Madam Speaker, I took the liberty of jotting down a few points while the minister was speaking. I must say he has given us an extraordinary lesson on aboriginal culture, and so we have not really completely wasted our time, since, let there be no doubt, we have a lot to learn from this culture.
You see, our purpose today was not to talk about aboriginal culture, which has its merits, but to talk about the money the federal government owes the Government of Quebec. It is just money, nothing important. It is just money after all. It does create a few minor problems, however. It is easy enough to say: there was a crisis at Oka, which is in Quebec, so it is not a big deal; Quebec can pay the costs or take the matter to court. Whose responsibility was it to deal with the native people? The federal government's. Now if I have properly understood the minister, given that the native culture has so many fine qualities, if the native people got angry at some point, it was because the federal government had not done its job. If it did not do its job, it has to assume the consequences.
So you see the matter is a simple one. The minister says that federal money would be used to reimburse the Government of Quebec for what it paid out. Yes, but, there is a problem here. There is a fundamental error in logic. It is not federal money, it is taxpayers' money. While the Liberal government may have red on its banner, it is not wearing a Santa Claus suit. It does not print money. It gets its money out of the taxpayers' pockets. Try asking the Minister of Revenue to wait two or three or four years for his tax money, try saying to him: "We will go to court, and it will get settled that way". It could create a few problems for any taxpayer foolish enough to try.
No, it is not federal government money, it is taxpayers' money. The shoe starts to pinch when Quebec taxpayers have to pay twice-once when they pay their federal share and once when they pay the provincial government. Who is supposed to pay the costs the federal government is responsible for? Good heavens, the logic is simple. It is the logic of integrity. It is the logic of honesty. It is the logic of "I paid out money for you under an agreement, I sent you the bill for it, you agreed to pay it-well, pay it then". What was the answer to this? It was: "See you in court. We want all the details on these invoices". Well, good heavens-I certainly could not talk about good faith here.
I would be tempted to suggest to the Quebec Minister of Revenue that he set aside from the GST money he collects an amount equal to what the federal government is refusing to pay, in the form of a guarantee. Once the federal government pays its bill, the Minister of Revenue will release the money. If this is the sort of language we have to use, then this is the way we will have to put it: $300 million out of $400 million.
The minister says: "Mr. Cliche, in Quebec, has offered aboriginals $400 million". He forgot to say that $300 million came from the federal government, in fact not from the federal government but rather from the taxpayers. If the federal government is so broke that it has to squeeze tax dollars out of taxpayers and cannot afford to hand over that money to Quebec, then it should separate from Quebec. Quebec then would be able to pay $300 million out of those $400 million since it would save a tidy sum of $30 billion.
The minister was very nice in his speech, very kind. Unfortunately, he did not address the motion before the House. To conclude, I have this question for the minister. In his speech, the minister said right from the start that they were going to vote against the Bloc's motion. Could he tell us therefore what we are doing in this place all day long? Is it an exercise in futility? Those people say from the outset that they are not going to listen, that they are going to vote against the motion. Are we wasting our time? No, we are not wasting our time because those who are watching us on television will know the truth and have a very good reason to resolve the issue this fall by voting in favour of Quebec's sovereignty and making Quebec a winner.