Marcel Massé

[Overlap And Duplication, September 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the reason why I did not admit that we were conducting studies on duplication is because we are not. What I said is that we were doing analyses of the current situation and that the purpose of these analyses is to give advice to the decision makers, that is to say, the ministers.

I would point out to the opposition that similar analyses done for the Executive Council of the Quebec Government are not made public either, since they give confidential advice to the decision makers. There is an essential difference between such analyses, which are exempted under the Access to Information Act, and studies done by research institutes like the INRS, which are meant to be published so that the public can have a better idea of what independence would entail. That is something they are hiding, whereas we are not hiding what we have.

[Operation Unity Centre, September 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear there is a difference between strategic analyses, and the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois have these as well, which are clearly intended for decision-makers, and studies prepared for publication by scientific institutes and published with the institute's stamp of approval.

What the Parti Quebecois did is unacceptable, and everybody knows what happened. They prevented the release of studies that contained conclusions they did not agree with.

[Operation Unity Centre, September 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I indicated at the time that members of the Unity Group had been recruited to prepare analyses of the government's situation, and obviously some of these can be released to the public but some are

clearly intended for those who make the decisions and are, by their very nature, confidential.

But what is far more important is the difference with studies that were kept under wraps, that were ordered from a separate organization, and the fact that the PQ government, at the behest by the Minister of Restructuration, refused to release a study of Mr. Mathews unless Mr. Mathews deleted certain paragraphs. That is controlling information, and we do not do that.

[Operation Unity Centre, September 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on May 21, I wrote the chairman of the standing committee of the House of Commons providing him with a complete list of all those working in the unity group, identifying their duties and indicating the amount of the budget.

I also told him then that, so long as the date of the referendum was not known, we could quite likely spend more than the $2.5 million in the blue book.

Since then, the Parti Quebecois has spend more than $22 million. This figure does not appear in the expenditures of the Quebec government as referendum expenditures.

[Study By Economist Georges Mathews, September 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, obviously matters of national unity are important in the exercise of my responsibilities, particularly the costs of separation.

When studies are published on the cost of separation, it is extremely important that they be based on objective facts and that the conclusions drawn by their authors not be controlled by the Government of Quebec.

With the Mathews study, which indicates clearly that the costs of separation are much higher than what the Parti Quebecois has indicated, it is obvious that the studies published by Mr. Le Hir of the Parti Quebecois are no longer credible, because when a study raises points the Parti Quebecois does not like, the conclusions are left out.

The conclusion is clear: we can no longer believe the studies the Parti Quebecois is producing.

[Study Commissioned From Economist Georges Mathews, September 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the first reason why the Mathews study, which was kept secret by the Quebec government, is so embarrassing to the Parti Quebecois is that it shows that, in recent years, Quebecers provided 21 per cent of federal revenues, while accounting for 24 per cent of total federal expenditures. This clearly contradicts the claims made by the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois.

Second, the study shows that the deficit resulting from the transition would be much higher than indicated in previous studies. The PQ government has always tried to hide the transition costs and that study shows what these costs would be.

[Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies), June 21st, 1995]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[Referendum On Quebec Sovereignty, June 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as I just indicated the Government of Quebec, the Parti Quebecois, has already spent more than $11,130,000 on propaganda, pure propaganda for sovereignty.

The opposition should remember that more than 60 per cent of Quebecers are federalists and the great majority of them, more than 90 per cent, like Canada and do not want to leave it.

[Referendum On Quebec Sovereignty, June 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, firstly, I would like to point out that the poll to which the hon. member for Roberval referred was conducted in the month of March. In addition, the figure of 54 per cent is being interpreted in a specific way by the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois. The statistic of 54 per cent refers to those who are in favour of sovereignty association; according to the latest poll, only 32 per cent of those polled are in favour of independence. Consequently, it is obvious that this important statistic has been distorted by the Bloc Quebecois to mislead people.

Regarding the Privy Council's budget, clearly it will cost us more to defend national unity if the referendum is delayed. This is true for the Province of Quebec, it is true for the Parti Quebecois and it is true for us. The figure approved in the estimates truly was what we believed we would spend on a referendum which we expected would be held in June. If the Parti Quebecois had kept its word, that is what would have happened.

[Referendum On Quebec Sovereignty, June 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I see the Leader of the Opposition is again trying to twist the meaning of what I said, although I made it quite clear that the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois were a threat to the unity of the country. In this country, the vast majority of Canadians want to keep the country together, and in Quebec, more than 60 per cent of the population wants to keep Quebec as it is. In a democratic system, we have every right to defend the will of the vast majority of voters who do not want separation and want to stay in Canada.