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.