Debates of May 18th, 1995

Supply

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

If the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands gives me a moment, I will try to convince him, assuming this is possible, of the appropriateness of my comments.

In fact, the $330 million claim of the Quebec government was presented and renewed by Quebec's intergovernmental affairs minister, Louise Beaudoin, this week, here in Ottawa, when she met with her federal counterpart to claim something that, in one particular case, has been owing for more than ten years.

The motion refers to three issues. The first one is the expenses incurred during the events at Oka, in the summer of 1990. Everyone remembers what happened then, particularly these days, when there is a risk that these events could be repeated, because of some aboriginal people in Oka.

We all remember that, in 1990, the Quebec government was faced with enormous costs for public safety, or for law enforcement, as a result of the crisis in Oka and Kanesatake that I mentioned a moment ago. Of course, given that public safety was at stake, and that the crisis related to the native issue, which is under federal jurisdiction, it was totally appropriate for Quebec to ask the Canadian government to pay the additional amounts associated with the need to call in the Quebec provincial police.

A request for payment of $84 million was submitted. An amount of $5.3 million has already been reimbursed by the federal government, which leaves approximately $79 million still to be paid. The crisis goes back to 1990, but the bill remains unsettled. How did our politicians react to the request for payment, when a federalist government was in power in Quebec, during Mr. Bourrassa's, and then Mr. Johnson's Liberal governments? What was the federal politicians' answer to the Quebec government? In September 1993, the Minister of National Defence in the former government refused to reimburse the total amount requested, following the Oka crisis, because these events, he claimed, resulted from a situation related to public order, not public good.

Such a position is totally ridiculous, and I submit that the present government, through its critics, is still making that claim. This is utterly ridiculous. I ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Justice and the whole government to talk to the people of Kanesatake and Oka, to check if their well-being was not affected during those events. The government should be ashamed of using such a ridiculous argument, and realize that this issue must be settled right away.

A second issue deals with the education of young aboriginals in northern Quebec. This is a claim made under a federal-provincial agreement signed under the James Bay Agreement, which provided that the Quebec government and the federal government would pay the costs relating to the education of young natives, especially the young Crees of northern Quebec.

There is an outstanding account in the order of $119 million, the payment of which has been demanded for nearly 10 years now by successive Quebec governments and, I repeat, governments of federalist allegiance.

I do not think any member opposite can deny that the Bourassa government wanted to get an agreement with the federal government at any cost.

If the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has any doubt about that, he should confer with his colleague from Outremont, who was a member of the Bourassa government and made the same demands when she was the Minister of Education.

I repeat that, under a federal-provincial agreement, both levels of government share the costs of education of young Crees. But the population has increased, more young Crees have registered for several courses or have decided to take more training, so that costs have been higher than forecasted. The federal government's position is that those claims are not justified, and that it has not been consulted. Therefore, it refuses to pay the claim for $119 million submitted by the Quebec government.

At a time when the federal government's intention to set national standards concerning shared costs program such as post-secondary education and health is being discussed in this House, we should take a hard look at these issues. When we realize that agreements signed by both levels of government are not being complied with in day to day operations, are we to understand that the federal government will set its so-called national standards each and every time the Quebec government asks the federal government to assume its financial responsibilities? Will Quebec get the same kind of response: that the federal government was not consulted on each and every one of those expenses, that all the invoices have not been provided, and that a thorough examination is in order before any amount is reimbursed to the Quebec government?

Let me remind the House that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs' answer was that he will ask his officials to meet with those of the Quebec government in order to study the whole issue more thoroughly. The issue has been dragging on for ten years already. They are saying, in fact, that they will take the time they need, that they are in no hurry. As the minister said again this week: "I do not want to raise the hopes of Quebec politicians by implying that this issue can be easily settled". No, no and no, these things must take time. We have to ask our officials to meet, to discuss, to chat, in order to try to come to an understanding over an agreement signed-this bears repeating-more than 15 years ago.

The last demand involves compensation of $137 million demanded not only by Quebec's current government but also by its previous governments. I repeat, these are not new demands brought forward by the current government of Quebec, Mr. Parizeau's government. These demands were first made 10, 5 and 3 years ago by the previous federalist Liberal government.

Stabilization payments are made under a very complex program that I will not even try to explain to you because I cannot make head or tail of it myself, but the program is designed to restore some kind of fairness in terms of the expenses the provinces must incur to fulfil their own responsibilities. The federal government has committed itself to review each province's tax revenues and to compensate provinces whose tax revenues are lower than expected for various economic reasons or because of the economic situation. The government seeks to stabilize provincial revenues through this program, which it set up on its own initiative.

Twice, the Quebec government asked for compensation and twice its demands were turned down by the federal government. The last time that demand was made by the current Minister of Finance in Quebec, the federal Minister of Finance replied: "If you want to get compensation to the tune of $137 million under the stabilization program, your only option is to take us to court".

After hearing all about progressive federalism, or progressive status quo as our colleagues opposite like to call it, now we have courtroom federalism. In other words, when we want the federal government to respect programs it has introduced, we have to go to court to obtain justice. It is the new way of doing things of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Minister of Finance, who say: "Let us go to court".

With all due respect, this reminds me of what a Quebec humorist, père Gédéon, not to mention any names, used to say: "We will go to court even if we lose, and we will go all the way to the Supreme Court". The Liberal government's attitude is somewhat similar. It admits that it owes money to the Quebec government, but to drag things out, to make sure the matter takes years to settle, it says to the Government of Quebec: "Go to court".

In conclusion, I mentioned at the beginning of my speech that this was a good example of the way federalism operates. I also said that I wished to underline the costs that this entails. We are speaking, of course, about a justified and recognized claim. The government's officials acknowledged that the amounts mentioned are correct.

Can anyone imagine the human and financial costs generated by all these discussions on these three simple claims?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

It is fear mongering.

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Do we know how many civil servants, and the member for Outremont could perhaps look into this, at the federal as well as the provincial level, met, talked on the phone, exchanged letters and piles of documents? All these costs for the taxpayer must be added to the claim of $333 million.

If we had this money, if Quebecers could realize the enormous costs of federalism, I am convinced that they would at once choose to become sovereign. They would do it because the day we are able to assume our own responsibilities, the day we are able to make our own decisions concerning our collective future, we will not have to listen to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs say to us: "Go to court; let us ask our civil servants to get together". We will be able to make our decisions, and this is what the motion tabled by the official opposition is all about.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General]

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the last speaker. Unfortunately, I did not sense in his speech the real human dimension of the problem faced by natives in Quebec and, let us be frank, in all areas of Canada.

The debate revolves around a ten-year old dispute between Quebec and the federal government. And I would point out that the federal government has already paid out a considerable amount of money.

However, I will leave it to my colleagues on this side to make speeches that will undoubtedly be brilliant and informative for the opposition.

What I find unfortunate in the statements of the opposition is the fact that they did not speak about the social, human and economic situation in which Quebec's natives live. I think that it would have been more humble, more humane for the opposition to focus more on the means of helping these people to improve their lot. This has been a point of contention for several years now.

I remember that in 1981, under the PQ government, 1,000 police officers invaded-that is the word, invaded-the Restigouche reserve. That was unfortunate and I think that that is when the relations between natives and Quebecers began to deteriorate. I believe that we do not do enough for natives. I think that we should encourage dialogue instead of resorting to fear mongering, threats and statements like: "If it had been up to Quebec, we would have solved the problem long ago".

I ask the official opposition to make a proper evaluation of the situation and not to confuse the issue with sovereignty and with the upcoming referendum debate. I think that the first step should be to consider the economic and social situation of Quebec's natives as well as their problems. I think that that should be the real subject of the debate. It is not a money issue, but a human issue that we should address in a co-operative fashion.

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks, but I feel compelled to remind him of certain facts. I do not want to give him a history lesson, but I think that there is no relationship whatsoever between the events in Restigouche and the matter we are discussing today. I am sure that, if my colleague takes the time to consult his history book, he will recognize that these two matters are not related.

However, I agree with him when he talks about the need to deal with the real problems facing native populations. I wish the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine would convince his colleagues to adopt a similar position because, in recent years, it is exactly what every Quebec government, whether federalist or sovereignist, has done in relation to the James Bay agreement, especially in relation to the matter we are debating, that is the $119 million claim for the education of young natives in northern Quebec.

The government of Quebec has striven to offer quality services to native people and to meet their needs, which means that when there is an increase in the clientele, there must be an increase in spending on health care or education, as is the case here. That is what the government of Quebec has done over the past ten years, and it is the federal government which has been tight fisted with its money. If the government of Quebec had waited for the federal government to honour its commitments, natives in the north would never have had the level of services they are getting today, thanks to the Quebec government.

So the point raised by my colleague for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine is most interesting. I ask him to convince the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the Minister of Finance to contact the Quebec Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs immediately to settle the issue. We agree on this. Quality services have been delivered and now the time has come to pay the bill. Unfortunately, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs will do the same thing he did in the case of the Charlottetown referendum in 1992: he will first lose face, then he will change his mind and agree that he must reimburse the government of Quebec.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General]

Madam Speaker, if we are going to talk about amounts, it should not be forgotten that the federal government paid out close to $450 million for Northern Quebec natives.

However, I would have another question. The point has been raised of Quebec's historic dispute with the federal government over the last ten years. We were not in power during this period, but I know that a certain Leader of the Opposition, here today, was a member of that government.

Yesterday, in fact, we learned, because we asked the question, that he was never aware, at the time, of the claims that were made by the province of Quebec. It is regrettable that the least fortunate members of society are being used to generate propaganda, to engage in grandstanding, as well as to promote sovereignty and independence at whatever cost.

I would like to ask the Leader of the Opposition where he has been for the last ten years and why he did not, when he was a member of the government in power, do something about the Quebec government's claim?

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, I hope that we are not going to spend the entire day listening to this sort of nonsense. It just shows how few arguments the government can find to reject the legitimate demands of the government of Quebec. Responding with references to the former government, and specifically to the Leader of the Official Opposition, who was a member of that government over six years ago-having left it before the Oka crisis-shows, in my opinion, just how few arguments they can muster.

I hope that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs will come up with something more serious. As someone familiar with the workings of federalism, surely he will be able to convince us, with copious arguments, that he is right, without spouting the sort of nonsense we have just heard.

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Madam Speaker, I will vote against the motion presented by the hon. member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, for a very simple reason.

The federal government is not late in making the payments referred to by the hon. member, and this includes Quebec's demands with regard to the education of young Aboriginals in the Quebec North, compensation under the 1991-92 Stabilization Program and the claim for expenses incurred during the events at Oka.

Perhaps the hon. member will withdraw his motion after hearing the government's point of view. In fact, if Quebec's demands were so legitimate, I think, with all due respect for the hon. member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, that his leader, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, would have presented the motion himself.

Monday I had a chance to discuss the matter with Mrs. Louise Beaudoin. It was a cordial meeting during which we reviewed the cases mentioned in the opposition motion and discussed the mechanisms available to us to deal with these matters.

Madam Speaker, Mrs. Beaudoin and I met earlier this week to discuss these matters. Our meeting was productive and focused on the substance of the issues and on finding ways to solve these issues in the best interest of Canadian taxpayers.

We both agreed to continue discussions on these matters through existing mechanisms. We both agreed to make every effort to find the right solutions without wasting any time.

In the process, I want to ensure that the outcome is fair to both parties, including Canadian taxpayers.

I will be brief, but I will take the time to explain the government's position on each of the demands mentioned in the motion. First, the claim for expenses incurred during the events at Oka. Quebec submitted a bill for $130 million under the disaster financial assistance agreements and estimated the federal government's contribution at $84 million.

The federal government found that only $5.3 million seemed to meet the criteria for this program. The rest of Quebec's claim was not, in our view, covered by the program. We were not convinced it was up to the federal government to pay the cost of overtime-this is an understatement-accommodation and transportation for officers of the Quebec Police Force, for which the Quebec government was claiming $58 million.

I may recall that at the time the federal government had, at the specific request of the Quebec government, provided the services of the Canadian Armed Forces. In fact, federal expenses incurred by the use of the Canadian Forces at Oka totalled $122 million.

Expenses covered under another program are not eligible, which explains why the Auditor General has been asked to take a very close look at Quebec's expenses. In other words, there are regulations that determine which expenses are eligible and which are not. In this case, considering additional claims made by the Province of Quebec which, we feel, are unjustified, we asked the Auditor General, a third party who enjoys credibility among all Canadians, including Quebecers, to check Quebec's additional claims.

We are hesitant to pay the bills submitted by the Government of Quebec, not out of meanness, but because our goal is to be rigorous and fair in administering the public purse. Mrs. Beaudoin mentioned that the funds claimed are for Quebecers; however, our responsibility is to manage funds for all of Canada's taxpayers, including Quebecers, and that entails ensuring that the bills submitted to us are justified.

That is why we called on the auditor general, from whom we hope to obtain an impartial opinion. He has indicated that the results of his audit will most likely not be available until June or July 1995. In the meanwhile, he asked the federal government and the Government of Quebec to send him a detailed breakdown of all of the costs incurred and the related receipts, normal requirements for any in-depth audit. For our part, we have provided all of the information he requested.

The federal government, therefore, is waiting to see the conclusions of his audit. That is what I said to my counterpart in Quebec, Mrs. Beaudoin, and this is clearly the fairest process to use, and we must let it run its course. All taxpayers expect their governments to rigorously manage public funds, and that is what we are doing.

Now, what about the $135 million claimed under the fiscal stabilization program? Once again, the federal government's position is very clear. We will apply the program rules to all claims, be they from Quebec or from any other province. Nothing more, nothing less.

Regarding the case at hand, the fiscal stabilization program was implemented to assist provinces whose revenues drop radically because of an economic downturn.

The claim of $135 million for 1991-92 is not valid in our opinion, because the Government of Quebec's loss of revenue that year was not related to the economic situation. The Minister of Finance has therefore determined that the stabilization program does not apply.

However, the federal government has already paid an instalment of $125 million, that is, more than half the amount Quebec has claimed for 1992-93, because, in this case, we felt the legislation criteria were met.

As I indicated to Mrs. Beaudoin last week, the legislation does not provide for arbitration. The only alternative for the Government of Quebec, if it does not share our viewpoint on the application of the legislation, is, clearly, to appeal our decision under the procedure provided in section 19 of the Federal Court Act to resolve disputes between governments. Differences in interpretation of legislation are matters to be decided by courts of law rather than by politicians. I have even said that, if necessary, our government would be prepared to help Quebec out in such an appeal by providing all the necessary information.

Before going on to the third claim, I would like to draw the attention of the member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead to the fiscal stabilization program I have just been talking about.

I am a Liberal, and Liberal is spelled with a capital "L", which means I believe in the principle of solidarity and in sharing the wealth. I believe as well that government has a role to play in this. A program like the fiscal stabilization program enables us to express Canada's social solidarity in concrete terms.

The public understands that these programs have criteria, naturally, in order to prevent abuse and to ensure that public funds are managed wisely and in their interest. And the criterion of loss of revenue due to economic slowdown seems to me a very valid one.

Now we come to the last matter, the claim for the education of young aboriginals in northern Quebec. This week, I told the Quebec minister that the federal government, far from dragging things out, was anxious to see this issue quickly settled. I say it again today and I would like to explain why it took so long to deal with this issue.

Both governments have agreed, in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, to share the education costs of young Crees of the Cree School Board on a 75-25 basis, that is 75 per cent for Ottawa and 25 per cent for Quebec. One of the reasons for that is that the Cree School Board serves a student population which varies from year to year and which includes a number of non-aboriginal students whose education costs are met by the province of Quebec.

The agreement states that budgets must be approved by both parties since amounts to be compensated depend on the education budgets, including capital budgets, teacher salaries and the proportion of aboriginal students and non-aboriginal students in the student population.

The Quebec government has always been reluctant to let the federal government play a role in budget approval, despite our repeated demands. Even though it never approved those budgets, the federal government already paid $464 million to Quebec. Therefore, we cannot be accused of being deadbeats. All they can say is that, since Quebec did not provide us with the information necessary to determine which amounts should ultimately be paid, we are protecting Canadians interests by not giving it a blank check.

Since the federal government did not take part in the decisions regarding the education budget, it is important that we understand the basis on which those decisions have been made before we decide whether a supplementary payment is appropriate or not. We refuse to sign a blank check for amounts which may not be owed.

This being said, and I conclude on that, the federal government always assumed its responsibilities towards natives and fulfilled its obligations under the James Bay Agreement.

To conclude, the federal government is a reliable partner seeking co-operation, but managing carefully taxpayers' money. I am calling upon the sense of responsibility of the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stantstead and his colleagues from the official opposition, and ask them to understand that fact. I am convinced that it is what Canadians, including Quebecers, expect from us.

We will continue to deal with real problems, the problems for which we were elected by the people of Canada, the problems to which we were asked to find solutions. The Government of Canada, our government, is an honest, open and reliable government. A government which deals with provincial governments in an equitable manner and looks at issues in good faith.

We are always willing to work with provincial and territorial governments in the interests of Canadians. This is why I will vote against this motion and I urge fair-minded opposition members to do the same, in the interests of Quebecers.

This is what we are doing and this is what will be done in the future.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to get back to some of the points raised by the minister who, a few months ago, was a keen advocate and defender of flexible federalism. Could it be that he is abandoning his lofty notions of flexible federalism to champion the cause of courtroom federalism? This is the conclusion one is inclined to draw from his speech.

The minister says that it has not been proven, beyond any doubt, or close to that, that the sums being claimed were indeed spent on young aboriginals according to the James Bay Convention. And yet, his government did not show the same scruples last year when the press reported that every year native people in Canada receive $1.2 billion without a census to establish their exact number.

And yet his government-I understand, I lay no blame-paid the money anyway although it meant that later on, it might have to make up the shortfall or withhold certain sums; it still took action. In the present case, I believe the minister is dead set against Quebec. He will not budge, no matter how legitimate the claims Quebec has against the federal government.

I just came back from a committee meeting. We learned that in Canada there are 298 public sea ports, and the present federal government is unable to say whether they are indeed public or private. For years now, it has been guesstimating. Sometimes, it assumes they are public and sometimes not.

Does the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine know that, in his riding, there is a port in Chandler which is still being funded even though it is not known whether it is private or public? Ottawa keeps on acting as if it were public and belonged to the federal government. Funnily enough, scruples only happen when Mrs. Beaudoin makes claims on behalf of Quebec. I

find this intolerable on the part of a man who prides himself on being responsible.

The minister, if he was that honourable, could have agreed with Mrs. Beaudoin on a certain amount to pay. Even if we cannot come to terms on the final numbers, we know that not everything is free, including in James Bay. He could have acted in good faith and paid out an approximate amount, which he most likely owes, even though it would have meant he might have to make up the difference or withhold part of the money to be paid some time in the future under the same convention or program.

In conclusion, I am not surprised that the minister intends to vote against our proposal, but I will ask him to refrain from saying that he is doing it in all good faith.

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to see that the main objective of the opposition member is for the federal government to manage taxpayers' money with justice and honesty. I agree with him entirely. That is why, in the case of the Oka claim, even though we had already paid $122 million to Quebec under the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements, when we decided that we did not have to pay anything else, instead of just saying: "No more, we owe you nothing more", we went to the extreme courtesy of naming a third party to audit the books once again in order to give the province of Quebec another chance.

It is also the reason why we asked the auditor general, who is certainly the most credible reference in the matter of fairness and good management of public funds, to go once again over all the invoices, to try to determine if we still owed something to Quebec. If the report says we still owe certain amounts to Quebec, if we owe money, we will pay up.

As far as fiscal stabilization is concerned, I mentioned earlier that we have reviewed all the payment criteria and have come to the conclusion that no amounts were owing. Quebec is not the only province in this case. The situation is the same for Saskatchewan. This province also presented claims which, in our judgment, were not in accordance with the established payment criteria, so the amounts requested were not paid to Saskatchewan either.

In the present case, the opposition will, once again, have to congratulate us because we chose not to pay amounts that were not owed. But, to be perfectly fair, we came to the conclusion that we had to allow Quebec, as well as all the other provinces, to appeal our decision and our interpretation of the criteria. Clearly, the provincial government should not appeal to us, since we concluded that there was no money owed as far as stabilization was concerned, but to a court of law since it is the interpretation of the law which is being challenged.

In the third case, our friend from the opposition suggests that we at least give an amount corresponding to expenditures as a whole and hammer out the adjustments later on. But what have we done so far? In fact, in all these years, we have given $464 million to the province of Quebec for the education of aboriginal people. However, as the province of Quebec did not fulfill its responsibilities according to the James Bay agreement, we were not able to verify if there were other amounts that could be owed. Once again, to be as fair as we could, we proposed that a group of civil servants study the amounts given, the school board budgets, their capital budgets, the make-up of the student population, to see if other amounts were owed.

I say again, if we come to the conclusion that we owe some money, we will pay up. I conclude by saying that not only did we pay our fair share, but also we went the extra mile to give the province of Quebec every recourse possible and to ensure its claims are reviewed.

In this case, if opposition members are fair-minded about this, if they try to see just how well the federal government has managed the taxpayers' money and to understand the fairness principles involved, I am pretty sure that they will vote against their own motion.

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to tell the minister that I find his comments rather insulting, especially when he said that, in his view, I was not important enough to move such a motion in this House. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs suggested that the Leader of the Official Opposition is the one who should have done so. I do not know if he thinks the same about members speaking for the Liberal government, because that would mean that only the Prime Minister has the right to speak in this House.

As regards the very substance of the motion, I would like to say to the minister, who prides himself on being a Liberal with a capital L, that although the stabilization program precisely aims at helping the neediest provinces, these last few years, a province such as Alberta received $174 million in 1982-83, and Ontario, a rich province, according to government spokesmen, received $227 million in 1990-91 and $284 million in 1991-92 while the Government of Quebec was denied the same conditions.

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think that the hon. member of the opposition is confusing the equalization program with the stabilization program.

The object of equalization payments is to give the have-not provinces the possibility of providing public services of a quality similar to those offered elsewhere. That is why equalization payments are not made available to the wealthiest provinces, but only to those less well-off. That is not the object of stabilization payments.

The object of stabilization payments is to stabilize provincial revenues. If your revenues, according to the criteria, are lower than before, the federal government offers a compensation. If they are not lower or if they are but because of something that the provincial government itself has done, then there is no compensation. That is what happened.

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, Reform members will be splitting their time.

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in debate on the Bloc opposition motion before the House concerning additions to the long list of Quebec demands again laid before the House and ultimately the Canadian taxpayer. I have a hard time denouncing the federal government's tardiness in the face of these spurious and ongoing demands. It is heartening to see the government and particularly the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs exercising some prudence and caution in doling out resources the government does not have.

I suspect the Quebec intergovernmental affairs minister, flushed with success from her 1994 coup in Ottawa when she pried $37 million out of the federal coffers for the referendum on Charlottetown, felt this trek to the capital would immediately result in the payout of $333 million.

Today we have the Bloc shilling for Quebec's intergovernmental affairs minister and solely as usual for the province of Quebec by way of an opposition day motion. Unlike September 1994, this time others have a chance to participate in the Canada-Quebec sweepstakes.

The motion calls on the House to denounce the federal government for not paying an additional $119 million which Quebec claims is the unpaid federal share for educating Indian and Inuit children in northern Quebec over the past nine years. Federal officials contend that some $450 million has been paid in this spending envelope and that conditions set forth under the James Bay and northern Quebec agreement and northeastern Quebec agreement have been contravened as a consequence of overspending by the Quebec government.

Who is right? Has the Quebec government sought approval from the federal government to do so? Who knows? A Bloc motion and a trip by a provincial emissary are not good enough for me.

The 1995-96 estimates for Indian affairs indicate spending of over $825 million on all elementary, secondary and post-secondary education for natives. On the post-secondary side it indicates an increase of $34 million over 1994-95. In the 1992-93 fiscal year departmental spending in education was $711 million. This year's estimates indicate a $114 million increase over a three-year period, or roughly what the province of Quebec is asking for by way of its alleged shortfall.

No one is denying any person access to a complete education. In the instance of aboriginal education certain comprehensive funding agreements or alternative funding arrangements have to be met. Political posturing and using the current political sensitivities by way of an implied threat will not get my party to support another $119 million being anted up, no matter how charming the messenger.

Allow me to turn to the second demand of the motion as orchestrated by last week's trip by the provincial intergovernmental affairs minister. In this instance the House is being called upon to denounce the federal government for not reacting to Quebec's demand for the government to apply the federal fiscal stabilization program and help out Quebec during these difficult fiscal times to the tune of $135 million.

Quebec claims drastic drops in revenue and thus qualifies for support from the emergency program. The provincial minister and the Bloc have good memories, since the claim for the payment of $135 million goes back to 1991. What was the revenue shortfall in Quebec in 1991? What was the emergency situation? These seem like reasonable questions. Since the Bloc was not in power in 1991 it is nice to see the Bloc carrying the can in Ottawa for Robert Bourassa.

Under the fiscal stabilization program certain conditions must be met for eligibility to funding. In 1991-92 and during this recession five provinces were found wanting and received a total of $418 million. Quebec and Saskatchewan were found not to be eligible at that time. However, in 1992-93 Quebec received $125 million from the fund. If the Bloc feels so strongly about the case, why not follow the federal government's suggestion and go to court? Why would it ask Parliament to give carte blanche approval to meet this demand?

We understand that the legislation and regulations of the Fiscal Stabilization Program Act were met and no favourites were played. However, because Quebec was involved and was turned down this was somehow considered suspect immediately and that we should go to arbitration. No way.

The issue is simple. Everyone is aware that it is one of an overall separatist strategy to make taxes and tax sharing the real issues in the sovereignty referendum. The Quebec finance minister has already threatened Quebecers in his recent budget by claiming that a no vote would mean higher provincial sales taxes to offset federal cuts in transfer payments. The leader of the PQ claimed that the federal debt burden had been shifted solely on Quebec and that he could not talk seriously of a cost effective and flexible federal system.

The Bloc has joined the bandwagon and continued the blackmail by way of this motion. It is interesting that neither of these two leaders will discuss budget projections or provide information on what a yes vote would do. We all know it means even

higher taxes for Quebecers. According to a recent Fraser Institute study they would be a whopping 25 per cent higher. Whom are the Bloc trying to kid? This is rank amateur blackmail.

The motion calls upon the House to denounce the federal government's tardiness in meeting the Quebec government's claim of $79 million for costs of using the Sûreté du Québec in the events at Oka in 1990. The issue requires some historical perspective so I will trace the debacle largely instigated by the Sûreté du Québec, the police force for which we are being asked to cough up another $79 million.

Some very strange decisions were made at Oka by the Quebec government. On July 11, 1990 Sûreté members stormed the Mohawk barricade a Kanesatake. In the ensuing gun battle a police officer was killed. As a result we had a standoff which lasted 78 days. Soon after the events of July 11, police began blocking food and medical supplies destined for Mohawk residents at Kanesatake.

Widespread criticism led to a lifting of the blockade on July 26. Talks began between the parties and on August 8 the Prime Minister appointed as mediator Chief Justice of the Quebec Superior Court Alan Gold. At the same time the Prime Minister said he would make the Canadian army available if Quebec needed it.

On August 12, Justice Gold announced some agreement and two days later it was announced that the Quebec government had requested the Canadian army. A force of 2,500 soldiers moved in. The next day it was announced that the army would replace the Sûreté at the barricades. This was completed on August 20. Talks were going nowhere, and on August 28 the army was asked by the premier to remove the barricades.

The motion is a one dimensional litany of Quebec complaints. The Bloc is not truly displaying its position as official opposition. It would be better served devoting more attention to national issues and less time on purely political posturing to serve one province.

I cannot support the motion.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. member and I am somewhat surprised by his paternalistic attitude regarding the claims that are being made.

The claims made by the Quebec government at this stage are about adjustment and correspondence to criteria and things of that nature. We are not here to question the way governments have acted. In that regard, I think that the hon. member's attitude was more or less appropriate when he asked if the gouvernment had acted in a relevant way and when he suggested it should act in such and such a way in another situation.

However, as regards fiscal stabilization, I believe this raises an important substantive issue. We are told that the Quebec government should go to the courts since it received an unqualified refusal from the finance minister. Should we not question the relevancy of a fiscal stabilization agreement in which the federal government is both judge and judged? Indeed, the government will give the money if the claim is considered justified, but the government is also, through the finance minister, the final authority allowing the disbursement.

Should such an agreement not be considered as a form of domineering federalism where the father decides what is good for his children? As if the provinces were the children of the federal government. Should we not ask ourselves something?

Should there not be, for this type of agreement, an independent body which could decide on the relevancy of claims in cases of disagreement between the federal and provincial governments? This way governments could be spared legal battles which entail useless expenses and necessarily lead to political claims, like the ones the Quebec government is making, when one of the parties involved refuses to agree to a claim considered to be justified by the Quebec government.

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, in terms of the fiscal stabilization issue, I have a lot of problems with the issue in a broader sense. We have an equalization arrangement that was reaffirmed for five years last year in Parliament. It was based on government and on party discipline voting. The agreement is one whereby the fourth most prosperous province, the province of Quebec, is receiving something in the order of 40 per cent of equalization payments. That has created some major contention in other parts of the country.

In terms of the actual question of dealing with whether the judge and jury on arguments within that framework should be an independent body, I have some sympathy with the argument. Otherwise it is very prone to political manoeuvring whether it is from a provincial jurisdiction or the federal government.

That is the rationale for including the courts in the process but perhaps there is another way to do it other than through the courts.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is stimulating for me to rise today to address the Bloc motion which denounces the government for its tardiness in addressing Quebec's demands for outstanding payment in three critical areas.

What does the Government of Quebec want? If we examine the request we see that the Parti Quebecois or the Government of Quebec says that it is owed $79 million for costs incurred during

the Oka crisis of 1990. This bill is mainly for overtime paid to the Quebec provincial police. Quebec claims that Indian affairs is a federal jurisdiction and the government has a crisis fund from which the money should be paid.

On the surface it seems like a reasonable request and is reasonably justified. If we were to get into the details we might find room for argument. After all we all know that if the provinces request through their attorneys general the aid of the civil power for their police it is a provincial obligation to pay.

In any event, Ottawa says that it has already paid $5.3 million. It has asked the federal auditor general to review the claims on both sides and propose a fair division of costs. This seems like a quite reasonable position which I submit should be given a chance to work.

The second claim on the part of the Parti Quebecois or the Government of Quebec is for $119 million for moneys spent on the education of young natives in the James Bay region of northern Quebec. The spending of $119 million for the education of natives was very laudable and worthwhile.

The PQ claims that the 1978 James Bay agreement contained provisions for Ottawa to pay a portion of the costs, but that since 1987 it has refused to pay its full share. The response from Ottawa is that it has already spent $450 million over the past several years and that additional costs were incurred by the province of Quebec without federal approval. According to reports, Ottawa is quite willing to discuss this matter in further detail but Quebec is unhappy with the pace of the negotiations to date, if not the negotiations themselves.

I submit that the negotiation process should be encouraged so that a fair and equitable agreement can be reached on this important matter. It seems that in this play between the government and the PQ and even the BQ, Reform has almost taken the position of honest broker.

The final claim of the PQ is for $135 million under the stabilization payment programs for 1991-92. The PQ says that richer provinces, including Ontario and my province of British Columbia, got money under the program which compensates provinces if they lose revenue because of an economic downturn.

Ottawa's reply in this case is that the finance department analysed Quebec's application on the same basis as other provinces that applied that year and the application was turned down, as was that of Saskatchewan. If that is the case, then Quebec has no claim.

Having looked at the demands and Ottawa's response to these demands, it is also very important for all of us to look at the motivation behind these claims. The Parti Quebecois is currently engaged in a campaign to separate Quebec from the rest of Canada. The PQ is calling it a sovereignty campaign but it is just that, a campaign to separate.

We read in the polls that the campaign shows the separatist side is losing. We must ask ourselves the question: Could it be that the PQ and their BQ allies are simply looking for an issue to help buoy the sagging separatist cause? If we examine the theory we see that such a tactic could bring positive gains to the yes side.

First, if Ottawa refuses to pay, the PQ and the BQ can tell Quebecers that Ottawa just does not care. That it is just another example of why Quebec must separate from Canada, because Ottawa cannot be trusted to live up to its commitments.

If Ottawa gives in and pays what the PQ says it is owed, then the separatist forces can trumpet: "This is a victory against domineering Ottawa". Either way, the PQ and BQ can score political points. This is what troubles me about the bills being presented by the PQ and the motion presented by the Bloc today. It appears to be motivated by crass politics and is not a genuine desire to enhance the lives of Quebecers.

At the same time I have to applaud members of the Bloc for their dogged determination to bring before the House issues that affect their constituents, the people of Quebec. They are very good at that. However, as I mentioned earlier, it is unfortunate that this determination is not based on anything more than achieving the Bloc's stated political goal of separation.

I must also admonish the Bloc for neglecting its role as the official opposition. If the Bloc wants to maintain the role of official opposition, it has to widen its focus and begin to address the many greater areas of common concern in Canada. It must not be allowed to simply use its position to further its own agenda.

Dedicating limited supply days to debating motions such as the one we have before us today means that the affairs of the nation as a whole are put on the back burner while we all address issues which affect just a limited portion of our society. That is the problem. To me it is an abuse of the parliamentary process and to a large degree an affront to the majority of Canadians, even to Canadians in Quebec who are tired of seeing themselves used as nothing more than pawns in the political games being played by the Bloc and its PQ allies in Quebec city.

If the PQ and the BQ want to separate, then let them hold their referendum without delay and let Parliament get on with the business of running Canada for all Canadians. It is time for parliamentarians to demand the Bloc either fulfil its role as the official opposition or step aside for a party that is willing to do the job. The Bloc must not be allowed to hold Parliament hostage any longer.

It is within the power of Parliament to remove the mantle of official opposition from the Bloc and bestow it on a true opposition party. This has not happened to date because the Prime Minister appears unwilling to do it.

Therefore I appeal to Canadians from coast to coast to coast to write the Prime Minister and ask him why he is an accomplice to these political games; ask the Prime Minister to allow the House to conduct a free vote on which party should be the official opposition.

It is time for us all to move forward in the interest of all Canadians. The Bloc is hindering this process with the type of motion that is in front of us today. Canadians say enough, and I say enough, and enough to the motion before the House as well.

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, I suppose my colleague for Nanaimo-Cowichan got carried away, to have made such comments. I usually have great respect for what he says in the House. The speech he delivered in the last ten minutes shows how our friends from the Reform Party are unable to give any serious consideration whatsoever to the legitimate demands of the government of Quebec.

I have two points to make. The member explained, during his ten minutes, that the tabling, by the Bloc Quebecois, of a motion asking the federal government to act properly and stand by agreements it made under the statutes governing our institutions, is nothing more than separatists bringing up a local problem for partisan purposes.

I am sure my colleague cannot, in all conscience, maintain such an absurdity. He knows perfectly well that what the opposition is asking this morning, what the present Quebec government is asking, is what the Quebec has been asking for ten years in one case, five years in another case and three years in the last case. These demands date from the days of the Bourassa government. As I mentioned in my speech, Mr. Bourassa cannot be accused of thinking separatist thoughts.

My second point is that I was surprised to hear such comments from a Reform member who is always asking the federal government to stop interfering, to let the provinces act in their own field. He is asking even more-he would like the powers of government to be decentralized. He would like us to have a smaller federal government.

When the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, rises in the House on a motion that basically has the same goal, my colleague is blinded by partisan considerations and he lowers the level of debate to a partisan debate. I think there is no room for such behaviour in this House. I hope my colleague will take advantage of the few minutes he has left to refocus his thoughts.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, I must say that I partly agree with the hon. member's words. He is certainly right when he says that the Reform Party is against big government, against too much government and against too much control by Ottawa over the provinces.

I agree that we would like to have decentralization as outlined. But at the same time, and I will repeat what I just said. I see in the Bloc's motion a totally political manoeuver to bring the separation issue into the debate today.

I can say that I heard the Bloc previously describe federalism as dominating. I also agree with that. But we have to change the government, we have to change the system first. We need decentralization, but we do not have it yet. We must work in order to achieve it.

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

Madam Speaker, I find it rather deplorable that some people will say almost anything to score political points in the House. I understand that the hon. member might be very interested in forming the official opposition, but an election will be held only after the Bloc Quebecois is gone.

I would like to say to the hon. member that it is in Quebec that the Oka crisis happened. It is Quebec that has problems with the federal government with respect to payments for aboriginal education. It is Quebec that has problems regarding stabilization. That is why we are here, to defend Quebec's interests.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, of course they have problems in Quebec. Of course they must stand up and defend them, but I will come back to what it is I am saying.

We want to be the official opposition and yes, we will wait for a byelection to have it happen properly. In the meantime, the Bloc is doing nothing more than being the advocate of everything in Quebec and is not acting as the official opposition for all Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise at this stage in the debate, especially after a speech by the Reform Party on a very important motion tabled by the Bloc Quebecois.

I think that we should put the cards on the table and look at what is really happening. The motion is very clear. It is aimed at denouncing the federal government's delay in paying the money it owes Quebec. This government owes Quebec $79 million as a result of the Oka crisis, $135 million under the 1991-92 stabilization program, and $119 million for problems related to

the education of young aboriginal people in northern Quebec. The Minister of Indian Affairs and the federal government know that these amounts are owed, but they are not doing anything about it.

It is normal for the Bloc Quebecois, for Quebec MPs elected by Quebecers to defend Quebec's interests in Ottawa, to table such a motion on an opposition day, because it is in the news. This week, a Quebec official met with her federal counterpart to claim the tidy sum of $333 million. You expect us to remain silent while this is going on? No way. We have been sent here with a clear mandate, which we intend to fulfil, and we will fight for this money because it is owed to Quebec. We will work to get it.

Again, this issue gives us the opportunity to show clearly that Quebecers made a very definite choice in the last federal election because, as you know, Madam Speaker, this issue has been dragging on for years. Let me take a minute to give you some background information. We did not make anything up. The Bloc Quebecois and the big bad separatists in Quebec had nothing to do with this. Once upon a time, there was a federalist government called the Bourassa government in Quebec; it was a Liberal government. In the last Liberal budget tabled in the Province of Quebec, the Bourassa government indicated that the federal government owed $300 million to Quebec.

Is this something that big bad separatists made up? No, Madam Speaker. If the allies of our friends opposite, those who will share their platform in the Quebec referendum scheduled for this year, if the Liberals mentioned this $300 million in their budget-and we know that they are pals with our friends opposite-it is because this amount is really owed. It remains to be paid.

I had a prepared speech but I think that I will set it aside and speak from the heart instead, because this is much too important an issue. I think you can push, but only so far. Our motion refers to three demands of the highest importance. Let us look at them one at a time.

First, there is the Oka crisis. What was this crisis? Well, Oka is in Quebec. Certain Indians claimed a strip of land in that area in the 1990s, and the Quebec provincial police, as well as the Canadian Armed Forces, had to be called in. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said so himself. He reported having spent $122 million on these measures. And we are supposed to believe that these were not emergency measures related to a disaster, that, to use his own words, public order and public good are slightly different?

If it were strictly a matter of public good, what was the army doing there? Why did the government spend $122 million? Can you tell me, Madam Speaker? Because there was an element of public order involved, which is directly covered by federal-provincial agreement in the definition of disaster. This may sound like a strange term, disaster, but that is what the agreement says, and letters were even exchanged by the two levels of government, in which the federal government recognized the events in Oka were a disaster under the terms of the agreement.

Correspondence exchanged between the provincial Liberal government and the federal Conservative government at the time provides that the Oka crisis is covered by that agreement. An amount of $139 million was spent on that in Quebec. How did the federal government pay its debt? It gave $5.3 million. Then, it said: "The federal government is acting in good faith. It would pay the total bill, but the issue relates to public good, not public order". Such an interpretation can only be made in bad faith. When $122 million was spent because of the existence of a threat to the public, either the federal government pays the full amount or, if it does not want to respect its own agreements or thinks that it will not be able to fulfil its commitment, it should not sign such agreements with the provinces. This is what is deplorable.

Governments, whether they are Conservative or Liberal, are all the same. In fact, whether we are talking about the Conservatives, the Liberals or the Reform Party, it is all the same when it comes to looking after Quebec's interests. They are all opposed to these interests. This is the case and we have a very good example of that here, where Reform, Liberal, and Conservative members are working hand in hand. They belong to different parties, but they all react in the same manner regarding this issue. They are all opposed to Quebec's interests.

They put Quebec in its place. That is what federalists want to do, put Quebec in its place, and that is what they have been doing for 30 years. And then, they wonder why there is a sovereignist movement in Quebec.

There is a very precise order to the events in the Oka crisis. All the ministers who dealt with that issue have that correspondence. They know that the $139.7 million Quebec spent on that issue was not money spent for a futile purpose; it was spent to maintain public order. There was a major crisis going on. Those events involved the death of one person, and there was the need to intervene. That is why that money was spent, through the Quebec provincial police force.

It must be remembered that there is a provincial police force in Quebec. The province provides its own police services. What would have happened, say, if such a crisis had taken place in Manitoba, a province without a provincial police force? The events would have been monitored by the RCMP. Who would have paid? The federal government. Would the federal government have passed the $139.7 million bill on to the province of Manitoba? I doubt it.

Let us look at what is going on now with federal-provincial agreements on law enforcement services between that province and the federal government. The federal government provides police officers, and pays them, but it cannot even pass on the bill to get full payment for the services it provides to that province. Some might think that the member for Berthier-Montcalm is putting forward figures without knowing what he is talking about, but those are not my figures. The Solicitor General of Canada is the one who pointed them out. The solicitor general has been saying year in and year out: "You cannot even recover all the costs of the RCMP services you are providing, and you should".

And then, we are told that in a case like the Oka crisis that could have happened anywhere in Canada, the whole bill should be passed on to the province. Madam Speaker, this could only happen here. It could only happen in Quebec. It is the only province that has to argue to have the federal government pay its bills. We should not forget the Charlottetown referendum. How many times did we have to raise the issue in this House in order to get the federal government to pay the $35 million it owed? Quebec paid twice for that referendum that was forced upon it. The federal government imposed that referendum, and we had to pay for it twice.

It is only when the government opposite examined the issue, set aside its political interests and partisan considerations that it handed a $35 million cheque to Quebec, because that claim was indeed justified.

The situation is exactly the same with the Oka crisis. Quebec is owed $79 million. Now, who is going to pay?

I would now like to say a few words about the second claim concerning the education of young aboriginals. I am particularly pleased to do so when the minister is here. He will certainly confirm what I have to say.

Is it not strange that, here again, we had agreements between both levels of government on the education of aboriginals? One point should be clear. Aboriginal affairs are a federal jurisdiction. When the federal government steps outside its jurisdiction, we take it to task. What we have here is exclusively under federal jurisdiction. Let the government abide by that nice Canadian constitution it so eagerly defends in the House. Let it honour its signature. Here again, we have a federal-provincial agreement under which the federal government is supposed to pay 75 per cent of costs and Quebec 25 per cent. The minister gave an excellent explanation earlier. A few young whites live on the reserve, and their education is a provincial jurisdiction. Therefore, Quebec should pay for their education.

The federal government should also pay for the natives living on that reserve and on all the reserves in northern Quebec. Following the James Bay agreement, both levels of government reached an excellent agreement under which the federal government and the province of Quebec split some of the costs.

Between 1978 and 1987, this approach worked very well. The federal always paid as soon as it received the bill sent by the Quebec government. In 1987, the federal government stopped paying. Why? Because it argued that the bill was too high and that the expenses had increased too much. Why had these expenses increased? Simply because the birth rate has increased on the reserve as well as the number of young natives, and more natives had gone back to school. The Quebec government was providing more education services and more classes to the natives. So, the federal government said: "Oh no, the expenses have gotten out of hand; we will no longer pay".

Today, the minister had the nerve to say: "Look, we are acting in good faith. We paid $450 million". Yes, but they stopped paying in 1987. Is that what he calls acting in good faith? Is that what flexible federalism is all about? Is this the kind of federalism in front of which we should grovel like the members opposite? Without Canadian federalism, there is no salvation? I do not think so.

In cases like this one, we will still be blamed for defending Quebec's interests, even if the federal government obviously owes us some money. And we are not talking about petty cash here, but rather $119 million. We should give up $119 million without saying anything. This is horrible. It is unacceptable.

What is even more unacceptable is for some members representing Quebec ridings to rise and to criticize us because we are defending Quebec's interests and asking for the money owed to us. We want what is ours. This money is owed to us.

These Quebec members will still rise to try to sweeten things up, to hide the truth and to tell us why they do not have to pay. However, all the documentation we have clearly shows that some agreements were reached and some promises were made by the various levels of government concerned.

This only goes to prove that the system in which we live is awful and cannot work. There are two nations in this country; there are two countries in this country. We are totally unalike. How do you think we can agree when they cannot even respect contracts which they signed? Moreover, they invite us to settle our disagreements in court. "We do not agree, so let us go to court".

We can do that with the United States. A great Canadian like the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs can say to his neighbours who do business with Canada: "Listen, if we cannot reach an agreement, you can always go to court; that is what courts are

for". But, to my knowledge, as long as Quebec does not say yes to sovereignty, as long as Quebec is not a separate country, we are still part of the system.

This is what the so-called flexible federalism is. Is this what the blind advocate of flexible federalism is going to offer us? It is scandalous. I think there is no better way to describe it than to say it is scandalous.

The third claim, and not the least, is an amount of $135 million for the 1991-92 stabilization program. If my memory does not fail me, it was not the big bad separatists who were in power then, it was the Liberals.

Indeed, the Premier of Quebec was the ineffable Robert Bourassa, a federalist well known by our friends opposite, and this man claimed $135 million. That tells you something. If a man like Mr. Bourassa put down in his books that the federal government owed Quebec the sum of $135 million, you need not look any further, it is a minimum. No matter how you calculate it, he was so afraid of displeasing his great federal friends, he so often groveled before the federal government, that if he submitted a claim for $135 million, you can be sure the federal government owed this money to Quebec. There is no need to look any further. We can make all kinds of complicated computations, we can make a balance sheet say what we want, I think everybody here agrees with that.

The fact remains that, if federalists like Robert Bourassa and his cabinet, of which the present Minister of Labour was a member, claimed such an amount, then that was probably the amount due. I would like to hear from the Minister of Labour, who was elected to protect Quebec's interests, since she is very familiar with all the details of the claim. I would like to know what she says to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Does she say that that is the correct amount as she used to claim when she was a member of the Bourassa government? Does she say that Quebec's claims like the one for the Oka crisis, which she certainly knew all about as a member of the Bourassa cabinet, are well founded? Does she say to the intergovernmental affairs minister that the money owed for northern Quebec natives' education should be paid? She was once the Quebec Minister of Education. Does she say it should be paid? Will she rise in the House? I am anxious to see how she will vote tonight on the motion and to see if she defends Quebec's interests as we do because it was for that reason that we were elected. I am anxious to see her on her feet.

The federal government made written and oral commitments to Quebec. It is accountable to the people of Quebec. Moreover, it is the source of some of the problems we are faced with today. The federal government should pay right away what it owes Quebecers. Do the honourable thing and pay what you owe.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General]

Madam Speaker, in such a delicate matter that concerns not only our native people but also Quebec's honour, we must not forget that, in 1990, the media in Europe, Asia and all over the world criticized us for the way this dispute with our native friends had been handled. It was not something that Quebec could be proud of.

When I hear opposition members say that we, government members, are not protecting Quebec's interests, I would like them to tell me why they have decided to change their position with regard to the referendum. Now they want to have an association with the Canadian government even though they claim that it does not honour its fiscal commitments. Everybody knows that it is not true.

I would be curious to know the opinion of small municipalities which have received funding for infrastructure projects thanks to their support, to the co-operation of the province and to the federal government's determination to put Canadians and Quebecers back to work.

The members opposite say that the Canadian government has not responded to the Quebec government's demands, but it is absolutely false. It is the government of Quebec which called on the Canadian Armed Forces, and it is the federal government which spent $122 million. We must not forget that. You know, Madam Speaker, this bill will not be paid by the government of Quebec. It is through federalism, as it now stands, that we can share our resources. That is what gives our country its strength. The province of Quebec has a lot to gain by being part of our great Canadian family.

Of course, the fact that the federal government has paid $450 million for the education of natives in northern Quebec has already been mentioned. I could talk some more about all the programs which have benefited Quebec, but it is absolutely wrong to say that the members opposite are speaking for Quebec. I am a Quebecer, a Gaspesian and proud of it, and if an opposition party which does not even represent the majority in Quebec in terms of the popular vote thinks it can tell me-

[Some hon. members]

Not true!

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that they only captured 48 per cent of the popular vote, and that the Parti Quebecois only captured 44 per cent of the vote in the provincial election. If they had the honour, audacity and intellectual integrity to say to us tomorrow morning: "We are going to hold a referendum and the question will be: Do you want to separate from Canada, yes or no?", I assure you that they would be lucky if 30 to 35 per cent of Quebecers were to vote in favour.

Therefore, I ask the members of the opposition why they decided to go this route, if Canada really is the deadbeat they make it out to be. Why would they still want to remain associated with Canada if, according to them, the Canadian federation is not worth the trouble?

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

Madam Speaker, what a shame that the hon. member opposite cannot tell an apple from an orange. Understandably, both are fruit, but that is no reason to confuse the two. Although we are no longer on the subject of the motion, too much is at stake not to reply to the hon. member's question regarding why we have proposed an association with Canada.

For one, we are not proposing an economic association with the federal government; we are proposing an economic association with the other provinces, with Canadians. It would be an economic association between peoples, not between governments. The federal government is the deadbeat; not the Canadian people. The federal government has acted in bad faith; not the Canadian people. The federal government is into petty politics; not the Canadian people.

By asking this question, the hon. member has revealed just how clueless he is about the referendum debate in Quebec. I invite him to pay more attention to the debate on the referendum, which I can assure him will be held in 1995.