Debates of May 18th, 1995

Presence In The Gallery

[The Speaker]

This concludes question period.

Business Of The House

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State for Parliamentary Affairs if he could tell us what the order of business will be in the House next week.

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Secretary of State (Parliamentary Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will commence second reading of Bill C-82 regarding the mint, followed by Bill C-91 concerning the business development bank, Bill C-88 with respect to internal trade, Bill C-92 regarding the Canadian Wheat Board, Bill C-54 concerning pension administration, Bill C-75 respecting farm loans, Bill C-70 amending the Income Tax Act and Bill C-65 concerning the reorganization of certain agencies.

This will be followed by the resumption of debate on the motion to establish a special joint committee on a parliamentary code of conduct.

On Monday, May 29 if we have not completed this list we will resume at the point we left off on Friday.

Tuesday, May 30 and Thursday, June 1 shall be allotted days.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, pursuant to the Thursday statement, I would like to ask the government House leader if the government intends to bring back Bill S-7, a private member's bill dealing with operating government vehicles with alternative fuels. Will he be bringing the bill back to the House for third reading to determine passage before the summer recess on June 23?

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Saint-Léonard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill S-7 is before committee. When the committee finishes its work and reports back to the House we will be glad to look at it.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, before question period I was speaking generally about Quebec's financial demands not being a new topic for the House. In the year and half I have been here Quebec's financial demands have been front and centre every day.

It seems odd the Bloc would raise this as an opposition motion in the knowledge that Quebec has done very well by being a member of our great country over many years. It seems passing strange that it would want to leave.

It is also a tragedy that most members of the Bloc seem to think the relationship between Quebec and the rest of the country is primarily financial. To the vast majority of Canadians

the relationship between Quebec and the rest of the country is far more than a financial arrangement; it is spiritual, a relationship among friends, brothers, relatives and family.

I recently introduced my son to Quebec and invited the people of Quebec and in particular members of the Bloc to venture west and east to see for themselves that Canadians are welcome in all parts of the country. Quebecers are welcome in the rest of Canada and the rest of Canada in Quebec.

Whether members of the House liked former President Reagan or not, they will appreciate that President Reagan was widely renowned for his masterful use of the media and his ability to express thoughts and put complicated thoughts into every day simple language. He was a master manipulator of the media. People have to admit that.

It was passing strange that he had a portrait of Calvin Coolidge in the cabinet room. Calvin Coolidge was regarded as the president who had perhaps a most acerbic wit. He would never say in three words what could be said in one word and was generally regarded as a man of very few words.

President Reagan had a portrait of Calvin Coolidge in the cabinet room because of Coolidge's ability to put very pithy comments in very few words. I will deal specifically with what Calvin Coolidge had to say about people, about responsibilities and how we relate together as a society and what the role of government is.

Calvin Coolidge said: "The people cannot look to legislation generally for success; industry, thrift, character are not conferred by act or resolve. Government cannot relieve from toil. It can provide no substitute for the rewards of service. It can, of course, care for those who need care and recognize distinguished merit. The normal must care for themselves. Self-government means self-support".

If we were to extend that the country would benefit greatly if we would start to think in terms of self-reliance and self-support. All provinces, all regions, rather than looking to the federal government and asking what is in it for them should be asking what they can give to the common good of the country after they have looked after their own responsibilities.

Unless we are first able to look after ourselves how can we presume to look after our neighbours? If we cannot first look after our own province how can we presume to look after other provinces? We need to be self-sufficient as individuals, we need to be self-sufficient as communities, we need to be self-sufficient as provinces. This will inevitably lead to self-sufficiency as a nation and to the further strengthening of the nation into the future; in my fondest dreams, desires and wishes, a nation united, with Quebec very much a part of the greater Canada.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, I listened to the beginning of the debate which opened with the hon. member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead who, as usual, made a very good and very interesting speech. But it had nothing to do with the motion before the House, it was a speech on separatism.

For his part, as always, the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest made a very interesting and good speech. For the Reform Party, it was an excellent speech. He said he had a problem with the motion presented this morning by the hon. member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, which reads as follows: That this House deplore the federal government's delay in responding to Quebec's demands, with regard to certain matters.

Does the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest agree with me that the only reason for the motion is not to complain about the delay, but to promote separatism and create misunderstanding between Quebec voters and voters in the rest of Canada? This is what is intended by the hon. member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead and his Bloc colleagues.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for the question. I agree the underlying thought behind the motion is an opportunity to advance the cause of separatism in the House.

It must be extremely frustrating for members of the Bloc to have come to the House resolved to work faithfully to taking themselves out of the House. The more time they spend here, the more at home and comfortable they feel. The more time the Bloc spends here, the more time the members representing the people of Canada in Quebec spend here, the more it is indicative the country is very welcoming to everyone.

I have a great deal of empathy toward the members of the Bloc. Members of the Reform Party came here under much the same cloud as members of the Bloc. We were expected by members of the central Canadian media, by the people of central Canada, to be some sort of monolithic neolists with our knuckles dragging on the ground.

Members of the Bloc and members of the Reform Party were supposed to be fighting in the lobby. Much to everybody's surprise they found out that we probably have far more that unites us than separates us. The members of the Bloc came here and got involved in what they did out of frustration with the way the country is run. They felt left out of the affairs of the nation and the fact that nothing ever changed.

That is precisely the reason I am here today as well. As we have been here for the last year and a half we have come to know more about each other. We are going to be able to ask the big question that is going to come, that is going to be asked in Quebec.

It is my wish, desire, hope and feeling that no matter how the question is posed in Quebec, its people will decide to remain with Canada. Those of us in the House will put it behind us. That is my desire, my wish and everything I do will be to that end.

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am always surprised to hear the Reform Party or the Liberal Party treat us as if we were beggars, as if we are asking for some kind of charity.

We are not begging for anything, far from it. We are only asking the federal government for what is rightfully ours, our part of the pie, the part that we sent to Ottawa. Through our taxes, we send enormous amounts of money to Ottawa. All we want is our due. Furthermore, we want the federal government to meet its commitments.

The federal government does not keep its promises. A good example of that is the health care system. When we introduced the health care system in Quebec, the federal government wanted to meddle in, so they said: "We want to impose our standards". In order for Quebec to accept that, they added: "We will pay 50 per cent of all the health care costs in Quebec".

Now the federal government pays only 30 per cent of the costs and we have to pay the remaining 70 per cent. It must be made clear that all the standards and structures were implemented on the grounds that the federal government would pay 50 per cent of the costs, not 30 per cent as it does now. Can you imagine what kind of management nightmare this creates for Quebec?

All we ask is that the federal government accept its own responsibilities. We are not begging, we are not asking for gifts, far from it. We are just saying to the federal level: "At least give us back the money we send to you". We are only asking for justice. All we ask is that the federal government carries out its promises.

This is why we have been saying for many years now: "Since you will not fulfil your commitments, we will levy all our own taxes and we will send you whatever we see fit". That is their attitude towards us, and that is why we want sovereignty. We do not want to be beggars, we want the federal government to keep its promises and it does not.

That is what I wanted to convey to the Reform Party member. He seems to know little about history. He is trying to convince the Canadians that Quebecers are beggars. We are not beggars. We only want what is rightfully ours, and we want respect.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if I left the impression with the hon. member that I thought the people of Quebec and the Bloc were here as beggars that certainly was not my intention. I do not think that is the case at all.

Bloc members are hard bargainers. The people of Quebec have been very skilful in using their balance of power and their electoral might for many years in extracting far more than their just rewards from their association with Canada.

The people of Quebec have done very handsomely by their association with Canada. The member speaks of the 50:50 cost sharing in health care. Let us talk about Canada assistance. The province of Quebec gets 70 cents of every dollar spent on welfare. Ontario gets 50 cents and Alberta and B.C. get 50 cents.

How is it that the province of Quebec is considered a have not province when it does not factor in its great and magnificent resource of hydroelectric power? The petrochemical resources of Alberta are factored in. Last year the province of Quebec received $3.5 billion in equalization payments. Alberta has contributed in the last 40 years something in the area of $100 billion toward equalization payments. Quebec has benefited by about that amount.

Therefore, for any member of the Bloc or any other member from Quebec or anywhere else to stand and say that Quebec has done poorly by its association with the rest of Canada is just denying reality.

If Quebec were to decide, in its wisdom, to leave the federation, it would be hurt dramatically because every nickel that has been going to Quebec to subsidize and protect Quebec industry or in direct cash transfers would come to a crashing halt. The people of Quebec have to understand that. They have to be looked square in the eye and told that if they decide to leave this country we are going to leave our cheque book right here at home locked safely in the drawer.

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Secretary of State (Parliamentary Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today refers to three issues between the government of Canada and the government of Quebec. Indeed, the Quebec minister responsible for Canadian intergovernmental affairs raised them earlier this week with my hon. colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in Ottawa.

This motion suggests that the government of Canada is using delaying tactics in its relationship with the Quebec government. That is not the case. In fact, what is going on here is totally appropriate. It is a normal and constructive process of relationship between two levels of government. And the Quebec case is no different from any other.

Since he became Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs 18 months ago, my colleague has met with his provincial counterparts more than 20 times. Eighteen months in government, more than 20 meetings. He met with his counterparts in Western Canada, in the territories, in the Atlantic area, in Ontario and in Quebec.

At these meetings, it is perfectly normal for provincial ministers to raise issues with the government of Canada that need to be solved. As usual, the government of Canada examines them and, with the co-operation of the province concerned, takes steps to find solutions agreeable to both parties.

Also, the government of Canada sometimes identifies issues that it considers important. It then consults with the provincial governments and, together, they agree on measures, once again to reach fair and equitable agreements.

This process is not peculiar to the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs. In the Canadian federation, this approach is successful because all first ministers, ministers and officials work closely together to achieve concrete and practical results.

Our pragmatic federalism is based on a series of mechanisms and intergovernmental meetings that allow our governments to consult regularly and to solve their problems. These mechanisms come under various forms: we have first ministers' conferences, ministers' conferences, interprovincial meetings as well as a lot of meetings at the level of the deputy ministers. That is what makes our federation flexible.

These various mechanisms and our flexible federation, as well as the co-operation we were able to get from the provinces and the territories, led to the following achievements. We were able to sign agreements with all the provinces under the infrastructure program; to reach an agreement to reduce interprovincial barriers to trade and free movement of individuals so as to reinforce our economic union; to sign action plans with eight provinces and two territories to reduce duplication and overlap; and to create Team Canada, led by the Prime Minister of Canada, to strengthen our position on promising new markets.

The object of the national infrastructure program was to promote economic recovery by creating short term and long term jobs through local investments, while meeting the obvious need to renew and improve local infrastructures throughout Canada.

Under this flexible program, municipalities, provinces and territories can take into account their own priorities. The completed projects for the most part have met the priorities set by the local authorities, in accordance with the national and provincial objectives and criteria and pursuant to the federal-provincial agreements underlying the program.

The Agreement on Internal Trade provides for concrete changes, implementation schedules and a complete process that will help Canada become a real economic union characterized by freer movement of people, capital, goods and services.

With the agreement on the reduction of duplication and overlap, we are seeking to rationalize operations in areas ranging from environment to small business support to tax collection. The final result will be a streamlined government, less regulation and bureaucracy and more efficient services delivered directly and at a lower cost.

As for Team Canada's mission, it is an excellent example of what modern federalism can accomplish. It showed us that we can co-operate very effectively as a country to create jobs here and open up new horizons for all Canadians. Team Canada had quite an impact in the countries that we visited.

Everybody was impressed by the co-operation between the private and public sectors and by the way the various levels of government work together in the national interest.

These results are proof of our commitment to create jobs and to stimulate economic growth in our country, to build together a federation capable of facing international competition. That is what a good government is all about.

But such results are possible only if governments negotiate openly and in good faith. However, that does not mean that federalism excludes any dispute. We know that.

In Canada, we must continually find a balance between regional, provincial, cultural and language interests on one hand and national interests on the other hand in what we can call a state of constructive tension. I say it is constructive because it forces the parties to try and meet local needs while taking national priorities into account.

The government of Canada does not favour any region or any sector of our society to the detriment of another. If a region is hard hit by desertification, by a crisis in the fishing industry, by difficult economic conditions or whatever, the federation can come to the rescue thanks to our collective resources.

The name of the game is interdependence, and federalism makes the necessary compromises between the various groups and regions.

As Alain Gagnon, a political science expert at McGill University, noted, federalism is considered to be the expression of democratic practices favourable to innovative policies and political choices at the territorial level. As Canada faces the future, it enjoys the clear advantage of being a federation.

We know that both Quebecers and other Canadians fervently hope that their governments will work to resolve the pressing problems facing us. The time has come to turn the page and set aside our political differences so that we can invest all our energy in a common cause: to build a strong and united country for the present and future generations.

It is in this spirit that the Canadian government is negotiating with the Government of Quebec. We would like our opposition colleagues to understand that the Canadian government cares about Quebecers' interests as much as the Quebec government does. With regard to the three items included in the motion tabled by the hon. member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, the Canadian government has acted in good faith. In every case, the process used was proper and consistent with normal intergovernmental relations within a federation such as ours.

I will certainly vote against the motion being debated today, because it goes against the principles underlying good federal-provincial relations in Canada. I know that every day since the 1993 election, every time they ask a question during Question Period, every time they make a speech in the House or ask a question during debate, my colleagues always come back to the issue of separation.

Yet, after listening to Bloc members for 18 months, Quebecers have not changed their minds. Quite the contrary. If we do an analysis over a given period, we see that Quebecers have realized that they are better off staying in the Canadian federation. Earlier, the hon. member for Longueuil asked his Reform colleague a question about health care. He spoke about the various original commitments and what we are now paying.

I am sure that the hon. member did not do it on purpose, but he failed to mention that how much the federal government invested in previous agreements, which were always negotiated with and agreed to by the various provincial governments, is not the only reference point. The federal government transferred to the provinces, in exchange for that money, a portion of the tax points it used to collect. Thus our responsibility has not changed.

He is forgetting that, when this federation was born in 1867, the federal authority was responsible for 60 per cent of taxes. Yet today, it is the opposite. This federal system is constantly changing to fit the circumstances. Indeed, every country of the world recognizes that the federal system is one of the most flexible government systems ever to be devised and experimented. In fact, Europe has been trying to imitate it since 1950 but is still far from having achieved anything like what we have. Of course there is room for improvement, but this is no reason to want to destroy the system and throw it away.

I think that the past can vouch for it: thing always improve and will continue to improve. I am convinced that, try as they may, day after day, every chance they get in this House to convince the people of Quebec that Canada does not work, my hon. colleagues from the official opposition will fail and the people of Quebec will remain in Canada because this country belongs to them and that is a fact. That is one thing that my hon. colleague and I agree on. Canada belongs to the people of Quebec, the same way that Quebec belongs to Canada. We built this country together. It should not be destroyed and we will do our best to prevent its destruction.

We hear people say that things are bad, that the federal government is not paying its bills and is acting in bad faith. We are talking about matters between two governments. Even in the private sector, there are explanations to be given, questions to be answered, before payment is made, and that is normal.

In fact, as my colleague, the minister of Intergovernmental Affairs mentioned this morning, in one case, we made partial payment and then said: "Look, there is a problem here. We will refer the matter to the auditor general. He will check into it and report to us. We will do as he recommends". We are still waiting. We hope to receive his report in the near future and we will abide by his decision.

We have already paid $450 million for education in northern Quebec. We have nothing more to pay, but because the Quebec government wants more, we would like to know why it cost so much. No answer.

This kind of interaction is normal. Instead of making an effort to discuss and find a way of creating jobs together, we gather here for an opposition day. And the opposition comes and tells us how we can go on wrangling and tearing one another apart to show Quebecers and drive in their heads that this system just is not working, that we do not pay our bills and so on. As the hon. member for Longueuil said: "The only option we have left is to separate". Not so, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that, with 128 years of experience, this system is a model for the whole world.

There are thousands and thousands of people in the world who would give anything to become Canadian citizens, to come and live in this country, in spite of this so-called hardship our colleagues opposite are taking about. This is a valid experience. Our country is regarded as a model around the world and will remain a model because the people of Quebec and Canada have faith in this system that we built together and will maintain.

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just heard a carefully prepared speech, and indeed a very eloquent speech, from the hon. member, who said that Canada is the envy of the whole world.

This sort of talk is starting to get on my nerves. Canada's debt is close to $600 billion, our situation is like that of some 60 developing countries, and we are on the edge of the abyss, but we keep saying: Yes, it is a great country. Rather, it was a great country, but this is no longer the case, it is on the point of collapse. Why? Because the federal government insists on directing everything from the top, on centralizing all responsibilities in Ottawa.

We are well aware that duplications cost between $2 billion to $3 billion. And that is not all, however. Just take, for example, our government's fascination with spending. It spent so much money, from the 1970s until 1989, that inflation was the result. The rate of inflation was jumping by 10 or 12 per cent per year. I recall that vividly.

What actions did the government take, even if it was responsible for that inflation? In the 1980s, it had to raise interest rates up to 21 per cent, which killed the economy and created a terrible recession. A great number of small and medium-sized firms in Quebec went bankrupt. That is very sad.

Some lost their jobs and experienced a lot of problems. I know many business people who worked very hard and who still went bankrupt in 1981-82. Why? Because the federal government itself generated that inflation. It increased interest rates to such a level that they killed the economy.

The federal government was the cause of that inflation and it was also responsible for the recession. All that happened because of its spending power. The federal government generated the inflationary spiral because it was intent on showing that it was indispensable, that it was giving money in every sector, including economic development and tourism.

The same thing happened between 1984 and 1990. Again, the government was responsible for the inflation. It also brought on the recession in 1990. From 1990 to 1994, it increased interest rates and triggered a recession. Once again, a lot of Quebec entrepreneurs and small businesses suffered. Some of them work 15 hours a day to build their businesses. So, the federal government is the cause of the recession and all these problems.

This is why we want some stability. Stability does not mean that the federal government must control everything and spend the way it does to prove it is indispensable.

The problem with our current debt of 500 to 600 billion dollars is that people are no longer interested in investing in our country. They no longer want to invest because interest rates fluctuate by 10 per cent every decade, while the value of the dollar can be anywhere from 70 to 90 cents. How can an investor who wants to export in the U.S. be interested in settling here, when interest rates vary by 10 per cent over a five or six year period, and when the unemployment rate fluctuates between 10 and 20 per cent?

There are pulp and paper companies which do well and then, all of a sudden, they go belly up. Why? Because the value of our dollar fluctuates. And why does it fluctuate? Because the federal government does not know how to manage. Because it spends too much in the hope of proving, to Quebecers in particular, that it is indispensable.

These are the reasons why we have decided to take control of our destiny. We do not want to fall in the same deep hole as this federation, which does not understand the need to decentralize, so as to improve our efficiency and ensure our success. Indeed, we want to become sovereign because we do not want to fall in the same deep hole of federation.

The hon. member for Saint-Léonard made very interesting comments. He had a nice speech prepared in advance by his friends. In fact, the Prime Minister himself probably told him what to say. I am convinced that the hon. member does not believe what he said, because he is an accountant. He understands my point very well, and I am convinced that he agrees with what I said.

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Saint-Léonard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Longueuil. His remarks bear out what I was saying. He said that the federal government is to blame for everything.

Is it the federal government's fault if Canada, in the 1980s, in spite of all its problems-like high inflation and interest rates-became a member of the G-7, a member of the seven most developed countries? Is it the federal government's fault if, for two consecutive years, the Organization of American States has said that Canada is the best country in the world to live in? Is it the federal government's fault if people do not want to invest money? Does the fault for Canada's political instability lie only with the federal government? We have been hearing about separation for 30 years. Is the federal government to blame for that?

Last year, we had the highest economic growth among developed countries. Is that a sign of bankruptcy? Is the member completely cut off from the global environment and completely oblivious to what is happening in other countries? Does he ever make comparisons? Statistics and international reports the world over clearly indicate that we are a very good country. But we do have a political instability problem, precisely because of their ideas.

As soon as they muster enough courage, instead of making policy shifts often enough to make heads spin, they should put the question clearly and squarely as to whether Quebecers feel like separating. Then, we could truly get rid of the millstone we have round our neck because of the separatists and, of course, still improve our situation.

When the hon. member says that Canada is bankrupt, he is not aware of all the prestigious positions we hold in the international community at all levels.

I would ask my hon. colleague to take that into consideration. I know he came here at the same time as I did, almost 11 years ago. Since he has had the chance to travel to most corners of the world, if he tried to remember the countries he visited and what he heard in his parliamentary travels, he would surely agree with me.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

There is barely two minutes left for questions and comments.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the last few comments of the hon. member, I cannot resist asking a question.

When we travel abroad, we are frequently asked why Quebecers, with all their potential, have not yet decided to withdraw from the Canadian federation to be more independent like they are in Denmark, Norway, or Sweden. People in those countries control their own development, they know they pay taxes to only one government, and they can easily understand the reasons why they elect representatives.

Let me conclude by saying that, just like members opposite, we have been elected by Quebecers. When we are told that we have not accomplished anything, I have to remind the hon. members that, in a period of two years, the Bloc was elected, which was an obvious sign that something is wrong with the Canadian federation, and a sovereignist government was elected in Quebec. If the federal Parliament cannot grasp that message sent by Quebecers, it must be because it is beyond reform.

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Saint-Léonard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member just said, I am proud to be a Quebecer, because Quebec is a modern society with a wealth of resources, and a society that is well recognized throughout the world.

Since Quebec has been able to develop and come of age inside the Canadian federation, why should it sever its links with Canada? If it remains a part of Canada, as I am sure it will, Quebec will be able to go on with its development and have all its many talents recognized. If everything is so fine, why bring to a halt such a valuable experience, which is the envy of the world and which everybody would like to share in?

Mr. Speaker, even the hon. members opposite give good reasons why Quebec should remain a part of Canada. If the hon. member could ask the question, I am sure the answer would be that Quebec will indeed remain part of Canada.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what my hon. colleague for Saint-Léonard, in eastern Montreal, had to say and I am always flabbergasted to hear him speak as if he built this country and almost as if he were the father of our vast and beautiful country.

Earlier, we realized that it is almost pointless for us to make the demands mentioned in the motion before the House. The partisan determination shown by our colleagues opposite indicated early on that our efforts would be useless, that their minds were made up and that, even if we argued all night, it would not do us any good.

Since I have nothing better to do then, I will try to disprove the nonsense uttered by the hon. member for Saint-Léonard. I want to give him a brief lesson in history. It would not hurt the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest to listen, since his knowledge of the history of Canada also seems kind of lacking.

Towards the end of the last century, while 2 million Quebecers, about to starve to death, were forced to leave their country to go to work in the New England cotton mills, the Canadian government sent for Eastern Europeans to settle in western Canada. It gave them land, work animals, horses, chickens, the right to cut timber to build their houses and a lot of other things, and 50 per cent of these expenses were paid for by the people of Canada, half of which then was paid by Quebec. That is what they called profitable federalism. It remained a profitable enterprise for a long time, but it had been even more profitable in 1840, when the Union Act was signed. At that time, Quebec formed the majority within that famous union.

Our ancestors, not very well educated individuals who had been pretty badly treated less than 100 years before by the invaders who had come to strip them of everything they had, used the old sock. They stashed away their savings, they did not get into debt. The villages were not in debt. Quebec was not in debt at the time. But Ontario, which was a hive of activity, had to borrow large amounts of money in order to build infrastructures for its towns. All the lines were blurred. The two debts were not kept separate, with the result that the people of Quebec had to pay over half the debt of Ontario, to the exclusive benefit of the latter. This is yet another example the so-called profitable federalism, as the Liberals see it.

I would say to the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine that the Gaspé Peninsula, where I was born, lost most of its inhabitants at that time. The member must have, like me, one or perhaps many ancestors who were forced to leave for the United States because they could not make a living in this so-called great country. So I find it hard to listen to people who have been here for something like 20 years say that they helped build this country. I am willing, of course, to acknowledge their qualities, their contributions, but many of them profited a lot more from Canada than our ancestors did 250 and 300 years ago.

And it boils down to the fact that we have rights in this country and that we want them to be respected, that is all.

A lot has gone on here. A member of the Reform Party just told me that, after 18 months, he has discovered that we are alike. Frankly, I find that almost insulting. I resent it. Reform members are in favour of the death penalty, "Hang them quick and do not waste too much rope, and then next, please". That is the philosophy of the Reform Party. Fill up our prisons with whoever had the nerve to insult someone else. That is the right-wing policy of the Reform Party.

I even heard a Reform member say in this House: "My children are not educated, I forbid them to get an education. It is my belief and I adhere to it". But if Canada needs an ambassador, that member is frustrated that the government will not give the job to his son whom he refused to send to school. That is the Reform philosophy. It seems to be quite popular in that region because there are quite a few of them in this House. It is something that I heard here.

Anyway, Quebec is asking the federal government today for a certain sum of money for the natives in the James Bay area. It is time for the federal government to show off, as it has always done. When it came to paying $279 million to give a school board to a particular ethnic group in western Canada in order to show the greatness of Canada and of multiculturalism, it did not cut corners. It came up with the money. And when members of the same ethnic group in Toronto asked the government to give them the same thing it had given their friends in Vancouver, it obliged. It did not matter if the cost was $250 or $300 million, the government found the money. Quebecers did not complain in those days. On the contrary, 74 out of this gang of 75 chose to vote for those expenditures, in order to buy peace I guess.

One thing leading to another, we ended up with a $550 billion debt. I wonder if Canada will not follow in the footsteps of Dow Corning, the breast implant manufacturer, and file under our Bankruptcy Act pretty soon. We are asking to be paid for the services we have delivered to native people for which the federal government is legally responsible. We gave them the same education we gave young Quebecers who lived in the area. I suppose it was a good education.

Now the time has come to pay the bill but the federal government is shirking its responsibilities. It is a bit like the guy who goes to eat in a restaurant, pretends he is going to the washroom after he finishes his meal, exits through the back door and avoids the bill. That is what the government is doing right now, or it looks like it.

Why not face up to a situation that exists and that deserves to be dealt with, not because it concerns Quebec but because it is a matter of justice. There was an agreement. The Minister of Interdepartmental Affairs wants to refer this issue to committees and to government officials, all that for a total claim of $333 million. Yet, it took the government only 20 minutes to free up $20 million for the Winnipeg arena. Things did not drag on in this case.

[An hon. member]

Not for the Jets. For the arena.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

For the Winnipeg Power Jets.

[An hon. member]

The jet set.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Yes. The Power jet set. In this case, they found $20 million just like that. So, it is not so difficult to find $20 million. But when ask for five, six, even seven years to resolve the problem in Quebec, to settle Quebec's legitimate claims, they politely refer us to their civil servants. Even a Jesuit-and God knows that Jesuits are supposed to know everything-would lose his way in this complex maze of negotiations.

I listened to the member for Saint-Léonard who praised this great country where civic rights and freedoms are recognized and respected. I will merely remind him of the 1970 War Measures Act, the patriation of the Constitution in 1982, the spying on political parties which was thought to have ceased in 1970, although it was recently discovered that members of the Reform Party are still being spied on, and the same probably goes for us as well.

These are the freedoms referred to by the member for Saint-Léonard. Some also spoke of transparency. I nearly choked. Transparency! As if the Pearson deal was transparent. A man named Nixon-we were not the ones who chose him-studied the famous Pearson deal. His conclusions were that there was something fishy. He recommended to the Prime Minister that an inquiry be conducted in this matter.

I remember the Minister of Transport answering my questions in this Chamber, saying: "Come on! Let us move forward. We do know that some individuals tried to take advantage of it". He could not deny it, the Nixon report said so, but he was saying: "Let us move forward, and quickly. Let us settle this whole matter. It will cost a maximum of $25 million".

We can see how high the stack of bills is now. It is estimated that claims of all kinds for breach of contract will total $450 million, and there are more to come. And yet, we demanded, we asked for a royal commission to get to the bottom of this. But no, it was urgent to proceed quickly and settle the whole thing, regardless of the cost. What openness! Examples of this kind of openness are legion. The heritage minister was not being very open while lunching in a room next to the one where the fate of the Canadian film industry was probably being decided.

Once again, he lacked openness. This is another example of openness. For the first time, a CRTC decision is being reviewed, at the request of the cabinet; by a strange coincidence, which, I know, has a hand in a lot of things, it involves close relatives of the Prime Minister, who stand to gain a lot. This is happening in

this great country which is so dear to the member for Saint-Léonard as are the underlying principles of federalism he described.

I could perhaps talk about the underlying principles of federalism. They are nothing to write home about. Such noble principles.

I remember reading, not too long ago, that when we joined this country in 1867, about 50 per cent of the population was French speaking in all four provinces and 50 per cent, English speaking. At the time, we paid 300,000 pounds sterling to buy the Northwest Territories, Rupert's Land, which today is Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta up to the Rockies. We bought that from the Hudson's Bay Company for 300,000 pounds sterling at the time. Do not ask me how much it would be today, probably as much as the national debt.

It remains that 50 per cent of the people who paid for that were Quebecers, and they gave it away, for nothing, to those who developed western Canada. Now they are telling us that we are crybabies, that we are constantly asking for things we have no right to. No matter what the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine might think, we paid for western Canada.

If he wants to make some gifts, he should pay for them with his own money, not with other people's money.

He said that people would give everything to live in this country of ours. Yet, after the Minister of Immigration announced he would be charging $900 to those who apply for immigrant status, there was an uproar. People do not want to pay even that much to come here. They think it is starting to be a bit pricey. When making speeches we sometimes say things which are far removed from reality. He almost said, at the end of his speech, that we were pretty lucky to be part of the G-7. For us, being part of the G-7 is as bad as being part of the Winnipeg Jets.

Ross Perot said, in the United States, that we were beggars on horse back, that we had no business being in the G-7, given our structure, our wealth, our economic activity; that the only reason we were there is because the Americans needed our vote to support them, to support their proposals. It is for that reason that they put pressure on to get us in the game. However, we are part of the G-7. When we compare ourselves to the other member countries, we always come out seventh. Ross Perot said that we are there because of their goodwill.

Some people lack the judgment to realize that it was, indeed, a matter of charity. They see that as an honour. He said, as if he were the one who created it, that Canada was beautiful. I like to think that Canada was created by the Creator, not by the Liberal Party of Canada.

I could say that Liberals made much more nasty things than good ones. They should not try to take credit for the great accomplishments of the Creator.

That being said, I think that Quebec's claims are justified, that Quebec must go ahead with them and that all of us, in this House, will always insit that what is Caesar's be rendered unto Caesar. The money coming from Canadian and Quebec taxpayers ends up in the federal treasury. Thirty seven cents out of every dollar go to service the debt.

[An hon. member]

For the interests.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Only the interests on the debt. So, there is not much coming back under various forms. But that is not a problem. When there is not enough to pay back, the government borrows some. That still works. But the next year, there is more money going towards the payment of interests on the debt, for instance. And the government travels around the world, especially in the G-7 bus, and it says: It is going well in Canada, everything is fine.

If it is going so well, why not respect its people? The natives in the James Bay area have received an education that is neither better nor worse than the one little Quebecers received in the same area. The teachers gave the same to both groups, who were often learning together in the same classroom.

Why would the federal government say today that it is not sure that they were taught exactly what it wanted them to learn? Why would the federal government say that it did not make a decision on the quality of teaching, the condition of buildings and school transportation and that it should have looked at all that before paying?

Considering how fast the federal government moves, little natives would be past university age and would still not have started school. The government is capable of ordering endless studies, and the more they cost, the more it orders them. What would our debt be if the Quebec government had not decided to act and had not stopped waiting so long for the federal government?

There was also the aboriginal Oka crisis in 1990. At that time, nothing was too good. Quebec was sending its provincial police officers and they were working overtime, seven days a week. They had to put out the fires. It was becoming urgent, especially since the federal government was quite involved in the situation there, because it was its fault if the natives were rising up about a territorial issue.

For almost 130 years, it had done nothing to understand them and to meet their needs. Again, when the time has come to pay the bill, it said that we should have submitted the menu served to policemen when they worked overtime-that maybe it would

have substituted an orange or a piece of carrot for the apple. The government is dodging and using delaying tactics, as the member for Saint-Léonard said, to flee through the back door.

In closing, I must say we have no lesson to learn from these people. They seem to have made it a point of honour not to respect their commitments. The few times they did were when their candidates were defeated and they promised them a safe riding the next time. These are about the only times when the Liberal Party really honoured its commitments.

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Secretary of State (Parliamentary Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I was really shocked to hear the hon. member for Chambly referring to this member for Saint-Léonard as someone who arrived in Canada some twenty years ago, as if I did not have the right to talk about or to defend Canadian values.

I know the hon. member and I am amazed that he not only said that but he even believed that. Though I was not born in Quebec, I nevertheless see myself as a real Quebecer and a real Canadian. I hope he will take time to think about what he said and that he will withdraw his words and change his thinking. I hope he just got carried away because what he just said is serious: it means there are two classes of citizens in Quebec, those who were born in Quebec and the others who were not.

If this is what the hon. member thinks, I hope he will have the courage to admit it. If that is not what he meant, he should clarify his thought and withdraw what he said. Such allegations are serious and it is not the first time it happens in that party. I hope, no, I am sure that Quebecers have always been generous people, they have always welcomed people from other countries and have treated them as their equals.

As I said earlier, I know the hon. member very well and I hope he just got carried away and that was not his real thinking.