Lost his last election, in 2000, with 7% of the vote.
Foreign Affairs June 2nd, 1995
Mr. Speaker, moreover, the majority of diplomats who trade their airplane tickets for money to pay for their holidays do not go to Canada and are not even obliged to submit their receipts. They pocket the money, tax free.
Will the President of the Treasury Board undertake to review these benefits, granted in 1993, before laying off more civil servants, who cannot take advantage of the lax approach of Treasury Board?
Foreign Affairs June 2nd, 1995
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs says that the scandal involving Canadian diplomats who trade their airplane tickets for money is a thing of the past. The President of the Treasury Board claims that the phenomenon is limited to diplomats assigned to dangerous and difficult cities. However, for a diplomat posted in Tokyo with his family, it can amount to 40 per cent of his salary, tax free.
How can the President of the Treasury Board justify that such financial benefits, which were granted in 1993, are still available to Canadian diplomats, when other civil servants have had their salaries frozen since 1991?
Supply June 1st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I find it rather strange that when we say that we want an economic association with the rest of Canada, the Liberal Party, especially the Quebec members and the Prime Minister, who is also from Quebec, say: "We do not want any association with the rest of Canada". And yet, they too are Quebecers.
You see, this economic association is unavoidable, no matter what. We do a lot of trade with Ontario and western Canada. As a matter of fact, the West sells more in Quebec that we sell there. There is a deficit. Ontario buys slightly over one billion more from Quebec than we purchase from Ontario. If we were to become sovereign, without an economic association, Ontario would have a trade deficit with Quebec.
In order not to disturb this economy which is working and will go on, in any case, and which business people and economists will want to keep going, we say that we need some kind of economic association. No matter the form it takes, we will need some kind of economic association to manage and continue to manage our trade.
Moreover, we must say that, at the present time, it is harder to trade among provinces that it is with the United States through the FTA. I find this terrible. It seems to me that it should be easy for Canada and Quebec to have an economic association at least as open as the one we have with the United States.
In Quebec, we tend to trade north-south, because the market there is very large, as in New York City and Boston. It is said that there are close to 100 million consumers within a range of 1,000 kilometres from Montreal. This explains why we tend to trade with the South. But this does not mean that we do not want to maintain our economic links with the rest of Canada. To achieve this, we say that we need an economic association. It could be managed by some kind of a council which could sit, perhaps here in Ottawa, with delegates from the government in Quebec City, MPs delegated by the government in Ottawa, who could sit once in a while to manage this united council. This is not complicated, this is simple. Life goes on.
Any way, one cannot claim that governments can do everything. It is the economy which fosters good trade relations.
I hear the Liberals laugh over there, and I think they are being rather foolish. I cannot understand why they are laughing. It bothers me to hear them laugh, I do not like it. I heard the Prime Minister, himself a Quebecer, say that he does not want a union with the rest of Canada, that he has no need for it. I do not know what he is going to do. He is going to die alone. I do not know; maybe he will have to move to Toronto, because he lives in Quebec. I think he lives in Quebec, although I am not sure. I rather think that he has been living in Ontario for 30 years. I am not sure about that. When I listen to him, I wonder if the language, the words he uses are not words that Quebecers were using 30 years ago. The language of Quebecers has evolved, but the Prime Minister talks as people used to 30 years ago. I think that he has been living in Ontario for 30 years and that he seldom goes back to Quebec. The language there has evolved.
So, I find it a little strange to hear Quebec Liberals-because that applies only to Quebec Liberals-say that they do not want an economic association with the rest of Canada. I am really disappointed. I do not understand.
In this regard, in the interests of all Quebecers, it is high time for us to be sovereign so that we can grow and also have an economic association with the rest of Canada that will come naturally, I am sure. Some may say that they do not want it, but that is not true; it will come naturally. Business people, professionals, economists, all those who are in business will want it to be maintained.
Planes full of business people link Montreal and Toronto every day. I used to be in business and I used to go regularly to Toronto to buy products. I was president of a wholesale company and I used to buy a lot of products in Toronto. I went there
regularly. Ontarians will surely want Quebecers to continue to buy products in Toronto. I am sure of it.
In Ontario, over 100,000 jobs are dependent on sales in Quebec. I doubt that Ontarians will refuse to sell to Quebec any more if 100,000 jobs are at stake. I doubt that westerners will refuse to sell their beef to Quebec when we buy $800 or $900 million of it each year.
Therefore, those who claim that there will be no economic union with Quebec are talking nonsense. Anyone who is the least realistic will understand that this is a bare fact, that we are not inventing anything and that it will evolve quite naturally.
What we are saying is that we are determined enough to do it. If Liberals, and especially those from Quebec, maintain that they do not want that, it just baffles me.
Supply June 1st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, this motion condemns the federal government for wanting to centralize powers through legislation, and more specifically, through Bills C-46, C-91, C-88 and C-76. Little by little, the government, acting as it were behind the scenes, has made the Canadian federation, and especially the government of that federation, the master of this Canadian destiny, while ignoring the people of Quebec who want to develop their potential according to their own priorities, their own culture, their own way of doing things. It is always the same old story.
The process is a very gradual and very discreet one, and if we look at the situation very carefully, we realize that gradually, the provinces, if the process is allowed to continue, would become regions that would merely act on decisions handed down by Ottawa, something Quebec will never except, since for years we have refused to become a part of this way of running Canada.
The federal government, and a Liberal one to boot, says it wants a flexible and open federation, but at the same time it decides to centralize and give itself certain powers without further consultation. As my colleague said, there have been no federal-provincial meetings since this Liberal government was elected. Why? Because it is independent. It thinks it is the only government in Canada that should determine the future of this country. It does not consult the provinces, and it goes ahead, slowly but surely, little by little, very discreetly. It is very smart about the way it is doing this, but we in the Bloc Quebecois, who came to Ottawa to defend the interests of Quebec and promote the sovereignty of Quebec because we felt we had to do this, we cannot let this go on.
I would remind you that this desire to centralize powers in Ottawa is not new. Sixty years ago, Mr. Duplessis was elected in Quebec in 1936 on a platform of: "Il faut rapatrier notre butin". I remember by father and grandfather voted for Mr. Duplessis, who was Quebec's premier for many years and who got elected on the platform of: "Il faut rapatrier notre butin d'Ottawa". Quebecers' mistrust of the federal government is not new. In
order to grow, we need more independence. Mr. Duplessis got elected with the slogan: "Il faut rapatrier notre butin".
Jean Lesage was a Liberal, a senior public servant and a former member of Parliament in Ottawa. He ran for election in Quebec City in 1960 and was elected with the slogan "Maîtres chez nous". This is important. Quebecers voted for Mr. Lesage because he talked to them about being "Maîtres chez nous". He was a Liberal, a former member of Parliament in Ottawa, and he became the Premier of Quebec who got the quiet revolution in Quebec rolling. This is when Quebec really began to pick up speed in achieving success and bringing about change. It happened because Quebecers began to take pride in themselves and because the Liberal Premier of Quebec in 1960 said that we had to be "Maîtres chez nous". This is how he got elected.
Daniel Johnson, the father of the Union Nationale, got elected with the slogan "Égalité ou indépendance". So, here again, Quebecers elected a government in Quebec on the strength of a slogan like "Égalité ou indépendance". It is important, when the federal government wants to centralize things here in Ottawa and proves the point with the bills we mentioned earlier, to note that governments in Quebec have been elected almost since the start of the century on the strength of such slogans.
We are not here by chance, we in the Bloc Quebecois. We were sent here by Quebecers to defend this point again. Today, as in the past, while it has been in power, the Liberal Party continues to try to centralize, obviously a little at a time and somewhat deceitfully. They are good at it. People do not really realize it, but we are being had yet again.
In 1976, Mr. Lévesque got elected with "Souveraineté-association". We can see that things have evolved. Sixty years ago, Mr. Duplessis used to say: "Il faut rapatrier notre butin". Mr. Lesage: "Maître chez nous", Daniel Johnson Senior: "Égalité ou indépendance", and Mr. Lévesque, in 1976: "Souveraineté-association". While keeping a close eye on things, we realized that the federal government wanted to take over more and more and centralize more powers in Ottawa.
What happened? In the 1970s, Mr. Trudeau's Liberals realized that Quebec was really coming along with its governments which were really working for the people-Maîtres chez nous, Égalité ou indépendance, and so on and so forth-Quebecers were really starting to be proud and to grow. So the federal government said: "We cannot let this happen, Quebecers are going to be ahead of us". In order to stay ahead, the federal government decided to use its spending power. And it established all kinds of programs. It set health care standards. It injected money, taxpayers' money, of course, it is never the money of the federal government, it is the money of taxpayers. It started borrowing.
In 1972, the federal government borrowed so much money that it started accumulating a debt. From a zero deficit in 1972, the federal government had accumulated a $175 billion debt by 1984. In 1980, its accumulated debt had reached $80 billion, strictly to show its superiority over Quebec. Seeing that Quebec was developing, seeing Quebec with a sovereignist movement more sovereignist than Quebecers themselves, if I may say so, the federal government, not looking kindly on these developments, said: "We are going to show Quebecers that we are important. We are going to spend money and show them that they will not survive without us".
Quietly, they borrowed and borrowed. What has been the result? For the sole purpose of proving its superiority, the federal government borrowed and spent. At the same time, it created a completely artificial economy which contradicted the very model of the Liberal free entreprise system. It did not create a system, it created an artificial economy by injecting so much money into it. It was not free enterprise which caused the economy to overheat and go into a crisis, it was the government with its interventionist policy.
Remember that in the 1970s, the federal government caused inflation by trying to prove its superiority with its free spending. The annual inflation rate climbed to 10, 12 and even 15 per cent. The federal government continued its free spending until after the 1980 referendum. We had to wait until 1980. In that year, a referendum was held in Quebec, a referendum which was lost by Quebecers. But still they won by 43 to 45 per cent.
It was only after the referendum that the government began to say that it made no sense. It had been causing inflation for so long that it now had to stop it. And the only way to stop it-the governor of the Bank of Canada said it himself-was by raising interest rates. So, in 1981, 1982, interest rates soared to 21 per cent. The recession which ensued was so severe that many small businesses in Quebec as well as in Canada went bankrupt. The hon. member from Vaudreuil knows that, he just mentioned it. I know too, I was in business at that time. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that those were very hard times. A lot of businesses went belly up.
Many businesses were expanding, they had lines of credit and heavy mortgages. Quebecers went with the flow, they grew, contracted loans, etc. because Quebec was part of the modern economy. The recession which was a pure creation of the federal government which brutally raised interest rates up to 22 per cent over a very short period of time caused bankruptcies and economic and social chaos. The whole problem was caused by the federal government which wanted to prove that it was the big
boss, that it was the greatest and that it must stick its nose everywhere. It was terrible, simply shocking.
In 1984, the cumulative debt totalled $170 billion. That year, to show its superiority, the liberal government, with Mr. Lalonde as Minister of Finance, presented its last budget before being defeated that same year. Its deficit was estimated at $38 billion and its revenues at $70 billion. The government was borrowing $38 billion, which meant it was spending almost 150 per cent of its anticipated revenues. It collected $70 billion and borrowed $38 billion. That was the Lalonde budget. All that, I repeat, only to show that it was superior, to show Quebecers that it was the big boss, that it spent and controlled.
As you know, in the 18th century, the Emperor Napoleon spent 135 per cent of what he could collect in revenues to maintain his empire.
But in 1984, Lalonde and Trudeau were spending 165 per cent to maintain their superiority here in Ottawa. That is what happened. People wonder why we are deep in debt and why things are not working. Why? Because two nations want to grow and they are fighting to see who will be the strongest. We decided that the best way was to have two countries so that both nations could grow.
The same thing happened in 1984. I arrived here as a Conservative in 1984. We had three slogans: decentralization of powers, national reconciliation and spending cuts. Those are the three reasons why I joined the Conservatives and why we were elected in 1984. Some said that a decentralization of powers was needed, and I agreed with that. In any case, we had lost the referendum, so we decided to take the risk of starting over again if that were possible.
The Conservatives were well-intentioned. They said that they would decentralize powers. A national reconciliation was necessary. Everybody was fighting, so we had to clean up our act. A reduction in spending was obviously needed. We had an accumulated debt of $175 billion, which was way too much. That is what we said. The Conservative government did cut spending and did make extraordinary efforts toward a national reconciliation. But you know what happened to Meech.
The Meech Lake Accord failed because it provided for a reduction in the federal government's spending power. That is why it failed. It failed because Mr. Chretien, the current Prime Minister, did not want to see the spending power of the federal government reduced. He used the premiers of New Brunswick and of Newfoundland, Mr. McKenna and Mr. Wells, and also Mrs. Carstairs, who is now a senator, to bring about the failure of the Meech Lake Accord because it limited the spending power of the federal government.
That was the major problem. We were absolutely right in asking for that, but it was the reason the accord was rejected. The leader of the present government is the one who caused the failure of the Meech Lake Accord. He is the one most responsible for the failure of the Meech Lake Accord. Everyone knows it. It is not something we made up.
What were the consequences? The consequences were that the Tories spent even more to prove their superiority. Despite spending cuts, they spent approximately $30 billion, $32 billion annually in excess of what they collected, that is a yearly deficit of $30 billion, $32 billion dollars. They continued to artificially inflate the economy, to raise inflation. They created a kind of artificial economy.
The economic growth was between 3 and 3.9 per cent, but the real economic growth-if the government had not invested $30 billion, $32 billion dollars to prove its superiority-would probably have been 2 per cent. Real economic growth such as we are seeing in Europe and elsewhere. Real economic growth of 1.5 or 2 per cent per year. But no. The federal government borrowed abroad and now 40 per cent of the $600 billion we owe are foreign owned. They artificially inflated the economy, and we are now faced with this big problem.
What I want to say is that because of the federal government's desire to centralize, to prove that it is in control, the Canadian economy has been destroyed. Canada is bankrupt as a result. It has to stop. Even if, tomorrow morning or in the fall, Quebecers lost the referendum, the problem would be the same. Fifty per cent of the sovereignists in Quebec still would want to prove their superiority, to continue to develop according to their needs, to their priorities. The problem would be the same.
I am telling Quebecers through you, Mr. Speaker, that they must vote for sovereignty. They have to create a new country for the good of Canada and for the good of Quebec. We must strive to do so. There is no alternative, otherwise we will never get out of it. For the good of our children, for the good of our grand-children, for the good of Quebec and Canada, we should build a sound economic union. If we had some kind of union council, with delegates from the two countries, it would be fine. But we should each have the opportunity to develop according to our own priorities and according to our own culture.
I guarantee you that we would be better off not centralizing, as it is done right now, but becoming two separate sovereign nations linked by an economic union. There is some kind of agreement on the management of such an union.
Supply June 1st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to speak to the motion presented by the Bloc Quebecois. It is a pleasure to do so, both personally and especially on behalf of the people of Quebec who will hear what we have to say about the federal government and its constant push for centralization. I will try to show how the federal government is centralizing powers at the expense of the provinces and especially Quebec.
Quebec is a nation that is truly distinct from Canada and that has always wanted to develop its potential according to its priorities-
Supply June 1st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the member for Outremont was speaking about the great Quebec dream. I think he dreams that one day Canada will be good for us, but this is an illusion. If he would just look at the results, the consequences of the Canadian federation, maybe he would have the answer to his dreams.
I always look at the results first and, in our case, the result is that Canada now has an accumulated debt of $600 billion and that it cannot even balance its budget. That is the result, the consequence of federalism. We should stop talking about nice agreements between Canada and Quebec, we should stop saying that everything is fine and dandy. We cannot even balance the budget and the Canadian federation has turned into a fiasco over a short period of time.
It is urgent that we put our house in order. As Mr. Lévesque once said so well: "Canada is like having two scorpions in a bottle; they try to kill each other, they both want to prove that they are distinct and different, they both want to spread out, but they are stuck in the same bottle. One day they will both die". This is what is happening now. We are on the edge of the abyss, we are both dying.
Because there are two nations in this country, it is urgent that each one become a country and that we give ourselves a chance to thrive. That is the reality. That is the mandate Quebecers gave us. They sent us here to Ottawa for that purpose. They told us: "Go to Ottawa to promote sovereignty; it is essential and urgent for Quebec because we are now in death throes financially.
We hear nice stories about common projects, a million here, a million there, a dozen million elsewhere, and we try to make Quebecers believe that federalism is a way of life and that without it Quebecers could not survive.
In duplications alone, this system costs $2 to $3 billion. We are told that the administration cost of the GST, for individuals and businesses, is in the order of $2 to $3 billion. We did not need that. All the government had to do was say: "Administer the tax. Combine it with yours immediately. Hide it if you want, but administer it in a sensible way and we will return a certain percentage to you". But that is not the way the federal government does it, it returns money to Quebec as if it were a gift.
The federal government has always tried to do it this way, to make Quebecers believe that without the federal government they would, all of a sudden, become much poorer. This is not true. The government always forget to say that Quebec sends $29 billion, that is $29,000 million, to Ottawa, every year, and the federal government uses this money according to its own priorities and most of the time without due consideration to Quebec priorities. More often than not decisions are made unilaterally. The government does not care whether Quebec prospers or not, as we have seen when the government spent $2 billion of Quebec's money to promote Hibernia, when everybody knows that it will never be viable. Yet, Quebecers will continue to pay.
This was a nice dream, sure, but it is time to come back to reality. And the reality is that we are two peoples and that, if we want to move ahead, we must separate into two different countries.
Supply May 18th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, first off, I would like to call the hon. member for Outremont to order, because he accused the hon. member for Chambly of saying something that he did not say. I would also like to call the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine to order for doing the same thing.
I think we have a good example of how members opposite play politics when they put words in the mouths of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues. I simply wanted to say this for the record. What they said about my colleague for Chambly is entirely untrue.
He also accused the Government of Quebec of shirking its responsibilities. I would call that sticking his nose into other people's business. We all know that the federal Liberal members from Quebec are not in the least bit, not even the tiniest bit, interested in the Government of Quebec. They are much more interested in making sure that Ottawa will control, manage and centralize everything. Because that is their outlook, they could care less about what is going on in Quebec right now. They have never had great faith in provincial governments, at any rate. For them, the only government, the only power in Canada, is the Canadian government.
Forcibly, they can only consider the provinces as managers of sorts. They confirmed this in the Charlottetown accord when they gave all of the power to Ottawa and the right to administer to the provinces. That is why this accord was flatly rejected. They claimed that they were decentralizing and giving the provinces the opportunity to manage or administer things. That is not what Quebec wants. Quebec wants powers, not just the opportunity to administer. And that is not just my message, not just the Bloc Quebecois' message, it is the message of the Commission on the Political and Constitutional Future of Quebec, the Bélanger-Campeau Commission.
The Bélanger-Campeau Commission sure was a big production, one of the biggest since Confederation. Altogether, they received 600 briefs, heard 205 witnesses while 55 experts were studying the issue. They concluded that for Quebec's well-being, it had to be given at least 20 real powers, for example, education, tourism, economic development.
And the federal government, with the support of the Liberals, hatched a proposal which purportedly met all of Quebec's aspirations. What hypocrisy!
Charlottetown gave Ottawa even more powers, and Quebec, even more administration. They treated Quebec as if it were a province like any other, with no particular status and nothing distinct about it at all. Now, they butt in and would have us believe that the Quebec Minister of Finance, Mr. Campeau, the eminent Quebecer who co-chaired the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, is botching his job. That complaint probably came from one disgruntled voter in Outremont.
And they are absolutely right when they say that we are playing politics when we say that Quebecers will pay more taxes if they do not vote for sovereignty. The federal Minister of Finance decided to wait before adding to the Quebec tax burden. He will hit Quebec next year only. Yes, we are in for it, and we will end up sending our tax money to Ottawa, and the federal government will skim a good billion from it before shipping it back to Quebec. And it is very clear that, once again, the Government of Quebec will be caught in the squeeze to some
extent, because the federal government fails to live up to its responsibility to give us back the money we send to Ottawa through our taxes. It gives us back less than we gave. It promised to keep paying. It made such promises. However, it does not keep them.
So in all likelihood the Minister of Finance of Quebec will have to raise taxes, because the federal government does not assume its responsibilities, pure and simple.
There was talk of jobs earlier. When it comes to jobs, we know that the job problem in Quebec is the federal government's problem. As I mentioned earlier in my speech, the federal government talks of political uncertainty, but political uncertainty does not take away jobs, economic uncertainty does. Top American experts, economists, American business people say so: they could not care less about politics when they are looking to invest in Canada. They say: "The reason we do not invest in Canada is because of its economic instability". This economic instability is the federal government's doing, as everyone knows. The Bélanger-Campeau commission report said so, and it was approved.
So this fine speech by the member for Outremont seems completely out of date to me. He did not understand. He really has not grasped what is happening in Quebec. I do not know where he comes from, but he is not from the same place as the rest of us real Quebecers.
No, what I mean, really, is that the real Quebecers are those who understand Quebecers. That is what I wanted to say.
Supply May 18th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I just heard a carefully prepared speech, and indeed a very eloquent speech, from the hon. member, who said that Canada is the envy of the whole world.
This sort of talk is starting to get on my nerves. Canada's debt is close to $600 billion, our situation is like that of some 60 developing countries, and we are on the edge of the abyss, but we keep saying: Yes, it is a great country. Rather, it was a great country, but this is no longer the case, it is on the point of collapse. Why? Because the federal government insists on directing everything from the top, on centralizing all responsibilities in Ottawa.
We are well aware that duplications cost between $2 billion to $3 billion. And that is not all, however. Just take, for example, our government's fascination with spending. It spent so much money, from the 1970s until 1989, that inflation was the result. The rate of inflation was jumping by 10 or 12 per cent per year. I recall that vividly.
What actions did the government take, even if it was responsible for that inflation? In the 1980s, it had to raise interest rates up to 21 per cent, which killed the economy and created a terrible recession. A great number of small and medium-sized firms in Quebec went bankrupt. That is very sad.
Some lost their jobs and experienced a lot of problems. I know many business people who worked very hard and who still went bankrupt in 1981-82. Why? Because the federal government itself generated that inflation. It increased interest rates to such a level that they killed the economy.
The federal government was the cause of that inflation and it was also responsible for the recession. All that happened because of its spending power. The federal government generated the inflationary spiral because it was intent on showing that it was indispensable, that it was giving money in every sector, including economic development and tourism.
The same thing happened between 1984 and 1990. Again, the government was responsible for the inflation. It also brought on the recession in 1990. From 1990 to 1994, it increased interest rates and triggered a recession. Once again, a lot of Quebec entrepreneurs and small businesses suffered. Some of them work 15 hours a day to build their businesses. So, the federal government is the cause of the recession and all these problems.
This is why we want some stability. Stability does not mean that the federal government must control everything and spend the way it does to prove it is indispensable.
The problem with our current debt of 500 to 600 billion dollars is that people are no longer interested in investing in our country. They no longer want to invest because interest rates fluctuate by 10 per cent every decade, while the value of the dollar can be anywhere from 70 to 90 cents. How can an investor who wants to export in the U.S. be interested in settling here, when interest rates vary by 10 per cent over a five or six year period, and when the unemployment rate fluctuates between 10 and 20 per cent?
There are pulp and paper companies which do well and then, all of a sudden, they go belly up. Why? Because the value of our dollar fluctuates. And why does it fluctuate? Because the federal government does not know how to manage. Because it spends too much in the hope of proving, to Quebecers in particular, that it is indispensable.
These are the reasons why we have decided to take control of our destiny. We do not want to fall in the same deep hole as this federation, which does not understand the need to decentralize, so as to improve our efficiency and ensure our success. Indeed, we want to become sovereign because we do not want to fall in the same deep hole of federation.
The hon. member for Saint-Léonard made very interesting comments. He had a nice speech prepared in advance by his friends. In fact, the Prime Minister himself probably told him what to say. I am convinced that the hon. member does not believe what he said, because he is an accountant. He understands my point very well, and I am convinced that he agrees with what I said.
Supply May 18th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I am always surprised to hear the Reform Party or the Liberal Party treat us as if we were beggars, as if we are asking for some kind of charity.
We are not begging for anything, far from it. We are only asking the federal government for what is rightfully ours, our part of the pie, the part that we sent to Ottawa. Through our taxes, we send enormous amounts of money to Ottawa. All we want is our due. Furthermore, we want the federal government to meet its commitments.
The federal government does not keep its promises. A good example of that is the health care system. When we introduced the health care system in Quebec, the federal government wanted to meddle in, so they said: "We want to impose our standards". In order for Quebec to accept that, they added: "We will pay 50 per cent of all the health care costs in Quebec".
Now the federal government pays only 30 per cent of the costs and we have to pay the remaining 70 per cent. It must be made clear that all the standards and structures were implemented on the grounds that the federal government would pay 50 per cent of the costs, not 30 per cent as it does now. Can you imagine what kind of management nightmare this creates for Quebec?
All we ask is that the federal government accept its own responsibilities. We are not begging, we are not asking for gifts, far from it. We are just saying to the federal level: "At least give us back the money we send to you". We are only asking for justice. All we ask is that the federal government carries out its promises.
This is why we have been saying for many years now: "Since you will not fulfil your commitments, we will levy all our own taxes and we will send you whatever we see fit". That is their attitude towards us, and that is why we want sovereignty. We do not want to be beggars, we want the federal government to keep its promises and it does not.
That is what I wanted to convey to the Reform Party member. He seems to know little about history. He is trying to convince the Canadians that Quebecers are beggars. We are not beggars. We only want what is rightfully ours, and we want respect.
Chechnya May 18th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister's discussions with President Yeltsin, the Russian army has been relentlessly bombarding Chechen positions and is continuing to bomb civilian populations.
In an effort to have done with the Chechens once and for all, the Russian army is preparing to launch its elite corps in a final assault against Chechnya. We have a hard time understanding how the Prime Minister could say he was confident that the army had already been replaced by the regular Chechen police force, as President Yeltsin had assured him.
The Prime Minister claims he put pressure on his Russian counterpart, but he also said that his first priority was trade. Today we are seeing the results. In addition to undermining Canada's credibility, the government's double talk leads nowhere.