Maurice Bernier

[Supply, May 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to reply to my colleague, the member for Outremont. I know you will not allow me to say that 75 per cent of his comments were absolute lies, because I cannot say that, but I will say that 25 per cent of what he said is somehow related to truth and reality.

I would like to reply on one point in particular. He spent a good part of his presentation discrediting the Parti Quebecois government. He said that if all these issues before us, the issues mentioned in the motion, are not solved, it is because there is a separatist government in Quebec. The member for Outremont devoted a good portion of his speech to that point.

The Parti Quebecois government has been in place for six months. In Ottawa, the Liberal government has been in office for a year and a half now. Why did they not settle these issues when they were dealing with obedient federalists, ready to accept any kind of compromise to come to an agreement with the federal government? They had one full year to settle issues that have been dragging on for ten years. They did nothing. It is easy to see that the member for Outremont is taking us for a ride. Does he really think Quebecers are all that gullible? He is trying to delude us. He has lost all credibility in my view. He should have chosen to face reality, talk specifically to the motion and demand that his government find solutions to problems that have been dragging on for ten years, as I said before.

[Supply, May 18th, 1995]

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.

[Supply, May 18th, 1995]

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.

[Supply, May 18th, 1995]

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.

[Supply, May 18th, 1995]

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.

[Supply, May 18th, 1995]

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.

[Supply, May 18th, 1995]

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?

[Supply, May 18th, 1995]

moved:

That this House deplore the federal government's delay in responding to Quebec's demands with regard ato the education of young Aboriginals in the Quebec North amounting to $199 million, to the compensation of $135 million under the 1991-92 stabilization program and to the $79 million claim for expenses incurred during the events at Oka in the summer of 1990.

Madam Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to discuss the motion. Before getting into the thick of things, I also want to thank my leader, the Leader of the Opposition, for asking me to table this opposition day motion. It is a sign of trust to have been asked to be the first one to speak on this motion, which gives an eloquent example of the way the federal system works.

In the next 20 minutes or so, I want to explain why the official opposition tabled this motion today, and also what that motion means. Indeed, what are we talking about when we refer to the three issues mentioned in the motion, namely the claim for expenses incurred during the events at Oka, the refund of education costs for young aboriginals, particularly in the Cree territory located in Northern Quebec, as well as the payments under the stabilization program.

I will try to explain not only the costs related to these claims, which are estimated at over $330 million, but also the costs related to this whole operation. This is why I said at the outset that this motion-and this is why we are tabling it today-very clear shows the flaws of the Canadian federal system.

Sovereignists are often criticized on the grounds that they only rise in this House to claim more and more rights for Quebec. Indeed, we often hear the argument, from Liberal as well as Reform members, to the effect that Bloc members are always trying to get more for the Quebec government. The same comment is also made regarding the Parti Quebecois government by our federalist friends.

This motion shows to what extent-I am not sure if I should use the word "normal"-traditional federalism is flawed. I would even go so far as to say that, in this specific case, federalism works against Quebec's interests.

[Canadian Dairy Commission Act, May 17th, 1995]

The Liberal party, the Liberal government, which is using our taxes to conduct all sorts of opinion polls, saw that using the word "separation" worked to their advantage, because it struck fear into the hearts of Quebecers, and could lead to a "no" in the referendum.

When people look more closely at what sovereignists are saying, when they take the time to really listen to what they have to say, they see right away that the sovereignist message is one of openness, of self-confidence.

To put it briefly, what sovereignists want is for us to be able to look after our own affairs in Quebec, to be able to make our own decisions about the kind of society we wish to build, the kind of

society we wish to live in, and to be able to determine, on the basis of our needs, our interests and our values, what we want to share with our neighbours and with which of our neighbours we want to do business. That is what Quebec sovereignty would mean.

Let me give you a few examples. During Canada's 1988 election campaign on free trade, one of the strongest proponents of the free trade agreement with the U.S. was Bernard Landry, who is now Quebec's Deputy Premier.

I would say that he spoke up in just about every forum. He was then a staunch ally of the Conservative Party, arguing that it was necessary, not only preferable but essential, for the economy of Quebec and Canada as a whole to expand our markets and sell more products to the Americans, the U.S. being our closest neighbour.

This was acknowledged by then Prime Minister Mulroney, who, on several occasions, used the example given by Bernard Landry to say what a decisive role it played in that election campaign. Well, Mr. Landry is a convinced and convincing sovereignist, an active politician who, for more than 30 years-without adding years to his real age-, has been defending this theory with brilliance and eloquence.

A few days ago, at a fundraiser for the Parti Quebecois in Montreal, the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Parizeau, told business people, and I quote: "We may be a small country in terms of population, but we are successful, fulfilled and wealthier". Mr. Parizeau did not give any examples, but he could have mentioned Norway, Sweden, Finland and Switzerland, small countries whose populations are roughly the same as Quebec's. Mr. Parizeau went on to say, "We may have a small population and still be a prosperous, wealthy society, on one basic condition: that we have access to large markets without ever giving up our identity".

That is what was said by the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Parizeau, whom our Liberal friends call a separatist. In fact, Mr. Parizeau said this: "What I personally want for my people, my nation, is for us to decide to take our collective future into our own hands and decide what we want to share with others". Like all sovereignists, he acknowledged the need to have as open a market as possible.

In that sense, Quebec sets a fine example with this Bill C-86 before us, since it was based on the Quebec model that the agreement was entered into by all the provinces, and I repeat the provinces, because all the federal government has to do is pass legislation in the House of Commons recognizing this de facto situation. It is a good thing that the federal government is not involved; it would only make matters worse.

So, based on the Quebec model, it is possible to enter into agreements with our Canadian, American and international partners, as it is recognized that this kind of decision must arise from mutual interests and have something in it for everyone involved.

I want to stress that Bill C-86 is an excellent example. Six provinces have already approved the agreement, while three others still have reservations. We are letting them think it over. That is what co-operation is about. That is what I call openness. Why impose one's views on everyone else? Give people a chance to change their mind. We have to be open to the world. That is what Quebec sovereignty means.

In the minutes remaining, I would like to address government intervention and its negative impact on the economy in general, and the agricultural industry in particular, seeing that the debate is on agriculture.

I shall refer to an article published in La terre de chez nous , which, I should point out to our colleagues opposite, is not the Bloc's official newspaper. It really belongs to the agricultural community and provides farmers with information on what is happening in their region and elsewhere in the industry.

In the latest edition of La terre de chez nous , for the week of May 11 to 17, 1995, editor in chief Claude Lafleur quoted an example of inconsistent and harmful interference on the part of the federal government based on the implementation of the finance minister's budget that we have been debating in this House these the past few months. What example is that? I urge my Liberal colleagues to pay close attention to what Mr. Lafleur said, as it contradicts what their little red book says.

What did Mr. Lafleur say? The president of La terre de chez nous told the agricultural industry that it should expect the worst from the finance minister's budget, adding that it was a real Pandora's box, that new harmful effects were discovered every day, and that it would probably never end, unless, of course, Quebec decided to assume full authority.

Mr. Lafleur also had this to say: "Indeed, this is not the last of the bad news coming from the Martin budget. For example, the federal government just announced that it was withdrawing from the agricultural employment services program". That comment was made in reference to the red book. The Liberals were elected under false pretenses in 1993, when they campaigned with their red book and insisted on the importance of creating jobs.

But what are they doing now that they are in office? They axe agricultural employment services, a successful program which has been in place for over 20 years. During the last year, the minister-whom I once called the minister of human resources impoverishment, but whose title really is Minister of Human Resources Development-asked the UPA to reach an agreement with his department to ensure the maintenance of these agricul-

tural employment services, which provide farmers with a qualified manpower when they need it.

Only a few months ago, the minister said: "We have an agreement with the UPA in Quebec to keep these services going". Then in the Martin budget, the government decides to axe this program. It will be cut by 20 per cent in 1995-96, 40 per cent in 1996-97 and dropped altogether in 1997-98. This example does not come from the Bloc Quebecois or the separatist Minister of Agriculture in Quebec but from the editor in chief of La Terre de chez nous , Claude Lafleur, whose integrity is well known and whose objective approach to the issues can certainly not be faulted by our Liberal friends.

That is a very real example of the Liberal government's negative impact on agriculture. I will conclude, Mr. Speaker, since you are signalling I have only two minutes left. I would like to ask for more time, but I know it is no use trying since I would not get unanimous consent. So I will simply ask them to come back next time, and maybe some day they will understand.

In concluding, I would like to comment on what was said by the hon. member for Medicine Hat who expressed so well and so consistently the Reform Party's position on trade between regions and between countries. Reform Party members want to see a return to a genuinely free market without government constraints. The hon. member for Medicine Hat said that, if we want a more open market, which is what sovereignists want as well, as I said earlier, we cannot have a supply management system.

I simply want to say the hon. member is mistaken. Supply management is a way to deal with domestic problems. Its role is not to regulate international trade or trade between regions. So we can have a supply management system, and still open our borders to international trade.

[Canadian Dairy Commission Act, May 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I see that the Liberals are anxiously waiting for my comments. I hope I will not disappoint them.

I am very pleased to take part in this debate for two specific reasons. First, there is the importance of agriculture for the economy of my riding and my region of Estrie, the Eastern Townships. However, I also want to discuss certain arguments raised during this debate on Bill C-86, particularly this idea that, according to our federalist colleagues, once Quebec becomes sovereign, it would be impossible to preserve any form of agreement between Quebec and the rest of Canada.

First, I want to point out that the Eastern Toownships, where I come from, and particularly the riding of Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, which I represent here, produce 2.6 million hectolitres of milk every year. This translates into net annual revenues of over $130 million for producers.

Dairy producers in the riding of Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead alone provide 1.2 million hectolitres of milk per year, which amounts to more than $60 million in net revenues. Roughly 50 per cent of the milk produced in the Eastern Townships comes from the riding of Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead. Although I did not make an in depth study of the location of producers in my riding, I would say that three quarters of the production comes from the Coaticook region, which is known, not only locally, but throughout Quebec and even Canada, as the top milk producing region.

Each year, the beautiful city of Coaticook holds its dairy festival. This event is an opportunity to fully recognize the importance of that industry in my region and in my riding. It is also an opportunity for our fellow citizens to celebrate, to meet, and basically to enjoy the fruits of their labour. This is one of the reasons why I really wanted to take part in this debate.

I said a moment ago that I wanted to focus more on the relations between states, or to put it another way, between economic partners in the Canadian economic union, rather than on the actual substance of Bill C-86. My colleague from Frontenac, the Bloc Quebecois agriculture critic, has brilliantly, as always, explained why the Bloc Quebecois supported this bill.

He is very familiar with the subject, with all aspects of the bill, and was able to substantiate his arguments, unlike the Liberal members opposite, of course, and our colleagues in the Reform Party, who would like to see a system of free enterprise, with no constraints whatsoever, a sort of no holds barred capitalism really, such as we had a number of years ago, and such as can still be found in some parts of the United States.

Often our Liberal and Reform colleagues, and the member for Kingston and the Islands is a good example, use the word "separation" when speaking about the sovereignty of Quebec.