answers the question of whether or not it was a catastrophe. How odd that the hon. member did not talk about that. And regarding the $450 million, yes the federal government did spend $450 million on education up to 1987. I would remind the hon. member, however, that Quebec paid its share, 25 per cent or around $115 million.

The sum we are demanding is for all of the years after 1987 in which the federal government did not want to pay, under the same accord, the accord under which the federal government had already paid in years past. We are asking for nothing more than our due. The same goes for the stabilization payments.

How strange that the hon. member did not go into detail, did not explain why we were not entitled to claim these sums. No, instead, he accused us of comparing apples with oranges regarding sovereignty and would have you believe that we have charted a new course. Had he only really listened to the Bloc Quebecois since its arrival in this House, he would have realized that we did not do an "about face"; we are just openly repeating things we have always been saying here. This is merely a synthesis of our thinking.

The hon. members opposite can jeer all they want and call it an about face. For us, it is the next logical step on Quebec's path to sovereignty.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine Québec

Liberal

Patrick Gagnon LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General

Madam Speaker, as you know, it was very hard for Quebecers and for all Canadians to see this aggressive confrontation with the aboriginal First Nations, watched by millions of people throughout the world. I found it very troubling.

And I think that this opinion, these feelings, are shared by thousands, even millions of Quebecers. It was very uncomfortable to realize that we did not get along with the first settlers of this country.

That is now history. According to the opposition, it is time to pay the bills. According to the Disaster Financial Assistance Program, the DFAP, the government has paid nearly $210 million in assistance since 1970, so that the bill we were sent by Quebec would represent nearly 40 per cent of the program's budget for the past 25 years.

I agree the bill is pretty steep. It takes time, as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs explained, but the federal government always pays its share. We are ready to negotiate. We are ready to review. However, I do not think the opposition should politicize the issue like this, because we are dealing with Canada's First Nations, who arrived in this country long before we did. And I think we owe them something. That is why I ask the opposition to accept that 40 per cent of the federal program will be paid to the Province of Quebec.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

Madam Speaker, not 40 per cent but 75 per cent, according to the agreement. That is my first point.

I think the hon. member is confusing the issue. Just compare what is happening in Quebec with what happens in other Canadian provinces. Aboriginal people are treated better in Quebec. I think that as a member from Quebec he should at least admit, here in the House, that we treat aboriginal people very well. And I think they would agree.

Second, when I see a member rising in the House to say; "Yes, there is a disaster assistance program but we think the bill submitted by the Province of Quebec is too steep, because then we would have no money left for anything else"-now I ask you, can we legislate disasters? Can we predict that we will not have more than three? No compensation for number four?

I think it stands to reason that when the government sets up a program and provides assistance under that program, it should expect to foot the bill. Again, I urge the federal government to pay its debts, because this is money it owes to Quebec. Pay now and stop arguing.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:40 p.m.

Sault Ste. Marie Ontario

Liberal

Ron Irwin LiberalMinister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to address this motion today. Some very important issues have been raised.

The hon. Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs has clearly set out why the government will be voting against the motion. At the same time it is important to understand this issue within the broader context of what the government is doing on aboriginal issues both in Quebec and in Canada as a whole.

The government was elected on a mandate from the Canadian people to respond to issues of concern to aboriginal communities. In the 1993 election we addressed these issues head on in the famous red book. We stated quite clearly what a Liberal government would do and now we are fulfilling our commitments.

One of eight red book chapters is devoted exclusively to aboriginal issues, in addition to references to aboriginal policies in other chapters. Never before in Canadian electoral history had aboriginal issues received such a high profile. The opposition should bear in mind that on the strength of bringing these and other issues to public attention we received a strong mandate from the Canadian people.

In the red book we maintain that aboriginal people in Canada want two things: first, a new partnership with government based on trust, mutual respect and participation in decision making; second, a strengthening of their communities. In the red book we stated that our goal was a Canada where aboriginal people would enjoy a standard of living and quality of life and opportunity equal to those of other Canadians; a Canada where First Nations, Inuit and Métis people would live self-reliantly, secure in the knowledge of who they are as unique peoples; and, where all Canadians would be enriched by aboriginal cultures and would be committed to bringing their fair share of their potential to our nation.

Perhaps most importantly, the red book set out our goal for Canada where aboriginal children would grow up in secure families and healthy communities, with the opportunity to take their full place in Canada. This is our vision and I think it is everyone's vision in this House. We have been moving step by step to bring it alive. In the first year and a half of the government's mandate, we have already made considerable progress in Canada and in Quebec. I am not saying that this is the end-all or be-all, but we have made some progress which I think is significant, even though we have a long way to go.

In the first 18 months as minister I visited Indian and Inuit communities across Quebec and I met with most Quebec chiefs and several Inuit leaders. I have talked to Ghislain Picard of the Assembly of First Nations; I have talked to Chief Max Gro-Louis of the Huron; I have talked to Matthew Coon-Come of the Cree; Jean-Guy Whiteduck; Brenda Gideon Miller; Joe Norton, Dennis Ross, Jerry Peltier of the Mohawk; Marcel Boivin; Bernard Jérôme; Simeonie Nalukturuk of the Inuit; Zebedee Nungak of the Inuit; and Remy Kurtness. Perhaps people are saying I am talking too much. They all tell me what is being done, what needs to be done and how we can do better things together.

We forget. We deal with the aboriginal people almost from a point of ignorance. I was looking at the notes of Joseph-Elzéar Bernier, the Baffin Island explorer, when he first met the Inuit. This is from his own diary: "After firing 19 shots, I instructed an Eskimo to fire the 20th, telling him, you are now Canadian". That is how we started up there.

We forget that in Quebec there are 10 First Nations, over 40 communities and Inuit in the north. These communities are all over the place. They are a suburb of Montreal, they are extended along the St. Lawrence, they are in the interior and they are in the far north. We forget that when Cartier first landed he lost half of his people in the first winter. If it had not been for the Indians, who taught him to put bark and cedar needles and water together, they would have all died of scurvy. The Indians asked for nothing. They asked for nothing. And that is the start of their history.

We came here with a certain amount of avarice in our hearts, telling these people: "You've been holding this land for 5,000 years for us. It is really ours and we discovered it". We forget that they have a proud history. They had been here. They are nations, they were nations and they will be nations.

Some 20 years ago the province of Quebec and Canada solidified an important relationship with First Nations as the first comprehensive claims in Canada, the signing of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the northeastern Quebec agreement, fostered a sense of pride throughout Quebec, and rightfully so. I must remind members of the Bloc that it was former Prime Minister Trudeau who was on our side when this agreement was signed, initiated, worked on. It was the present Prime Minister, who had my job, who brought this agreement to

fruition. The heritage of the Cree and the heritage of the James Bay agreement is not only a proud heritage of our country, it is a very significant heritage in the Liberal Party.

These modern treaties mark a pivotal point in our relationship with aboriginal people, not only in Quebec but throughout Canada. Much has already been accomplished under these agreements, but given their extraordinary scope and complexity it is not surprising that much more needs to be done.

When I visited the Cree communities in December I continued discussions with Grand Chief Matthew Coon-Come and Cree chiefs regarding implementation of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. As a result, work has been undertaken to continue our dialogue on several key areas of concern.

I am pleased to report that under the first self-government legislation in Canada, the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act of 1984, significant progress has been made in bilateral talks on agreement on funding a five-year operation and maintenance budget for the regional and local governments.

We also recently reached an agreement with Chief Billy Diamond of the Cree of Waskaganish for fresh water and sewage treatment. I am pleased to report that the construction of the community of Ouje-Bougougmou was written up in National Geographic and in articles throughout the world as the way to do things. I think every parliamentarian should go to Ouje-Bougougmou and see how it is done and when we work together how it can be done right.

Chief Abel Bosum has been with us from the beginning there. He has lived with it. It is amazing. They took people from eight or nine scattered communities who were living in shacks. They met in a little house on a hill. They would come over in the evening and meet with the architect with suggestions. They were not just looking at plans. It was a living thing. They named each street after their traplines. If we could duplicate that in the 605 First Nations across Canada, problems would be solved.

I want to tell the House what Billy Diamond had to do when the Grand Council of Crees was started in 1974. Billy Diamond gave his health and his family. This is what he said on June 28, 1971: "This is our land. No one has obtained surrender from us. We never lost it in war. We never lost it in battle. We never signed a treaty. No one has taken it. And we are not allowed by the Creator to let anyone take it from us". That is the way we started. They have only had three leaders: Billy Diamond, Ted Moses, Matthew Coon-Come.

With the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada working together we can put things together, not divide things or separate things. We can come up with the Ouje-Bougoumous. That is what we have today. It is easy to divide. It is hard to keep people together.

In the area of policing, the department of the solicitor general signed a tripartite agreement on public security for all Cree communities. This illustrates a common goal for the Crees to govern themselves by assuming administration, management, and supervision of its own police force.

We are also encouraged to see considerable progress made on reaching an agreement to establish a Nunavik assembly of government. Although primarily a negotiation between Inuit and Quebec, Canada has been invited by both parties to have representation at these negotiations and we have provided the Nunavik constitutional committee with funding for these landmark negotiations.

Canada has other involvement with aboriginal groups in northern Quebec. We organized and participated with Makavik Corporation in the Inuit forum, a meeting held on a regular basis to examine progress and co-ordinate the application of the implementation of the JBNQA in terms of federal obligations. Canada signed the JBNQA implementation agreement with the Inuit in 1990, which provides for an amount of $22.1 million and various other commitments.

The Naskapis are also being innovative in developing partnerships. We recently signed a five-year agreement on housing and infrastructure and are discussing in concert with other federal departments an employment creation strategy.

Ninety per cent of the time I am in the field with the aboriginal people of Quebec they do not talk about self-government or about the referendum or about separation. They talk about education, infrastructure, water systems, housing, and their aspirations. This is what they talk about.

We talk about separation here. The intellectual dilettantes are always talking about separation. The native people are talking about things that are important to them and their kids: food on the table, jobs, security. These are the things we were elected for. We were elected on jobs, fiscal responsibility, getting on into the future and that is why we are staying on that agenda.

Following our 1990 implementation agreement with the Naskapi, I am pleased to hear Quebec is engaged in discussions and looks forward to resolving various issues related to the implementation of the northeastern Quebec implementation agreement.

Federal initiatives are not limited to northern Quebec. As I said earlier, the aboriginal people are throughout Quebec. For example, comprehensive land claims with the 12 Attikamek and Montagnais communities are of enormous importance to all of northeastern Quebec. I look forward to renewed and rejuvenated negotiations that will lead to a fair and equitable resolution of their outstanding and complex land claims.

It was odd, when I heard the Bloc speak today there was no mention of the fact that David Cliche, whom I like, although we disagree philosophically-he is a separatist and I am a federalist-went to the Attikamek and Montagnais and offered $400 million. That is not ancient history; that was a few months ago. Nothing was said about this, but he presupposed that $300 million of that was federal money. While Quebec was taking all the bows-I see the Bloc member smiling, but that is correct-and David Cliche was taking all the bows and Premier Parizeau was in the glow of this, $300 million of the $400 million was our money.

I remember one Bloc member standing up saying "I am here to defend the taxpayers of Canada", which is what they were elected for. They are not here to separate the country-they have said that themselves; they are here to do their jobs. I do not remember one Bloc member ever standing up and saying maybe we have too much money in there. I think this is the first time it has even been mentioned that $300 million of that $400 million came from the federal coffers. Luckily, in a way, the agreement was rejected.

There are also important developments involving the Huron-Wendat First Nation right next to Quebec City. This is interesting about the Huron. At one time the Huron were the largest of the six nations and a profound part of our history. Through disease, war and what we have done, they now have only one reserve, which is near Quebec City at Loretteville. It is very sad when this happens. We read so much about the Huron in the books. There are a few in the United States, but only one reserve in Canada.

I met with Chief Max Gros-Louis in November 1994. An understanding has been reached among the federal, provincial and Huron-Wendat negotiators to recommend the framework agreement for very important negotiations of the application of the Murray Treaty.

I have several pages on the Mohawk, who we hear about every day. I will skip over that, because my time is getting short. I will mention that it is working. The Mohawk round table is not the end-all, but it works. We are now talking to the Mohawk. Judge Réjean Paul is there and Michel Robert is there. It works. This government came in, and there are no more Okas. We talked and negotiated and dealt fairly with the Mohawks of Canada.

We are working with the Inuit, the Cree, the Naskapi, the Montagnais, the Algonquin, the Attikamek, the Huron, the Malecites, the Micmacs and the Mohawks in Quebec. I cannot remember a time ever in the history of the country when any government could say there was movement with all of these people. That is what is important, not the fact that the Bloc comes here today on behalf of the Government of Quebec and tells us there is money owing.

It is important for us to work together when it comes to aboriginal people. We can do a good job. As things are going now, this country is not going to separate so we had better start talking about the future. We had better not have such deep wounds that we cannot heal them. That could happen even here. We could create such deep wounds that we could never heal them. We have to decide what is important to us collectively.

The Bloc member for Saint-Jean is out there in the field. He is probably one of the more knowledgeable, maybe the most knowledgeable person in opposition on what is out there with the aboriginal people. He brings the concerns of food mail to this House. He brings the concerns of aboriginal people across this country. He made one mistake by going door to door in a Mohawk village and almost got kidnapped by the Mohawks because they did not understand he was a member of Parliament, but these things come and go.

We have to establish what is important to us and what our values are as people. If we do that, this country will survive and we will do a good job for the aboriginal people.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre De Savoye Bloc Portneuf, QC

Madam Speaker, I took the liberty of jotting down a few points while the minister was speaking. I must say he has given us an extraordinary lesson on aboriginal culture, and so we have not really completely wasted our time, since, let there be no doubt, we have a lot to learn from this culture.

You see, our purpose today was not to talk about aboriginal culture, which has its merits, but to talk about the money the federal government owes the Government of Quebec. It is just money, nothing important. It is just money after all. It does create a few minor problems, however. It is easy enough to say: there was a crisis at Oka, which is in Quebec, so it is not a big deal; Quebec can pay the costs or take the matter to court. Whose responsibility was it to deal with the native people? The federal government's. Now if I have properly understood the minister, given that the native culture has so many fine qualities, if the native people got angry at some point, it was because the federal government had not done its job. If it did not do its job, it has to assume the consequences.

So you see the matter is a simple one. The minister says that federal money would be used to reimburse the Government of Quebec for what it paid out. Yes, but, there is a problem here. There is a fundamental error in logic. It is not federal money, it is taxpayers' money. While the Liberal government may have red on its banner, it is not wearing a Santa Claus suit. It does not print money. It gets its money out of the taxpayers' pockets. Try asking the Minister of Revenue to wait two or three or four years for his tax money, try saying to him: "We will go to court, and it will get settled that way". It could create a few problems for any taxpayer foolish enough to try.

No, it is not federal government money, it is taxpayers' money. The shoe starts to pinch when Quebec taxpayers have to pay twice-once when they pay their federal share and once when they pay the provincial government. Who is supposed to pay the costs the federal government is responsible for? Good heavens, the logic is simple. It is the logic of integrity. It is the logic of honesty. It is the logic of "I paid out money for you under an agreement, I sent you the bill for it, you agreed to pay it-well, pay it then". What was the answer to this? It was: "See you in court. We want all the details on these invoices". Well, good heavens-I certainly could not talk about good faith here.

I would be tempted to suggest to the Quebec Minister of Revenue that he set aside from the GST money he collects an amount equal to what the federal government is refusing to pay, in the form of a guarantee. Once the federal government pays its bill, the Minister of Revenue will release the money. If this is the sort of language we have to use, then this is the way we will have to put it: $300 million out of $400 million.

The minister says: "Mr. Cliche, in Quebec, has offered aboriginals $400 million". He forgot to say that $300 million came from the federal government, in fact not from the federal government but rather from the taxpayers. If the federal government is so broke that it has to squeeze tax dollars out of taxpayers and cannot afford to hand over that money to Quebec, then it should separate from Quebec. Quebec then would be able to pay $300 million out of those $400 million since it would save a tidy sum of $30 billion.

The minister was very nice in his speech, very kind. Unfortunately, he did not address the motion before the House. To conclude, I have this question for the minister. In his speech, the minister said right from the start that they were going to vote against the Bloc's motion. Could he tell us therefore what we are doing in this place all day long? Is it an exercise in futility? Those people say from the outset that they are not going to listen, that they are going to vote against the motion. Are we wasting our time? No, we are not wasting our time because those who are watching us on television will know the truth and have a very good reason to resolve the issue this fall by voting in favour of Quebec's sovereignty and making Quebec a winner.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Liberal

Ron Irwin Liberal Sault Ste. Marie, ON

Madam Speaker, I want to remind the hon. member that we spend $351 million a year in the Quebec region for aboriginal people. We spent $980 million on the Crees, $552 million on the Inuit and $69 million on the Naskapi, for a total of $1.6 billion.

We already gave Quebec $450 million for education.

Maybe I should not bother to mention it but $450 million of our money went to Quebec on education.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has expressed the problem we have. Quebec is saying that the Government of Canada owes 50 per cent but we have no say on the amount of money spent. We have no say vis-à-vis education with the province of Quebec. It will call the shots. That is not partnership. That is: "I am doing it. I will send you the bill and you pay it".

At the same time, I wrote to Madam Beaudoin in April saying that I would put my senior officials at the table to see if there is common ground. We will count the various moneys owing to see if we can find a just solution. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has done the same thing but he has gone further and has met with her. We are trying to do this in a practical manner.

I tend to agree with the Reform Party on one point. There are a lot of games being played here today. The issue is not what is owing to Quebec, the issue is separation. No matter which way we cut it, this is it.

The problem I am having is that the onus is not on this government to prove why separation is better. The Bloc is having a difficult time with it. It is having a difficult time explaining to Quebecers how they will be more sovereign if Quebec separates.

The reality is that with GATT, with NAFTA, with what we are doing with aboriginal people and within the cultural community, there is more sovereignty for Quebecers under federalism. There is more. They are starting to realize that. The Bloc is failing in its argument. It is up to its members to put their argument and convince Quebecers, not us.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Bloc

Ghislain Lebel Bloc Chambly, QC

Madam Speaker, the minister just said that they gave $450 million towards the education of native people in Quebec. They have already used this argument three or four times on the government side. But if the bill comes to $600 million, it must be paid in full.

When I bought a car, and was told by the salesman that it came to $30,000, I did not stop paying at $20,000, saying that it would have to suffice, that it was too much. I had to pay the whole amount, and live up to my commitment.

Earlier, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs talked about the principles of fairness and good management; he really laid it on thick. But last year, around the same time, when we asked for a royal commission on the Pearson deal, for the sake of good management and good administration of public funds, we were told that it was not possible because time was of the essence. The whole matter had to be settled quickly for the economy to keep going, and the country to function.

One year later, what is the situation, Madam Speaker? We are not too sure. Bill C-22 is in limbo, floating around somewhere. What was supposed to cost $25 million, according to the transport minister himself, has now sky-rocketed to $450 million. Why is it that today, when Quebec and Quebecers are asking for what they are owed, all of a sudden the government invokes these same principles it refused to apply to the Pearson deal, even though a Liberal inquiry recommended legal action?

I would like someone to explain this to me. How could the minister change that much within a year to the point of being unrecognizable?

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

Ron Irwin Liberal Sault Ste. Marie, ON

Madam Speaker, in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement there are shared costs for instance for infrastructure, water, sewers and so on which we have paid. We are doing the accounts on that. It would be as inappropriate for us to send the bill to Quebec saying to pay it without question as I think it is inappropriate for Mrs. Beaudoin to say: "Here is the bill. Don't let a senior civil servant field it. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and I will deal with it. We will just cut a political decision".

I do not think, when we are dealing with large sums of money, that we can do these things that way. There has to be proper accounting. Senior civil servants who have the expertise have to sit down and do the accounting. That is all this is, an accounting. We accept that. What we do not accept is the Bloc using it as a political ploy which it is. We accept it as accounting within our normal relationship with Quebec, or any province in Canada from B.C. to Newfoundland.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Bloc

Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Madam Speaker, as critic for indian affairs, I will speak mostly about two of the claims that are before us today. I could have chosen to get directly to the point, but I thought it would be useful to look at what Quebecers could do with $300 million, since this is approximately the amount of the claim submitted to the federal government which is now being discussed in the House.

There are quite a number of things Quebecers could do with $300 million. The first one that comes to mind is probably, as Minister Paillé said, an investment fund with a greater accent on venture capital, that would give young entrepreneurs with creative ideas the opportunity to go into business. We could create 50,000 to 100,000 jobs with such a fund of $300 million.

There is chronic unemployment in Quebec. The unemployment rate has always been higher in Quebec than in the rest of Canada, because of decisions made here, in this House, where we often choose to establish heavy industries and other important job creating activities outside Quebec. We are stuck with an unemployment insurance fund and we are being told: "You are lucky because we give you more money than you give us. We return more money to you in unemployment insurance, social assistance, and education transfers". Listen, you do not build a society with unemployed persons and welfare recipients. These people are hard pressed right now, and we have to put them back to work.

I think it is appropriate that we should question the government today, that we should introduce a motion which says: "Listen, ladies and gentlemen, pay your bills. You owe us $300 million".

I will now move on to the Oka question. Originally, the bill was for $84 million, but the Liberal government finally paid $5.3 million in 1992. At that time, the government looked at our claim and said: "We are paying $5.3 million, but the remainder is not eligible". Why is it not eligible? There is practically no reason. I remind you that, at the time, the Quebec government was Liberal and federalist. The man in charge was our former Minister of Social Security, the ineffable Mr. Ryan, that everybody knows and who tangoed with the federal government.

He danced the tango in step. Mr. Ryan kept complaining, and the federal government kept sending him letters saying: "You are exaggerating, we will not pay that much, we will give you $5.3 million, but as for the rest, the $79 million, forget it."

Mr. Ryan kept dancing with the federal government, he kept exchanging letters with the federal government, and he kept wringing his hands in the federal government's headquarters here in Ottawa. He kept writing to ministers tearful speeches, saying you must resolve this for us.

However, we never saw him demanding publicly the federal government to pay the bill now, as the current Quebec government is now doing after so much pussyfooting. We know the federalist mind of Mr. Ryan, as I said, the ineffable Quebec's Minister of Public Security at the time, and we understand that he was content to dance the tango privately with the federal government and never dared to do it publicly. So, we are doing it today.

Why do the expenses not qualify? We do not know, except that, with the Parti Quebecois' arrival in power in 1994, as early as December 1994, the then minister of public security was asking his counterpart for the reimbursement. What happened then is exactly what the minister wants to take us into today. "We will do it with the auditors and the high officials. I suggest that we meet".

For five years, it has been only meetings. For five years, we have been told that officials would get together to try and resolve the issue, that the auditor general would also be asked what would qualify and what could be paid.

It was a disaster that happened in Quebec in 1990, a disaster that had an effect not only in Quebec and in Canada, but also internationally. Several courts, several international fora dealt with the Oka events. I think that Quebec qualified under agreements signed between the federal and provincial governments and providing for such a disaster.

Was it a disaster? I think that I could talk about it for hours, because I certainly experienced the events, I saw them, I saw the federal government's negligence in the Oka crisis. From our point of view there definitely was a major crisis in Oka affecting not only native people but Quebecers also.

It has become obvious that in the beautiful region of Oka located near the Deux-Montagnes lake, where I go on a regular basis, the tourist industry has been completely wiped out. That region has become a desert from a tourism point of view. No one goes to Oka any more. There are still events in Oka which prove the carelessness of this government which sits around idly and waits for things to take a turn for the worse. What is happening during that time? The economy of the area and surrounding areas is in bad shape, as a result.

Some officers of the Sureté du Québec had to spend weeks in Oka at that time, far from their families. Who is paying the bill? The government of Quebec is paying the bill, at present. As I said earlier, there are agreements where in case of a disaster there has to be some sort of sharing. In this case, Quebec is the only one to pay the bill, except a paltry $5.3 million.

This government is still showing carelessness today. Just a week ago a good friend of the Liberals, Michel Robert, was appointed to the Quebec Court of Appeal. This man is a close friend of the Liberals, the red lawyer par excellence, a man who was on all strategic committees of this House, including the Security Intelligence Review Committee.

That man played a key role in the Kanesatake negotiation. I talk about carelessness because I also know the native people's philosophy. According to their philosophy, you cannot suddenly say that you want to negotiate, to set a timeframe and solve everything in three days. This is not the way things work with them. You need time to gain their confidence. I must say however that Mr. Robert is a very good and very competent negotiator.

However, after only seven or eight months, as we were beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel, this government appointed Mr. Robert to the Court of Appeal and there we are, back to square one. What I am saying now is that the federal government is controlling the pressure in Oka, as he did in 1990. It raises or lowers the pressure depending on the political context. Today, we are claiming $79 million, knowing that this government has not done anything since 1990 to settle the problem in Oka. In this context, I think the claim is legitimate. As I said, it is another example of the carelessness of this government.

What were we supposed to do in Oka? The major part of this claim relates certainly to the presence of police officers there. What evidence is needed to convince the government? Maybe a videotape would do? They are quite in fashion. As was shown recently, the government opposite only reacted when they saw videotapes.

I recall events in Oka when the Sûreté du Québec was systematically sandwiched between aboriginal people and their opponents. I saw police officers torn to pieces. I saw on video some of them, accompanied by friends, being carried out on stretchers, because they had tried to separate two camps which were trying to cut each other's throat, so to speak.

Now we are told: "You take care of that yourselves. Public security is Quebec's responsibility." We do not worry about the fact that we are the trustees of aboriginal people, that we pay them and that we give a certain amount to the Oka band council every year. We simply continue to pay. You, however, will continue to pay the bills when things go sour, and also when we decide that things are taking a turn for the worse.

I think that Quebec's $79 million claim for these expenses is quite legitimate. And I think that the Quebec government did the right thing during that crisis by putting the Quebec provincial police between the two factions that wanted to have a go at each other.

They always fall back on the argument that things will be monitored by the auditor general, that senior officials will sit down together and keep an eye on things. I think that the problem is on the federal side. We should appoint an auditor

general who is above everyone and can check on the conduct of this department, which not only increases or eases the pressure as needed, but also perpetuates through dilatory tactics the financial confrontation between Quebec and Canada. That is the problem. The federal side does not want to settle the problem.

Whenever we present them with a bill, it is quite normal for them to tell us, "Let us sit down together and look at this with our officials". What Ms. Beaudoin wanted was a political settlement. She wanted to meet with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and settle this bill once and for all. However, the minister's solution is, as always, to perpetuate the problem. He says that the matter will be considered, that his senior officials, his faithful servants, will meet with us, but he refuses to settle the problem. The federal government will not settle the problem. So we are always caught in an ongoing financial confrontation with the government, and this confrontation may go on if a motion like this one is not adopted. Today's motion has launched a broad debate in which we are trying to convince the people opposite that they must pay their bills and settle their accounts.

I now move on to James Bay. We know about their open mindedness. The minister gave us a very good presentation on what is happening in Quebec in terms of culture. I could give a presentation, but I would rather answer the questions of Quebecers waiting for $300 million from the federal government. I could talk about the Naskapi, the Cree, the Inuit for hours, but that is not the subject of today's debate.

Neither is the fact that we always have to wait for money-taxpayers' money, of course, as my colleague pointed out earlier-from the federal government. We cannot say that the federal government does not give any money. It must give some. Because they are the trustees of Canada's aboriginal people, they must provide these people with a minimum standard of living. I do not deny that the federal government has given money for that purpose. So has the Quebec government.

Let me quote statistics showing that, as far as education is concerned, the Quebec government did not rely on the federal government. Otherwise, I think the James Bay Cree would have been in a really bad position.

How does it work up there? There are three school boards; the Cree, the Inuit and the Naskapi each have their own. Costs sharing was on the basis of a gentleman's agreement.

Here is how costs were shared at the time. I have the table before me. I read that, for the Cree-Naskapi, the Quebec government was to pay 25 per cent of the costs involved, and the federal government, 75 per cent. For the Inuit, the percentages were reversed, with the Quebec government paying 75 per cent, and the federal government, 25 per cent. We, in Quebec, care about native education. I cannot give you the exact figures, only the conclusions drawn from these statistics.

In terms of language retention, the Cree, Inuit and Naskapi do better on average than natives in the rest of Canada. By language, I do not mean French or English, but their native tongue, which is Cree. Their language retention rate is clearly higher than in the rest of Canada and we have Quebec and the James Bay agreement to thank for that, for this agreement is a model in Canada and several aboriginal nations used it as a basis for negotiating with the federal government. I might add that the federal government often refers to this agreement because, as I said, it is a model.

Enrolment rates are also higher than for other native groups in Canada. As for health, because they are more educated-this is an important consideration-aboriginal people have an infant mortality rate lower than the Canadian average. The life expectancy in these three groups is higher than in the rest of the native community in Canada. We can say that as far as the Cree, the Inuit and the Naskapi are concerned, the Government of Quebec has taken its responsibilities.

The government never accepted to sign the agreement-it is a gentleman's agreement-and things went well until 1987. Starting in 1987, the basis of calculation changed drastically. Indexation was introduced, but without taking into account the birth rate, which, incidentally, is twice that found in the rest of Canada. Aboriginal peoples are currently a very strong drain on the budget. The problem is easy to understand. The aboriginal population is growing twice as fast as that of the rest of Canada.

With regard to adult education, it was found that a whole generation-and that is true everywhere in Canada-of aboriginal children were removed from their families and taken far away, in an attempt to make them forget their culture and their language. A whole generation, the one which preceded us, of aboriginals completely missed the boat in terms of their culture, their language, their recognition as a people and, of course, their education.

There is some catching up to do regarding adult education in Quebec's far north, and these people are working on that. There is also an increased demand for services such as daycare, etc. Aboriginal people in the far north have access to the latest technology and knowledge, which allows them to have very adequate education conditions, compared to the rest of Canada.

What is the federal government's reaction? It says that it will pay back, but based on an indexation criteria, instead of complying with the terms of the convention in effect at the time. This government does not intend to pay its share in the current year.

The finance minister's budget does not allocate any money to repay the federal government's share under the James Bay agreements. Earlier, the minister said that the government gave $450 million. I want to correct him. He made a small mistake. The amount is in fact $465 million. The government gave more than the minister said it did. The problem is that if the original

agreements had been respected, the federal government would have had to pay $584 million. This shortfall of $119 million is what we are claiming today.

I would like to quote another minister of the Quebec Liberal government of the time, who is now the Minister of Labour in this government.

With three minutes left, I have just enough time to explain what the education minister of the Quebec Liberal government was doing back then. She too was waltzing with the federal government. She took over from Claude Ryan, her colleague responsible for public security, and sent her deputy ministers to Ottawa with this message: "Listen, this does not make any sense in the education sector. You have to pay us back". A number of meetings were held but, of course, the federal government did nothing.

My conclusion is what could Quebec do? What could the Quebec government do, given the federal government's negligence and inertia? Should we follow the example of the Blood Indians and the Blackfoot nation I visited in Central Canada and tell young aboriginals: "Sorry, we do not have the money this year, so you will not be sent to school". We did not do that. Even if the federal government is not paying its share, Quebecers have decided to support the rights of native peoples in Quebec, and young aboriginals are going to school.

Lack of funds will not prevent a single child in northern Quebec from going to school. The Quebec government has decided to take on this responsibility. What were we supposed to do in Oka? Withdraw all police forces and let people fight? We had a ethical vision of our responsibilities, and the Quebec provincial police assumed a commendable attitude throughout the crisis, trying to prevent such fighting. Having said that, I would ask the federal government to abide by this gentlemen's agreement. Up to now, this side of the House has behaved in a gentlemanly way. I hope members opposite with the same mindset will keep their promise and pay what they owe to Quebecers.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Martin Cauchon Liberal Outremont, QC

Madam Speaker, I want to thank you for giving me a few minutes to reply and maybe put a question to the member opposite. While listening not only to that member of the official opposition but to all the members of the official opposition today, I kept wondering if we were living in the same world. I must tell you that, sometimes, I think I am dreaming.

Today, these people are really speaking against Quebec's interests. They claim they want to protect the interests of the province of Quebec, but in fact they are trying to fool the people in Quebec, who are mature enough not to fall into the totally partisan trap the Bloc Quebecois has set.

The official opposition is asking the federal government to act irresponsibly, but this could have serious consequences at the political level. As the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said clearly this morning in the House, he has to manage the public funds, a good part of which comes from Quebec taxpayers. As a Quebecer, I am entitled to expect governments to efficiently manage public funds and also to maximize their benefits and manage them in the best interests of the population.

This is exactly what the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is doing. He oversees the sound and responsible management of the public funds in the best interests of the Canadian population and also, needless to say, in the best interests of the people of Quebec. The minister told us this morning that he did everything he could. He helped Quebec as much as he could by providing advance funds. Basically what I would like to ask the member of the official opposition is this: From what I understand in the motion before the House, would he rather see the federal government act irresponsibly and foolishly and waste the taxpayers' money? I do not think that would be in the best interests of the province of Quebec.

When we look a little more closely at this motion tabled by the Bloc Quebecois, we find once again, and it could not be any clearer, that the members of this party are not defending the interests of the people of Quebec in general, but that they are-and I will have the opportunity to come back to this later today-putting forward their own agenda, which is the separation of Quebec.

I believe that the situation or the problem is clear: we have a responsible government versus people whose aim is complete negligence. When we look at the situation, and I am a Quebecer, the answer is clear. It is obvious that I support the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs whose aim is, first and foremost, sound management of the taxpayers' money.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Bloc

Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC

Madam Speaker, my colleague for Outremont is probably dreaming. He said so himself. I think it is just wishful thinking. As for us, we are having a nightmare listening to such remarks from a member who comes from Quebec. I would ask him to go back to his riding and ask his constituents, who also pay taxes to the federal government, if they agree that these services should be paid for by the Quebec government alone.

Can his constituents and mine say that they will give Ottawa $300 million less to pay this bill? The present system does not allow it. Therefore, it is Quebec which must pay and which comes up short. I find it sad that a member from Quebec would make such remarks.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is really acting in the public interest. I think he is acting in Ottawa's interest and that, as a member from Quebec, he is forgetting that, when the people of a province pay taxes to the federal government, they are entitled to certain services in return. That is what today's debate is all about.

We claim, with good reason, that Quebec was willing to honour this gentlemen's agreement but that the federal government has not honoured it. It owes Quebec $300 million and it must pay its bills. That is what it must do in the public interest. It has been five years in one instance and eight years in the other that all audits have been completed. Now the time has come to pay, and we are asking the federal government to do so.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Liberal

Nick Discepola Liberal Vaudreuil, QC

Madam Speaker, today's debate covers a broad range of federal government activities, and this interjection shows how desperately the Bloc Quebecois is trying to bolster support for the scenario rejected by a

The Bloc is obviously hoping to discredit the federal government, but to no avail, for we are seeing a boomerang effect here again today. In fact, this debate provides an opportunity to appreciate the extent of the federal government's prerogatives and responsibilities.

One of these responsibilities is addressed through the fiscal stabilization program created under the federal-provincial fiscal arrangements and Federal Post-secondary Education and Health Contributions Act. The purpose of the stabilization program is to provide protection to provinces in the event of extreme downturns in economic activity.

More specifically, provinces faced with a year-over-year decline in revenues due to a downturn in the economy, such as the last recession, have access to financial assistance, subject to specific rules set out in the act.

The compensation authorized by the stabilization legislation is based on the province's year over year absolute decline in a province's eligible revenues subject to three constraints. First, changes made by the province in the rate or in the structure of its provincial taxes must be factored out when measuring revenue declines. The program compensates for revenue declines due to business cycles and not for declines due to provincial decisions to reduce taxes arbitrarily.

Second, declines in resource revenues are subject to stabilization only if and to the extent that the annual decline exceeds 50 per cent. Third, since 1987-1988 the maximum grant payable to a province is limited to $60 per provincial resident. Assistance above that limit is at the discretion of the Minister of Finance and would take the form of an interest free loan. The litmus test in assessing eligibility to the stabilization program is whether there is or was a drop in revenues due to general economic conditions.

The stabilization legislation and regulations provide very detailed rules about how to measure provincial revenues and how to adjust for changes in taxation. It is these very same rules that were applied consistently in dealing with all provincial applications as the act requires us so to do.

Stabilization is a program for exceptionally hard times, which explains why only three provinces have received federal stabilization payments up to 1990. British Columbia received $174 million for the fiscal year 1982-83; Alberta, $419 million for fiscal year 1986-87; and Ontario received $227 million for 1990-91.

In order to be considered for stabilization payments, a province must make a claim to the federal Minister of Finance not later than 18 months after the end of the year to which the claim should be applied.

Last December 7, the Minister of Finance, Paul Martin, announced payments totalling $782.4 million in response to applications from the provinces under the stabilization program, including $418 million for fiscal year 1991-92.

These were final payments for 1991-92 in the case of seven applications, and interim payments for 1992-93 in the case of five applications.

Despite all the insidious and unfounded insinuations of the Bloc Quebecois, these applications were processed according to the letter and the intent of the fiscal stabilization program legislation. All provinces were put on the same footing.

The Bloc Quebecois has implied that the federal government used delaying tactics in settling Quebec's claims.

I urge the hon. member who moved the motion before the House today to ask his own leader about the meaning of the term "delaying", since he is an expert on the subject.

With regard to the 1991-92 fiscal year, the Minister of Finance made final payments to five provinces: Newfoundland, $3.1 million; Nova Scotia, $55 million; Prince Edward Island, $5 million; Ontario, $284.4 million; and Manitoba, $42.9 million.

The claims made by two additional provinces, Saskatchewan and Quebec, were found not valid under this rule set out in the act.

Quebec's application for 1991-92 was not approved because there had been no decline in revenue due to the business cycle, which meant that according to the regulations, there could be no compensation. That is all.

There was no question of unfair treatment, political intrigue or partisanship.

The Minister of Finance also has the authority under the legislation to make interim payments to a province where applications are supported by currently available data.

For instance, on December 7, 1994, the finance minister announced that interim payments be made to five provinces based on fiscal year 1992-93, which included $125 million for Quebec. In this case Quebec's application was valid, and the federal government paid.

I dare the Bloc Quebecois to make the same fuss about the payment made to the Government of Quebec for 1992-93 that it made to discredit the federal government concerning payments for the fiscal year 1991-92.

In concluding, decisions by the Minister of Finance on all provincial applications for stabilization are made in accordance with the legislation and regulations. Furthermore, they treat all provinces in a manner that is consistent and fair. These decisions are final.

The stabilization legislation does not provide for arbitration mechanisms. If Quebec wants to challenge the legality of the federal decision, it has one recourse: to appeal before the courts.

Those who call this courtroom federalism do not know what they are talking about. This year, the Government of Canada will pay about $11.7 billion in federal transfer payments to the Province of Quebec. That is what I call constructive and positive federalism.

I will vote against the motion of the Bloc Quebecois because it denies the facts and adds absolutely nothing constructive to this debate.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Reform

Ian McClelland Reform Edmonton Southwest, AB

Madam Speaker, we are speaking today on the opposition motion of the member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead regarding Quebec's financial demands. This should not be the greatest surprise we in the House have ever had when speaking to a Bloc supply motion on Quebec's financial demands, especially for those of us who come from Alberta, British Columbia or Ontario who have been well versed in Quebec's financial demands for quite some time.

The motion we are debating is at the core of discussions concerning why the Bloc is in Parliament in the first place. It is a sad situation. The vast majority of Canadians look to Canada as a home and a federation of 10 provinces because we are Canadians. We do not boil the reasons for being Canadian down to the bottom line on a balance sheet asking what is in it for us.

Many times when members of Parliament are debating in committee the Bloc Quebecois-in fairness it is doing exactly what it said it would do-is thinking solely about any policy or law as it directly relates to Quebec. The question for them is always how to protect what we have already while at the same time perhaps getting a little more, wanting complete independence but ensuring we get all the support we have had in the past and what we may want in the future.

To be spending a day of debate in the House on this motion is not a major surprise. The Reform Party came to Parliament with basically one overriding priority, to put the financial affairs of the nation right. The overriding priority of many people who supported the Reform Party and I am sure the government and the Bloc as well was to get our financial affairs in order.

That should still be the number one priority of Parliament. It must be the number one overriding priority of our colleagues from the Bloc.

When I say financial affairs I mean everyone in Canada including in Quebec. Unless we get our financial affairs in order what will we be left with? What is the point of having an independent bankrupt Quebec? There is absolutely no point in it. The whole notion of splitting the country and expecting the haves to have the same critical mass and to be as successful as we are as a combined unit is crazy.

There are areas which would benefit right off the bat, for instance those parts which have through equalization payments been pouring billions of dollars eastward, much of which found a home in Quebec for many years. We are not talking about sovereignty association, we are not talking about splitting up the marriage but retaining bedroom privileges. We are talking about a new house, a new street, the whole shebang. Would the people of Quebec think for one minute that equalization payments or transfer payments from the rest of the country would continue to flow into Quebec? Of course not.

Conversely, all the benefits Quebec brings to the country would also be denied the rest of the country. That is how we would be hurt dramatically by this notion of our colleagues and friends from the Bloc who would want to take Quebec out of Canada.

I have been talking about the financial implications because it is the gist of the Bloc's motion, the financial implications of Quebec in Canada. The bias of the motion, the bias of the Bloc is it wants to make darn sure it will get more out of it and not lose anything even if it splits.

If we go beyond the bottom line on the balance sheet and talk about what will happen to the country if Quebec takes a hike, the costs will be far more than financial. It will cost us a tonne in terms of our own sense of self-worth. It will cost us dramatically in terms of what it means and what it is to be a Canadian, the culture we share together. That we have been able to nurture in an island the French fact in North America in a sea of almost 300 million people, that we have a vibrant, strong, successful, exciting Quebec and French culture here in our midst would be lost.

A separate Quebec would find itself very quickly becoming far more worldly in its outlook and far more accommodating to speak the language of whomever would come in to spend money.

Since I have been living part time in Ottawa I have, as often as possible, taken the occasion to vacation and spend weekends in Quebec, particularly in Montreal. I have come to cherish the time I spend there. A couple of weekends ago one of my sons visited from Vancouver. I am trying to persuade him to go to university in Montreal. I want him to have a sense of what our country is all about. Quebec and the French fact and the Quebecois are so vitally a part of our collectivity as a nation I feel if he did not partake in that he would be losing something in his life.

He lives in Vancouver. We went to Montreal and he had some trepidation because although he has taken French in school for about nine years he cannot speak a word of French. If we do not use it we cannot learn it. He wondered how he would be received as an English speaking Canadian. He is 17 and he was a little nervous about it. Every experience he has had and I have had has been one of complete comfort. People bend over backwards to be accommodating, kind and generous.

That weekend in Quebec turned his mind around. I wonder how many unilingual French speaking people in Quebec who have travelled to other parts of Canada have been treated with the same compassion, understanding, care and politeness. I wonder if we could get more people to look beyond the balance sheet of what it is to be a Canadian and to look at the value of what English Canada and Quebec bring to this united body.

I ask Bloc members to consider what I have said as this great debate unfolds.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member for Edmonton Southwest will have the floor when we resume consideration of the business of supply following question period.

It being two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by Members.

Gm RetireesStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

Walt Lastewka Liberal St. Catharines, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to welcome to Ottawa several GM retirees and their spouses. They have come from Niagara to visit the House of Commons and the Canadian Museum of Civilization in Hull and to enjoy the hospitality of our nation's capital.

My former colleagues and friends, some of whom are veterans, have come to join in the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the end of the second world war and to enjoy the magnificent tulip festival.

Today I pay tribute to the GM retirees and their spouses and wish them all the best during their visit here in Ottawa.

Quebec Women's MarchStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Bloc

Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral Bloc Laval Centre, QC

Mr. Speaker, on May 26, women of Quebec will go on a long march, which will end up in Quebec City. Hundreds of women from every community and every region of Quebec will gather to repeat the action taken by American women factory workers at the turn of the century.

Their slogan was: Bread and roses. The women of Quebec will use the same slogan this year. The bread represents the need to work and the roses, quality of life. The women will remind the people of Quebec of these two essentials.

To help them achieve financial equity, women are demanding a social infrastructure program, jobs, social housing and real access to programs providing general training and job training.

The Bloc Quebecois congratulates the women of Quebec on their initiative and wishes them a successful march.

JusticeStatements By Members

May 18th, 1995 / 1:55 p.m.

Reform

Bill Gilmour Reform Comox—Alberni, BC

Mr. Speaker, the justice minister has been stonewalling Patrick Kelly's application to review his case for a year and a half.

Kelly, a former RCMP officer, is in jail for allegedly killing his wife but now the key witness admits that she lied on the stand. The review of Kelly's case has dragged on and now the justice minister wants Kelly's lawyer, Clayton Ruby, to sign a gag order before documents key to Kelly's case will be released.

The justice minister said:

We will disclose all of those records that are relevant to the issues raised in the application and that will be done.

Now the minister is placing roadblocks in front of Kelly's lawyer.

Why the secrecy? The information being withheld from Mr. Kelly was collected at public expense by a public agency for use in a public prosecution. What are the Liberals trying to hide and what is in the documents that the Liberals are afraid of?

Why is there no justice in Mr. Kelly's case?

Chinese Canadian Association Of Public AffairsStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

Anna Terrana Liberal Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to welcome to Ottawa the hon. Darlene Marzari, B.C. Minister of Municipal Affairs; Mr. George Ford, her deputy minister; His Worship Greg Halsey-Brandt, mayor of Richmond and chair of the Greater Vancouver Regional District; Her Worship Beth Johnson, mayor of Delta; Hew McConnell, manager of GVRD; and 15 young ambassadors of Canada.

Every year the Chinese Canadian Association of Public Affairs sends a number of students of Chinese origin to Ottawa for a week of meetings with parliamentarians and leaders of the House parties.

Yesterday, I was pleased to have a number of young men and women visit my office. They were accompanied by the organizers. I have encouraged young Canadian students to take part regularly in the political process.

Let me thank the Chinese Canadian Association of Public Affairs for offering young Canadians such a great experience.

TerrorismStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

John Finlay Liberal Oxford, ON

Mr. Speaker, within every cloud there is a silver lining.

Over the past few weeks we have all been exposed to the realities of terrorism. The Oklahoma City tragedy has forced us to realize that terrorism can happen even in North America.

I am happy to say that two women in my riding did not just sit back in the wake of the bombing. Janice Koekebakker and Linda Mathews, nurses in Woodstock, Ontario, spent a week in Oklahoma City providing first aid treatment and consoling rescue workers. The city of Woodstock and the Woodstock Rotary Club should also be commended for helping to offset the expenses of these fine nurses.

The London Free Press wrote in its recent editorial honouring these two nurses: ``There are things all of us can do if we just decide to do them''. These women realized that there was something they could do and they were able to provide an important service in a difficult time.

I thank these women on behalf of all of us.

The Late Hector Toe BlakeStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

Warren Allmand Liberal Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC

Mr. Speaker, I pay tribute to Hector Toe Blake who died yesterday in Montreal. Toe was the greatest and most successful hockey coach in the history of the National Hockey League. He was also a great leftwinger.

As a coach he won eight Stanley Cups in 13 seasons. As a player he played for 15 seasons with the Montreal Maroons and with the Canadiens. He was on three Stanley Cup teams, one with the Maroons and two with the Canadiens.

He won the scoring championship and Hart Trophy in 1938-39 and the Lady Byng Trophy in 1945-46. He was a leftwinger on the punch line with Rocket Richard and Elmer Lach, one of the most colourful and prolific scoring combinations in hockey history.

He was named to the Hall of Fame in 1966, was on the first All Star team as a player three times, on the second All Star team as a player twice, and as coach of the All Star team nine times.

Toe Blake will be missed and long remembered in Montreal. I think all Canadians will pay him tribute on this sad day.

ChechnyaStatements By Members

1:55 p.m.

Bloc

Nic Leblanc Bloc Longueuil, QC

Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister's discussions with President Yeltsin, the Russian army has been relentlessly bombarding Chechen positions and is continuing to bomb civilian populations.

In an effort to have done with the Chechens once and for all, the Russian army is preparing to launch its elite corps in a final assault against Chechnya. We have a hard time understanding how the Prime Minister could say he was confident that the army had already been replaced by the regular Chechen police force, as President Yeltsin had assured him.

The Prime Minister claims he put pressure on his Russian counterpart, but he also said that his first priority was trade. Today we are seeing the results. In addition to undermining Canada's credibility, the government's double talk leads nowhere.

Foreign AffairsStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

Reform

Jack Frazer Reform Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, the situation in the former Yugoslavia has deteriorated to the point where it is surely time for Canada to take action which reflects the reality there.

The Prime Minister says that Canadians do not cut and run when the going gets tough. Reform supports that stance. We know that Canadian troops have proven this many times over the years in support of worthwhile causes.

Is it not time to consider the worthiness of the cause in Bosnia and Croatia? What we have there are three antagonists who show no interest whatsoever in achieving a peaceful resolution of their differences. Rather than having a positive influence, the UN has proven to be either a toothless tiger or perhaps has even become part of the problem.

Others may have larger forces there but Canada's contribution has been substantial, competent and reliable. Rather than sheep following the French and British ram, is it not time for Canada to lead by stating that unless there is immediate, unequivocal and verifiable movement toward peace the Canadian forces will commence preparations to withdraw from the region?

Interprovincial TradeStatements By Members

2:05 p.m.

Liberal

Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and its Quebec counterpart issued a study concluding that Quebec benefits greatly from interprovincial trade. It shows that in Quebec, 470,000 jobs depend directly on interprovincial trade. Given these findings, it is disconcerting to see that the Bloc Quebecois and the PQ are still adamantly pursuing Quebec's separation, regardless of the huge economic impact such a course of action might have.

Canada is financially advantageous not only for Quebec, but also for all the other provinces. The recent signing of an interprovincial trade agreement by the ten premiers opens new opportunities for this important sector of Quebec economy. The Canadian economic union already exists and it has proven to be extremely advantageous for Quebec. There is no need to jeopardize everything for the sake of satisfying the sovereignist aspirations of the Bloc and the PQ.

Cbef 540Statements By Members

2:05 p.m.

Liberal

Shaughnessy Cohen Liberal Windsor—St. Clair, ON

Mr. Speaker, at 5 a.m. on May 18, 1970, francophones all over southwestern Ontario turned to 540 on their radio dials to hear: "Bonjour Windsor, bonjour Tilbury, bonjour Pointes aux Roches, bonjour Belle Riviere", the first French words on the most crowded radio band in North America.

CBEF 540 serves 50,000 francophones in Windsor, Tecumseh, Sarnia, London, Paincourt and other vibrant southwestern Ontario communities. For 25 years CBEF has provided a vital link between francophones in southwestern Ontario and francophones in the rest of Canada, indeed in the world.

The Right Hon. Paul Martin, Senior, helped along a hard working group of local francophones to make the station a reality.

I want to congratulate it on its 25th anniversary.