Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-71. But first I would like to set the record straight regarding some disparaging comments the members for Elk Island and Etobicoke North made this afternoon on Quebec and Quebecers.
They took advantage of today's debate to demean Quebecers in the House; for Orangemen like these two, the temptation is great, of course. While my colleague, the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques was pleading for productive spending, the member for Etobicoke North seemed dumbfounded and asked “What is he talking about? What does he mean by productive spending?”
For the benefit of the member for Etobicoke North and several Ontarians who have been on the political scene for 25 or 30 years, and who cannot understand what a productive investment is because of their partisanship, I will explain by giving an example.
Canada was founded by today's Quebecers, who were called French Canadians at the time, but when English Canadians arrived in this country in 1760, it was said that there were two founding peoples, despite the fact that one was there 250 years before the other one, whether the member for Beauce likes it or not. And it is his own people he is trying to disown.
There were reportedly two founding peoples: the francophones, who arrived in 1534, and the anglophones, who arrived in 1760, 226 years later. However, to please everybody, it was said that there were two founding peoples who were equal, and I accept that. But we cannot brush away our past and our history so readily.
When the four provinces that formed Canada joined together to found the Canadian federation, Ontario was not what it is today. It even had huge budget deficits. Ontario needed money under the Union Act, 1840, and Quebec, or Lower Canada as it was called at the time, agreed to lend Ontario considerable sums of money, which were never repaid as a matter of fact.
From the moment the Canadian Constitution came to be—and this is where productive spending becomes important—for example, when the automobile was first introduced at the turn of the century, the federal government started to invest a lot of money in the Windsor area, in Ontario. It supported the establishment of the automobile industry in Ontario.
A few years later, Quebecers were told to be patient, that it would soon be their turn. They were told that, for them, it would not be the automobile industry, but the aviation industry. The francophones waited patiently, knowing that there were plenty of francophone MPs, mostly Liberal, at the time, for their turn to come.
Some 25 years ago, Michelin Tires wanted to set up business in Quebec. They were told “No, go to Nova Scotia. We will give you $52 million if you do”. That was a good incentive. They were paid not to set up business in Quebec. Yet this was a French multinational which would have had a natural tendency to gravitate to Quebec, where their language was spoken. But no, the government of the day invested $52 million to send them to Nova Scotia.
History has not yet shown whether this was a good decision, but we do know that, over the years, relationships had been particularly complicated, if only from the language point of view. Michelin's investment in Nova Scotia was not the best investment it ever made.
At around the same time, Quebec was again being told “Your future lies in aircraft construction. Ontario has its automobile industry, Quebec has aviation”. But when the famous CF-18 contract came up, the rule changed once more.
They were told “Too bad, the planes will also be built in Ontario, but there will be economic spinoffs for Quebec”. What kind of economic spinoffs? There was talk of $850 million, maybe $900 million. That was acceptable, but once again when the project was completed and the planes were being flown—and there were some crashes, but that is a whole other story—there were between $250 million and $300 million in economic benefits for Quebec. All the radio control knobs we made pretty well accounted for that $250 million. So much for the technological spinoffs, the productive spending. Once again, none for us. We just got the crumbs.
I heard what the hon. member for Elk Island had to say. He takes the cake. He needs a lesson in history. Between 1880 and 1900, 1.2 million Quebecers were forced to leave Quebec. They left the country and went to the northeastern American states and New England, because they were starving in Quebec.
At the same time, the Government of Canada populated western Canada. It brought people from eastern Europe and gave them land, two horses, sheep, a cow, chickens, all paid for by the taxpayers of Quebec and Ontario at the time. And now the member for Elk Island is telling us that Quebec is asking for too much and that our claims for equalization payments are unfair.
In 1870, Canada bought what was then called the North-Western Territory from the Hudson's Bay Company for 300,000 pounds Sterling, a considerable sum for Canadians at the time. But when the ancestors of the member for Elk Island, and probably those of many members here, settled there they were given land paid for in large part by Quebecers. In those days, Quebecers constituted about 50% of Canada's population. In other words, they paid about 50% of the taxes.
The member for Elk Island is denying this. While we cannot live in the past and constantly relive history, we can recognize that Quebecers can hold their heads just as high as anyone else. They contributed more than their share to this country. They anted up when it was time to do so. In wartime, they risked their lives in the battlefields of Europe.
We need offer no excuses to the member for Elk Island. Because of the policies of the federal government, which has always given Quebec the wrong end of the stick, we have a population of poor children in Montreal, which presupposes poor parents as well.
I see the member for Beauce watching me all in a state. This is what is happening in Quebec. It is the result of the policies of the Liberal Party of Canada, which started in 1973 to get into overblown deficits with its Minister of Finance at the time, who is now, ironically, the Prime Minister, the one most opposed to accumulated deficits.